[poochee]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Problem is liberals don't now how to think rationally about the issues. For example, there are few very good looking people--far more are average or ugly. The liberals answer to that issue is to scar up the good looking severely and to a lesser extent the average so that everyone is equally ugly.

That is one of the most off-the-wall examples I have ever heard to explain the gap between the rich and the poor!

I got my laugh of the day.

[Mulderator]

Take a look at this site:

http://freedomkeys.com/gap.htm

which explains it mathematically. And take a look at this chart:

As Robert A. Heinlein said, "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty."

These are the bassetmans, the champs, the Linskys, the Xicos, the Reps--the liberals. I don't know that they really believe by punishing the rich, they will help the poor--certainly all of the objective data says that is not true--that by punishing the rich the poor will suffer as well (and it fact--just look at the chart--the gap has been widening for a long time but as the rich get richer, so do the poor). Sometimes, the people simply can't comprehend or refuse to look at the objective data--like poochee who thinks that riasing the minimum wage will help the poor when virtually every study done--many at liberal universities shows the poor are actually hurt by raises in minimum wage.

So my point is these people call me and Gbrumb and Ciber and LAN and Bill.amm and those of us that have actually taken the time to think this through rationally and look at the data as selfish when in reality, there is nothing more I would love to see than there to be no poor because that makes it better for all of us. But we won't get there by taxing the rich more. Its those of us who are not rich, but yet can separate our emotions and our envy to do what's best for the country regardless of our personal feelings. Liberals can't separate their emotions to take a look at the logic and facts--its that simple.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by poochee

That is one of the most off-the-wall examples I have ever heard to explain the gap between the rich and the poor!

I got my laugh of the day.

It is, isn't it!?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by poochee

That is one of the most off-the-wall examples I have ever heard to explain the gap between the rich and the poor!

I got my laugh of the day.

Originally Posted by bassetman

It is, isn't it!?

LOL! Well, here we have two of our liberal mental midgets of economics!

Uhhh--the example wasn't to explain the gap between rich and poor it was to explain the irrational thinking of liberals--a point you two make nicely for me! Thank you!

[poochee]

Originally Posted by Mulder

LOL! Well, here we have two of our liberal mental midgets of economics!

Uhhh--the example wasn't to explain the gap between rich and poor it was to explain the irrational thinking of liberals--a point you two make nicely for me! Thank you!

A veeeeeeeeeeery poor opening statement for a lawyer!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by poochee

A veeeeeeeeeeery poor opening statement for a lawyer!

It was a closing argument!

[poochee]

Originally Posted by Mulder

It was a closing argument!

Looked like an "opener" to me....the first thing I read and then laughed and laughed!

You lose.....

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by poochee

Looked like an "opener" to me....the first thing I read and then laughed and laughed!

You lose.....

"When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.


Guess which one Mulder is doing?

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by bassetman

"When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.


Guess which one Mulder is doing?

Actually its: If you can't argue the facts argue the law. If you can't argue the law argue the facts.
My addition is: If you can't argue either, confuse the judge.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Actually its: If you can't argue the facts argue the law. If you can't argue the law argue the facts.
My addition is: If you can't argue either, confuse the judge.

Whatever works at the time!

[poochee]

Originally Posted by bassetman

"When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.

Guess which one Mulder is doing?

[xico]

America's new FAST Track to Fascism

Every day on national cable, Lou Dobbs curses the steady flow of desperate migrant workers who cross our borders, laboring in exchange for increasingly worthless dollars. Meanwhile, under the radar, Goldman Sachs gives new meaning to the term "highway robbery" by facilitating the massive flow of foreign capital in exchange for American highways.

If somebody asked if you wanted to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, you’d know it was a con. But how about buying the Indiana Toll Road?

Before you snicker, you should know the Indiana highway was auctioned off last week for $3.8 billion.

For the next 75 years, the more than 150 miles of Interstate 80 will be run by a pair of Spanish and Australian companies that will collect the tolls, operate the pit stops, keep up the highway and try to make a profit.

For the full article (which is absolutely amazing!), click here.

Next it will be our sidewalks!

Actually, we don't even own our homes. We rent them from the government, and if we don't pay the rent, they sell'em right out under us.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by xico

America's new FAST Track to Fascism

Every day on national cable, Lou Dobbs curses the steady flow of desperate migrant workers who cross our borders, laboring in exchange for increasingly worthless dollars. Meanwhile, under the radar, Goldman Sachs gives new meaning to the term "highway robbery" by facilitating the massive flow of foreign capital in exchange for American highways.

If somebody asked if you wanted to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, you’d know it was a con. But how about buying the Indiana Toll Road?

Before you snicker, you should know the Indiana highway was auctioned off last week for $3.8 billion.

For the next 75 years, the more than 150 miles of Interstate 80 will be run by a pair of Spanish and Australian companies that will collect the tolls, operate the pit stops, keep up the highway and try to make a profit.

For the full article (which is absolutely amazing!), click here.

Next it will be our sidewalks!

Actually, we don't even own our homes. We rent them from the government, and if we don't pay the rent, they sell'em right out under us.

I guess after we sold the White House everything else was up for grabs!

[Paquadez]

There is only one way to nail this argument, using statistics.

That is for one of you to produce cogent figures.

Bear in mind that such statistical analysis is invariably flawed. In order for the numbers to have any credibility, at all, income per capita (and per family: two different animals!) has to be corrected (or weighted, as statisticians call it) by the Cost Base.

In other words, for the final comparitive numbers to have any real meaning, the Cost Base has to be adjusted for its impact against the annualised results.

In most Western economies, the Cost Base has increased exponentially (i.e. it cannot be simply graphed, as the curve would turn back on itself) over time, as demands for local and national taxes increases dramatically as government (national, and regional and local) impacts on incomes.

In the UK, for example, the impact of local taxes (Council Tax) on the lower income groups, is a far higher percentage of gross and net incomes than it is on the upper quartile groups.

Thus it a falacious argument to simply lay out lowest, highest and median incomes against time, compare the three curves and reach any conclusion which enjoys validity.

And all else apart, to gain any level of acuracy, it needs at least Lower Quartile, Median and upper quartile curves, as well as highest and lowest data sets.

The endless political argument is also pointless in this hypothesis, as one needs to reach the pure and adjusted (by weighting) data results and thereafter, seek the answers in Cause and Effect terms. Or more simply, if you like, who to blame, or who to congratulate!

Sadly, these days, we live in the age of statistics, where Spin encourages braindead politicans to spout their mantra and blindside the gullible public with endless (and in reality!) meaningless numbers!

As a famous British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli once said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics". In ascending priority of importance!

Paq

[Stoner]

Good post, Paq.

This thread has been mostly a pissing contest of two polarized viewpoints.
One is to spread the 'wealth', the other is to ignore the situation.
Any reasonable person can view poverty by merely driving thru large sections of most large cities and if they are curious, search out the rural poverty. It's bigger than most think.

Job creation is only beneficial to those that seek it.
Little is done to show the benefits of capitalism to those that know the least about it. The concept of 'enlightened capitalism' seems forgotten in the quest of efficiency, which is defined by profit and profitability.
How can the unemployed benefit from new jobs without the concept of job training?
How can job training be achieved by the contraction of government support of that concept? Of education being a political football? Of education being privatized to the detriment of communities that can least afford reasonable standards? Of Liberals, Conservatives and Unions all competing, with their influence being the foremost consideration, rather than education itself?

It usually takes civil unrest and major rioting along with the destruction of large amounts of private property to bring focus to the existing social problems.
Yes, it's outlaws that create these problems. Untill communities in poverty understand that there are benefits to education and the basic economic system we have, I doubt there will be much more than envy of the wealthy.... other than hatred. They see no means of improving their position in life other than taking what they need.

Spreading the wealth is but a short time bribe till the money runs out and ignoring the situation only works if their communities are barb wired off....

BTW......the Feds are spending faster than collecting. Looks like barb wire to me