LOL the thing is your graphs don't show concrete evidence... They are outdated and contain "If" and "Ideal". Who is to say what the "Ideal" distribtuion of wealth is?

9/29/2011 2:48:04 PM

It's a survey, so the people who were surveyed said what they thought the ideal distribution of wealth was

The "actual" bar is the concrete part of that - it's about perceptions/ideals of what distribution of wealth should be. Sorry you can't read a graph.

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ]


As far the other one, it's change in comparison to the distribution in 1979. Just because it has the word "if" doesn't mean it's made up.

In other words, if we had kept the 1979 income distribution, the average income in 2007 would be $740,900 less than what it actually was for the top 1% and $9,400 higher for the middle fifth, for example. Instead what we have is a situation where any gains in the economy go only to the top 5% or so, and no one else sees any of that benefit. Is this happening because a full 95% of people are too stupid/lazy to succeed (I assume you're in this 95% btw if you're posting on TWW so think carefully) or because the rules of modern society were written by this class of people with the intent of making sure they prosper while no one else gets a chance to? Hrmery

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2011 2:50:58 PM

* I am not rich.
* I am not a racist.
* I am not a sexist.
* I support gay rights.
* I am well educated.
* I am well informed.

... and I vote Republican.

Deal with it.

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : and I was impressed by Cain in the debate.]

9/29/2011 3:10:27 PM

Cool

9/29/2011 3:43:45 PM

no one gives a dead dog's last SHIT.

9/29/2011 3:46:11 PM

Thanks for letting me know

9/29/2011 3:47:34 PM

^^

9/29/2011 3:48:59 PM

mad because he is pretending to be race tolerant!

9/29/2011 3:55:28 PM

Yeah, you're right. Once you are born into that top 5% you are always there! Nothing you do can make you drop out, and dont bother trying, because there is no way you can get into the top 5%. The rules are setup so that the bottom 95% will live in poverty. I don't know why anybody tries to succeed in this country...

I guess I'm just destined to be a poor TWW poster all my life.


I guess the story of Cain's parents working multiple jobs (janitor, barber, chauffer) is just a cover up, because there is no way he could come from that kind of background and succeed in this country!

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2011 3:55:30 PM

while there is merit (and I do agree, to some extent) with taxing the truly rich more than others, why is the argument never about lessening the tax burden on everyone? why must it be raised? why must the rich be evil and therefore should be taxed even more? why can't it be about reducing government waste and spending? why can't it be about trimming back entitlements, getting people off government payrolls and responsible for themselves? why can't it be about not being the world police and cutting defense spending were possible? why can't it be about not being the funding party of the UN? if you taxers spent half your efforts and studying/debating/etc. cutting spending, raising taxes would be seen as unnecessary.

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2011 3:59:06 PM

I don't think the sensible posters ITT are against cutting spending. Cutting spending is a big reason why I like Herman Cain. He wants to downsize the roll of the federal government across the board, which coincides with the Fair Tax (which also is a tax break for all). I think he also realizes when programs are a failures, and he's not afraid to "cut bait"

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ..]

9/29/2011 4:11:53 PM

Quote :

"why can't it be about reducing government waste and spending?"

All for reducing waste, but people's definition of what's wasteful differs.

Quote :

"why can't it be about trimming back entitlements,"

Quote :

"getting people off government payrolls and responsible for themselves?"

I feel like this goes to the current talking point that government jobs aren't real jobs, which I don't understand at all. Or do you still mean entitlements? I'm definitely in support of programs to help people in poor communities build job skills and find work, but that almost inevitably costs money too. There's stuff like the USDA beginning farmers program which helps people borrow the money to start a farm operation (about a $2 million investment these days). The government doesn't always get the money back out of that, but it serves what I'd argue is an important purpose. If you mean just getting people back to work in general, the economy will have to pick up. Whether tax cuts or increased government spending does that more effectively has been argued to death and we probably disagree on it.

Quote :

"why can't it be about not being the world police and cutting defense spending were possible?"

I would LOVE to cut defense spending by about half but I don't know if any substantial cuts will ever be politically feasible.

Quote :

"why can't it be about not being the funding party of the UN?"

Again, no problem with this.

Quote :

"if you taxers spent half your efforts and studying/debating/etc. cutting spending, raising taxes would be seen as unnecessary."

We still have a lot of stuff that needs to be done with the American infrastructure and we don't have the money to do it. We need to cut back, but we need more revenue right now too.

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2011 4:18:46 PM

Quote :

"I feel like this goes to the current talking point that government jobs aren't real jobs, which I don't understand at all."

They aren't. If they were, then we'd hire 50 million ditch diggers and we'd be good to go.

The government can only spend what it takes. The way it "takes" will vary - taxing or debasing the currency. This idea that government jobs will cure the unemployment problem is fucking dumb. Jobs have to come from real investment and real demand, generated by the market (i.e. making/doing shit that people actually want).

All this "green job" stimulus garbage? Bullshit. Corporate handouts for the politically connected, nothing more.

9/29/2011 4:37:57 PM

Quote :

" They aren't. If they were, then we'd hire 50 million ditch diggers and we'd be good to go."

I guess we should just fire all the public school teachers, cops, firefighters, agency employees, city and county planners, etc. then. Even with the "ditch diggers," if you contract a private(!) firm to fix roads and bridges, then those currently out-of-work construction workers in the private sector will have more money, which will allow them to spend that money, which will stimulate the local economy, which will cause people to build new buildings and give them more private labor. Nobody's talking about just hiring people to sit around with their thumb up their ass all day for the hell of it.

Quote :

"The government can only spend what it takes. The way it "takes" will vary - taxing or debasing the currency. This idea that government jobs will cure the unemployment problem is fucking dumb. Jobs have to come from real investment and real demand, generated by the market (i.e. making/doing shit that people actually want)."

See above.

Quote :

"All this "green job" stimulus garbage? Bullshit. Corporate handouts for the politically connected, nothing more."

We're, what, 3 years into a 10 year plan? That might be a little premature.

If you mean Solyndra in particular, not all private grants turn into profitable businesses, and they're under investigation to see if they mislead the DOE people giving out the loans. If so, they'll be criminally liable. What else do you want?

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ]]

9/29/2011 5:02:24 PM

Those "green jobs" now employ more people than fossil fuel production



and create more exports per job than the overall economy



http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0713_clean_economy.aspx


and its just a fledgling industry with a lot of potential for future growth. Politically connected, maybe. But I wouldn't call it bullshit.

9/29/2011 5:21:12 PM

Quote :

"I guess we should just fire all the public school teachers, cops, firefighters, agency employees, city and county planners, etc. then. Even with the "ditch diggers," if you contract a private(!) firm to fix roads and bridges, then those currently out-of-work construction workers in the private sector will have more money, which will allow them to spend that money, which will stimulate the local economy, which will cause people to build new buildings and give them more private labor. Nobody's talking about just hiring people to sit around with their thumb up their ass all day for the hell of it."

You're not getting it.

If I buy something on credit, it's fantastic...for a while. The products I buy work just as well as if I had bought them with cash. The difference is that, at some point, I have to pay back that money plus interest. All these jobs/infrastructure/wars/what the fuck ever we're buying right now are all going onto the credit card. That means that, in the long-term, this stimulus is going to cause more problems than it solves.

9/29/2011 5:29:38 PM

So.... you're really seriously agreeing that we don't need all those things because it's all going on the credit card?

9/29/2011 5:35:46 PM

Yes. Debt is the disease. More debt will not solve our problems.

As far as teachers, firefighters, etc...the federal government shouldn't be paying for any of that. Everything that the federal government touches seems to get shittier and more expensive.

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2011 6:10:41 PM

Well there are ways to raise revenue so you don't have to buy it on credit, but nobody wants to do that.

I understand you don't like the federal government, but what makes the state's rights model any better?

9/29/2011 6:28:08 PM

Quote :

"Well there are ways to raise revenue so you don't have to buy it on credit, but nobody wants to do that."

Heh, sort of...but we would have had to start a long time ago. At this stage in the game, we've got 15 trillion in debt, rock bottom interest rates, and the deficit is still going up. Default is the end game, because there's no way in fuck that people will deal with high unemployment, high taxes, and stagnant growth for a couple decades so we can "pay down the debt." Ain't gonna happen.

Quote :

"I understand you don't like the federal government, but what makes the state's rights model any better?"

It's better because it at least confines the damage to a single state. The states compete for tax revenue, and the states can look to other states to see what works and what doesn't. With the federal government, all it takes is a single election cycle to completely dismantle civil liberties for every single state.

Concentration of power is what we should be avoiding. State governments are not much better than the federal government, but it's still an improvement.

9/29/2011 6:34:37 PM

Possibly, but without some kind of federal regulatory floor in most industries, you end up creating a race to the bottom situation as every state tries to sell out its citizens for corporate interests. Some state lowers corporate taxes to bring companies in and the state has increasingly less revenue, making whatever services it does provide worse. Another state else guts their environmental laws to make their state more attractive for certain industries. The only way to stop that is through some kind of agreement between the states--maybe that would happen, maybe not. It's not hard to imagine one out of 50 breaking the rules of the deal sometimes. I don't really think it matters how far you reduce the concentration of power, the problem to me is more mismanaged and self-serving government than the concept of government itself.

Additionally, if each state could create its own quality standards for goods in fields that are now preempted by federal statute, businesses in interstate commerce would be hindered by a patchwork regulatory scheme. I mean, most of the rules like food labeling and similar things were imposed because industry asked for them.

I dunno man, sometimes I think everyone would just be happier if we split the country down the middle and we all just picked sides. Amicable breakup.

9/29/2011 7:02:22 PM

Quote :

"Another state else guts their environmental laws to make their state more attractive for certain industries."

We'll always and forever get the government we deserve. Look at local issues, they tend to get addressed quickly. At the state not so quick (now), and at the federal level, even less so.

With a stronger state government that actually has real power to make a difference in your day to day life (which really isn't so true now), you'd likely be more inclined to participate in that government.

Quote :

"I mean, most of the rules like food labeling and similar things were imposed because industry asked for them."

Typically when this happens it's because industry sees the writing on the wall of ever more regulation and makes an olive branch to avoid harsher regs than they otherwise relent to.

[Edited on September 29, 2011 at 7:27 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2011 7:26:43 PM

Cain on the Tonight Show. Lots of crowd applause.

http://youtu.be/LPG18KrLo-I

10/1/2011 1:48:51 PM

well that does it!

if the daily show approves then surely to god TWW does!

i mean after all, its the chief source of news for most of them!

10/1/2011 3:20:22 PM

I don't think you know what the Tonight Show is

10/1/2011 3:29:27 PM

i think i read that as the daily show and admit my mistake

10/1/2011 8:29:44 PM

on the subject of capital gains:

you have to calculate in the corporate tax rate. Corporation pays a percentage of its profits, say 35%, and then you have capital gains on top of that. When you own stocks, you own a part of a corporation (duh). It's the whole idea of double taxation.

10/1/2011 9:45:38 PM

Herman Cain says to Wall Street protestors:

Shut the hell up, bitch.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/05/2011-10-05_herman_cain_to_occupy_wall_street_protesters_if_youre_not_rich_blame_yourself.html

Quote :

"Herman Cain to Occupy Wall Street protesters: If you're not rich 'blame yourself' Unemployed Wall Street protesters only have themselves to blame for lacking a job, so says Herman Cain. The Republican presidential candidate insisted that the demonstrations were being "orchestrated" to help President Obama. "I don't have the facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration," Cain told the Wall Street Journal. The Tea Party favorite then argued that the plight of the unemployed was their own fault. "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed," the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO declared. The fiery remarks come as protest organizers plan for their biggest demonstrations yet -- at least 2,000 people are expected to gather in lower Manhattan Wednesday. Last week, 700 protesters who spilled onto the streets near the Brooklyn Bridge were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct. Cain acknowledged that the banking industry played a role in the 2008 economic meltdown, but argued they were no longer responsible. "They did have something to do with the crisis that we went into in 2008, but we're not in 2008, we're in 2011," Cain said."...These demonstrations, I honestly don't understand what they're looking for. To me, they come across more as anti-capitalism." Cain's campaign has been picking up steam since he won Florida's straw poll last month. And in a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, Cain trails Obama by just five points in a head-to-head matchup."

10/5/2011 6:38:10 PM

by golly, I am inclined to believe that he has no idea what he's talking about

10/5/2011 6:41:55 PM

he doesnt .... he stated that he didnt have any facts so in essence he is just talking out of his ass.

10/5/2011 6:47:49 PM

I agree with everything he said. This is just a mob of discontented liberals who are going to continue to be a growing nuisance as they see their ineffectual at best messiah fade away into notoriety.

[Edited on October 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2011 8:19:50 PM

yeah, because clearly if everyone just tried a little harder we'd all be rich

what a stupid fucking thing to say

10/10/2011 8:21:38 PM

Not everyone is destined to be rich. There's where you're going wrong from the get go.

[Edited on October 10, 2011 at 8:23 PM. Reason : Or where you're admitting you're a socialist.]

10/10/2011 8:22:26 PM

HA! He just told a bunch of fucking protesting hippies to shut the fuck up and LOOK for a job.

and you guys defend the fucking hippies

the things on TWW these days

10/10/2011 8:22:36 PM

^^ I thought you agreed with Cain, who said that if you're not rich it's because you're not trying hard enough.

Which is it?

10/10/2011 8:24:28 PM

people throw around the term "rich" and never define "rich"

What exactly are these hippies eating and drinking and/or who is purchasing this nourishment for them?

10/10/2011 8:29:07 PM

Pointing out a misconception or false argument doesn't mean I don't agree with Cain. Do you believe everyone is destined or entitled to become rich?

I was thinking that people of lesser intelligence would have a harder time achieving that, but then I thought of Tito Ortiz, and realized anyone who can, can do it.

So yes, if you want to be richer, work harder or smarter with your God given talents, think outside the box if necessary.

[Edited on October 10, 2011 at 8:31 PM. Reason : Don't blame other people who have been sucessful.]

10/10/2011 8:30:36 PM

Ron Paul wins straw poll by wide margin - so let's talk about Herman Cain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WorClR-INVE

Herman Cain is the new media-appointed front runner.

10/10/2011 8:31:49 PM

If you want to talk about Ron Paul feel free to make a thread about him.

You're really lost if you think Herman Cain is the media appointed front runner.

[Edited on October 10, 2011 at 8:33 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2011 8:32:26 PM

Quote :

"Pointing out a misconception or false argument doesn't mean I don't agree with Cain."

You said you agreed with everything he said.

Quote :

"Do you believe everyone is destined or entitled to become rich?"

Destiny and entitlement are very different things. Destiny doesn't exist. I think everyone's entitled to a fair shake in life, but I know defining that is a slippery slope, and ends up in a discussion about generational economics that I'm not prepared to engage in.

10/10/2011 8:40:04 PM

^^He actually is, though, because he's a shitty candidate and the media is pushing whoever they think will win.

He's a shill for the banks/the Federal Reserve system. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. He worked for the Federal Reserve, and so he will not work to address the underlying problems with our economy.

He's wishy washy on foreign policy, which essentially means he will maintain the status quo, i.e. maintain our military empire.

[Edited on October 10, 2011 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2011 8:40:20 PM

Shouldn't you be raging against your parent's machine by turning your music up louder or something?

10/11/2011 10:04:30 AM

Quote :

"by golly, I am inclined to believe that he has no idea what he's talking about"

Quote :

"he doesnt .... he stated that he didnt have any facts so in essence he is just talking out of his ass."

Who needs any stats to back that up? They are out protesting, not looking for jobs, a little common sense provides that logical conclusion.

Ask yourself - "If I tried harder, would I be in a better finacial situation than which I am currently in?" If you say no, you are lying to yourself.

QFT

Quote :

"HA! He just told a bunch of fucking protesting hippies to shut the fuck up and LOOK for a job."

10/11/2011 10:16:12 AM

dude, im already in the 35% tax bracket and just hit a very large financial goal. im halfway to opening my own company in a little under a year. #winning

10/11/2011 10:48:23 AM

^ Cool story bro.

10/11/2011 11:06:00 AM

dont be jeally that im out busting my ass ... but i got lucky with an unbelievable opportunity after being unemployed for almost a year (with out a full time job)

Herm still shouldnt have the statement he made. not only is ammo for other candidates its just a stupid statement. i know several people, that are not failures, that are unemployed due to other negative external factors. its not just as black/white as Cain says.

furthermore ... you assume that the protesters are not out looking for work. what facts do you have to back up that assumption?

10/11/2011 11:25:01 AM

this is 'murrica, land of 'equality', why isn't EVERYONE paying the SAME fucking tax rate, PERIOD?

10/11/2011 11:31:35 AM

I've always respected gunzz; I don't often agree with him, but I thought him to be a well educated, reasonable fellow. Until now.

Anyone who uses 'jeally' for jealous, or similar, deserves no respect.

10/11/2011 11:31:45 AM

lol man... i saw some chick on my fb post that word. its rather ridiculous. i posted it for the lulz thank you for the kind words though, friend.

10/11/2011 11:34:15 AM

10/11/2011 11:38:03 AM