Class Warfare Ignores How the Rich Got Rich
The rich pay more taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they do not pay, as a percentage, taxes they can afford to pay. So says Warren Buffet, the world’s third richest man. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women working in his office. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid less as a percentage of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. “How can this be fair?” he asked. “How can this be right?” Buffett continued, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” The article’s author, Ben Stein, offered several arguments for raising taxes on the rich. But nothing was ever said by Stein about Buffett’s education, time investment, or risk. In other words, nothing was said about how Buffett got rich.
Warren Buffett, known as the Oracle of Omaha, pushed the issue of taxes to the discussion forefront by urging members of the new Congressional supercommittee on deficit reduction to stop “coddling” him and other affluent Americans and raise their taxes. There is a mechanism for paying more taxes voluntarily to the US government, but nowhere in the article did it say that Buffett availed himself of that service. Buffett called for making the tax system more fair by rolling back the “Bush tax cuts” on people who earn more than $1 million a year and on income from capital gains and dividends, primary job creators.
Liberals have driven the debt-ceiling debate into the class-warfare ditch, promising most Americans they will continue to get something for nothing. This undermines America’s entrepreneurial spirit. Obama is pushing for what he calls a “reasonable proposition” (again, no definition of reasonable) of tax increases on the rich, families with incomes of $250,000 or more. “We weren’t balancing the budget off of middle-class families and working-class families. And we weren’t letting hedge-fund managers or authors of best-selling books off the hook,” said Obama. Unsaid was that the top 10% of earners are already on the hook for 70% of total income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay next to nothing. If “fairness” is as important to liberals as they say it is, they would be seeking balance by raising taxes on the low end of the income scale.
Just Tax The Rich
What’s wrong with the rich getting richer? Larry Beinhart, at Alternet, first quotes Timothy Noah, in “The United States of Inequality,” “Income distribution in the United States [has become] more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador.” Countries with wide income inequality don’t lead the world in research, technology, industry, and innovation. They’re unstable. They have large underclasses. They have high rates of crime. They have little opportunity. Countries with high levels of income inequality are third-world countries. Then Beinhart continues, “Here is how people can deal with high income inequality. The primary weapon is a progressive tax structure. As people move up the income ladder they pay a higher rate at each rung.”
Says John Stossel, “Of children who were born to the poorest fifth of Americans in 1970, more than half of them rose out of that group by the year 2000. Similarly, being born to a rich family didn’t guarantee success: 61% of the kids born to the richest fifth of Americans in 1970 were no longer in that group thirty years later. That also means that 61% of the richest fifth in 2000 came from poorer families.”
From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, “Barack Obama told the nation last Wednesday [April] that “improvements” in Medicare and hiking taxes on the wealthy would stabilize government spending and bring deficit spending to what can charitably be described as a dull roar. The Wall Street Journal does some fact checking on these claims and finds them entirely false. Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers – whose average annual household income is $114,000 – the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap.”
Here is something very interesting from the Wall Street Journal. Obama’s strategy has been to pretend not to increase taxes for middle class voters while looking for ways to do it. His 2009 budget included a “climate revenues” section from the indirect carbon tax of cap and trade, and a value-added tax (VAT). Most tax deductions go mainly to the middle class. These include the deductions for state and local tax payments, mortgage interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, 401(k) contributions, and charitable donations. The irony is that even as Obama says he wants the rich to pay more, his proposals would make the tax code less progressive than it is today. Obama continues targeting the middle class for tax increases to pay for an entitlement state run amuck, while claiming he only wants to tax the rich.
From this article, we learn that class warfare in the United States is heating up. Many are saying that higher taxes on the wealthy is the solution to our problems. But is that what we really want to do? Here are some facts to consider. [subsetted by me]
- The top 1 percent of all income earners already pay 39.5 percent of all federal income taxes.
- When you take all forms of federal taxation into account, the top 1 percent of all income earners pay 28.1 percent of all federal taxes.
- The top 20 percent of all income earners in the United States pay approximately 86 percent of all federal income taxes.
- Approximately 45 percent of all U.S. households pay absolutely no income taxes at all.
- Overall, U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.
- 59 percent of all Americans now receive a government payout of one form or another.
- The ultra-wealthy keep much of their wealth outside of the United States so that the government cannot tax it.
- The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.
Consider, as the late, great Paul Harvey said, “Corporations don’t pay taxes. The increased costs are just passed on to consumers.”
“Tax The Rich” Is Nothing More Than Class Warfare Rhetoric
Says Ralph Alter, after making a bet with a conservative friend that Obama will not be re-elected in 2012, “He, like many Americans, fears that Obama’s class warfare strategy will pay off.” Despite liberal indoctrination, this is still the United States of America. Our nation, founded on resistance to structured class society, welcomed imigrants to America’s shores yearning to be free and independent. Almost all Americans believe that he or she can become rich here in the land of plenty. People who do get rich do not want to have the government confiscate almost all of his riches. Despite the class warfare drivel propagandized by liberals, average Joe American doesn’t begrudge the rich their riches. What they do begrudge is incompetent Democrats wasting the American Dream.
The next time you hear Obama, some Democrat, or some liberal spout off that “We should raise taxes on the rich because they can afford it, because they don’t pay their fair share,” remember that all they are doing is trying to use the rhetoric of class warfare to make their (talking) point. And if a liberal begins an argument with, “Tax the rich,” dazzle him or her with logic. Spread the word – class warfare rhetoric is just that, nothing but talk! Remember, November, 2012, cannot get here too soon.
But that’s just my opinion
Crossposted at RWNO, my personal web site.
Thanks, johngalt. As I said, it was because you specifically asked. Those such as AJ Hill do little to get under my skin, tho I do resent the personal time it takes to publicly correct them. In the long run, I just classify that waste of time as worthy if just for the benefit of other readers who may lend credence to such propaganda.
And thank you to Nan G for the following comment as well. Glad you found it beneficial. However the credit must go to johngalt for the links with the data.
Bees, AJ Hill is immune to such personality analysis. There’s no getting thru this defensive facade he’s erected. Problem with personal brick wall facades is that it blinds you to external viewpoints. I hardly expect him to slither away. Something I’d prefer since he adds little to counterpoint debate.
King of opposition debate style is Larry W, and rich wheeler and Greg doing various hits and misses. There’s a special class of political amoebae that encompasses those like AJ Hill, CSApsuedoinvestor, liberal nonobjectity etal. Generally a waste of cyber bandwith reading those.
Height of irony…. get lectured by the drive by Marxist on how I don’t know anything about him (despite his overt socialist commentary), only have to have him suggest that I have some personal goals to be in the top 1% of earners.
Reading for the anal retentive is truly a lost art since, in my comment #126, fourth paragraph, I said:
Amazing that, in the quest to make snitty observations, AJ Hill reveals how little he actually reads.
Mercy… so much propaganda and psycho babble, and so little time.
Let’s see…. AJ Hill wants us to return to the golden years when the bottom 99% held more of “the wealth”, which peaked between 1976 and 1981… the year that Reagan took oath of office.
What do most of us who were there remember of this era? Oh, that’s right…. recession, inflation, gas lines, high interest rates and Jimmy Carter. That high of interest rates predictably stifled economic activity and resulted in a decrease in the net worth of wealth holders… just as the numbers reflect. Which is why I was being facetious, putting “the wealth” in quotations and italics above. One can pretty much consider “the wealth” of those days as an oxymoronic view when you consider the assets held and wealth reflected from those assets.
Yeah, AJ Hill ‘o’beans… let’s go back to those days. sigh
Game, set match… fish in a barrel.
@AJ Hill:
I tried to be considerate by making points without insulting or condescending language, AJ. I even offered “help” on the notification box, in an attempt to keep the discussion polite. Apparently, that doesn’t matter to someone like yourself, as insulting language is the only form you know.
I am not some neophyte that tends to make snap judgments on information without considering all angles, AJ. My point, by requesting Mata look at the graphs and tables, and in particular, the ones I noted to her, was the interesting points that popped up, an in contrast to the vapid claims from yourself and csainvestor.
Information can be looked at in several ways, and interpreted differently, depending on viewpoint. And viewpoints are based on past experience, knowledge learned, and even circumstance. And, when doing so, numerous different conclusions can be drawn from the data or information presented. That being said, while I can accept you having a different conclusion of the data, I cannot accept derision and condescension from you on the conclusions Mata has drawn, or that I have drawn, from that same data. And, it’s precisely because I DIDN’T accept the author’s conclusions as gospel immediately that lends my view, at the very least, some amount of credibility. Now, I can be shown to be wrong in my view, and if that happens, I can accept that. Can you? I highly doubt it.
The table showing the share of wealth, as a percentage of all wealth, by the top 1% and the next 99%, for example, shows, as Mata asserted, that the percentage owned by the top 1%, and by extension, the other 99%, has remained relatively unchanged over that period of time presented. And, while there have been several high points, and several low points, the average of each year presented for the top 1% is 32.8%. Compared to the 2007 mark of 34.6%, the most recent example is remarkably close to the average point.
It is interesting that you cannot comprehend the points made, not only by myself and Mata, but others here, as well, concerning taxation, income and wealth. It is either that, or you are so invested in your own ideology that you become blind to reality.
Mata’s analogy of the 1rst Amendment is spot on, regardless of your dismissal of it. To support someone’s right to speech that you may not agree with, on the idea that it allows you, yourself, to engage in speech of your own ideas, is very similar to defending the rights of those that you may not be a part of, on the idea that it allows your own rights to be protected. And in the case of wealth, defending someone else’s pursuit of wealth allows you, yourself, to pursue wealth by your own industry. As I said, her analogy is spot on.
-One, that “cheating and stealing and building up vast fortunes” that you elude to is simply the investing of one’s own wealth in the prospects that another person, or persons, allows one to. Without that investment, companies would not have the capital to expand, either territory within the marketplace, or into other products. Without that, companies cannot create jobs beyond their basic enterprise. Without that, people of other classes have much fewer options in making their own way in life. And, without that, the pool of people with wealth becomes increasingly smaller with a larger share of what little wealth is produced, as a larger portion of people are not gathering their own wealth, nor do they have the opportunity to do so.
-Two, need doesn’t apply. Your statement seems to draw the conclusion that those “evil wealthy” who invest should either, (1) Invest their money on behalf of those in “need”, or (2) that without the “evil wealthy” investing, that the rest of the population would, somehow, make up the difference and gain their own wealth. I’m not sure, though, exactly what you mean, because your logic is all over the place and disconnected with reality.
-Three, It is arguable as to whether or not you actually use your mind for anything other than parroting liberal/progressive ideology. You have not shown the contrary up to this point, so that is what I will assume.
Surprise, surprise. When confronted with his obnoxious behavior in his own words, AJ pretends it didn’t happen. It should also be pointed out that AJ calling anyone a useful idiot is a glaring example of projection and further hypocrisy. Please look up hypocrite AJ. You MIGHT learn something.
AJ, when you deliberately spit in someone’s face, you have no business being shocked when they punch you in the nose like you deserve. You are not a victim.
Now go back to whatever 3rd world socialist sh*thole you came from as you have proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that you simply aren’t intelligent enough to be on this site. You are nothing more than a mindless marxist drone regurgitating long disproven talking points. Thinking clearly isn’t one of your strong suits.
@ Matta,
I’m a little late to your party, but you’ve demonstrated way too much patience here, slamming a well structured battering ram into hapless shadows whose vain and fruitless attempts at rebuttal demonstrate little intellectual acumen.
Your effort informs Curt’s FA supporters effectively, however, it evidently accomplishes little to shift percepts of mindless ignorance drowned in ideology which bottom feeds to stroke its own egos – egos that are less than sturdy. The socialist leadership thrives on the weakness of those egos and the lack of reasoning capacity residing there.
The whole of socialist ideology, the socialist strategic process (such as effectively digested by Skook on a recent article), and the socialist “system” are used by those who seek “leadership,” through the exploitation of weakness. These aren’t people building companies, infusing creativity, energizing self actualization, or promoting progress. These are insecure human beings running down others, in order to build their own empires. Their goals are personal wealth and power.
The Clintons are a good example – as has been pointed out on this site, Hillary’s roots and use of the socialist “platform,” is similar to Obama’s. That, of course, doesn’t mean she’s a socialist. Far from it. She and Bill are now worth hundreds of millions for a reason, and it isn’t because they want to accumulate so that they can redistribute their wealth. These two are obsessed with it, and through their marriage of convenience, they will do anything to accumulated it.
I’ve never met either of them, but have known numerous businessmen who knew Bill very well before and after his Presidency. If America knew the realities of this pathetic, and morally corrupted individual, he’d be run out of the country. There is no gutter that these two won’t slide into to get “the green.”
This is just an example of two major American leaders who’ve used the “left” effectively, nevertheless, they, and others like Obama can only survive through leaching energy from sycophants. You cannot change the mindset of Sycophants.
This thread is kind of reminiscent of the one where someone came here trying to claim Farrakhan wasn’t a racist.
@johngalt: Nobody, but nobody who knows anything about mathematics or data analysis draws conclusions from eyeballing graphs! The brain processes visual information by enhancing contrast and integrating nearest neighbor sensory inputs, starting in the retina and continuing through the lateral geniculate nucleus to the cortex. That’s data loss. Your ultimate impression may bear little resemblance to what you’re observing. Reliable conclusions come from the numbers, not from what you think you see! But why bother explaining these things to you? Right? Your’re not interested in the facts, are you, Bud? Just another well laundered psyche looking for reinforcement. You had me fooled.
#156:
What’s more sycophantic than the long-term relationship of the republican party to those controlling great concentrations of wealth?
@Hard Right: Nope! I’ll stay a while, thank you, and continue to point out your stupid errors and infantile opinions. I have faith that there are some genuinely intelligent, honest people who read this site. We’ll see, if I can dr\aw them out a little. Meanwhile, you needn’t bother with the insults. You’re a MORON. Can’t touch me.
@MataHarley: Can’t argue facts, can you, certainly not when mathematics is involved? This is the second patently obvious error that you’ve made and refused to acknowledge. Bluster all you like. You’ve been stung
. So, you don’t know squat about English, or math, or economics … Do you know anything about anything? It’s time to write you off and find more worthy opponents – but never fear, I’ll be around, when you make your next boneheaded mistake.
@AJ Hill, this is your quite pathetic defense of the Carter glory years… a personal barb? LOL Well, guess that was all you had left in your arsenal…. personal insults and spit wads.
@AJ Hill: You said:
So many words, yet so little said.
Now don’t take this as condoning what you are saying, but how about saying, “Don’t believe everything you read?”
I know it doesn’t show off your “massive” (snicker) intellect, but gee whiz guy stop bloviating. I guess though that you are just a blatherskite.
*shrug*
@Greg: You asked:
Well Greggie, you used the wrong term. No one here is trying to win favor with anyone in power…
@AJ Hill:
I see you still haven’t owned up to insulting others then whining when it gets returned. Typical marxist drone. You can dish it out, but can’t take it. Mata and others have caught you distorting and outright lying. Any credibility you might have had is gone as far as intelligent readers are concerned. Can’t touch you? Ha. Already did. That’s why you cried like a little girl when I called you out.
Look up the definition of hypocrite yet? You really need to.
I’m a moron, eh? Considering I embarrassed you, what does that say about you?
May I weigh in on this thread?
First, AJ Hill, in comment # 39 you say, “Even if he’s a hypocrit (which I haven’s seen demonstrated here!) Warren Buffett is light years ahead of moral dung beetles like the Koch’s, who devote themselves and their riches to screwing over working people and the middle class. P.S. – My apologties to dung beetles.”
Have you ever heard of George Soros? But then I guess you think that all of Soros’ efforts are admirable.
Be careful, AJ Hill, when you start to point a finger – there are three more pointing back at YOU.
BTW, “hypocrite” is spelled withan “e” on the end of the word.
Second, here are some quotes from my post:
“Class Warfare Ignores How the Rich Got Rich”
“… nothing was ever said by Stein about Buffett’s education, time investment, or risk.”
“… nothing was said about how Buffett got rich.”
“Most tax deductions go mainly to the middle class. These include the deductions for state and local tax payments, mortgage interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, 401(k) contributions, and charitable donations. The irony is that even as Obama says he wants the rich to pay more, his proposals would make the tax code less progressive than it is today. Obama continues targeting the middle class for tax increases to pay for an entitlement state run amuck, while claiming he only wants to tax the rich.”
So, AJ Hill, all this country can provide is equal opportunity. What people do with that opportunity is up to them. If some people squander that opportunity, it is NOT government’s job to make the squanders equal with those who chose to make something of their opportunity. It is not government’s job to pursue equal outcomes. So now I suppose you will say that the poor did not have equal opportunity. Can you offer citations (besides Internet links where anyone [even you] can claim anything) to back up your argument?
. . . . . Not surprising that the sycophants who troll for opportunities to throw weak minded insults, favour the incompetence of an Administration and an A.G. who refuse to bring charges against those who actually committed frauds which contributed to the economic meltdown in 2008. Apparently, selling guns to Mexican drug dealers is a much more effective use of time while in a position of power, manning the control levers of influence.
More bureaucracy, rules, laws and regulations, are less necessary than just taking action based on those already in existence.
Surely, Greg, you are not foolish enough to suggest that any long-term relationship between a political party, and those controlling great concentrations of wealth, excludes your liberal representatives and wealthy party members. Perhaps you need to be reminded that the Democrats are the larger beneficiaries (vs the GOP) of their privileged insider information and control over fiscal policy.
Well no shit, Sherlock. Quintessence of pot calling the kettle black…. Then again, it was Hill’o'beans that asserted his favored “middle class” should have more “wealth” via redistribution. Yet during the years of the highest wealth held for lower 99%, the US economy under Carter was tanked. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his Marxist views, eh?
Well it’s about time you weighed in on what you begat, Warren… :0) Of course it’s not the authority of a central government to equalize wealth. However breaking thru the smug facade of a dedicated socialist, such as Hill’o'beans, is an exercise in futility. He did, after all, confirm his own beliefs that the government should intercede in wealth redistribution. Perhaps his comment #143 should, again, be displayed so that there are no mistakes where Hill’o'beans comes from:
Not sure what those who think like Hill’o'beans think they’d be redistributing in a recession, where the stifled economy and markets end up with less revenue to distribute because of the capital gains loss. But in 2008, it was still 50% of taxpayers paying 97% of the nation’s bills. Between 2007 and 2008, the only categories who ended up paying virtually the same between the two years – post 2008 recession – were the top 25% and 50%. Then again, they likely have less vested in the markets to effect their capital gains annual reporting.
As the Oct 2010 Tax Foundation analysis of the 2008 IRS data states, effective tax rates can be misleading because the capital gains and dividends have already been taxed once by corporate income tax, which isn’t included in the IRS data. In other words, it’s a caveat to a study that says here’s the status of the income and effective rates, but oh… BTW… it ain’t the complete story. So ignore the man behind the curtain.
@AJ Hill:
You’re right. It is the numbers. And that is what I pointed out. It seems, however, that if someone doesn’t bow down to the perception of the liberal ideology in front of you, that you then proceed to attack that person him/her-self, instead of addressing their points. Nice. And typical of the liberal/progressive smear machines wandering around the ‘net.
@AJ Hill #64:
@AJ Hill #129:
With so many comments, it’s sort of hard to sift through; but if you look back upon how you entered into this thread, you really did set the tone for the mudslinging that’s resulted along with the honest substance in the debating. Seriously, look back at your words (I believe starting with comment #6). Can you honestly say you didn’t start out “insulting” anyone here? It looks like you insulted everyone. You’ve been more hostile than civil in disagreement to ideas that differ from your own, right from the get-go. YOU set the tone of the debate, dripping with arrogance and condescension toward us “right-wingers”, without getting to know what each individual here actually thinks and believes.
Is it really any wonder if some decided to give abrasive tit for caustic tat?
Instead of climbing out of the mud-fray when it looked like you were prepared to clean off, take a step back and exercise some respectful debate with those you disagree with, you readily jumped back in for more mudslinging fun.
Why not be “the bigger man” and just shrug off the perceived slights, insults, and ad hominem?
Welcome to FA, btw.
@Warren:
NO!
@Wordsmith:
These days Word, I try to be REactive when it comes to posting in an uncivil manner. Had he entered the thread simply disagreeing, I wouldn’t have taken the hammer and tongs approach. As you pointed out, he made it a point to insult everyone here just because we disagreed with him.
Also note that I said I try to be reactive. I don’t always succeed, but I’m working on it.
Wordsmith that was so funny, on your comment, how come we took him so seriously,
and got mad at AJ Hill, I guess It’s because he meant every word,
that is the difference between funny on the same text with you,
and ugly on his text.
bye
@Wordsmith: What do you know, a new voice? You’re off to a flying start. though, combining a reasonable observation with more of the general obtuseness that infuses this site. You suggest that I started out by “insulting” people in Post #6. Where did I personally disparage anyone in that post? If you consider criticizing someone’s ideas insulting, then you haven’t been around much. I’ve debated on websites that made this one look positively tame by comparison; the thin skinned pantywaists that frequent this site would be out of therewith their tails between their legs after a single round, but even the hardest hitting sites usually dealt with ideas and issues. Not this place! I’ve honestly never encountered a more juvenile, petty-minded, undisciplined bunch of snivellers in my life, nor a more debased level of “discussion”. Nevertheless, I tried to calm the waters. You pasted part of my post in which I reached out to one of the shrillest of the complainers. Now I challenge you to find a single sentence from anyone who responded to my peace offering in kind. Find just a single sentence that even acknowledged what I had tried to do or made a similar gesture. When you grow tired of looking, try counting the number of posts that merely continued the puerile piling on. Go ahead; I’ll wait. I’ll be interested to see how objective you can be.
@AJ Hill:
There ya go again!
It’s your tone and manners:
If that were directed at you, would you feel insulted, whether true or not?
Insulting?
Not insulting?!
What was it you were stamping your foot about regarding Mata presuming your wealth status without knowing a thing about you, as a newbie? Can you see how someone here might tag you with a label like “hypocrite”…?
Excerpt #143:
Projection much? And if the “accusation means nothing” why get so bent out of shape over it? HR labels you a “hypocrite” and you allow that one word to push your button. Talk about thin-skinned….Meanwhile, you seem to remain blind to your own behavior, baffled how anyone could mistake anything you’ve typed as insulting and short on civility.
Back to fisking post #6:
You haven’t “debunked” anything. What you’ve done is expressed a liberal opinion of your own that can be regarded as a “talking point” and “unoriginal” (thanks for presuming what you wrote was something new to our “right-winger” ears, educational, enlightening, and earth-shattering).
Going back to your last comment:
Whoa…that is sooo cool. Like this? Has anyone yet told you how wickedly awesome you are? No?
Oh, *yawn*…and the arrogance and condescension continues. Color any one of us, unimpressed.
Provide links, please. Don’t just cyber-thump your chest while flexing & posing your mental acumen in front of the cyber-mirror, in narcissistic wonder at yourself. Let the dazzle of your brilliance speak for itself. Link us up to your past victories of forum prowess on full display.
Really?! Try debating with yourself. Honestly, look in the mirror and re-read your comments. What’s amazing is that for someone as well-educated as you are, you lack the wherewithal and self-awareness of knowing how you come across to others: Thin-skinned, arrogant, elitist, uneven/ill-tempered….and childish.
You remind me of a brain researcher I once had for a client. Highly educated, well-respected, and top in his field. Part of the intelligentsia and academia….But socially awkward, petty, with a childish temper. Brilliant mind, yet otherwise stupid and self-unaware.
If I have your number pegged wrong, prove it by shrugging this off rather than have your feelings and ego bruised. Don’t let what I just said push your buttons. None of us knows each other so it shouldn’t matter what I think or presume about you, does it?
If you have legitimate points to make, let the merits of your points speak for themselves. There’s no need to draw attention to yourself by investing so much of your own ego into the debate and discussion. If someone name-calls, hit back or ignore it…just don’t make a fuss about it and steer on.
I acknowledge you extended an olive branch and made an apology. But can you not see why the tone and tenor of your comments are off-putting to us “right-wingers”? You don’t come across as someone seeking civility in debate (nothing wrong with incivility and hardball debating style, btw- just don’t whine like a victim when your own nose gets bloodied back) or any exchange of ideas; but as someone here to “educate”, pummel, pontificate and bloviate your own ideology and perspective with condescension and arrogance in every spittle along the way.
You’re new here, so maybe you can get to know posters as individuals before lumping us altogether into one big strawman groupthink, presuming and projecting what we must all think and believe.
Hope I was more helpful than insulting…but the burden of how you choose to receive this comment rests upon you.
@Wordsmith:
From his very first post on this site Mr. Hill has displayed poor manners and a basic lack of social skills by bescumbering every thread he has encountered.
It still amuses me tow watch him be so painstakingly critical of the grammar and sentence structure of others while his own comments are replete with typos and spelling errors.
@AJ Hill:
As has been apparent throughout this topic and the multitude of postings within it, condescending insults are a large part of your method of “discussion”. Now, this may play well in the other forums you are used to “debating” in, however, one of the reasons I enjoy this site is that the level of heated discussion remains somewhat low overall, despite the occasional flareups. It is this very congenial level of debate that makes this site so great, as the issues, then, are discussed nearly exclusively on the merits of the facts and information each poster presents.
What you do, however, is insult the posters themselves while presenting very little in the way of actual, factual, information. You seem to rely, instead, on the “talking points” you glean from whatever liberal/progressive sites you frequent, and at the slightest hint of a poster’s disagreement with your preconceived ideas, you then launch into rhetoric containing no counterpoints, but rather, only mindless innuendo and insulting condescension towards the poster’s intellect, writing style, choice of wording, and political ideology. In other words, you choose not to fight the battle in the realm of ideas. Instead you fight the battle to belittle the presenter.
It is readily apparent, as well, that you understand very little regarding the ideas presented by the founding fathers, and in particular, James Madison. You’ve continually presented Thomas Paine’s piece, Agrarian Justice, as being such a ‘great pamphlet’, somehow, I suppose, in an attempt to link Paine to the founders in a positive light. The truth is, Thomas Paine was ostricized by many in this country immediately prior to his death, in part to various reasons which included his criticism of Christianity and his ideas for government presented within his Common Sense pamphlet. While their is some things to admire about him, particularly his early writings in which he sought to foster support for the revolution, and later, when he was partially responsible for the support France gave the colonists, overall, his ideas were rejected by the founders.
And, of course, it is also apparent that you lack sufficient knowledge in discussing basic economic theory, as well as economic reality. In your post #10, for example, you state this;
The reality is that businesses, whether small mom-n-pop shops and large corporations pass on all costs of doing business to their customers. Everything that costs a business money is built into the cost of their goods and services, along with the customary profit margins. You are right, though, in one respect. That is, as the price of their goods or services increase, the demand for the same decreases, and particularly so if the goods or services are considered ‘non-essential’ to consumers. Businesses will adjust their profit margin up or down correspondingly to account for increased costs, in order to keep their sales up, but only to a point. I know of no business that will accept a negative profit margin over long term just to stay in business, nor should they. That is why conservatives are so reluctant to raise taxes on businesses, and that includes the so-called “loopholes” that are so oft mentioned.
That you do not proceed to the logical conclusion in your diatribe about economics and business does not surprise me, nor probably, any other conservative here. For, if you continued, the only logical conclusion is that raising taxes on businesses eventually leads to a slowdown in economic activity that negates, concerning revenues to the government, any increase seen from the increased taxation.
You could take a lesson from the other liberal/progressive posters here which include Larry W, richwheeler, and even, for the most part, Greg who has been commenting throughout this topic. Insults are childish and show nothing more than a lack of intellect concerning the discussed issue. Try being “nice” for a change, and present your ideas with respect and you may find people here willing to engage you in reasoned debate. Or, continue on as you are, insulting anyone and everyone. Just don’t come on here in response and throw childish tantrums slinging insults and then crying about other people and their responses to you.
P.S. We, here, do not care one whit about any other ‘forums’ or ‘sites’ that you frequent, and your view of them as such great debate sites. Flamewars on the internet do not produce anything worthwhile, which is why most of us here do not go anywhere else. We are not ‘wimps’, or weak, as you may believe of us. We simply feel that arguing issues based on the merits of ideas is more fulfilling than arguing based on who can scream and insult the loudest, or more often than anyone else. If that is all you are looking for, then no thanks. Go somewhere else instead and forget about us. Believe me, you won’t be missed.
@AJ Hill: You said:
Obviously you have never stopped and re-read your own comments.
Instead of making false accusations and unfounded claims, show us where someone on FA was juvenile, or petty, or undisciplined.
You really are boorish when you act this way, AJ. Grow up and show proof of your claims, instead of just acting like a 12 year old and throwing out insults, claiming to be the “victor.”
Unless of course, you are afraid to let the facts speak for themself…if not, then prove me wrong and link proof to your claims.
.
.
anticsrocks, hi,
on your 137, there is errors, and I will point it out to you,
that is, what you should have type; MAY AND GLISH HAR PRET Y GUD,
BUTT IT YOUZE TO B OFF ALL,
AND WHAT DOES THAT LINE MEANS HERE? THIN HUCKED AWN FONIX WURKED FOR ME
GOOD GRAMM HER
@ilovebeeswarzone: LOL, Beezy.
The line, “Thin huked awn fonix wurked fore me!!,” is a reference to a reading comprehension program that used to be for sale in the US. Their slogan was, “Hooked on phonics worked for me!”
Here are some links –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcITeGy-U6w&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuHQHzs9I40&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXHsfUtoFM
You see, the intelligentsia in America decided sometime in the 1970s to change the way reading was taught in our public schools. They figured that since children eventually learned whole words, it made more sense for them to memorize words instead of learning to sound them out, which is known as phonics.
Over the years this was realized to be a huge mistake. What is logical to you and I somehow escaped the folks that made the decisions about curriculum in our grade schools. It makes as much sense as saying that since babies eventually learn to walk, they ought not be allowed to crawl first.
@anticsrocks: My son was diagnosed with dyslexia in early grade school by the a specialist at Dencver University. When we went to the school special education teacher, they gave me this whole word nonsense. I threatened to file suit under the Americans with disabilities act and the agreed to teach him phonics. He learned quickly and wass mainstreamed quickly. I think there were many more children who didn’t couldn’t learn whole words who didn’t push the school.
anticsrocks, yes, you’re absolutely right about it,
it must have confused many children while it was implement.
because that is the times for children to have their memory and judgement
ready to process any sound along with it’s meaning in a word, and when that word is not well written
they are being deceived to find out that word is not the one they have learned,
quite a shock recovery for a young,
like a demolishing treatment following from one year to another,
meaning to the child that the first teacher they had known was lying to them all along,
thank you for it,
@csainvestor: “Why should the poor and the middle pay more than the rich?” Because there are tons more of them?
@Randy: Sounds like your child had a great parent looking out for them. Kudos, sir!
@ilovebeeswarzone: You’re very welcome Beezy. I came along in school early enough that I was taught phonics, my younger brother was not. He struggled for the longest time with his reading and unfortunately my parents did not realize the true reason.
anticsrocks, that’s why you’re so fluent in that language,
bye
@Randy:
I was taught phonics, too, like anticsrocks.
For years I blamed phonics for why I can’t spell.
But along came ”spellcheck,” and I just deal with it.
WARREN, YOU said ” may I weight on this tread? ”
no no no
I liked it so much on WORDSMITH.
I had to try it too.
bye
this line is glued on you now forever
anticsrocks, hi, I bet you and other will like that:
In BBC JUST NOW, CHECK ON JANE WAKEFIELD TECHNOLOGY REPORTER
BBC NEWS TECHNOLOGIES,
ABOUT ALGORITHIMS CODE IN AMAZONE BOOK ;; THE MAKING OF A FLY HAD
PUT THE PRICE OVER NORM,
AS THE ALGORITHMS OUTBIDDING THEMSELF WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION,,
I found my page the title is; THE FILTER BUBLE BY ELI PARISER
THE LONG TEXT IS HOT TILL THE END AND THE LAST LINE IS OF A BOOK FROM ELIE SOMETHING.
THE BUBLE AND SOME MORE WORDS ON THE TITLE,
I was so exited from it content, I came running to tell you
that is a must read, and I caught it by accident,
check it up now, it is updated today same date.
bye it’s fantasticly possibly because it happenned at AMAZONE THAT ALGORITHMS CAN GET A MIND ON THEIR OWN. GOOGLE IS MENTIONNE IN THE ELIE BUBLE AND THE TRADE MARKET AND NETFIX, ALL USING IT ALGORITHMS
BYE
I found my page, the title of the book is
the filter buble by ELIE PARISER ,
I say a must buy,
@anticsrocks: Thank you. My brother was a casualty of the new math!
@ilovebeeswarzone: I checked it out Beezy. Thanks! It looks very interesting and I think it will be an addition to my lookbook, electronic reader.
anticsrocks, I knew you would like the subject, and the more I read the more I was anxious to run back and tell you of it,
I was trying to rush in telling you, and I made some mistakes in repeating the book and author’s name,
Too excited I was,
so it is a electronic book?.
I bought one last year from another author and other subject too, but interesting too, and I print 176 pages of the book at the time,
because I wanted to read it on the real pages, It cost some expansive ink too, but I got it done.
bye let me know when you read it all, what you think of it.
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Yeah, I got a lookbook from my wife for Christmas.
Here is a picture of it:
lookbook
It has WI-FI so all I have to do is turn it on and click the “Store” button and type in the name or author I want and I can download their book. The cost of a typical new release is around 10 t0 12 dollars, much less expensive than a hard back book.
Why didn’t Buffett just donate a few of his billions to the government?
“If the government’s purposes are so vital, why doesn’t he simply give the money to the IRS?” an editorial in the Wall Street Journal asked. “If he’s worried about being undertaxed, we’d suggest he simply write a big check to Uncle Sam and go back to his day job of picking investments.”
Last night, for instance, Buffett took a bath and came out with the idea of investing $5 BILLION in Bank of America!
The above quote is from an article titled:
Would you donate your money to Uncle Sam? The government has received $3 million in gifts this year
So, put your money where your mouth is, Warren.
From Net Right Daily via Tax Prof Blog:
h/t - Instapundit
anticsrocks, my first look on that, wow that must sell like sugar
the creator will make a fortune on it.
thank’s for showing it.
AYE, WOW, that’s a good find, after BUFFET’S RHETORIC,
shame on BUFFET
NOW MR BUFFET, PUT YOU’RE MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND PAY THE TAXES YOU OWED SO LONG AGO.