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
One last time.
The poor and the middle paid for at least 60% of all federal revenues. That number skyrockets when you include inflation.
The top 1% own 40% of all wealth in this country, and they only paid 23% of all federal revenues.
corporations pay the rest.
@csainvestor:
I have one point to make concerning your comments.
– There is a line, concerning wages, where the amount of money given to a taxpayer, above and beyond what they paid in income taxes, more than makes up for their annual “contributions” to SS and Medicare. The example that I used, of a person making $15/hr with one child and a wife in school, showed a payment to the taxpayer of at least $2,873 more than they paid in income taxes. For a full work year(2080 hours at 40hrs/week), that taxpayer makes $31,200. Adding SS and Medicare taxes together, that person pays $2,386.80 over the course of the year to just those two programs. What this means, is, that at reconciliation time(tax time), that person actually gains around $480.
My point concerning the above is that the heavy burden of ALL taxes that you are ranting about doesn’t include a large portion of taxpayers. The “unfairness” that you suggest just isn’t there for the lower income groups, which makes this statement of yours incorrect;
@csainvestor:
As I told AJ somewhere above, you seriously confuse the debate when you use both “income” terminology, and “wealth” terms, within the same suggested point you are trying to make. It doesn’t work.
i meant employment taxes that all employees must pay. including
Social Security tax, Medicare tax, unemployment tax, workers compensation.
the fact remains.
the middle and the poor pay for 60% of all tax revenues.
the middle and the poor account for 75% of all consumer spending. that means the middle and the poor pay the 75% of the inflation tax. The middle and the poor pay 75% more in sales tax as well.
The poor and the middle pay MUCH more than the richest 1% but the richest 1% own 40% of all US wealth.
Period!
Make up your mind, csainvestor. You stated above that 80% of the American consumers pays 40% of all the direct taxes. Now you’re flipping your story when cornered.
And “employment taxes” are for employers.. not employees. So again, you’re talking about the “poor” who own businesses, pay sundry taxes for their employees, but don’t pay federal taxes? Or perhaps you don’t know what FICA is? (hint: it ain’t “payroll” or “employment” taxes…) Join your pal, AJ Hill. He’s dense too.
johngalt, have at it. This one’s proven to me she’ not worth the time to spend discussing business details way out of her educational range. But then, that’s why she’s got her story plus cut/paste repetitive talking points, and stickin’ to it… LOL Oh yes, “period” Yeah, that makes it right.
Back to social networking for you, csainvestor. I only hope your “investing” ends up not suffering from your lack of knowledge.
@MataHarley: @MataHarley: And you actually vote?
And you were actually graduated from a public high school? Downright amazing…. if not pathetic.
lol. haha.
mata,
You know i’m right and you are wrong.
The middle class and the poor pay for 60% of all, ALL federal taxes, not just income tax. The middle class and the poor pay for 75% of the inflation tax, and 75% of all sales taxes.
Anyone outside of the 1% bracket isn’t rich, they are middle class.
The dirty trick is to try and combine the top 1% and the next 19% as the 20% that pays “all” the income taxes. But that still doesn’t count the federal taxes aside from income tax that the poor and the middle class pay.
There is a world of difference between the taxpayer that made 200 million in the top bracket and the taxpayer that made 50k in the twentieth percentile.
the reason the top 1% own 40% of the country is because they aren’t paying enough in taxes. And the reason the poor and the middle class own less of the country is because they pay too much.
@csainvestor:
Once again mixing income terminology with wealth. It doesn’t work, csa. Although there is, for the most part, correlation between income and wealth, the exceptions are legion.
I am wondering exactly where you read your information from. It seems that you are trying to make a point, yet cannot remember exactly what it was you read, so you keep repeating the same lines, over and over. Care to cite a source?
@csainvestor: While your observations about taxes are cogent, taxation isn’t the only reason for the growing disparity between rich and poor/middle class in the U.S. Pay differential is a big factor too. During the past two decades, CEO pay has nearly quadrupled , while average workeer pay has been essentially static (in spite of a steadily increasing productivity). I’m going to assume that virtually no one who posts here is a CEO (or anything close to it) which begs the question: why on Earth would you defend such a dysfunctional system, especially when people like you are the ones who bear the brunt of the rampant inequality. And don’t trot out the hoary myth about the U.S. being such a “land of opportunity”. In fact, economic mobility is lower in the U.S. than in most countries in Europe, although Europeans aren’t particularly focused on it.
@MataHarley: MataHarley, re: comment #114, and all of the rest of your comments, thanks for inserting some sanity and historical knowledge into this thread. And liberals are like jello: just when you think they are hung out to dry with their own “facts,” they, like Emily Latella, say “Never mind” and come up with another set of “facts.”
In comment #107, csainvestor said, “The top 1% own 40% of all wealth in this country, and they only paid 23% of all federal revenues. corporations pay the rest.” As the late, great Paul Harvey said, corporations do NOT pay taxes. Taxes are a business expense, passed on to consumers.
I must ask, is “csainvestor” for real?
AJ Hill, in comment #6 says, “Your post is not only replete with errors and misleading statements, they’re not even original. I guess that’s a hazard of subscribing to a nonsense philosophy. The astounding thing is that right wing talking heads have been so successful in getting people like you to repeat this malarkey. Yes, I said “people like you”, because I’m willing to bet that you aren’t wealthy, that you don’t make anywhere near a quarter mill. a year and never will. Nevertheless you promote the radical right wing agenda of the ultra-wealthy, furthering their interests at the expense of your own. It’s bizarre!”
Then, in comment #112 (aiming at MataHarley) says, “And you actually vote? ”
Liberals who cannot offer a cogent argument will always resort to insults.
I also ask, is AJ Hill for real?
@MataHarley:
Mata, I am making a request of you, basically because I do not have the time necessary to devote to this the required attention it deserves.
Below I am including a couple of links. The first one is a link to a Guardian article that shows csainvestor’s claim of “The top 1% own 40% of all wealth in this country” is actually from a UN report that details wealth disparity of the entire world, not just the US.
The second link is from a Sociology professor at UC Santa Cruz. There are several interesting graphs present, and many of them discount not only csainvestor’s claims about taxation, but also the general liberal/progressive theories about taxation and how it relates to income and wealth disparity. For example;
-One graph shows a breakdown of ALL taxes paid per income group and compares it to a graph of share of income per income group.
-Another graph, and perhaps one of the most interesting, shows that the US’s GINI coefficient, 45.0 as of 2008, was midway between the highest and lowest GINI’s listed, essentially stating that the US is near the average of that number.
-And still another graph, also very interesting, shows over a period of 48 years, the multiple of CEO’s pay vs. the average worker’s pay. The one interesting point on this graph happens during Clinton’s terms in office.
As I stated, I do not have the time to address this issue adequately, and I would ask that you at least look at these links to address csainvestor’s comments. Thank you in advance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
@MataHarley: My goodness, you never give up, do you? You pointed out that 20% of the FICA tax has no income cap and concluded that somehow makes it fair, although the remaining 80% is still capped. That’s patently ridiculous and you’re still crowing about it! Same goes for your ludicrous grammatical mistakes. You can’t even identify the correct parts of speech, call an adjective an adverb, and don’t even recognize that what you wrote was a sentence fragment, not a sentence. I really think you’re learning impaired. If not, you should seriously consider going back to complete highschool!
@johngalt: It was thoughtful of you to provide links to such interesting articles. I had run across the paper by Dr. Domhoff before, but I hadn’t seen this updated version of it, so I’m in your debt. However, if you anticipate that MataHarley will find data here to refute csainvestor’s contention about financial inequities in the United States, you’re likely to be disappointed. Three paragraphs from the Domhoff paper should give you an idea of his findings:
”In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). ”
”In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.”
”Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s.”
C’est la vie.
A related point: I’m always mystified by the right’s implacable hostility toward Europe. If democratic socialism were really the failure that you folks maintain, I would think you’d be grateful to them for demonstrating the fact. Sure, Sweden’s an embarrassment, as are Finland, Norway, Switzerland, even Germany; but you can get around that by ignoring those countries – the way Fox News does. Most Americans have a poor grasp of geography, so there’s little risk you’ll be caught out there. Maybe you’re irked by the fact that, in addition to their good economies, citizens of those countries are so damnably happy to live there. I mean, they pay close to half their incomes in taxes! They should hate their governments even more than you do! Of course, in exchange they get healthcare, education, generous pensions, and a whole host of social services like paid sick leave, paid vacation, paid maternity (and paternity!) leave, unemployment insurance … , the whole “nanny state” routine. And they love it! Instead of working a second job (or looking for one!) on weekends, they go sailing. (Isn’t that called “freedom” by the way?) They think we’re nuts to live in the frenetic ant heap we’ve allowed our nation to become. Weird, huh? But help is at hand. You can understand this better by reading a recent book by a fellow named Thomas Geoghegan. It’s called Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?. Take a look, in case you haven’t read it. (My answer, by the way, was “Absolutely!”)
AJ Hill,
It’s the second time I catch you insulting our POST AUTHOR, and you are insulting the commenters,
to for the second time,
I expose you so they all know what kind of a DICK you are,
Warren Beatty, as usual your POST IS RIGHT ON THE POINT,
THANK YOU ,
@johngalt: Thanks for the suggestion. Actually I don’t mind the notifications within reason. I enjoy the give and take of debate, when the posts are civil and well reasoned, as yours routinely are.; but the sudden deluge from this thread caught me off guard. It’s also become apparent that some of the participants here regard disagreement as tantamount to abuse. (see #121), although I no longer engage this person, because he seems to be intellectually compromised.
@Warren: Two points, Warren. In Post #117 you state “”As the late, great Paul Harvey said, corporations do NOT pay taxes. Taxes are a business expense, passed on to consumers.” It astounds me that anyone today can make this claim, when the most basic tenets of economic theory and practice refute it. If you’re interested in learning why, see my Post #10.
As for your remark about insults, I did trade insults with MataHarley. It was my mistake and I intend to apologize for it. As for the rest, I merely made an objective observation. I genuinely can’t understand why people like you and others here so vehemently promote a philosophy of selfishness and an economic doctrine that works consistently to your own detriment. If there were reason to suppose that any one of you fell into the top 1% of wealth in this country, I could understand your position, although not agree. I just barely squeeze into the top 5% … maybe and I wouldn’t endorse that self-serving cr_p, if my life depended on it. In any event, , if you regard what I wrote as an insult, that’s your prerogative, but it wasn’t intended as such and I don’t think it was.
@AJ Hill:
If you noticed, I mentioned the graphs and tables. I don’t really care all that much about his conclusions that he draws from the information. The one table that I pointed out was most interesting was the U.S.’s GINI coefficient. Now, while the U.S. may be, placewise, near the bottom of that table, their number, as of 2008, was almost directly in the middle in income disparity.
Another chart that I found most interesting was the chart showing the CEO’s wages as a multiple of the average workers’ wages. The fact that the multiple increased the most, and dramatically, during the period of Clinton’s term, in which taxes were higher all around, and that the multiplier started dropping following the Bush tax cuts of 2003, is quite interesting, as well as shooting a hole in the theory that higher taxation on the higher income levels will, somehow, reign in the salaries of those CEO’s.
Anyway, I asked Mata to look that paper over as she is very well versed in economics, both theory and the real world, not to mention that she is quite adept at presenting both graphs and tables, with her excellent take on the info. And, like I said, I don’t care what the writer of that paper concludes about the info.
Your welcome for that. I always choose to click ‘off’ the notification, as articles like this tend to draw a lot of comments and since I typically get into discussions within them, I already read the comments and need no notification of them.
@johngalt… bummer, guy. About the last thing I want to do today is address anything that the cut/paste parrot, csapsuedoinvestor has to say. Truly irritates me that such ding dongs repeatedly dish out the same talking points, and somehow the onus is on us to prove they are the jealous socialists they are. Geez… is there any question to that? Apparently, if some don’t possess the brights to accumulate the wealth, they resent others that do.
But since you ask, the Anthony Shorrocks led study, done for the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations back in 2006 is notably dated. Personally, I wouldn’t pay a wooden nickel to view the 300 page study, no doubt replete with the appropriate One World Order hand wringing over those evil wealthy and their assets. But it does appear the study upon which Ms. csapsuedoinvestor rests her indignation is spread over 38 countries from way back when, prior to the first global banking collapse back in 2008. Now we’re on round two of the global collapse. No doubt whoever comprises that 1% that gets her in an uproar could have changed cast of characters in this time… and could be completely different in percentile.
Then, of course, for the headline soundbyte educated, it must be really confusing when another publication runs the same report with the headline that 2% of the population own half of the world’s wealth.
My response is, who the heck cares? I don’t need to own massive assets to live a fruitful and enjoyable life. Nor do I spend much time assailing those that like to collect assets, much as a philatelist collects stamps. Wealth envy is not a passion of mine.
INRE the Santa Cruz article you linked… well, I’d have to say it would pass socialist muster for the source. After all, he cites data from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy … a MoveOn.org/Soros concoction. So it should be interesting to watch the less than astute chow down on their talking points.
First, let me post a couple of the graphs that you noted. Then I have something to zero in on myself.
Well, guy… after your repeated points about wealth vs income (something that should be relatively simple to absorb for most), I doubt it will do much good. But here it is.
Now, a point I want to make is the UNSC article you linked also has a CEO/workers/profit/S&P/minimum wage chart. Just as you brought up, this just may make Ms. CSApsuedoinvestor quite uncomfortable since it appears that the most astronomical rise of CEO to workers wage disparity… if you want to look at it that simply… happened to occur between 1994 and 2000.
… oops…. What fiscal tax policies were in place then? Oh yes.. the revered Clinton years. LOL
But then, let’s not take things at face value here. Because the ways that employees were being compensated were morphing along with the times. And it just so happens that not only the ESOPs, but 401Ks started hitting the employee compensation/pay/benefits big time as enticements around this same time. EBRI’s history of the 401ks shows that the number of active 401K employee participants grew from 19,548,000 in 1990 to 42.4 million in 2003 following the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 that increased the amount of pre tax deferred amounts that employees could invest on a sliding/increasing scale.
In fact, the UNSC site also has a site of those with stock holdings… and it seems even the working “poor” are stock holders… income that is not accounted for in these studies.
Now, one has to wonder… does either the less than knowledgeable whiny socialist, CSApsuedoinvestor, or her cut/paste talking points guru, Anthony Shorrocks , take into account the employer matched 401K funds that most contribute – which can translate to an additional $15,000 of income benefits annually as of 2006’s inflation indexed amount – in their assessment?
Simple answer is no… therefore why would we even bother playing this incomplete stats game with partisan parrots, johngalt?
“investor” my butt….
Then, of course, if you really want to torpedo the socialist whining that emanates from both AJ Hill and CSApsuedoinvestor, one need only look at the history of wealth held in the US from 1920 to 2007.
To even the most graph challenged, the balance of the 1% to 99% of wealth held has fluctuated very little over this 87 years. However if some prefer hard numbers, they are below;
Which, of course, begs the question what the all fire hell are they whining about, as this is been pretty much the status quo balance for quite some time.
I’m not the one putting out cut/paste comments, johngalt. Nor whining about my or other’s financial woes and giving an evil eye to those who are doing well. I’m like most… get out my way, and let me earn. Stop taking my cash to redistribute it so it appeases the feel good nanny emotions of bottom feeders like AJ Hill and CSApsuendoinvestor.
Sorry guy… tired of being polite. Already did this for too many comments and you can see where it has led. Now I’m spending time providing fodder to two who are unable to absorb it intellectually. Nor can they respond to previous factoids with anything more than insults and repeated cut/past talking points So for you… and for those who may be interested in this thread… I do this. For those two? Wouldn’t give them a sip of water from the fountain of knowledge in the middle of the Mohave.
Yet this didn’t stop you from abusing me, who had never addressed you before, because you thought my comments came from Hard Right, did it? Then, when I did respond to your less than civil response, you ignored all my points and instead just tossed out an insulting barb.
Excuse me if I find your mea culpas, expressed to johngal, extremely disingenuous.
To answer your second question as to why we “vehemently” protest such doctrines of wealth envy portrayed by so many like you, the answer is quite simple…. the same reason I support the 1st Amendment. It’s there to protect speech that offends me, not speech that doesn’t. In the same fashion, I support capitalism and free markets, with minimal interference from the central government because it provides me with the same opportunities as those whom you wish to assail for their success.
When you decided that there is a “too wealthy” category, followed by “there oughta be a law” mentality to redistribute what they earned, then you’ve just inhibited every one else’s success as well.
As for the dreaded and evil “corporations”…. what is it that so many do not understand? The “corporations” are made up of share holders, comprised of Joe Blow citizens, from firemen, teachers, 401K and ESPO holders, etc. Perhaps S and C corporate structure should be taught in schools so that that less than informed cannot equate the CEO with “the corporation”.
Oh, BTW… still waiting for that “apology”. Because, based on your “and you vote” comment above, you’re taking your sweet time in admitting you were the bull in the wrong china shop.
@MataHarley: @MataHarley:
This is what you wrote originally in post #67:
“To back up AJ Hill’s own(erroneous) avow that the founders were firm believers in a Marxist style redistribution of wealth …”
… and then in post #94:
“And yes, I know “avow” is a verb. It was also used as a verb… i.e.:”
… and finally in that same post:
“Hint… “own” is not a verb and is not incorrect useage since you can say “your own”, using a 3rd person pronoun as opposed to the proper pronoun.”
Let’s look at the first part of it:
“To back up AJ Hill’s own(erroneous) avow …”
This is an infinitive phrase – “To back” is the infinitive form of the verb “back” and “up” is an adverb modifying it.
“AJ Hill’s” – this is either a contraction of a proper noun with the verb “to be” or a possessive adjective. It can’t be the first, so it’s clearly a possessive adjective.
“Own” and the parenthetical “erroneous” are also adjectives.
All three of these words modify the last word “avow”, making this four word phrase the object of the infinitive phrase.
So, you’ve used the verb “avow” as a noun, as I said.
As to your last claim, “your” is 2nd person, not 3rd; and there are proper nouns, but no “proper pronouns”.
You’d be well advised to stick with politics and not dispute English grammar with me!
Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, I’m going to back up to the middle of this thread, where I confused you with Hard Right (who had called me a hypocrit) and issue an unqualified apology. You did point out my mistake before going on to call me “dumber than dirt” and a “mental midget”. That’s how needless fights start but, since I seem to be the one who got it rolling, I’m the one who needs to call it off and say “I’m sorry!” And I am. To be honest, as I read over post #90, other than mistaking you for someone else, I can’t see where I attacked you personally. Yeah, I hit some of your ideas hard, but that’s what these sites are for (or ought to be). If you can tell me how I gave offense to you personally, I’d appreciate it. In any event, as I said, I’m sorry.
Guess I’ll find another thread, where I haven’t rubbed anyone the wrong way.
AJ HIll, I will still laugh at you thinking that a comment – “AJ Hill’s own erronous avow” – is a structure that escapes your apparently rigid grammatical instructions in life. But then, if you are intending to avoid specific political debate with provided facts, I can see why you’d race for this cover as a distraction.
AJ Hill – proper noun
own – possessive pronoun (yes, they actually have those… i.e. to show “ownership” which is specifically how I used it)
erroneous – adverb to avow
avow – verb
I might also point out that the emphasizing possessive pronoun “own” can be used with a 1st, 2nd or 3rd person .. i.e. My own, his own, her own, their own.
Now if this structure so offends you, I’ll try to keep any future debate commentary with you down to basic nouns and verbs as the bulk… providing I bother to engage at all. Hey… it’s the way I think, speak, so it’s also the way I write. Sue me.
As far as finding another thread or rubbing anyone wrong, frankly, we all have Larry, rich wheeler and Greg here… all who are quite eloquent, civil, and apparently are missing that particular foreign object in a certain orifice when carrying on conversations on this forum. Trust me… you have demonstrated you aren’t far from the bottom of the barrel as worthy participants. But we always hope you will stick around, and improve not only your sources and points of debate, but your civility towards the community.
That said, I find it amazing that you feel the need to get in one more lecture… however “erroneous”… about the use of the English language as a prelude to your so called apology. This, of course, makes me take your apology as not only waaaaaay (yes, deliberately misspelled) late in the game after your initial and ensuing comments to my first – but as a cheap camouflage to the main subject. Meaning, you simply can’t deal with the fiscal facts about wealth, income, wages and burden – so you decide to dash off what you think is a lesson in English composition, and bolt the heart of the issues.
One can call this “defeat”. Or perhaps that would be the sound of “de’feet” scurrying out the saloon doors, avoiding the counters to your political points you attempted to make here. Me? Don’t care. Life’s too short to think I’d miss you… even in cyber life. But frankly, it’d be more fun to see you actually improve upon your presentation and interaction with others for more worthy debate.
AJ Hill, you just have to turn your tongue around your mouth a couple of time before you want to attack people,and stuff your grammar where you want, but not here on the back of our good people,
you’re not our teacher, in this CONSERVATIVE BLOG.
YOU’RE ONLY AN ARROGANT LIBERAL WHO WANT TO BULLY THE OTHER.
JUST CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE, AND BE CIVIL YOURSELF, IF YOU WANT OTHER TO RESPECT YOU.
@AJ Hill: You said:
Huh??
Please provide proof of this claim.
@MataHarley: You said:
ROFLMAO! I so love it when you take ’em to the woodshed!
But c’mon Mata, you KNOW that disagreeing with a progressive IS an ad hominem attack (to them, anyway).
Keep up the good work.
Signed, unapologetically your biggest fan.
How nice to hear that from you, anticsrocks. But then AJ Hill is correct in one aspect. That I described “avow” incorrectly. The sentence structure is correct, and certainly not beyond anyone ,of average intelligence’s, capacity.. However had I been less kind, I would have simply said To back AJ Hill’s lies….
But then, since his focus was to demean communication not measuring up to his stick-in-the-butt snuff, and avoiding the issue at hand, he would have simply pursued the distraction anyway. ‘Tis the usual coward’s way out of debate.
@MataHarley:
Mata, I truly thank you for your post #126, and I apologize for the work/labor involved. I hope that you understand how much I, at the least, appreciate it.
As I told AJ Hill, I don’t really care one bit about the author’s conclusions. It was the graphs and charts that were the interesting part. Thank you again, Mata.
Mata H, you #126 was a treat.
Thanks for all the hard work you do in financial threads.
PS, even though my English grammar is pretty good, I would probably get an ”F” from a nit-picker like at #129.
I agrees with Nan. My english are pretty gud, butt it yoosed to be offal. Thin huked awn fonix wurked fore me!!
@AJ Hill:
Actually I can. However, it does get so very old having to constantly spoon feed back the displayed stupidity and bigotry of unthinking, pseudo-intellectual-leftists like you. Don’t worry, I will use small words in the hope you might understand. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely you will since that would require self introspection. To a leftist that is like a sunlight to vampire. I’ll try anyway.
Simply because you didn’t call anyone a name doesn’t mean you didn’t insult anyone.
I’ll give just ONE example of several: Your opening post.
That isn’t an insult? Really, shove your elitest attitude, impenatrable ignorance, psychological projection, and phony victim status where the sun doesn’t shine. I know when someone is F.O.S. alright, and you are bursting at the seams. BTW, hypocrite describes you exactly. Then again, so does P.O.S.
@MataHarley: Well, I tried to apologize, but since you’ve decided to throw it back in my face and continue your interminable low-brow badinage, I’ll take you on.
Illiteracy – Actually you’re more like semi-literate. Your command of the language is marginal, your knowledge of grammar is laughable, as you continue to demonstrate, and you have a lousy vocabulary. (You’d better look up the word “disingenuous”, before you try to use it again!)
As to the original mistake, your sentence structure was not correct: you used a verb as a noun. That’s wrong, period. Why do I make an issue of it? I’m curious whether you have the intellectual capacity or honesty to admit a blatant and undeniable mistake, or if, like Michelle Bachmann, you’ll continue repeating the same thing over and over in the hope perhaps that it will go away. The answer to that question is becoming clear. It’s a matter of rules., Grammar has ’em, whether you like it or not; and, if you decide to ignore them (or more likely simply don’t know them) you ought to be called to account.
Innumeracy: You actually have your friend, johngalt, to thank for setting you up this way. He evidently doesn’t know any more than you do the pitfalls of judging graphical representations by eye. For example, you claim that the graph of wealth held by the top 1% vs the bottom 99% shows little change over time. You’re dead wrong and the ironic thing about this is that you make an issue of the numerical table of the data that follows. Had you taken a few minutes to examine this, even you might have seen your error. For example from 1929 – the year of the stock market crash – to 1976 – shortly before the Reagan administration began – the percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% fell from 44.2% to 19.9%, that is by 55% of its value or more than half. The percentage of wealth held by the bottom 99% rose by a similar fraction or 45% of its original value.
Going forward, by 2007 – near the end of the Buah fiasco – the percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% rose by 33% (using the same 1929 baseline) or about a third. You may call these changes insignificant, but I’m sure the people involved did not.
By the way, if you think I cherry picked the numbers, you’d be wrong. I picked the dates and the figures happened to be extrema. However, if you calculate ten year averages centered on those dates, you get changes of 38% to 23% (a 40% drop) and then back up to 35% (an increase of about a third).
The thing is, none of this is complicated. It’s just basic arithmetic (and an understanding of what graphs do and don’t show clearly). You’re surely no scientist, or you’d know these things, but it’s so typical of your arrogance that it’s hard not to laugh.
As for you, johngalt, this ought to be an object lesson not to make intellectual judgments based on politics. You rejected the author’s summaries of his data, not because you had any reason to suspect the data, but because his findings are inconvenient for your ideology. Then you asked MatterHardly to check out the graphs for you, because you thought they might support your ideology better. You’re too sensible to make foolish mistakes like that – or you should be.
AJ Hill,
you call others arrogant? that is you, how do you like that,
oops, explain The market CRASYH PLEASE,
AND THE LIBERAL’S LEFT WING YOU CALL SCUMBAGS, EARLYER
THAT WAS MY CORRECTION ON THIS LAST LINE,
WATCH YOUR GRAMMAR
@AJ Hill:
Dood!
You’re making a real azz of yourself… again.
“Avow” can be used as a verb or as a noun. Don’t believe me? Here’s what Webster has to say:
Now, I’m curious whether you have the intellectual capacity or honesty to admit that your attack on Mata based was a blatant and undeniable mistake. Or, will you continue to blather on and on while trying to dismiss your behavior.
We shall see which proves to be true.
AYE,
I was wondering when you would come in,
I bet that you thought you where STILL on ESDRAELON POST,
LET THEM HAVE CAKE,, with this guy crashing in , and breaking the door,
and throwing the chairs at everyone ,
he has done the same here,
bye
@MataHarley: Was that the question I asked? Of course not! I asked about your beliefs, not mine; but evidently you prefer to change the question, rather than give an honest, straightforward answer to the one I asked. It’s a cheap and cowardly copout; but, if that’s your way, okay. I’ll address the other point.
You accuse me of ‘wealth envy’. Cute phrase! Where have I heard it before? Oh, yes: Fox News. I didn’t think you could be original and, sure enough, you can’t!
Hmmm. “Wealth envy” … As a matter of fact, I despise your beliefs, because they’re morally and intellectually bankrupt. As David Sirota puts it, you’re part of the “Me first, screw everybody else!” crowd. I’ll discuss that sometime, but first let’s think about the phrase you’ve chosen to hide behind.
You accuse me of enving the rich, of wanting to take away “their” money. That’s a serious charge. Do you have any proof of it?
No, you don’t.!
What do you know about me?
Not a thing.
For all you know, I could be one of the people that you think I envy. Wouldn’t that be something?
But basically you have no reason at all to suggest that I envy rich people.
You just want to insult me, if you can and this handy little phrase from Fox News was lying around in your … brain?
In other words, your accusation means nothing.
We can skip your 1st Amendment analogy. This has nothing to do with free speech and your analogy, if that’s what it is, stinks.
(It’s a good thing you’re in a sympathetic forum here, but I doubt you dare to go anywhere else. You’d be torn to shreds.)
You say that you support capitalism and free markets. Very well. I assume you’re aware of the way commodities traders today play the markets. Using powerful computers they monitor prices on a millisecond to millisecond basis and make millions of trades every hour – short, long, whatever turns a profit.
And they make millions, tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars a year!
Can you or I or any “average investor” participate in those markets
without millions of dollars of our own to buy the computers, hire the programmers, make the trades ?
Do we have the “same opportunities” that you so blithely blather about?
Not a chance!
You and I and every other regular investor have been shut out of those markets by the super wealthy traders.
But all of us must pay higher prices for commodities due to their manipulations.
Do you call that “equal opportunity” or “the free market”?
If so, you have strange ideas of these things.
That’s just one example of the way that our financial system has been tilted unfairly to enrich the wealthy at the expense of those who already have little enough to get by.
They’re cheating and the studies on wealth and income inequality, salary inequity, and suppressed upward mobility in the United States show how well their cheating works for them and how disastrous it has been for the majority of citizens, whose taxes and labors provide the infrastructure on which the ultra-wealthy depend.
It’s a corrupt and degraded system and your support for it with your naïve and jingoistic bullet points shows how little you know about it.
As I’ve said before, the thing that amazes me is your apparent belief that you might break into that rigged system someday and become one of those “Lords of the Universe.”
How sad and ridiculous !
You’re truly what the old Politburo boys used to call “a useful idiot”.
Are those people “too wealthy”?
If they can use their wealth to tilt the system like that, maybe they are.
Should there be laws against what they do?
Yeah. They’re cheating. And stealing.
Should the money they wring from the pockets of average investors and consumers be “redistributed” back to the middle class?
I think so!
Maybe that shows an important difference between you and me.
You support cheating and stealing and building up vast fortunes with money that should have gone to people who really need it.
I don’t!
But then, I have a mind of my own.
@Aye: Don’t be ridiculous! Those uses are, as Webster’s notes, “obolete”, “archaic” – that is, no longer part of the language.
Besides, MattersHardly claimed that she had used the word “correctly” as a verb!
Pat yourself on the back, if you like, but you’ve done nothing other than make a fool of yourself..
@Greg: Actually, they only get to net a limited amount of their profits and losses, and then get to carry forward or carry back net operating losses (NOL), which may or may not ever be able to be netted. There are limits on how far they can carry back NOL in restating their earnings. If they end up going under, the NOL never gets used.
Sometimes the only incentive a profitable company may have for taking over an unprofitable one is to buy their NOL. The unprofitable company facilities are shutdown and its workforce laid off. But that workforce may have been kept on for a few more months or years as the capital invested get chewed up in the vain hope of turning things around. Venture capital is a very risky game, and there are lots of losers as well as winners. And no government madated insurance like FDIC.
If your model of investment is only companies that succeed, you aren’t looking at most of the picture.
For Greg, Rich, and AJ…let’s say the US government just takes the combined wealth of the top 1%. I read somewhere that this figure is around $7 Trillion. If you have a better figure, please substitute it.
The federal budget is going to be about $5 Trillion with the government predicting just over $2 Trillion in revenues. Since we’re taking all the money from the rich and they contribute well over 50% of revenues, let’s knock that number down to $1 Trillion with a combined total of $8 Trillion. That will give the government a $3 Trillion surplus…for next year. What are you going to do after that?
@AJ Hill:
You do realize that schooling you is getting rather tiring right?
Just because something is considered archaic or obsolete doesn’t make it invalid.
That was an apology? You seriously need to work on your social skills.
Actually, if you read @my comment #134 to anticsrocks, I pointed out two things.. that I parsed incorrectly, however the sentence is structured correctly. As I said, instead of being kind to you.. of which you have repeatedly shown you deserve no quarter of civility.. I should have just cut to the chase and said “To back AJ Hill’s lies” instead of “To back AJ Hill’s erroneous avow”. We’ll all have to remember to address you in simple elementary sentences, perhaps peppered with plenty of four letter words, to function at your distract/assail/Alinsky debate style.
As even a prof of your political ilk provides in the graphs I reproduced above, the amount of “wealth” held by the top 1% has not changed significantly since the 1920s. When one factors in population growth over that time, clearly more have availed themselves of opportunities.
Since 1983, also according to the MoveOn.org/Soros data and graphs provided above, that vague defined “middle class” – if you assume they aren’t the top 1% – have actually improved both their wealth and net worth since 1983. This pretty much wipes out your, and CSApseudoinvestor’s, chicken little cries about historic wealth disparities.
As I said, only cowards with no factual substance play the distraction game in order to avoid admitting they are incorrect. So what was that you were saying about having ” the intellectual capacity or honesty to admit a blatant and undeniable mistake” again?
You asked why any of us would support those evil wealthy to, in theory, our financial detriment. When I responded that it was the same principle as protecting free speech with which I disagree, you say below:
You talk a good game about command of the English language, AJ Hill. But that short paragraph excerpt alone… leaving out your usual attempt to demonize any who dare to disagree with you… indicates you miss the point of any analogy. That being the similarities of me supporting speech I find offensive is parallel to me supporting another’s ability to attain wealth as their personal goal, without socialist parasites, like you, absconding it to appease your self perceived smug moral superiority.
When you decide you will penalize those you consider too wealthy, you also penalize anyone who succeeds financially in the future. It’s one of those “First they came for the Communists…” Martin Niemöller moments.
Your diatribe in #143 does nothing to address the issue at hand… which was the “poor” pay “more than their fair share” in sundry taxes. This has been debunked quite handily by data provided by your left political peer at Santa Cruz. Your response to this has been to misrepresent my correction of your blanket application of the $106,800 cap of FICA tax, issue an “apology” after the bulk of your “apology” was nothing more than a condescending and irrelevant lecture, and then run off at the cyber keyboard mouth about how the wealthy have an advantage because they can afford faster computer technology.
?????
Well cry me a river, guy. And you wonder why it’s easy to see you have wealth envy? Instead of attempting to rob it from others, using the central government and nanny socialist policy as your weapon, why don’t you get off your lazy butt and make your own? Then if you attain any wealth that suits your desires, you can either gift the IRS with the taxes you think they should mandate, or perhaps set up an honest charity where the majority actually goes to those in need, instead of the management/overhead.
You have summed yourself up as the hypocrite and social sponge you are with the below:
First, I’d like to again point out the reality that not only are “middle class” those evil investors, but so are some of the lower income bracket earners. As I pointed out, wage compensation has morphed with the increased use of both ability to purchase corporate shares at a lower employee price, as well as the 401Ks… none of which are accommodated for in these wage studies.
Redistribution of wealth… which you freely admit you support… is stealing. You justify it as legal because it is a central government that is doing the theft. Then you have the chutzpah to accuse me of “cheating and stealing”?
I might also point out that you’re an alpha class warfare snob when you say that it’s specifically “the middle class” you speak of when railing about “building up vast fortunes with money that should have gone to people who really need it.” It’s not the middle class that I worry especially about.
Charitable leg ups…. not to be confused with government mandates… are most worthy of going to those who haven’t made “middle class” status, but at least make the attempt for improvement and self responsibility.
We all have minds of our own here, AJ Hill. Why you think your Marxist beliefs make you so unique is humorous at best. You are so wrapped up in your own – again erroneous – moral superiority that you become blind to the blatant unfairness and danger of legitimate theft and a powerful central government who decides what is “fair”.
But then, that goes back to that 1st Amendment analogy that slid not only over your head, but whistled thru one ear to the other, unobstructed by any particular grey matter inbetween.
MATA that’s a big WOW,
if AJ Hill is still alive after that, HIS life won’t be worth much with the CONSERVATIVES,
HE HAD so much pleasure to try to diminish.
you gave him a real massive MATA punch
bye
@MataHarley:
Mata, I owe you an apology here. I made a request for you to look at something and comment on it. I didn’t realize, however, that Mr./Ms. Hill would be so obtuse about it, although I should have guessed.
I am sure, though, that the rest of us here at FA appreciate the effort that went into your post #126. I know I do. So, thanks for that, and I apologize for that effort opening you up more to the insults and general stupidity directed your way.
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.