Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Djshakes
Participant[quote=briansd1]
UCGal, I’ve encountered the same situations many times, all from Republicans.Right wingers like to say “throw the bums out” and “new boss same as old boss” but that only applies to Democrats.
Progressives are much more nuanced in their approach to politics and less prone to one liners.[/quote]
Troll troll troll your boat….
I swear, whenever this guy speaks you have to wonder if he really thinks this way or is he trolling to get a rise out of people.
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,
Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?
Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.
On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.
I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]
Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.
If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.
By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.
Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.
The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.
But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,
Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?
Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.
On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.
I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]
Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.
If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.
By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.
Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.
The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.
But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,
Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?
Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.
On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.
I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]
Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.
If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.
By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.
Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.
The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.
But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,
Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?
Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.
On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.
I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]
Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.
If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.
By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.
Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.
The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.
But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell
Participant[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,
Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?
Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.
On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.
I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]
Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.
If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.
By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.
Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.
The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.
But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell
ParticipantAre you a union boss/marketing rep?
ParticipantAre you a union boss/marketing rep?
ParticipantAre you a union boss/marketing rep?
ParticipantAre you a union boss/marketing rep?
ParticipantAre you a union boss/marketing rep?
Participant[quote=gandalf]All the ‘Obamacare Socialism’ crap is ridiculous.
The Health Insurance Industry sucks.
Stop defending the status quo.[/quote]
When have I defended the health insurance industry? I don’t work for the health insurance industry, I work for a hospital system. I agree, health insurance needs reform…not the entire health care industry.Participant[quote=gandalf]All the ‘Obamacare Socialism’ crap is ridiculous.
The Health Insurance Industry sucks.
Stop defending the status quo.[/quote]
When have I defended the health insurance industry? I don’t work for the health insurance industry, I work for a hospital system. I agree, health insurance needs reform…not the entire health care industry.Participant[quote=gandalf]All the ‘Obamacare Socialism’ crap is ridiculous.
The Health Insurance Industry sucks.
Stop defending the status quo.[/quote]
When have I defended the health insurance industry? I don’t work for the health insurance industry, I work for a hospital system. I agree, health insurance needs reform…not the entire health care industry. -
AuthorPosts
