2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Toymann;421166]Simple answer dude. Is the state you live in running a defecit or surplus. Guesing it's a deficit! WOW. What a surprise! You mean the "free lunch" isn't pruning the trees. Nothing comes for free dude. Suggest you elect state officials that start running your state like a business. You only get what you can afford in this world. The piper always needs to be paid. Stop whining and start becoming part of the solution. My state ran a 450 million dollar surplus this year and "SURPRISE", all the trees are pruned and we have killer social services for the poor, drug addicted, handycapped, etc (and guese what. NO STATE INCOME TAXES). First ya have to make the money and THEN YOU GET TO SPEND IT. This is a concept that liberals will just sadly never understand. Such a shame really. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Would you be so kind to let us know what state you live in, so I could move there. Sounds so blissful and perfect. So I can qualify for welfare without having to prune any trees, right? I have an itch that I and the doctors cannot cure. Bangkok is getting so tiresome. It is full of prostitutes, and corrrupt policemen. And it is so hot and humid, and you can't get away from the mosquitoes.

Now that is a novel idea. Start running government like a business. Prune jobs, perks and fat when the money isn't there. Like the private sector has always done.

Dealing with government agencies is an 'out of this world experience'. Incompetent, lazy to the bone employees who think they are entitled to their jobs. Regardless of how inefficient they are. These employees actually think we are working for them.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 421169]Now that is a novel idea. Start running government like a business. Prune jobs, perks and fat when the money isn't there. Like the private sector has always done.

Dealing with government agencies is an 'out of this world experience'. Incompetent, lazy to the bone employees who think they are entitled to their jobs. Regardless of how inefficient they are. These employees actually think we are working for them.[/QUOTE]Politics are NOT my strong point!

I live in BA so who cares?

Please sell me on one of the candidates!

I believe that the garden can't be fixed in a 4 year term; but who ruined it, the previous gardner or the latest?

Is the current fixing the other?

Or is he making waves?

Man I don't know my left from my right or center!

Only while playing football

So who is the lesser of the evils?

TL.

P. S- I much rather brag about PUSSY!

[QUOTE=Esten;421160]Don't feel sorry for the top few % who pay most of the taxes. They also make most of all income and accumulate most of all wealth. In fact this is the only group who has seen their wealth grow significantly in recent decades. Everybody else has eaked out meager gains, is flat, or has lost ground. Your cherished free-market capitalism is increasingly benefitting only a small group. How did you get suckered into sympathizing for them?[/QUOTE]Wrong again, as usual.

In fact, since WWII, it's been the middle class in America that has made most of the income and "accumulated most of all wealth."

In the aggregate, America's middle class earns far more income and holds far more wealth than the top 1.

It's a simple fact related to the sheer number of people in the middle class: 150 million middle class citizens vs 3 million one "percent" citizens.

Do the math.

Of course, the facts have never stopped liberals from using this line to stoke class envy among the country's losers who are pre-disposed to believe that their own personal failures are somebody elses fault.

In any event, the entire premise of the "zero sum" argument that anyone's financial gain comes at the expense of everybody else is BS, which may be illustrated by one simple question: Bill Gates created software which improved the productivity of the entire world, thus benefiting every single person on the planet, and along the way he made for himself a personal fortune of more than $50 billion dollars. The question is: Are [u]you[/u] or anyone else on the planet any poorer because Bill Gates created this $50 billion in wealth for himself?

Of course the answer is "no", but that won't stop the country's losers from looking enviously at Bill Gate's fortune and think to themselves [i]"If I vote for the democrat liberals, they'll use the government's taxing authority to take the money from Bill Gates and give it to me".[/i]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre; 421170]Politics are NOT my strong point!

I live in BA so who cares?

Please sell me on one of the candidates!

I believe that the garden can't be fixed in a 4 year term; but who ruined it, the previous gardner or the latest?

Is the current fixing the other?

Or is he making waves?

Man I don't know my left from my right or center!

Only while playing football

So who is the lesser of the evils?

TL.

P. S- I much rather brag about PUSSY![/QUOTE]Presenting the profile of the typical Democrat voter.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;421168]Would you be so kind to let us know what state you live in, so I could move there.[/QUOTE]Ok dude. Google states with surpluses in 2011. But here are a few hints. No state income tax. Most republican state in the US. 88% voted against Obamanation in the last election. Wide open spaces and beautiful mountains. That should get you there. Sadly, based on your posts you might find that "your point of view might not be highly regarded". We have fast food chains but raising solid children and family is definitely high on the important list. One final clue. Hunting, fishing, golf, skiing, outdoor activities, etc. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;421173]Ok dude. Google states with surpluses in 2011. But here are a few hints. No state income tax. Most republican state in the US. 88% voted against Obamanation in the last election. Wide open spaces and beautiful mountains. That should get you there. Sadly, based on your posts you might find that "your point of view might not be highly regarded". We have fast food chains but raising solid children and family is definitely high on the important list. One final clue. Hunting, fishing, golf, skiing, outdoor activities, etc. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Thank you for your kind invitation to live in paradise. By the way, do you have your longjohns on? Yes, my viewpoints would be met with blank stares or even a snarl or two. Do they know what globalization is? I went to school in Nebraska, so I am familiar with the territory and the mindset. And yes, Santorum, I mean Custer's last stand was in the same vicinity.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;421174]And yes, Santorum, I mean Custer's last stand was in the same vicinity.[/QUOTE]Yes in the vicinity, in fact right next door. In fact, the first time elected democrat governor of the state next door took a 300 plus million dollar surplus 3 years ago, used it all up, and ran a north of 100 million dollar deficit in 2011. He's walking dead in November for sure. The great experiment is over in the GREAT state next door! As I always say,"never give the keys to bus to a democrat, they end up off the road in the ditch everytime"! Glad to hear you went to school in nebraska, somebody's got to go there. GO GAMECOCKS! LOL! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I'll acknowledge one correction. I should not have referred to "all income", but rather "income growth". Yes, adding 100M+ small / medium incomes will likely outweigh a few million high incomes. Although when you have one guy like John Paulson making $5 Billion, equivalent to 100,000 workers making 50K, it makes you wonder.

[QUOTE=Jackson;421171]In fact, since WWII, it's been the middle class in America that has made most of the income and "accumulated most of all wealth."[/QUOTE]A great place to start. Notice I referred to recent decades, but Jackson goes back to WWII. Most of the gains of the middle class came during the 1940s-1970s. When - coincidentally - tax rates on top earners were [u]far[/u] higher than they are today. We don't remember this period as a time when the rich were punished. We remember it as a time when the middle class grew and prospered. Which demonstrates how ridiculously absurd the rhetoric is from Republicans today, claiming that raising taxes on top earners enjoying historically low tax rates amounts to punishment.

[QUOTE]In the aggregate, America's middle class earns far more income and holds far more wealth than the top 1.

It's a simple fact related to the sheer number of people in the middle class: 150 million middle class citizens vs 3 million one "percent" citizens.

Do the math.[/QUOTE]Aggregate amounts don't tell the whole story. Look at the data, for income growth and wealth accumulation:

Income for the top 1% has soared over last three decades
[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/income-for-the-top-1-has-soared-over-past-three-decades.html[/url]

How the rich became the über rich
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/22/news/economy/income_inequality/index.htm[/url]

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of the America's Gains
[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/16/the-top-5-grabbed-most-of-the-americas-gains/[/url]

The top 1% of households saw their after-tax household income grow by 275% from 1979 to 2007, according to the CBO. Meanwhile, income for the 60% of households that make up the middle of the income scale increased by slightly less than 40%. The poor -- the 20% of the population with the lowest income -- saw just an 18% increase. Also, more than 80% of the nation's wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The share of wealth held by the bottom 60% dropped 7.5%. I've posted such stats before, but conservatives tend to ignore such data. When you grow the pie and a majority only gets a few crumbs, that's hard to defend. A lot easier to just ignore.

You better believe that anytime more of the pie is given to a few, less of the pie is available to the many. There are abundant examples, to even question this is absurd.

[QUOTE]Of course, the facts have never stopped liberals from using this line to stoke class envy among the country's losers who are pre-disposed to believe that their own personal failures are somebody elses fault.[/QUOTE]And once again, without fail, conservatives whip out their divisive and unfactual rhetoric. I guess here the rich are 'winners' and everyone else are 'losers'. LOL!

One more time: It's not about envy. It's not about demonizing anyone. It's about people, rich and poor, simply taking a hard look at how free market capitalism is today distributing the prosperity it creates. And deciding, that the trends occuring are not acceptable, that as a society we can do better.

I am voting for him. He sounds like what us Democrats want."The Working Mans Hero".

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;421180]I am voting for him. He sounds like what us Democrats want."The Working Mans Hero".[/QUOTE]Yes, Romney's deep understanding of business will help us all:

[QUOTE]If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!!!

[QUOTE=Miami Bob;421163]The actual class war fare has been the top 1% vs the other 99. The top 5% have made progress since the time of reagan, but nothing compared to the massive redistribution of wealth and income to the top one. Take a look at some of the other charts. Yes, there are individuals who have done well, but the charts and statistics deal with the nation as a whole.[/QUOTE]This is the upward wealth redistribution that Republicans are fighting to protect and expand. Scary isn't it?

[QUOTE]It is supply side economics that has done this: what is best for the most wealthy is best for the USA-the benefits will trickle-down to the middle class. Guess what, it hasn't tricked down past the top 10% at all and the top 1% have received almost all of the gain. This is factual, not ideology.[/QUOTE]Bob, I am glad you see this. Republicans defend trickle-down by arguing "I never got hired by a poor person". Just another example of simpleton right-wing messaging. They fail to realize that helping the rich get richer is no guarantee they will create more jobs. In fact as you point out, the data shows that trickle-down has been a grand ruse.

I wish these advocates of wealth distribution would spend as much time focusing on improving the economy as they do on their birdbrain obsession with wealth distribution. The greatest obstacle to improving the well being of Americans is a lousy economy, not the lack of a 95% tax bracket.

The sad fact is, these amantes of wealth distribution dream of an economy like Cuba. 99. 99% of us would live in poverty while the other 0. 01% would have access to all the country's wealth. I can imagine who our wealth distribution comrades envision as being a part of that 0. 01%. Maybe themselves.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 421124]This idea that those who work hard, have ability and accumulate wealth are evil and should be demonized is interesting.

If you want to see concentration of wealth look at the sports world. Tens of million of people play sports at some level. Little league baseball, junior high basketball, girls soccer. However. 99. 9999999% of the wealth in sports is concentrated in the hands of about 1000 professional athletes. Nobody asks these athletes to share their wealth with the 99. 9999999% of athletes who don't have their talent, their work ethics or their genetics.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of people with limited success also have limited ability. These people are the equivalent of 3 foot tall basketball players. 95 pound pound football players or 400 pound sprinters. We do not punish or condemn successful athletes and we should not punish or condemn successful people.[/QUOTE]I wanted to get back to this great post while it's still recent. Great because it shows just how strong ideology can trump critical thinking. The idea of those with talent and ambition getting ahead is a universal concept. It applies in sports, and in the broader labor market. But that's about all that's similar.

Nobody expects those at the top in sports to share anything with those who didn't reach the top, [u]because the latter have nothing to do with the top group's success[/u]. That kid shooting hoops in Harlem has nothing to do with Michael Jordan's success.

But in the broader labor market and economy, the income of top earners is almost always dependent on the productivity of many workers below them. Both groups depend on each other. Unlike the sports analogy, it is absolutely expected that the wealth be shared. And also, absolutely fair to question whether the wealth is shared in a fair manner.

So the sports analogy is pretty much a dud, but nice try.

[QUOTE=Jackson;421171]In any event, the entire premise of the "zero sum" argument that anyone's financial gain comes at the expense of everybody else is BS, which may be illustrated by one simple question: Bill Gates created software which improved the productivity of the entire world, thus benefiting every single person on the planet, and along the way he made for himself a personal fortune of more than $50 billion dollars. The question is: Are [u]you[/u] or anyone else on the planet any poorer because Bill Gates created this $50 billion in wealth for himself?[/QUOTE]Jackson,

It appears you would have us believe that capitalism is mainly about creating wealth. And not about [u]shifting[/u] wealth. Because when wealth is shifted from one individual or group to another, such as happens with competition for market share, or when workers are laid off because their jobs were automated, one's financial gain [i]is[/i] another's financial loss. Is it your contention that this does not happen in capitalism?