On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
Has the increase in non-wage compensation made up for that? If you are just looking at wages you are ignoring the greater role benefits like health insurance have taken in worker compensation. I don't know what data you are going off of so I don't know if that has been taken into account with your statement or not.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
Has the increase in non-wage compensation made up for that? If you are just looking at wages you are ignoring the greater role benefits like health insurance have taken in worker compensation. I don't know what data you are going off of so I don't know if that has been taken into account with your statement or not.
Do you have any thoughts on or analysis of this phenomenon? I would be interested to hear.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.
How do you figure?
The idea of wages being regulated, to such a degree that productivity would be directly tied to a person's worth, is surely a Socialist idea.
Part of the allure and driving force of Capitalism is that your time can become worth more than others, based on whatever skills, talents or ideas you provide. It's sometimes fair, sometimes not, and while it does encourage people to come up with better ideas, products and services, it certainly isn't fair when it comes to the simple matter of productivity leading to a "bigger slice of the pie". Some of the hardest working people in a Capitalist society will be paid the worst, because the skills they provide are simply more easily replaced and less valued.
Arguing for the merits of Capitalism as a driving force for a good economy is well warranted. When people talk about Capitalism as if it's perfectly fair in terms of productivity -- that's just missing the mark. We need consumer protection and worker protection in spite of Capitalism.
On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.
Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently.
Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you.
Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math
I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate.
Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?
It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.
Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.
Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?
I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?
Guess we can't vote for either then...
Oh, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy ... which is why I'm actually not sure.
Is principle and ideology enough to qualify for president?
Obama's current plans are more detailed than Romney explicit admission he has no plans.
But I don't fault the media as much as I fault Obama's campaign and advisors. There's more than enough tape of Romney and his ability to control a debate and shift positions. And Obama can defend his policy -- in a drawn out conversation or monologue. He should have been far better prepared to defend his own policy and his team should have anticipated the kind of criticism that Romney levelled.
Romney is not 'quick witted'. Great salemanship is a product of rehearsal and practice. Him and his team did their homework. Obama and his team fell asleep at the wheel.
On October 05 2012 09:27 Defacer wrote: xDaunt, I agree the media has been easy on Obama.
But I don't fault the media as much as I fault Obama's campaign and advisors. There's more than enough tape of Romney and his ability to control a debate and shift positions. And Obama can defend his policy -- in a drawn out conversation or monologue. He should have been far better prepared to defend his own policy and his team should have anticipated the kind of criticism that Romney levelled.
Romney is not 'quick witted'. Great salemanship is a product of rehearsal and practice. Him and his team did their homework. Obama and his team fell asleep at the wheel.
Obama and his campaign may be seeing themselves as driving a very different sort of car than that of Romney. Granted, not one that can go driverless.
And I just have to vent -- after that debate, to hell with Obama. I honestly don't care anymore. If the man cared like I care and like his supporters care, he'd say some things. He'd take offense at Mitt's blatant double-talk. He'd get mad, as anyone does when they're confronted with something they perceive as false. I'm tired of "fact-checking" being some afterthought. Taking your opponent to task for being misleading or for not being consistent in his positions is part of your job as a presidential candidate. You don't have to be mean about it -- and we all know Obama is great at playing nice -- but what I saw yesterday was someone without conviction.
Complacency is the last thing I wanted to see from Obama, and that's all I got. For once, I understand people who don't vote. I still want Obama to win over Romney, but, at this point, meh.
The dog and pony show that is our elections has so much money invested in it (thanks Supreme Court, for turning our Republic into an auction), that I honestly don't wonder if there isn't some degree of collusion on Obama's part to keep this contest from being a non-event. So now the GOP can enjoy some rhetorical victory, gain some imaginary numbers, and things are "interesting" again. But I can't remember being less interested.
Maybe this was his PR peoples' idea, to be a doormat. But PR people are idiots. Obama needs to show some conviction next debate, or I'm going entirely Green Party.
edit: Not to say the election doesn't matter. It matters greatly, and I want Obama to win simply because this Republican Supreme Court has been a complete nightmare. With "Citizens United" and "Bush v. Gore", both 5-4 partisan decisions with immeasurable consequences, the Supreme Court has actually had a lot of control over the elections themselves. It's so... fucked. Okay, no more ranting.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
Has the increase in non-wage compensation made up for that? If you are just looking at wages you are ignoring the greater role benefits like health insurance have taken in worker compensation. I don't know what data you are going off of so I don't know if that has been taken into account with your statement or not.
Do you have any thoughts on or analysis of this phenomenon? I would be interested to hear.
I'm more or less speaking from my own general knowledge, but I found this NBER working paper on the interwebs.
Two principal measurement mistakes have led some analysts to conclude that the rise in labor income has not kept up with the growth in productivity. The first of these is a focus on wages rather than total compensation. Because of the rise in fringe benefits and other noncash payments, wages have not risen as rapidly as total compensation. It is important therefore to compare the productivity rise with the increase of total compensation rather than with the increase of the narrower measure of just wages and salaries.
On October 05 2012 09:35 Leporello wrote: And I just have to vent -- after that debate, to hell with Obama. I honestly don't care anymore. If the man cared like I care and like his supporters care, he'd say some things. He'd take offense at Mitt's blatant double-talk. He'd get mad, as anyone does when they're confronted with something they perceive as false. I'm tired of "fact-checking" being some afterthought. Taking your opponent to task for being misleading or for not being consistent in his positions is part of your job as a presidential candidate. You don't have to be mean about it -- and we all know Obama is great at playing nice -- but what I saw yesterday was someone without conviction.
Complacency is the last thing I wanted to see from Obama, and that's all I got. For once, I understand people who don't vote. I still want Obama to win over Romney, but, at this point, meh.
The dog and pony show that is our elections has so much money invested in it (thanks Supreme Court, for turning our Republic into an auction), that I honestly don't wonder if there isn't some degree of collusion on Obama's part to keep this contest from being a non-event. So now the GOP can enjoy some rhetorical victory, gain some imaginary numbers, and things are "interesting" again. But I can't remember being less interested.
Maybe this was his PR peoples' idea, to be a doormat. But PR people are idiots. Obama needs to show some conviction next debate, or I'm going entirely Green Party.
I noticed the same thing, and what infuriates me is how many people will simply vote for someone because of the party they are under without knowing exactly where they stand or how much they care. I thought he handled himself like an ass, and come to think of it, couple years pass and I still don't know where he stands. I dont care for either candidate but it seems like the less people know about that person, the more likely they are to vote for them :/ imo this country is just screwing itself over with dumb asses, its not even worth giving a shit
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
The one I linked wasn't for Romney though.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.
How do you figure?
labor product = worker wage.
His idea of communism probably involves equal redistribution of all wealth
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked. Especially if Obama keeps being timid, he's intellectually superior and holds a better plan, he just needs to drive it home : D I feel like the next debate you'll see a bit more vigor and fire.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
It is actually kind of funny that tackling just the deficit is such a huge deal when we pay so much on debt as it is. And we are paying minimally on debt because the government is keeping interest rates so low.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
Why not use any contemporary analogies? Is the existence social democracy some massive conspiracy and actually Europe doesn't exist at all or something? Besides, median real wages in the U.S. have remained stagnant for decades, while the richer have got richer. Productivity has increased, as have profits, but wages have not. There IS more pie, and ALL of the excess is going to the rich. The rich are taking the whole pie.
The most productive people get the biggest piece of the pie.
That is actually more of a Socialist/Communist ideal than a Capitalist one.
How do you figure?
labor product = worker wage.
His idea of communism probably involves equal redistribution of all wealth
On October 05 2012 07:13 Silidons wrote: Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhV9aZOqmz8
I think blacks are starting to wake up check out this new ad for Romney not everyone is fooled by Samuel L Jackson and blind celebrities.
I know this one was against yours because not everyone is tarded and listens to Samuel L Jackson
nope not everyone is tarded but if you're going to use a derogatory term to insult someone at least add the extra 2 letters in front.
Samuel L. Jackson's video had a pretty concrete point, if you're broke or middle class you're about to get fucked. Especially if Obama keeps being timid, he's intellectually superior and holds a better plan, he just needs to drive it home : D I feel like the next debate you'll see a bit more vigor and fire.
Your defiantly about to get fucked when all the new taxes come into law at the beginning of the year. Jackson's point was one made in ignorance and he knows it. Obama is NOT intellectually superior and his plan is crap there is a reason his budgets have gotten 0 votes. Please your saying the community organizer who needs a teleprompter to speak properly is smarter than the multimillionaire multi successful business owner. I'll give Obama he is smart but to compare the two I don't think its close.
EPT
