Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 16, 2017

When asked during the Miss USA pageant Sunday whether affordable health care is a right or a privilege, Miss District of Columbia Kara McCullough replied, "I'm definitely going to say it's a privilege." After winning the pageant that night, McCullough has changed her answer. She said on Good Morning America, "I am privileged to have health care and I do believe that it should be a right. I hope and pray moving forward that health care is a right for all worldwide. I just want people to see where I was coming from. Having a job, I have to look at health care like it is a privilege."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I don't know if I would have called it a privilege, but it's certainly not a right.

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-16 04:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I don't know if I would have called it a privilege, but it's certainly not a right.

#1 | Posted by boaz

I wonder how you would feel if your government supplied health care was taken away.

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-05-16 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"but it's certainly not a right."

It is for prisoners, thanks to the Eighth Amendment.
Why did the Founders give prisoners a right that free men don't have?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-16 04:50 PM | Reply

3

the founders gave prisoners healthcare and called it a right?

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 04:53 PM | Reply

I don't know if I would have called it a privilege, but it's certainly not a right.

#1 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-05-16 04:12 PM | FLAG:

If you are a "true" follower of the teachings of Christ, the above sentence would make you the epitome of hypocrisy.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"but it's certainly not a right."
It is for prisoners, thanks to the Eighth Amendment.
Why did the Founders give prisoners a right that free men don't have?

#3 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-05-16 04:50 PM | FLAG:

In Louisiana, they exonerate those with terminal illness and send them home to their families to get out of paying for such as cancer treatment.

#6 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 06:35 PM | Reply

No one should be upset by a beauty contestant spouting idiocy.

We should be upset that the republican party is as dumb as a beauty contestant.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We should be upset that the republican party is as dumb as a beauty contestant.

#7 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Ohhh just run that sweet sweet footage of the RNC convention in your head.

But imagine everyone is in a bikini...

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 08:31 PM | Reply

"I wonder how you would feel if your government supplied health care was taken away."

I don't know about Boaz, but I would hem and haw and handwring. And shout. And protest. And demand that someone else give me cost-free healthcare.

But I sure as ---- wouldn't do anything to try and get it for myself. Healthcare should be a right. Someone owe's me that ----.

#9 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 08:40 PM | Reply

"We should be upset that the republican party is as dumb as a beauty contestant."

No, we should be upset that a beauty pageant is as dumb as the Republican Party.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 08:41 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"No one should be upset by a beauty contestant spouting idiocy."

She's a chemist for the Nuclear regulatory Commission.

Remind us what you do for a living? if anything?

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 08:42 PM | Reply

Or do you count voting for the person who's going to give you the most free stuff "doing something for a living?"

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 08:43 PM | Reply

"But I sure as ---- wouldn't do anything to try and get it for myself. Healthcare should be a right. Someone owe's me that ----."

Yeah, and you should protect yourself from marauders too. What a fool. folks like you sometimes are hit with medical problems that push people into bankruptcy, don't think it can't happen. I've witnessed wealthy people financially destroyed and you make stupid comments like that. Do you even talk that way to your mother? Disgusting. Where is your humanity? Oh, that's right, you don't have any.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Healthcare is not a right. To be a right you would have to enslave some to pay for others. Everyone does have the right to pursue healthcare by paying someone to provide it for you. And we all know what that requires. The availability of a job and willingness to work and direct your money to healthcare instead of the latest I-Phone, videogame, or unlimited cable TV.

#14 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-05-16 08:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

She's a chemist for the Nuclear regulatory Commission.

So she's got book smarts. But lacks common sense.

It's pretty common.

Or do you count voting for the person who's going to give you the most free stuff "doing something for a living?"

What's wrong with providing people with healthcare?

Your hatred for your fellow Americans is disgusting.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 08:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

To be a right you would have to enslave some to pay for others.

Or. You know. You do what the rest of the civilized world does.

Reallocate how taxes are used. Maybe spend less on the defense budget. And stop paying for Melania to live in New York.

Raise taxes on the rich. You know. Those people who can afford to have their taxes raised.

Why are Republicans so stupid? Enslave someone? Is that how Canada does it?

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 08:50 PM | Reply

You Communists want poor billionaires to have to not buy a new jet every year. That's just angry. Why do you hate people for being successful? Poor billionaires force to fly around in a 2 year old jet, it's just so sad.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 08:54 PM | Reply

"Yeah, and you should protect yourself from marauders too."

If you can't thrive on your own in what is literally the easiest country in the world to survive on your own, you're probably not much of a threat to those that can.

"What a fool. folks like you sometimes are hit with medical problems that push people into bankruptcy, don't think it can't happen."

OK...And? is bankruptcy worse than death? I wouldn't think so in most cases. But if you do, then you always have the choice to die.

"I've witnessed wealthy people financially destroyed and you make stupid comments like that. Do you even talk that way to your mother?"

My mother? Actually, I gave the eulogy at her memorial this last Saturday. She died of pancreatic cancer back in December. She had millions available to devote to cancer treatment, but chose not to spend them money, as the standard of living wouldn't be all that great, and that money could be better directed towards other things. Her choice. Which kinda illustrates why she was probably worth saving, while most certainly wouldn't be. But money is always easier to spend when someone else has earned it.

Out of all the people I disagree with on this site, you're the one who scares me the most. You're the one who would most quickly speak out in defense of totalitarian violence and oppression, so long as it resulted in an outcome you supported or supported your beliefs. You're unique in that respect. I don't think there are many like you left in the world.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 08:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

If we raise taxes on the rich to pay for health care for everyone how are we going to raise taxes on them to pay for free college?

#19 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-05-16 08:58 PM | Reply

"So she's got book smarts. But lacks common sense."

Since you didn't say what you do for a living I can only guess you have neither.

"What's wrong with providing people with healthcare?"

What's wrong with people doing something in return for provided healthcare?

"Raise taxes on the rich. You know. Those people who can afford to have their taxes raised."

Raise taxes and they no longer have the incentive to do the things that make them rich. Or do you think they gre up looking forward to supporting people like you?

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 09:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"If we raise taxes on the rich to pay for health care for everyone how are we going to raise taxes on them to pay for free college?"

Simple. You create an organization that confiscates their assets in the name of state security, while forcing them to continue doing those things that create wealth.

How do you think the Soviet Union was able to persevere for so long?

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You're the one who would most quickly speak out in defense of totalitarian violence and oppression, so long as it resulted in an outcome you supported or supported your beliefs."

Actually, I'm the one that has argued many times why we need to avoid, at all costs, depression, because that is when violent actions are likely to happen. I have been, perhaps, the most ardent supporter of non-violent protest because my Mother taught me about the Great Depression of 1929. She taught me about how families starved, about how it led to war, about the millions of deaths that resulted from it. I have opposed wars my entire life, I've never supported any violent overthrow of a government but I have also always supported people like Mandela and Rev. Martin Luther King. They were accused of supporting violence but it was never true. Totalitarian violence and oppression? Really, sorry Mad, but you are mad.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 09:05 PM | Reply

I often wonder why a 5 year old with leukemia isn't out there making big bucks to secure himself some health care.

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-05-16 09:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"How do you think the Soviet Union was able to persevere for so long?"

Intellectual dishonesty. You pretend that the FDR New Deal is somehow equivalent to Stalin's Communism. Sorry Mad, that's historically wrong and just plain stupid. I want an FDR Democratic Party, that isn't Communism, in fact, many historians will tell you FDR saved capitalism with the New Deal.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Only in America is giving a Tylenol to a child with a headache a partisan issue.

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-05-16 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What's wrong with providing people with healthcare"
Clownshak

Nothing. And the fact that we trade it on the market like oil is even more disgusting. This is where I part with the party lines. Mary Landrieu lost me years ago when she voted to stop the elderly and poor from getting their drugs from Canada. Never supported her again. I'm done with the party lines. Health isnt a commodity. And I'm in no way accusing you of saying it is. Just where I'm at.

#26 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 09:11 PM | Reply

"No one should be upset by a beauty contestant spouting idiocy."

She's a chemist for the Nuclear regulatory Commission.

#11 | Posted by madbomber

Yeah and ben carson is a brain surgeon. But he still thinks the pyramids are hollow. You can be an expert in your field but a moron about politics, history, economic, or anything else.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

If we raise taxes on the rich to pay for health care for everyone how are we going to raise taxes on them to pay for free college?

I refer you back to #16.

Reallocate how taxes are spent. Increase taxes collected.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 09:15 PM | Reply

"Yeah and ben carson is a brain surgeon. But he still thinks the pyramids are hollow"
Speaksoftly

And let's not forget that Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids are grain silos. Med school is lacking in areas.

#29 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 09:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Raise taxes and they no longer have the incentive to do the things that make them rich. Or do you think they gre up looking forward to supporting people like you?

#20 | Posted by madbomber

Yeah dummy. Those greedbags will start a business and hire employees if they can pay themselves 5 million a year, but if we tax them so much that they only get to take home 2 million, they're just going to quit and go on welfare, is that what you think? High taxes on the .01 percent is going to make them all decide to do NOTHING instead?
"If I can't make 100 million dollars then it's not worth it! You can't do ANYTHING with only $50 millions dollars!"

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 09:16 PM | Reply

I know I bring up my Mother, and actually we always called her "Mother." But she honestly did affect my thinking about politics more than any other person in my life. Probably one of the smartest people I have ever known, who grew up in the Great Depression, married a flyer during WWII, became a Navy wife for 30 years and raised 7 kids moving from place to place every 2 years. Dad was gone a lot at sea so we spent many hours talking about the news, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc. and she really had a better understanding of world events than anyone else I knew. Probably because our house was always scattered with Time Magazine and other publications, she had a real need to know. My Dad was a strong, sort of macho guy, but Mother convinced him to vote for Kennedy in 1960, he was a military guy and was going to go with Nixon, but she convinced him. This past Mother's day I thought of her and remembered what an intelligent human being she was and how proud I am to be her daughter. If only she could have lived long enough to meet her grandchildren who she wanted so badly, her first arrived less than a year after her death. I wish she were here with me discussing Trump and everything else political because she would love blogging.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 09:17 PM | Reply

"Actually, I'm the one that has argued many times why we need to avoid, at all costs, depression, because that is when violent actions are likely to happen."

You're making my point for me. Depression can never be completely avoided without sacrificing any possibility of growth, not to mention market activity. You have to forbid individuals from engaging in activities that could potentially lead to those conditions. The same conditions, by the way, that also lead to wealth creation.

Your argument is akin to stating that kids shouldn't be allowed toys because they will inevitably fight over them. Which itself is an argument that kids lack the intellectual ability to collaborate or solve problems, and therefore must be strictly regulated by adults. With kids, we call it parents. With adults, it's some variant of totalitarianism.

Lavrentiy Beria was really good at parenting adults. You know who he was...right?

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 09:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

What's wrong with people doing something in return for provided healthcare?

What's with all your requirements? You jealous? You worked so everyone else must?

Again. Reallocate how taxes are spent. Increase taxes on the rich.

The rich will remain rich. The rest of society benefits.

"Raise taxes on the rich. You know. Those people who can afford to have their taxes raised."
Raise taxes and they no longer have the incentive to do the things that make them rich.

Then they'll become poor. Funny thing is. Increasing their taxes won't deter the determined from making money and being rich.

What this boils down to it you're a selfish -----.

Or do you think they gre up looking forward to supporting people like you?
#20 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-05-16 09:00 PM | FLAG:

They've been using my tax dollars to fund their oil wars in the Middle East.

I'm ready for them to fund our society's recovery.

Let's start by emptying all their offshore bank accounts.

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 09:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another funny thread. Almost as good as HBO.

Who knew that Jesus was a constitutional lawyer?

Of course health care is a right. It's also a privilege. The Constitution says I have a right to bear arms. But that doesn't mean the taxpayers have to pay for mine.

#34 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-16 09:23 PM | Reply

"Yeah and ben carson is a brain surgeon. But he still thinks the pyramids are hollow"
-Speaksoftly

And let's not forget that Dr. Carson thinks the pyramids are grain silos. Med school is lacking in areas.
#29 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS AT 2017-05-16 09:15 PM | FLAG:

According to MadBummer "logic", Carson must be right.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 09:25 PM | Reply

"Yeah dummy. Those greedbags will start a business and hire employees if they can pay themselves 5 million a year, but if we tax them so much that they only get to take home 2 million, they're just going to quit and go on welfare, is that what you think?"

Nope. I think they're going to stop working when they hit the tax rate where their time becomes more valuable than the money they would be allowed to keep. And maybe they only take home 2 million, but if that happen two months into the tax year, how do you think that impacts those people who would have required their services for the remaining ten. Are you going to fill that gap? Nope.

Which is why you must have the balls to utilize violence in order to achieve your vision. You have to be able to capture the individual's ability to create wealth...to provide the goods and services they provide...but also find a way to make them do that when it doesn't benefit them. When they would willingly choose to do something else. That's what the Soviets struggled with early on. A relatively wealthy landowning class that were essential to the success of the revolution, but had no person interest in supporting it.

How do you make those people do the things required to keep society going, but doing it at well below market value?

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 09:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"What's with all your requirements? You jealous? You worked so everyone else must?"

---- no. We should all have someone supporting us.

Why on earth would anyone ever believe that taking care of themselves was their responsibility?

"Then they'll become poor."

Do you really want the most talent people in this country to stop using their talents out of petty jealousy? Because you think they should be providing their services for free?

You'll think that until it's me doing brain surgery on you. Instead of a brain surgeon who decided it would be more fun to smoke dope an play XBox...your kinda ----.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23
Thatz kuz yer duuum.

#38 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-05-16 09:39 PM | Reply

"They've been using my tax dollars to fund their oil wars in the Middle East."

You still haven't told me what you do for a living...I have a sneaking suspicion you're not a huge generator of tax revenues.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Let's start by emptying all their offshore bank accounts."

And nuke them if they don't?

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 09:40 PM | Reply

"Your argument is akin to stating that kids shouldn't be allowed toys because they will inevitably fight over them."

That's just stupid. Investors should not be allowed to borrow in order to invest over a certain ratio, banks should have to hold a reasonable amount of capital in relation to their lending, basic economic principles which my Mom understood int 1933 but you don't seem to understand in 2017. It really isn't that complicated, we need common sense but that won't help the wealthiest class make their optimum profit and we need to base our economic policies not on their optimum profits but on our economic steady growth and stability.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 09:41 PM | Reply

"II think they're going to stop working when they hit the tax rate where their time becomes more valuable than the money they would be allowed to keep."

If people behaved this way, nobody would have been a millionaire in the 50s. It wouldn't have been worth it.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-16 09:41 PM | Reply

No. Tax them like they tax me if they don't.

#43 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 09:42 PM | Reply

They've been using my tax dollars to fund their oil wars in the Middle East.
I'm ready for them to fund our society's recovery.
Let's start by emptying all their offshore bank accounts.

#33 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2017-05-16 09:23 PM | FLAG:

Wasn't Barack Hussein Obama commander in chief past 8 years? You mean he didn't end those ME wars for oil like he promised?

Wonder why you guys never got upset with him. 8 years of hopechangey. And you're still waiting for the recovery.

#44 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-16 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#43 to #40

#45 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 09:43 PM | Reply

"You still haven't told me what you do for a living...I have a sneaking suspicion you're not a huge generator of tax revenues."

Says the huge consumer of tax revenues...

I'm genuinely curious as to what point you thought you were making here.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-16 09:45 PM | Reply

Raise rich people's taxes. Funny.

Great idea in theory. Especially considering all the rich liberals who complain they don't pay enough in taxes. But the reason they don't pay enough is that they use shell companies in Hong Kong or Ireland to shuffle global profits back and forth, in Google's and Apple's case. Or they toss all their money into a trust, in Bill Gates' case. Or they control $50 billion worth of stock and only takes an income of $100k per year, as Warren Buffett does.

Not that it matters. You could take all of Bill Gates' money, and it would cover about 3 weeks of deficits. But never mind. Liberals want us to spend even more.

#47 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-16 09:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Wonder why you guys never got upset with him. 8 years of hopechangey. And you're still waiting for the recovery."

8 years of job growth, the stock market at record highs, unemployment at incredible lows. YOu just immune to facts. Sad to be you. All of the real economic numbers make an ass out of your, personally, I'd be embarrassed but not you, you're too stupid to feel embarrassment.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 09:47 PM | Reply

"Wonder why you guys never got upset with him. 8 years of hopechangey. And you're still waiting for the recovery."

8 years of job growth, the stock market at record highs, unemployment at incredible lows. YOu just immune to facts. Sad to be you. All of the real economic numbers make an ass out of your, personally, I'd be embarrassed but not you, you're too stupid to feel embarrassment.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 09:47 PM | Reply

Wasn't Barack Hussein Obama commander in chief past 8 years? You mean he didn't end those ME wars for oil like he promised?
Wonder why you guys never got upset with him. 8 years of hopechangey. And you're still waiting for the recovery.

#44 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT 2017-05-16 09:43 PM | FLAG:

WTF are you trying to communicate? At what point did he take away anything? No I wasn't happy with BHO especially when my kid shipped out to the Middle East but honestly you're an idiot trying to discredit BHO over health care in support of this idiot in chief

#50 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 09:47 PM | Reply

"Yeah dummy. Those greedbags will start a business and hire employees if they can pay themselves 5 million a year, but if we tax them so much that they only get to take home 2 million, they're just going to quit and go on welfare, is that what you think?"

Nope. I think they're going to stop working when they hit the tax rate where their time becomes more valuable than the money they would be allowed to keep.

#36 | Posted by madbomber

Exactly. So the ultra rich paying higher taxes isn't going to change anything, until the taxes become so high that it's not worth their time, which would be what, like 95%? No one is suggesting taxes that high.

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 09:53 PM | Reply

RightisRight.

Do you have a point?

Or is deflection and hyperbole all you can muster?

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 09:54 PM | Reply

Not that it matters. You could take all of Bill Gates' money, and it would cover about 3 weeks of deficits. But never mind. Liberals want us to spend even more.

#47 | Posted by WhiteDevil

Sure if you just take his money and throw it at the deficit. But if you take that money and invest in schools, healthcare, roads, research etc, it has a multiplier effect and circulates through the economy, raising everyone's standards of living AND reducing the deficit.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 09:55 PM | Reply

#51
If the ultra wealthy were paying anything close in percentage close to me, we'd be in a civil war.

#54 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 09:55 PM | Reply

"Healthcare is not a right. To be a right you would have to enslave some to pay for others."

So I guess my right to a trial means judges are slaves.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-16 09:55 PM | Reply

RightisRight.
Do you have a point?

Clown

Prolly not.

#56 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 09:56 PM | Reply

Sure if you just take his money and throw it at the deficit. But if you take that money and invest in schools, healthcare, roads, research etc, it has a multiplier effect and circulates through the economy, raising everyone's standards of living AND reducing the deficit.
#53 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-05-16 09:55 PM | FLAG:

Wait a minute. I thought all this healthcare spending was bad. Now there's a multiplier effect? Hard to keep your talking points straight.

We spend more on that stuff than any other country in the world. So why do we have deficits?

#57 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-16 09:58 PM | Reply

RightisRight.
Do you have a point?
Or is deflection and hyperbole all you can muster?

#52 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2017-05-16 09:54 PM | FLAG:

Clownshakkk was hard put to think of something clever to say. So he just threw a crap sandwich at the wall.

My point is that the Left things a "right" to healthcare leads to single payer, somehow. But (1) it's not a constitutional right, apparently; and (2) none of the other rights work that way.

Did you really not understand my point? Because it was pretty simple, actually. Maybe best for you to ignore my posts from now on. Killfile me and save yourself the trouble in the future. Please.

#58 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-16 10:00 PM | Reply

We spend more on that stuff than any other country in the world. So why do we have deficits?

#57 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT 2017-05-16 09:58 PM | FLAG:

Yes we do and this is where I'm exiting. You and your ilk can sleep with trillions spent on wars we were lied into but ---- the poor and those without healthcare. I'm glad you got yours -------. Do you love Jesus too?

#59 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 10:02 PM | Reply

"You could take all of Bill Gates' money, and it would cover about 3 weeks of deficits. But never mind. Liberals want us to spend even more."

Too rich.

Clinton delivered true surplus budgets to Dubya and the Republicans, who promptly reset the fiscal sights toward the largest deficits known to man, right before melting down the economy and handing it off.

But, but, but...liberals.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 10:04 PM | Reply

"Wasn't Barack Hussein Obama commander in chief past 8 years? You mean he didn't end those ME wars for oil like he promised?"

He didn't start any more wars for oil but he did feel the obligation to protect the people who cooperated with us and to try and continue the Iraqi democracy, it did become impossible. Obama was just trying to prevent the exact thing he and others (including me) had predicted would happen. He tried to prevent those horrible events, he didn't create them, George W. Bush did. He should never escape the blame for blowing up the ME. He did this. Cuz he wanted to be a wartime President because "wartime presidents have more power and I'm going to use that power to privatize Social Security."

Dubya

REalize the evil that would justify the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to enable him to "privatize Social Security."

Own this righties. This is the way your children and grandchildren will remember you. I will make sure of it.

#61 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 10:05 PM | Reply

"Wasn't Barack Hussein Obama commander in chief past 8 years? You mean he didn't end those ME wars for oil like he promised?"

He didn't start any more wars for oil but he did feel the obligation to protect the people who cooperated with us and to try and continue the Iraqi democracy, it did become impossible. Obama was just trying to prevent the exact thing he and others (including me) had predicted would happen. He tried to prevent those horrible events, he didn't create them, George W. Bush did. He should never escape the blame for blowing up the ME. He did this. Cuz he wanted to be a wartime President because "wartime presidents have more power and I'm going to use that power to privatize Social Security."

Dubya

REalize the evil that would justify the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to enable him to "privatize Social Security."

Own this righties. This is the way your children and grandchildren will remember you. I will make sure of it.

#62 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-16 10:05 PM | Reply

"(1) it's not a constitutional right"

It is for prisoners.
Explain why you think it's better when prisoners have rights you don't have.

Alternately, explain why the Eighth Amendment needs to be repealed. That's probably an easier route for you, since it would legalize torture, and you're okay with torture.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-16 10:06 PM | Reply

---- no. We should all have someone supporting us.
Why on earth would anyone ever believe that taking care of themselves was their responsibility?

Most of us are responsible enough to take care of ourselves.

Most rich people will continue to remain rich and profitable even if taxes were raised to FDR rates.

You're projecting your own jealousy and laziness on others.

You had to work, despite wanting to. Then so must everyone else.

Obviously.

"Then they'll become poor."
Do you really want the most talent people in this country to stop using their talents out of petty jealousy? Because you think they should be providing their services for free?

How does this train of logic even flow? Talented people do what they do because it makes them feel good.

Dancers. Painters. Teachers. Musicians. Chefs. Documentary filmmakers. Firefighters. Police officers. Seamstresses. Designers. Athletes. Etc etc etc.

They are the most talented people. And despite how much they make. They continue to craft their art.

You think Bill Gates wouldn't have created Microsoft if he had to pay more taxes? Steve jobs wouldn't have created Macintosh?

You know who we'd have less of? Corrupt politicians.

You'll think that until it's me doing brain surgery on you. Instead of a brain surgeon who decided it would be more fun to smoke dope an play XBox...your kinda ----.
#37 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-05-16 09:38 PM | FLAG:

If someone wants to smoke "dope" and play Xbox rather than become a brain surgeon. By all means. I hope they never pick up a scalpel.

Interestingly enough. All socialist nations have doctors and rich citizens and productive economies.

You're too stupid too be taken seriously.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"(2) none of the other rights work that way."

Really, my right to an education wasn't achieved by the government hiring a bunch of teachers?

It's impressive how you never get tired if being wrong and short-sighted.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-16 10:09 PM | Reply

#60
Weren't they "projected" surpluses?
Jus askin.

#66 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-05-16 10:10 PM | Reply

Clownshakkk was hard put to think of something clever to say.

After reading all your Obama deflections I was wondering if you were going to get to a point. Obviously you couldn't.

My point is that the Left things a "right" to healthcare leads to single payer, somehow. But (1) it's not a constitutional right, apparently; and (2) none of the other rights work that way.

I'm pretty sure the left thinks all Americans have the right to healthcare.

As one of the wealthiest nations. We have the ability to provide it.

Did you really not understand my point? Because it was blah blah blah...
#58 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

You had a point? Was it hidden in your Obama deflections?

Must have been.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 10:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If you can't thrive on your own in what is literally the easiest country in the world to survive on your own, you're probably not much of a threat to those that can.
#18 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

LOL you morons really are legends in your own minds, aren't you?

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 10:26 PM | Reply

LOL you morons really are legends in your own minds, aren't you?

#68 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-05-16 10:26 PM | FLAG:

Yes

#69 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-05-16 10:28 PM | Reply

"You and your ilk can sleep with trillions spent on wars we were lied into but ---- the poor and those without healthcare. I'm glad you got yours -------. Do you love Jesus too?"

LOL. Geez......

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 10:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Most of us are responsible enough to take care of ourselves."

Really?

you mean if there wasn't me and those like me here to keep you alive...you'd be able to cover down on your own?

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 10:54 PM | Reply

"Most rich people will continue to remain rich and profitable even if taxes were raised to FDR rates."

So all of tonights arguments have been moot? Those Americans paying our fair share of the tax burden would not experience a decline in income? In that case, I say aye.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 10:56 PM | Reply

62 might be the funniest post ever.

The Clintons had a war with Iraq. Naval blockades and no-fly zones. Secretary Albright was on all the talk shows explaining why we were bombing the hell out of them.

Obama/Hillary administration took two wars that were over, and started 4 new ones. Run along and ask a guy in Yemen or Libya or Syria whose family has just been droned to death at a wedding whether he gives a damn whether it was for oil, or because someone thought he was cleaning up W's mess. Used to be the Left believed that dropping bombs created more terrorists. Then O showed up and now it's just another day in The Greatest Presidency In the History Of The World.

#73 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-16 10:58 PM | Reply

Actually no, MAD. If it wasn't for the likes of you and other tax paying Americans, people like my cousin who are so disabled they can not tie their shoes would be dead. Federal and state funded grant programs have led to such advancements in medicine and care that these beautiful individuals have an opportunity to live a full life when previously death was assured before voting age.

#74 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-05-16 10:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Interestingly enough. All socialist nations have doctors and rich citizens and productive economies."

Especially Venezuela's, right?

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 11:02 PM | Reply

you mean if there wasn't me and those like me here to keep you alive...you'd be able to cover down on your own?

#71 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Yawn. Get over yourself, -------.

#76 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Actually no, MAD. If it wasn't for the likes of you and other tax paying Americans, people like my cousin who are so disabled they can not tie their shoes would be dead."

So basically what you are saying is that taxpayers supported an invalid at their expense that makes you happy.

Do you think that makes that taxpayers happy?

Do you give a ----?

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 11:05 PM | Reply

#76

How about a thank you, princess...

Pretty sure productive society has kept you alive well beyond your shelf life

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 11:06 PM | Reply

What this boils down to it you're a selfish -----.

#33 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

The GOP platform in a nutshell.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When the nurse is wiping the drool from your mouth tonight...just remember those who pay for the nurse.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 11:07 PM | Reply

How about a thank you, princess...

*pats Mad on the back*

Now that you've gotten what you wanted, do you feel better, cupcake?

Pretty sure productive society has kept you alive well beyond your shelf life

The same goes for about 95% of the population. Yourself included.

It's the reason Ayn Rand and her acolytes are delusional -------.

#81 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:09 PM | Reply

#79

Is sucking each others dicks a strategy, or is it more random?

Danni's your owner, right?

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 11:11 PM | Reply

"Explain why you think it's better when prisoners have rights you don't have."

why don't you explain why you think prisoners have rights I don't have.

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 11:13 PM | Reply

"why don't you explain why you think prisoners have rights I don't have."

I believe the subject was government-provided health care. Prisoners have a right to it. You don't.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 11:15 PM | Reply

So basically what you are saying is that taxpayers supported an invalid at their expense that makes you happy.
Do you think that makes that taxpayers happy?
Do you give a ----?

#77 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Well if those voters/tax payers in question are prolife, than yes I believe it would make them happy and absolutely yes, I do give a ----. The more likely such folks are willing to support legislation and programs that help my cousin live a frightful life, the more likely our society will thrive in moral precedence. Which I gather is important to conservatives, so thank you for that in advance.

#85 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-05-16 11:15 PM | Reply

Is sucking each others dicks a strategy, or is it more random?
Danni's your owner, right?

#82 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I dunno. Ask your local GOP "family values" representative next time you see him in a rest stop bathroom.

As for danni and I, is that a joke? It must be since it's intellectually on par with a typical righty.

#86 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:16 PM | Reply

#81

Here's the thing...

I'll bow up for the productive classes every time over the people like you. When you have something meaningful you can lay claim to, I'll listen. Generally, fellers (fellers being gender neutral) like you aren't interested. You're more into being recognized as awesome for being mediocre.

Prove you're anything other than mediocre...if we're not friends, at least I can respect you. Sure as ---- couldn't do that right now.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-16 11:18 PM | Reply

Do you really want the most talent people in this country to stop using their talents out of petty jealousy?

LOL talk about sucking dicks.

You got something on your chin, champ.

#88 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:19 PM | Reply

"government-provided health care. Prisoners have a right to it. You don't."

I have a right to health care. I access it when I want. It's pretty good, too.

I could apply for a govt job as well...and it would come with government provided healthcare.

or I could get sent to prison....all my choice.

Snoofy.....funny guy. glad he brought his sidekick, Danforth.

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 11:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I have a right to health care."

You left out the salient phrase: government-provided.

"I could apply for a govt job as well...and it would come with government provided healthcare."

Again, you're missing the central difference: no hiring was required for the felon, and no work is required to keep the health care. Do you see a difference, or not?

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 11:23 PM | Reply

We spend more on that stuff than any other country in the world. So why do we have deficits?

#57 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL

Bloated military budgets and Boomers thinking SS was a savings account.

#91 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:24 PM | Reply

. "Do you see a difference, or not?"

I don't see the point. I have the access to great healthcare. Do you understand that?

Are you arguing that prisoners have better healthcare than I do?

Prisoners may all sorts of rights I'm not aware of....15 minutes of TV a day or 3 meals or a shower, access to a toilet.

I guess I don't have any of those "rights" either but are you going to continue to profess that prisoners have something I don't?

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 11:28 PM | Reply

I'll bow up for the productive classes every time over the people like you. When you have something meaningful you can lay claim to, I'll listen. Generally, fellers (fellers being gender neutral) like you aren't interested. You're more into being recognized as awesome for being mediocre.

LOL

You're so full of yourself you have nothing but assumptions and shallow stereotypes you've built in your mind to prop up your perception of your own existence.

Like I said, get over yourself. You're not a modern day Davy Crockett triumphing over extraordinary odds and challenges through untold suffering, pain and grit.

Your story and experiences are probably rather mundane and ordinary when viewed objectively. Are you successful and comfortable? Do you live good life? Yes and yes? Good. I would never fault anyone for that. I fault people for arrogantly inflating how they got there by claiming all the glory to themselves while pulling up the ladder they climbed behind them so they can piss on those below.

#93 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:33 PM | Reply

"I'm pretty sure the left thinks all Americans have the right to healthcare.

As one of the wealthiest nations. We have the ability to provide it."

I'm all for having the discussion about how to provide it. Unfortunately we are a thousand miles away from it arguing over which ------ system to use instead. Well, I don't know if it's "------" but it's a thousand miles from single payer.

And what's with the "rightisright" stuff? Whitedevil has been open about his former handle and why he changed it. It's no secret.

IOW, it's not clever to refer to his old handle. Unless you're unaware of these facts.

And if it bothers you if folks change their handle and pretend they didn't....I can refer to you several douchebags on this place here most every day. You can follow those guys around and sniff their ass.

#94 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 11:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As one of the wealthiest nations. We have the ability to provide it."

As one of the wealthiest nations, we have the ability to provide a single-payer for handguns. Or for Netflix. Or anything else we have a right to. The "right" to healthcare somehow leads to government paying for it, in your mind. It's a non sequitur

Look Ma! No Obama mentions to confuse them.

#95 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-16 11:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"I don't see the point. I have the access to great healthcare. Do you understand that?"

You specifically asked what "rights" a prisoner has that you don't. The answer is government-provided health care with no other requirements needed. You can continue not to see the point, if you so choose.

"Are you arguing that prisoners have better healthcare than I do?"

No. Just a right to cost-free, job-free healthcare. You don't have that same right.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-16 11:59 PM | Reply

Mad,

You have my apologies for my posts. They were unnecessarily harsh.

It's a giant pet peeve of mine when people who have achieved upward mobility demand accolades while justifying shutting the doors behind them that helped get them where they are. Nobody is an island who achieves everything on their own. Nobody. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

#97 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-17 12:03 AM | Reply

"Just a right to cost-free, job-free healthcare."

yeah, well when one is incarcerated, they're job free and have no money.....so it's quite convenient to conclude neither is required to quality for this really really cool "right".

a prison...interesting place to go to find "rights".

Here's some advice...if you really want single payer to become a reality.....I'd come up with something better than that.

#98 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-17 12:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

toilet paper? prisoners have a right to that?

and I don't. Dammit.

#99 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-17 12:09 AM | Reply

#98 and 99 should kill this inanity.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 12:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Free food and housing too! Seems like I'm just a felony conviction away from having all the benefits of a Venezuelan citizen, without having to go to Expedia and applying for a VZ visa.

BTW--what are the chances that the "free" "healthcare" administered to guys in the pen might not be the high-quality Scandinavian-style system Bernie is always talking about?

#101 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-17 12:35 AM | Reply

The whole debate is a sham. A straw man. There is literally nobody who says you don't have a right to health care. There are doctors on every corner. Pick one.

How your rights--that nobody disputes--translates into others picking up the tab--hard to say how that happened. I have a right to vote. When I do, it's by absentee and FedEx. There's no program that gives me free shipping for my ballot either.

#102 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-17 12:39 AM | Reply

you mean if there wasn't me and those like me here to keep you alive...you'd be able to cover down on your own?
#71 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-05-16 10:54 PM | REPLY

Trust me Dumb Dumb. You haven't provided for me my entire life.

But. Typical MadBummer. Assuming you know something about me.

So all of tonights arguments have been moot? Those Americans paying our fair share of the tax burden would not experience a decline in income? In that case, I say aye.
#72 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-05-16 10:56 PM | REPLY

FDR tax rates were higher across the board. Everyone paid more. The rich were still rich. The economy was strong. The middle class was healthy.

#103 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-17 01:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Interestingly enough. All socialist nations have doctors and rich citizens and productive economies."

Especially Venezuela's, right?
#75 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-05-16 11:02 PM | FLAG:

Venezuela has other problems.

But. You know this.

#104 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-17 01:33 AM | Reply

Mad,
You have my apologies for my posts. They were unnecessarily harsh.

They were spot on.

MadDummy is a troll.

In my opinion. You took it easy on that jackass.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-17 01:40 AM | Reply

Venezuela's problems are clearly tracked to the implementation of "socialism".

With the rarest of exceptions socialism has resulted in unmitigated human suffering. And in those rare circumstances, like Scandinavian countries, it's really a market-based and loosely-regulated capitalist economy coupled with a generous welfare-state that has questionable sustainability.

#106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 01:45 AM | Reply

"yeah, well when one is incarcerated, they're job free and have no money.....so it's quite convenient to conclude neither is required to quality for this really really cool "right". "

Dude...you asked if prisoners have rights you don't, in a manner which suggested they certainly didn't.

Not my fault you were incorrect. Nor is it my fault you're so clearly butthurt about being wrong.

#107 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 01:47 AM | Reply

Danforth,

The broader point was that citing prisoners' 'rights' as a justification for, well, pretty much anything as it pertains to policy is very much retarded.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 01:50 AM | Reply

Seriously...you are a reasonable guy. Please read #98 and 99...

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 01:51 AM | Reply

"The broader point was..."

I wasn't addressing the broader point, as I've stated several times now.

I was addressing a specific point, and that specific answer has caused specific butt hurt.

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 01:51 AM | Reply

"Please read #98 and 99..."

Yeah, I get it. Health care = toilet paper, if you're butthurt enough.

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 01:52 AM | Reply

Cannot be a privilege, as we all know it is guaranteed in the Constitution that someone else MUST pay for our healthcare! Right???

#112 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-05-17 01:55 AM | Reply

From this thread the only obvious conclusion is...

Socialism = prison.

#113 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-05-17 01:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah, I get it. Health care = toilet paper, if you're butthurt enough.

#111 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No. It has nothing to do with 'butthurt', but since we are talking about prison, I guess the term just comes naturally (unfortunately). Prisoners are provided a lot of things, based not on 'rights', but based on the fact that the Constitution prevents cruel and unusual punishment. When one is incarcerated they lack the ability to provide for themselves but it would be 'cruel and unusual' to starve all of them, gulag-style, because that would be fall into the cruel category of 'cruel and unusual'.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 02:01 AM | Reply

Venezuela's problems are clearly tracked to the implementation of "socialism".

Venezuela's problems are clearly tracked to the nation's specialization in oil production/extraction at the detriment to the rest of the nation.

Oil prices fell.

So now.

They're screwed.

Their government is fighting the will of the people.

Socialism isn't the boogeyman you want it to be.

#115 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-17 02:13 AM | Reply

Socialism = prison = The Military.

#116 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-17 02:14 AM | Reply

Venezuela is one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. Just a few years ago oil prices surged which made oil-extraction in N. Dakota so lucrative. Yet, during that same period, extracting oil from Venezuela, was a loser, even though it was far more accessible and more easy to refine. Why? Socialism - the state appropriated the refineries and drove out the evil capitalists. They couldn't find anyone to do their work under their terms, so no work got done, and they've become increasingly socialist ever since with predictable results.

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 02:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#117

They're doing it wrong Jeff.

It's not socialism. It's the people misusing it.

#118 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-17 03:02 AM | Reply

#114 | Posted by JeffJ

Good job of a primer. Your key is the incarceration. Once that decision is made (the law takes over your body) they have rights.

#119 | Posted by et_al at 2017-05-17 03:22 AM | Reply

Venezuela is one of the most oil-rich countries in the world. Just a few years ago oil prices surged which made oil-extraction in N. Dakota so lucrative. Yet, during that same period, extracting oil from Venezuela, was a loser, even though it was far more accessible and more easy to refine. Why? Socialism - the state appropriated the refineries and drove out the evil capitalists. They couldn't find anyone to do their work under their terms, so no work got done, and they've become increasingly socialist ever since with predictable results.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 02:25 AM | Reply

It maybe easier to get to but harder to refine and bring into production because it's heavy oil or extra heavy oil. Not like light or sweet oil. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with socialism it has to do with costs per barrel.

en.wikipedia.org

According to World Resources Institute, concentrations of remarkable quantities of heavy oil and oil sands are found in Canada and Venezuela.[2][10] The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in 2001 that the largest reserves of heavy crude oil in the world were located north of the Orinoco river 270-mile long by 40-mile wide Orinoco Belt in eastern Venezuela. At that time Venezuela began authorizing "joint ventures to upgrade the extra-heavy crude resources." [11] Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) at that time estimated that there were 270 billion barrels of recoverable reserves in the area,[11] the same amount as the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.[12] The Orinoco Belt in Venezuela is sometimes described as oil sands, but these deposits are non-bituminous, falling instead into the category of heavy or extra-heavy oil due to their lower viscosity.[13] Natural bitumen and extra-heavy oil differ in the degree by which they have been degraded from the original conventional oils by bacteria. Thirty or more countries are known to have reserves.

Production, transportation, and refining of heavy crude oil present special challenges compared to light crude oil. Generally, a diluent is added at regular distances in a pipeline carrying heavy crude to facilitate its flow. Dilbit (diluted bitumen) is a means of transporting highly viscous hydrocarbon. Per the Alberta Oil Sands Bitumen Valuation Methodology, "Dilbit Blends" means "Blends made from heavy crudes and/or bitumens and a diluent usually condensate, for the purpose of meeting pipeline viscosity and density specifications, where the density of the diluent included in the blend is less than 800 kg/m3."[14][15]

#120 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-05-17 03:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Heavy crude oils provide an interesting situation for the economics of petroleum development. The resources of heavy oil in the world are more than twice those of conventional light crude oil. In October 2009, the United States Geological Survey updated the Orinoco deposits (Venezuela) recoverable value to 513 billion barrels (8.16×1010 m3),[16] making this area one of the world's largest recoverable oil deposits. However, recovery rates for heavy oil are often limited from 5-30% of oil in place. The chemical makeup is often the defining variable in recovery rates. New technology utilized for the recovery of heavy oil is constantly increasing recovery rates.[17]

On one hand, due to increased refining costs and high sulfur content for some sources, heavy crudes are often priced at a discount to lighter ones. The increased viscosity and density also makes production more difficult (see reservoir engineering). On the other hand, large quantities of heavy crudes have been discovered in the Americas, including Canada, Venezuela and California. The relatively shallow depth of heavy oil fields[18] (often less than 3000 feet) can contribute to lower production costs; however, these are offset by the difficulties of production and transport that render conventional production methods ineffective.[18] Specialized techniques are being developed for exploration and production of heavy oil.

#121 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-05-17 03:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How many times has Socialism been tried only to fail and extoll human misery?

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 06:56 AM | Reply

How many times has Socialism been tried only to fail and extoll human misery?

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-17 06:56 AM | Reply | Flag

The right wingers championed socialism with that Carrier deal. Don't kid yourself the right loves socialism just dandy as long as it's not the poor who receive it.

#123 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-05-17 07:20 AM | Reply

I am actually pro limited single payer. Though, like Israel, I think there should be private insurance and private hospitals as well so people can pay for procedures denied by the single payer system.... Or even if they don't want to wait in the inevitable long lines for everything.

That said, I would never call it a "right." No one has the"* right" to someone else's labor. Doctors and nurses go to school for a long time to earn their living. No one has a "right" to be cared for by them.

#124 | Posted by ABH at 2017-05-17 07:31 AM | Reply

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn Boaz doesn't have a clue.

#126 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-05-17 07:42 AM | Reply

"Not my fault you were incorrect"

No, it's your fault for sticking your nose into it, drama queen.

And where was I incorrect? I asked a question. You stuck your nose into it.

now, you're crying about it. case closed.

#127 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-17 08:37 AM | Reply

"The broader point was that citing prisoners' 'rights' as a justification for, well, pretty much anything as it pertains to policy is very much retarded."

bears repeating.

But...snoofyforth is funny anyway.

#128 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-17 08:38 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I would be willing to pay extra for healthcare for all if everyone was paying the exact same tax. "

What happened to "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights?"

Healthcare is a right but the reactionaries will not accept this fact that is accepted by every other industrialized and modern nation in the world. Defend your billionaires BOAZ but realize they will never return the favor.

#129 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 09:06 AM | Reply

"When one is incarcerated they lack the ability to provide for themselves but it would be 'cruel and unusual' to starve all of them, gulag-style, because that would be fall into the cruel category of 'cruel and unusual'."

That reminds me: cutting $880 billion from Medicaid won't cause anyone to be hurt!
~P. Ryan

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 09:36 AM | Reply

Everyone should feel it, equally.

#125 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-05-17 07:40 AM | FLAG:

Take 10 bucks from a guy who is not eating so his kids can. Then take 10 bucks from Warren Buffet. Tell me if they feel it equally.

They do not.

#131 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-05-17 09:42 AM | Reply

What happened to "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights?"

They are equal. So we all get charged the same thing.

Tell me if they feel it equally.

It's not govt's job to disconcert how people are "feeling it". It's their job to pay for it equally among the citizens.

Either you want all covered healthcare or you don't.

#132 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-17 09:55 AM | Reply

In Louisiana, they exonerate those with terminal illness and send them home to their families to get out of paying for such as cancer treatment.

#6 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS AT 2017-05-16 06:35 PM | FLAG:

It's the Christian thing to do.

#133 | Posted by 726 at 2017-05-17 10:03 AM | Reply

Everyone should feel it, equally.

#125 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-05-17 07:40 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Look at Boaz supporting a PROGRESSIVE tax.

#134 | Posted by 726 at 2017-05-17 10:05 AM | Reply

134

I was waiting for someone to catch that.

#135 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-17 10:08 AM | Reply

"They are equal. So we all get charged the same thing."

Equal pain not equal amounts. Plus, I just don't buy your idiotic Libertarian arguments. We're running a country with millions of people, some rich, some poor but we need to care for all of our people even if your idiotic sense of Libertarian fairness if offended. Take your Libertarian ideas and shove them up your Libertarian ass. They are s**t. We should shout down every Libertarian every time they try to express their crazy ideas. Real people die when Libertarians run things. Children die when Libertarians run things. Libertarianism is a denial of humanity, it's an excuse by those who have to not care for those who don't and you, on government healthcare, make a fool of yourself because you don't even realize that the same people who would deprive average citizens of healthcare would also love to take it away from Vets.

#136 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 10:26 AM | Reply

The Miss America pageant winner has made her position clear, health care is a privilege. As a independent human being she considers health care to be a right, but as the pageant representative she doesn't want to upset the people paying her salary.

#137 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-05-17 10:40 AM | Reply

#132 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-05-17 09:55 AM | FLAG:

This is not practical. You're just not serious. I get it. This is fantasy stuff that is discussed over a beer.

#138 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-05-17 10:40 AM | Reply

"You have my apologies for my posts. They were unnecessarily harsh."

Don't apologize. I'm nothing special. Most of us aren't. But understand this, to succeed in the United States doesn't require being special. It doesn't even require making good decisions all the time. I just requires that you don't make bad decisions all the time. I make lots of bad decisions. I just make more good ones.

There are people out there, those with handicaps and whatnot, who will never be able to care for themselves. Most of those in the US who aren't able to take care of themselves don't fit this description. Most of those who do, I believe, are in that position because they have been conditioned by their environment to be reliant on the government instead of themselves. Much like bears in the wild get conditioned to living off human garbage if allowed to do so.

I spent his last weekend with my brother. 22 years ago he was supporting a wife and two young children on whatever income he could find in rural Idaho. Monday I went with him to pick up his first Bell Jet Ranger helicopter. He bought it so he could fly into his ranch, which is often snowed in in the winter. 21 Years ago he started his own business, which now directly employs about 50 people, and who knows how many indirectly. he didn't create the conditions for his success, he only recognized them and made the decision to fill those societal requirements that were unfilled. What separates him from those who aren't as successful is that he decided to act, assuming responsibilities for both the enormous risk he was taking, but also the rewards, which have turned out to be very good.

#139 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Venezuela has other problems."

It probably does...but Socialism is the biggest. And it's not new. This is a pretty common outcome in a socialist country. Chile under Allende, the Soviet Union, Cuba.

I think it's more common than not.

#140 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 10:51 AM | Reply

"They're doing it wrong Jeff. It's not socialism. It's the people misusing it."

Which people?

The people in government, by demanding that those who have the ability to produce wealth share their earnings with those who don't?

Or is it the people who have the ability to producing wealth choosing not to do so, thus nullifying the socialist dream.

This is literally what socialism looks like. This is what happens when it is forced upon a society who isn't willingly socialist.

#141 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We should shout down every Libertarian every time they try to express their crazy ideas."

Like I said, authoritarian. Just to bad you can't shout them down with a Kalashnikov...like the did in the old days

"Real people die when Libertarians run things."

It seems as their die harder when socialists run things. See Venezuela.

#142 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 11:25 AM | Reply

Venezuela didn't have a problem with petroleum extraction, up until the point when Hugo Chavez nationalized the assets of those firms performing the difficult extractions and driving them out.

If it weren't for socialism, they wouldn't be in the situation they currently are.

#143 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 11:27 AM | Reply

Real people die when Libertarians run things. Children die when Libertarians run things. Libertarianism is a denial of humanity, it's an excuse by those who have to not care for those who don't and you, on government healthcare, make a fool of yourself because you don't even realize that the same people who would deprive average citizens of healthcare would also love to take it away from Vets.

my God, you are losing your grip on reality.

I give you what you want, but you yell because you have to help pay for it. Classic liberal.

How is a child going to die when healthcare is paid for? No one is being "deprived" if it's paid for by citizens.

#144 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-17 11:36 AM | Reply

This is not practical. You're just not serious. I get it.

why am I not serious? And why isn't this practical?

#145 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-17 11:37 AM | Reply

Miss USA checked America's privilege and apparently America didn't like it.

#146 | Posted by Sully at 2017-05-17 11:55 AM | Reply

"How many times has Socialism been tried only to fail and extoll human misery?"

grow up JJ,

EVERY country on earth, including dictatorships and the USA is a unique blend of capitalism and socialism. The VA is socialism, so are schools, libraries, fire stations, the police force, the coast guard, national guard, military, roads, dams, bridges, NASA, the CDC, social security, medicaide ....... to the extent any fail it is because Rethugs have deliberately sabotaged them. Take the war on the postal union waged by Rethugs for example, a gift to Fed-X and UPS?

Germany, Japan, France, Sweden and many other socialist countries enjoy a better safety net than Americans and remain nationally solvent. US insolvency is a deliberate Rethug conspiracy to kill SS, medicare, medicaide... while they simultaneously reduce national production through offshoring, increase military spending on imaginary enemies and bailout baking criminals at costs which exceed all military spending. A pack of lying thieves they are.

Venezuela, because of its outspoken leaders, has been subjected to economic warfare by the United States. Russia was a more important target in the oil price collapse than Venezuela. But, Maduro's reactions have not been too smart, since operating oil refineries and automobile plants requires international cooperation and US technology and parts.

You are FOS

#147 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-05-17 12:00 PM | Reply

"I give you what you want, but you yell because you have to help pay for it."

Progressive economic principles are rooted in the concept that one's quality of life should not be tethered to one's ability to provide a quality of life for themselves. When they don't, it should be provided for them.

#148 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 12:00 PM | Reply

""Venezuela has other problems.""

Like the price of oil. Let's not forget, it was only a few years ago that Venezuela was giving heating oil to Americans in the winter.

"This is a pretty common outcome in a socialist country. Chile under Allende, the Soviet Union, Cuba.

And common under a Fascist dictator like Pinochet with the help of the "Chicago boys" with their grand ideas that destroyed the economy of Chile, destroyed their SS system. In Chile, Allende had caused the poor to actually eat and their children to drink milk, land reform took a nation which should have easily fed itself but couldn't because land owners held land vacant because they were speculators not farmers. Soviet Union? Really. YOu think the Russian peasants were better off under the Czar? Cuba, were the peasants better off under Batista? You try to bring Cold War talking points out today but they are b******t.

#149 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 12:09 PM | Reply

"Venezuela, because of its outspoken leaders, has been subjected to economic warfare by the United States."

had nothing to do with nationalizing the foreign interests that were driving that economy, did it.

"Venezuela is a perfect example of what happened within a socialist economy that is not supported by the people. Chile is another great example. So is Cuba. So is the Soviet Union. It has nothing to do with outside influence. German, France, etc, are way more free market oriented. Way more. But they would probably look a lot like VZ does now if socialism was to be thrust upon them."

Socialism works. My family is a perfect example of a socialist enterprise. I earn 90% of the income, my wife earns the remaining 10%, and it is split and spent amongst myself, my wife, and my two daughters according to need. It works because the income earners (me, my wife) care more about the well being of our daughters than we do ourselves. And we spend more on them than we do ourselves. But that concerns for well-being declines as you get further out from my immediate family. Would I give some to brothers and sisters? Friends? Yep. Sure, but not as much as I would my kids. And I would share some with neighbors or members of some other community willingly. But just a little. But eventually you reach a point where I would not give a person any more, and in fact would just not waste the time earning it if were going to them. I have no interest in perpetuating the Dannis of the world.

#150 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 12:10 PM | Reply

madbum couldn't even make a 25 cent pencil by himself, if his life depended on it.

In the USA healthcare is synonymous with private insurance programs. In all but the most backward countries it is synonymous with a single payer national insurance program. Health care constitutes such a large proportion of the cost of doing business that it is more competitive for a country to invoke single payer. That's the reason it is the most universal solution. US healthcare costs are double every other industrialized country and outcomes are worse, on average (in large part because so many are uninsured).

#151 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-05-17 12:13 PM | Reply

So your brother succeeded. Great. That is an anaecdote. Now tell us why all the people who worked just as hard or harder than him but didn't succeed don't deserve a minimal quality of life.

You have fallen into the trap. Just because ANYONE can succeed does not mean EVERYONE can succeed or that success is proof you worked harder or smarter than any of the people who did not succeed.

You said it yourself. Your brother did not create his opportuinty, He merely took advantage of it. You then go on to claim that people who don't succeed did not take advantage of their opportunities when the truth is they didnot have the opportunities.

wealth is not a measure of virtue.

#152 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 12:17 PM | Reply

"And common under a Fascist dictator like Pinochet with the help of the "Chicago boys" with their grand ideas that destroyed the economy of Chile, destroyed their SS system."

I think you messed that up Danni. It was under Pinochet that the Chilean Social Security system was saved. Most would consider it to be something of a model system. I wouldn't credit Pinochet with that too much, other than allowing his economic planners to use sound judgment and make good decisions-something Allende had never done.

"In Chile, Allende had caused the poor to actually eat and their children to drink milk, land reform took a nation which should have easily fed itself but couldn't because land owners held land vacant because they were speculators not farmers."

None of that is true. Allende passed reforms where milk was, in theory, made free to the poor. The problem was that his economic policies resulted in an 80% decrease in agricultural output, mostly due to the land reforms you referenced. Milk may have been free when it was available, but it rarely was. In fact one of the last protests before Allende was removed from office was held by thousands of mothers who were unable to feed their children due to Allende's policies.

And land reform? What you call land reform consisted of militant leftists occupying illegally occupying agricultural estates. Allende had ordered the ministry of the interior not to intervene. It was primarily your "land reform" that the Chilean Supreme Court referenced when it called on the military to intervene and return the country to constitutional law.

#153 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 12:21 PM | Reply

"Soviet Union? Really. YOu think the Russian peasants were better off under the Czar?"

Yeah, ------, they were. Lenin ordered the deaths of more people in his first week in office than the Czar had in the previous 100 years. As for the peasants, also known as Kulaks, were one of the primary targets of the Bolsheviks. The Communists needed their crops and cattle, and they didn't want to give that stuff up. So the communists executed most of the Kulaks, and in doing so exterminated the country's agricultural experts. But they had to. Had they not, the socialist experiment would have failed much earlier.

"Cuba, were the peasants better off under Batista?"

Much better off.

You don't see Cubans flooding back out of Miami into Havana, do you?

#154 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 12:25 PM | Reply

"madbum couldn't even make a 25 cent pencil by himself, if his life depended on it."

I freely admit that I have no idea how to make a pencil. I have many skills-that's not one of them. I have a job. I can buy a pencil if I need one.

Do you know how to make a pencil?

"You said it yourself. Your brother did not create his opportuinty, He merely took advantage of it. You then go on to claim that people who don't succeed did not take advantage of their opportunities when the truth is they didnot have the opportunities."

Really?

What made the opportunity to open that business unique to him? Could it not have been anyone? And if we're going to start making the claim that everyone is entitled to a minimal quality of life, then do so with the understanding that if you live in the US, the odds are that you already reside in the top 1% of income earners on earth. They would make better use of these funds than making sure that an unskilled or unwilling American was able to enjoy a more lavish lifestyle.

#155 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 12:29 PM | Reply

Just some real truth. There is no real future where everyone will have high paying stem jobs.

There are just some basic facts that get in the way

1) Not everyone has the raw ability to learn the skills needed for a STEM job. Do we penalize them for not being members of the lucky sperm club?

2) 40% of the jobs in America pay less than $10/hour. If everyone gets a PHD tomorrow, 40% of the jobs will still pay less than $10 an hour. DO we penalize people for not working nonexistant jobs?

3) Automation and Technology advances are reducing the number of workers needed. In the near future we will be losing 11 million jobs in driving professions. What company would choose to buy a truck AND pay a driver who can only drive 70 hours a week when he can buy a truck that drives itself 164 hours a week, never gets distracted, and never calls in sick?

4) Even the good stem jobs are getting automated. 5 years ago it could take a system admin 4 hours to build one server, install an OS, Applications and update the server and get it attached to the network. Now I can create a spreadsheet in 10 minutes, run a script and have 200 servers online and running in less than 20 minutes

#156 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""Cuba, were the peasants better off under Batista?"

The Miami Cubans were the Cubans that had money, they fled Castro and the Communists but the peasants welcomed Castro, for the first time were educated and well fed. Sure our embargo killed their economy but they survived and today export doctors to 3rd world countries around the world.

#157 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 12:36 PM | Reply

"What made the opportunity to open that business unique to him? Could it not have been anyone?"

Could just anyone have arranged the financing necessary to buy a ranch? There is more to your brother's story than you reveal. I have very successful brothers too but they wouldn't claim that they didn't get some help to arrive where they have.

#158 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 12:38 PM | Reply

This may be a difficult abstract idea for you to absorb, but we are social animals and dependent on one another. That is the point of the pencil. We compete and thrive because of those dependencies, which create a whole larger than the sum of its parts. Socialism is the most efficient way to address joint needs.

#159 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-05-17 12:39 PM | Reply

If your brother was dropped into an uninhabited wilderness would he have the things he has today?

He got where he is because our society gave him opportunities and tools. Not everyone has the same opportunities.

Self-made men are just men who don't acknowledge all the help they had along the way.

Rich people like to pretend we are a meritocracy because if they use wealth as a measure of virtue they can justify looking down their nose at everyone who has less than them. In a true meritocracy poor people deserve to be poor. As long as they pretend that is true, they can ignore the fact that most poor people work harder every day than they worked on their hardest day

#160 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 12:49 PM | Reply

If your brother was dropped into an uninhabited wilderness would he have the things he has today?

He got where he is because our society gave him opportunities and tools. Not everyone has the same opportunities.

Self-made men are just men who don't acknowledge all the help they had along the way.

Rich people like to pretend we are a meritocracy because if they use wealth as a measure of virtue they can justify looking down their nose at everyone who has less than them. In a true meritocracy poor people deserve to be poor. As long as they pretend that is true, they can ignore the fact that most poor people work harder every day than they worked on their hardest day

#161 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.dailykos.com

#162 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 12:55 PM | Reply

What is with the DR left's love of Castro?

If your ideology demands such behavior of you, perhaps it is time to stop being an ideologue.

#163 | Posted by Sully at 2017-05-17 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What made the opportunity to open that business unique to him? Could it not have been anyone? And if we're going to start making the claim that everyone is entitled to a minimal quality of life, then do so with the understanding that if you live in the US, the odds are that you already reside in the top 1% of income earners on earth. They would make better use of these funds than making sure that an unskilled or unwilling American was able to enjoy a more lavish lifestyle.

#155 | Posted by madbomber

Nothing is funnier than watching an idiot argue against his own financial well being, in favor of people far richer who don't give a crap about him.

#164 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 01:10 PM | Reply

Watching an idiot argue that because the rest of the world is worse off, the poor here should be happy with the tinkle down they (don't} get is almost as funny.

#165 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 01:13 PM | Reply

Just some real truth. There is no real future where everyone will have high paying stem jobs.

Why STEM jobs?

Median household income is already something north of $50K. 6th in the world iirc. And most of those households don't have a STEM degree. I don't have a STEM degree. I have an MBA, but my brother and sister, both of whom did not attend college, make far more than me.

#166 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 01:30 PM | Reply

There's no program that gives me free shipping for my ballot either.

#102 | Posted by WhiteDevil

That's not true like most of your other statements.

The Government has many programs in place paid for by the taxpayer to ensure your rights.

Frequently asked questions about absentee voting for
Uniformed Service Members, their families and overseas citizens

When mailing election materials to my State or
territory, do I have to pay postage?
When mailed from any U.S. post office, U.S.
embassy or consulate or APO/FPO mail facility, the
hardcopy FPCA form is postage-paid. In order to
receive free postage, the online version of the form
must be mailed in an envelope printed with our
postage-paid envelope template.

www.fvap.gov

#167 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-05-17 01:44 PM | Reply

"peasants welcomed Castro, for the first time were educated and well fed."

Well fed? seriously? You could honestly say that no one starves to death, but it's not like they have as much as they'd like of what they like. No free grocery stores in Cuba.

Cuba before Castro:

Per Capita income: 5th in western hemisphere
Life expectancy: 3rd in western hemisphere
Auto Ownership: 2nd in hemisphere
Literacy: 76%, 4th in Latin America
Doctors per capita: 11th in the world

How do you think that compares now, with average Cuban income at $22 a month?

"Could just anyone have arranged the financing necessary to buy a ranch?"

He didn't make his money through ranching. He's an electrician by trade. And it's not really a ranch. It's a vacation property. A place to hunt, ride ATVs or snowmobiles...that sort of thing. The only animals are the elk and the antelope that come naturally to that area.

#168 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 01:47 PM | Reply

"He got where he is because our society gave him opportunities and tools. Not everyone has the same opportunities."

And that's where I disagree. Everyone has the very same opportunities. What they may lack is the capacity or understanding of how to use those opportunities to their advantage. And when provide a nice income without asking anything in return, you ensure that they never gain that knowledge. In much the same way a bear that grew up in a zoo would never be able to survive on it's own.

#169 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Venezuela's problems are clearly tracked to the nation's specialization in oil production/extraction at the detriment to the rest of the nation.
Oil prices fell.
So now.
They're screwed.

#115 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2017-05-17 02:13 AM | REPLY

Actually Venezuela oil problems began when they started nationalizing it. Production, and revenue, immediately began dropping even as oil prices were still climbing. Incompetent people thinking they could run an industry with no experience in doing so built the coffin, the low oil prices just nailed it shut. Chavez's daughter became the richest person in that country, so somebody benefited from cronyism marketed as socialism, just not the citizens.

#170 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-05-17 01:50 PM | Reply

"Rich people like to pretend we are a meritocracy because if they use wealth as a measure of virtue they can justify looking down their nose at everyone who has less than them."

I disagree. I think those who don't grow up rich view income as a measure of their value to society, which it is, but those who grow up rich prefer politics. If you grow up wealthy, money doesn't really mean anything to you. But though politics you can accumulate power.

#171 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 01:51 PM | Reply

And poor people like to pretend that we don't live in a meritocracy because it allows them to avoid being accountable or taking responsibility for what they've become. No one wants to admit that it's their fault. Everyone wants to blame someone else.

#172 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 01:53 PM | Reply

And that's where I disagree. Everyone has the very same opportunities. What they may lack is the capacity or understanding of how to use those opportunities to their advantage. And when provide a nice income without asking anything in return, you ensure that they never gain that knowledge. In much the same way a bear that grew up in a zoo would never be able to survive on it's own.

#169 | Posted by madbomber

Horsecrap. Education and family are part of your opportunities. If you go to crappier schools then you have less opportunity. If your dad is locked up for marijuana and your mom works 20 hour days, you have less opportunity.

#173 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 01:54 PM | Reply

"Actually Venezuela oil problems began when they started nationalizing it. Production, and revenue, immediately began dropping even as oil prices were still climbing. Incompetent people thinking they could run an industry with no experience in doing so built the coffin, the low oil prices just nailed it shut. Chavez's daughter became the richest person in that country, so somebody benefited from cronyism marketed as socialism, just not the citizens."

Socialism is not intended to apply to those in power. The Soviets had a whole separate economy for their party elites. And Kim Jong Il was the world's largest importer of Courvoisier VSOP.

#174 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 01:55 PM | Reply

We secure rights by forming groups (gov't) and creating corresponding legal rights (law).
By legislation to create the laws, executive to enforce the laws, and judicial to adjudicate disputes, our rights are confirmed. Rights have no meaning if they cannot be enforced. Without these constructs, there can be no rights.

#175 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-05-17 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I disagree. I think those who don't grow up rich view income as a measure of their value to society, which it is, but those who grow up rich prefer politics. If you grow up wealthy, money doesn't really mean anything to you. But though politics you can accumulate power.

#171 | Posted by madbomber

Horsecrap again. If you grow up wealthy, you already HAVE money, so you focus on getting POWER. That doesn't mean money isn't important to you anymore. It just means you have enough of it to move onto bigger greedier goals.

The whole argument that we can trust trump and his white house full of billionaires because they are already wealthy is beyond stupid. You don't spend your whole life in the pathological pursuit of money and then one day simply abandon it for the common good. You get that rich by being obsessed with money, and people don't abandon their obsessions. Especially to look out for the little guy. They don't care how much they have, they only care about getting MORE.

#176 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-Everyone has the very same opportunities.

MB grew up dirt poor, black, under-edumacated with poor nutrition and associated learning disabilities in Mississippi, so he should know.

#177 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 01:58 PM | Reply

"I disagree. I think those who don't grow up rich view income as a measure of their value to society, which it is,"

Absolute horse crap. Think about the teachers, nurses, soldiers, sailors...the list goes on who all have more value to society than some rich ---- like Trump.

#178 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 02:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You think a kid with 5 siblings living in a neighborhood with crappy schools has the same opportunities as say Young Donald Trump?

You are delusional.

For every person who worked hard and made it there are 1000 who worked harder and have nothing to show for it.

Your brother became an electrician. That means he went to school. Are all schools equally good? His family kept him sheltered and fed him while he was in school. What about kids that don't get enough food? Did they have the same opportunity and just not eat?

When he got the job the first time, did everyone else who filled out the application have the same opportunity? Was he actually a better candidate than all of the other applicants? It has been proven in studies submitting identical applications with only the name differing that just having the wrong last name can make it harder to get a job.

There is not equal opportunity at any step in the process.

You just choose to ignore those differences so you can pretend that you succeeded because you are better than those that dont and therefore you can absolve yourself of any responsibility to help your fellow Americans

#179 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#176

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, aren't we? You think it's horse crap?

"Think about the teachers, nurses, soldiers, sailors...the list goes on who all have more value to society than some rich ---- like Trump."

I have no love for Trump, but he was elected president. And I would imagine that thousands, if not millions of people rely on him for a paycheck or dividend as a result of their relationship with Trump Inc.

#180 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 02:25 PM | Reply

I think those who don't grow up rich view income as a measure of their value to society, which it is,

Yeah I remember Jesus saying that very thing.

Or was it the exact opposite?

No wait... it WAS the exact opposite!

Perhaps those who view income as a "measure of their value to society" are just not Christians then.

#181 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-05-17 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And I would imagine that thousands, if not millions of people rely on him for a paycheck or dividend as a result of their relationship with Trump Inc."

Quite a few contractors depended on him for payment too. Oh wait.

#182 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think those who don't grow up rich view income as a measure of their value to society, which it is"

Sure. Society values a cashier that takes from the till to boost their income more than one who doesn't.

You're like a laser beam of economic truth.

Did someone in a household in the top 1%, or around 35K/yr, "grow up rich?" Do they also view income this way?

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-17 02:34 PM | Reply

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, aren't we? You think it's horse crap?

#180 | Posted by madbomber

Not even in the slightest. You say the rich don't care about money and are interested in moving into a life of public service. That may be true for a couple LIBERALS like warren buffet and bill gates, but not for the greedbag sociopaths in trump's white house.

#184 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 02:35 PM | Reply

"You think a kid with 5 siblings living in a neighborhood with crappy schools has the same opportunities as say Young Donald Trump?"

No. Trump had family money. But that kid with five siblings and crappy schools does fit me and my family.

"For every person who worked hard and made it there are 1000 who worked harder and have nothing to show for it."

Worked hard? Like expended calories? I bet Sisyphus burned a lot of calories too. I think pushing a boulder would do that. But you can't expect to get paid for something that doesn't provide value to someone else.

"You just choose to ignore those differences so you can pretend that you succeeded because you are better than those that dont and therefore you can absolve yourself of any responsibility to help your fellow Americans"

There are no differences. You're creating them. The way your narrative reads, my brother won the lottery, that's it. Which is crap. If you wanted to be an electrician, even a union electrician, I have little doubts that you couldn't do it, unless you really, really suck at life.

And there's a difference between help and hand-outs. My personal opinion is that the government should be the employer of last resort for those who are unemployed or underemployed. Welfare should be strictly limited to those who lack the physical or mental capacity to care for themselves. Giving people a check while asking nothing in return only conditions them to keep doing that, and they train their kids to keep doing that. And you're not helping them by doing that than you are throwing bread to the bears at Yellowstone.

#185 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You say the rich don't care about money and are interested in moving into a life of public service. That may be true for a couple LIBERALS like warren buffet and bill gates, but not for the greedbag sociopaths in trump's white house."

I think you're focused on Trump. he's a poor example because he still cares very much about Money. But consider the Kennedy Clan, or the Bush Clan, or the Roosevelt Clan, or any number of wealthy families who have gone into politics. In fact it's usually rich people who do that...the rest of us are fine with a paycheck as feedback from society on how well we're doing.

#186 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 02:37 PM | Reply

MB is still haunted by Ronnie RayGun's Cadillac Driving Black Welfare Queens.... who as it turned out were actually poor white women with kids.

Guess he didn't get the memo.

#187 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 02:39 PM | Reply

MB is like the FL legislature who voted drug testing for welfare recipients.... and found only 2.6 percent failed... before the law was struck down.

Or the rwing voter frauds nuts who have to make up fake news to pass their fake protections against fake problems.

#188 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 02:46 PM | Reply

And there's a difference between help and hand-outs. My personal opinion is that the government should be the employer of last resort for those who are unemployed or underemployed. Welfare should be strictly limited to those who lack the physical or mental capacity to care for themselves. Giving people a check while asking nothing in return only conditions them to keep doing that, and they train their kids to keep doing that. And you're not helping them by doing that than you are throwing bread to the bears at Yellowstone.

#185 | Posted by madbomber

You're buying into the republican "horror stories" about welfare queens who are living it up on your dime.

This MYTH is hammered into your head by propagandists who work for the people who are trying to take everything from our society without giving anything back.

They want you to ignore the ECONOMIC FACTS like - concentration of wealth at the top is bad for the economy. Higher minimum wage helps the whole economy. Tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy - all so they can get richer at the expense of you and your neighbors.

If they can get middle class voters like you to buy the lie that the lazy poor are the problem, then you won't realize that the evil rich are doing far more harm to our country.

#189 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The reason 40 million people get $10/hr or less for their work is not because they aren't trying to better themselves and don't deserve it. The reason 40 million people get $10/hr or less for their work is because 40 million jobs pay $10/hr or less and those jobs will be filled and will not pay any more regardless of how much har work or education the people stuck in them aquire. The question is not whether we should help a cashier making $7.25/hr. The question is why we allow corporations to pay the cashiers $7.25/hr when they are making billions in profits.

Math works. in some retail sectors labor costs are less than 10% of their cost structure. That means they could double pay and would only need to increase revenue 10% to cover it.

#190 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

If your dad is locked up for marijuana and your mom works 20 hour days, you have less opportunity.

That's not the govt's fault. And it certainly isn't the govt's problem to fix. We already have programs to help the dis-advantaged. There is NO reason for a healthy person to not thrive in the U.S.. Period. And that's a FACT.

It also doesn't help that certain races make bad choices, even when they don't have to.

You give a white person welfare, they will find a way to buy an acre of land and a trailer.

Give other nameless races welfare, and they will buy spinning rims, Xboxes and sneakers.

#191 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-17 04:38 PM | Reply

That's not the govt's fault.

#191 | Posted by boaz

You're right it's not the gov's fault, its the billionaires and republicans fault. They're the ones who profit from locking people up for marijuana.

Then morons like you turn around and blame the victims because you think you're on the billionaire's team, when you're really just their shoe shine boy.

#192 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 04:53 PM | Reply

Rwingers gave up on Lincoln's gov of, by, and for the People a long time ago. They'd rather just let the 1 percent own it, and them, than fight for it.

#193 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 04:56 PM | Reply

"This MYTH is hammered into your head by propagandists who work for the people who are trying to take everything from our society without giving anything back."

This myth proved to be fact in Maine, when the state government made it mandatory for adult males to either look for employment or do volunteer work. 80% dropped out of the system. I have no doubts that the same thing would happen nationwide.

"They want you to ignore the ECONOMIC FACTS like - concentration of wealth at the top is bad for the economy."

Wealth is always going to concentrate with those who add the most value to society. That's never going to change. you could make step in and take that wealth, give it to some else. you could do that once, then those who earn the wealth realize that there's not point in doing so, as it won't provide any benefit. It also doesn't change the underlying fact that people earn low incomes because they have a low economic value. And you could wipe the top 10% of income earners off the face of the planet. It won't change the income earning potential of the remaining 90%.

#194 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 05:02 PM | Reply

"If they can get middle class voters like you to buy the lie that the lazy poor are the problem, then you won't realize that the evil rich are doing far more harm to our country."

What are the rich doing that's bad? Keeping the money they earned?

And what's so bad about creating the conditions for the poor to become more prosperous? Or at least creating the conditions where the taxpayer gets some return on the payments that go to maintain poor populations? Why is it so bad to ask them to do something in return for the generosity of the taxpayers?

#195 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 05:04 PM | Reply

"Still, the claim that Maine welfare reform has led to a "nearly 80% reduction in welfare" isn't true. It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps -- who made up about 5% of all food stamp recipients before the reform took effect.

So, a claim making its way around the blogosphere that Maine has seen an 80% reduction in welfare recipients is false."

www.truthorfiction.com

Myth-Info Bomber.

#196 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 05:05 PM | Reply

"The question is not whether we should help a cashier making $7.25/hr. The question is why we allow corporations to pay the cashiers $7.25/hr when they are making billions in profits.".

Because that's the market value of that labor. You can't chnage that. Only they can.

And when you tell a company that they can only hire labor worth $10 an hour or more, you're also telling workers that they are not allowed to sell their labor unless it's worth $10 an hour or more.

Is it really any of your business if someone wants to work for $2 an hour?

#197 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 05:07 PM | Reply

So, a claim making its way around the blogosphere that Maine has seen an 80% reduction in welfare recipients is false."

My bad, dude. It's 70%.

Got me.

#198 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 05:09 PM | Reply

Your Racism is showing.

The highest concentrations of generational welfare are in rural white Kentucky.

In McCreary County Kentucky The population is 92% white, gave Trump 88% of the vote, and 46% of the income in the county comes from government aid programs.

Most long term welfare goes to whites.

You probably think blacks in L.A. get more welfare. California limits lifetime cash assistance to 24 months.

more than 1/3rd of all welfare recipients collect for less than 1 year

Federal benefits are limited to 60 months lifetime.

You probably read and believed the Daily Caller article that claimed welfare pays better than a minimum wage job. It doesn't. They made their claim based on adding the maximum benefit amount from several different programs including food stamps, medicaid, and EITC. They failed to take into account that if you get EITC that means you are working and likely will not qualify for any of the other programs. If you get benefits from one program it counts as income against the others. You cannot get the maximum benefits from multiple programs. You cannot get both SSI and unemployment unless your unemployment payment is less than SSI which would then pay the difference.

#199 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"My bad, dude. It's 70%."

70% of what?

Of food stamp recipients. Not Welfare recipients.

And if only 5% of welfare recipients were able bodied adults then it couldn't have been an 80% reduction anyway.

No wonder Corky calls you Myth Bomber.

I hope you don't do a job that requires any math.

#200 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-05-17 05:15 PM | Reply

It's the cover-up that shows what blatant liars rwingers are.

"It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps -- who made up about 5% of all food stamp recipients before the reform took effect."

Sorta makes one not want to take anything they say seriously.

#201 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 05:19 PM | Reply

If he understood the math, he might notice that 95 percent of recipients in Maine were not able bodied workers.

Which pretty much destroys most of what he's said on the entire subject.

#202 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 05:22 PM | Reply

Is it really any of your business if someone wants to work for $2 an hour?

#197 | Posted by madbomber

It is if they have to take food stamps and welfare and other government benefits in order to survive.

Then it becomes all of our business.

#203 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-05-17 05:32 PM | Reply

Nobody wants to work for $2 an hour. It is not the market rate. It is the rate dictated BY THE PURCHASER.

The labor market is the only market where the purchaser dictates the prices

#204 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 05:43 PM | Reply

Wealth is always going to concentrate with those who add the most value to society. That's never going to change.

#194 | Posted by madbomber

Jesus christ you have the worst stockholm syndrome of anyone on this site.

Wealth is going to concentrate with those who have to power to stack the game in their favor.

Our election funding system allows the rich to do exactly that. Buy the policies they want, which enables them to enrich themselves and screw everyone else INCLUDING YOU SUCKER.

#205 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

MB you have never worked in HR have you?

It is normal to get 500 applicants for 1 job. Guess what 499 of those applicants don't get the job. Maybe you had a friend of a friend who referred you to a job but it is common for even highly skilled workers to send out HUNDREDS of resumes before they get even one offer. In the meantime the bills still have to be paid so you take the jobs that are available.

Low wage jobs are not chosen by the workers

#206 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 05:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who Actually Benefits From Federal Benefits?

Republican candidates have lately been parroting Charles Murray's argument that our "entitlement society" has created a nation of deadbeats who would rather live off government benefits than find a job.

In response, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) released a study earlier this week showing the fraction of government benefits that go to able-bodied workers.

Overall, only about 9 percent of government benefits go to those who could be thought of as able-bodied workers who either can't or won't find a job. And as the study says:

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Sherman adds this:

Another point: Many of those who decry the growth of entitlement spending seem to forget the most basic of all facts about it: it continues to be driven overwhelmingly by the twin engines of an aging population and the rising cost of medical care. Neither of which has much to do with dependency among the working-age population.

excerpts

www.motherjones.com

The mythical "entitlement society" is a rwing talking point, nothing more.

#207 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 06:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donny and Corky, you're right. I thought it was adult males. It was able bodied adults of both sexes without children at home. 80% of them dropped out of the system when Maine tagged some responsibilities on to the free food program.

"If he understood the math, he might notice that 95 percent of recipients in Maine were not able bodied workers."

Maybe...but probably not. More likely they had kids at home, which would allow them to continue to receive benefits without providing anything in return. If they were disabled, they would eligible for SSDI. In fact many states are actively trying to get their poor qualified as disabled so they can disenroll them from traditional, state-funded programs and get them enrolled in the federally-funded SSDI.

"It is if they have to take food stamps and welfare and other government benefits in order to survive. Then it becomes all of our business."

So you would prefer the taxpayer to cover their entire cost of living, rather than only part of the cost?

#208 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 06:31 PM | Reply

"Wealth is going to concentrate with those who have to power to stack the game in their favor."

Really?

In what world can you honestly state that people would willingly pay a ditch digger as much as they would a doctor? Wealth is going to concentrate with those who have the most to provide the most value. What is it about this concept that you can't grasp.

"Buy the policies they want, which enables them to enrich themselves and screw everyone else INCLUDING YOU SUCKER.

Wealth is almost always a result of intelligence and ambition. I don't know why you have chosen to idolize mediocrity and make that the norm.

#209 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 06:48 PM | Reply

#207

You forgot to mention SNAP, who's biggest promoters are not easily ignored chatterers like Speak, but rather the big grocery concerns. Because every SNAP dollar spent is done so in a grocery store.

#210 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 06:51 PM | Reply

MB, perhaps you should be more concerned about the wealthy eating your tax dollars than the poor eating a meal.

Even Forbes knows this....

www.forbes.com

Of course, you'd have to change who you look up to and who you look down on.

Jesus was a Capricorn
He ate organic food
He believed in love and peace
And never wore no shoes

Long hair, beard and sandles
And a funky bunch of friends
Reckon we'd just nail him up
If he came down again

[Chorus:]
'Cause everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on
Prove they can be better than at any time they choose
Someone doin' somethin' dirty decent folks can frown on
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me

www.azlyrics.com

#211 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 06:54 PM | Reply

So tell us MB. What has trump done that is worth $10 billion. Every dollar he has was earned by other people's labor. He has not done anything in his life that did not involve fraud and cost other people money. He got paid millions bankrupting casinos. His creditors lost their shirts.

#212 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 06:58 PM | Reply

In what world can you honestly state that people would willingly pay a ditch digger as much as they would a doctor? Wealth is going to concentrate with those who have the most to provide the most value. What is it about this concept that you can't grasp.

"Buy the policies they want, which enables them to enrich themselves and screw everyone else INCLUDING YOU SUCKER.

Wealth is almost always a result of intelligence and ambition. I don't know why you have chosen to idolize mediocrity and make that the norm.

#209 | Posted by madbomber

No one is saying every career should be rewarded the same.

If you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't have to argue against straw men.

Wealth that is the result of intelligence and ambition is usually fine (except there are some very evil, very intelligent, very ambitious people that use their gifts to gain wealth by harming others).
Wealth that is the result of inheritance and corruption is not fin, and you are far underestimating the power and prevalence of the latter.
Power corrupts, and wealth is power.
That's why first generation wealth might be ok, but second or third generation wealth is often owned by greedy sociopathic monsters who grew up in a bubble, like our current president.

#213 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 07:04 PM | Reply

"No one is saying every career should be rewarded the same."

What you are saying is that incomes shouldn't be decided as a result of supply and demand. The shouldn't be decided by consumers. Because whether you are Don Trump or Dave the ditch digger, you're income will be determined by what you have to offer potential consumers.

"Wealth that is the result of inheritance and corruption is not fin, and you are far underestimating the power and prevalence of the latter."

Actually, that's you buddy. There's a book called "The Millionaire Next Door" which profiles wealthy people. The book was written in 2000, so it's a little dated, but at the time, 80% of wealthy households were first generation wealthy. They were small business owners, professional workers, things like that. Most were very frugal and didn't spend much.

As for family fortunes...Even the big ones don't last. By the 1970s, there was not a single Vanderbilt left in the US that could claim to be a millionaire.

Trust fund rich people are to you what the welfare queens are to those who argue against welfare. They're bogeymen. They certainly exist, but they're useful as political anecdotes.

#214 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 07:14 PM | Reply

What you are saying is that incomes shouldn't be decided as a result of supply and demand.

#214 | Posted by madbomber

You sure are bad at reading. I said no such thing.

I said incomes shouldn't be decided by your ability to bribe your congressman or senator. Or president.

#215 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 07:19 PM | Reply

- I said incomes shouldn't be decided by your ability to bribe your congressman or senator. Or president.

I've never seem Myth Bomber ever actually address that point, ever.

Kinda like this last SC justice kept ignoring the same point by saying that if Congress doesn't like a law, they can always change it.

Well, yeah in theory, except that in practice the bulk of Congress is beholden more to it's donors than it's average constituents.

#216 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 07:26 PM | Reply

"I said incomes shouldn't be decided by your ability to bribe your congressman or senator. Or president."

OK. I can agree with that.

But how many members of the 1% do you think made their income by bribing politicians. I'm going to hazard a guess that it was not very many. I know a few, and to the best of my knowledge they don't spend any time hobnobbing with politicians.

#217 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-17 07:45 PM | Reply

"But how many members of the 1% do you think made their income by bribing politicians."

Directly, or indirectly?

#218 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 07:49 PM | Reply

- how many members of the 1% do you think made their income by bribing politicians.

That's not the point. The point is that enough of the 1% have paid enough money to get laws written that benefit them all.

This is an obvious fact given GOP tax cut proposals for them and refunds with a dead ACA.

You know this, you just slept with a PJ O'Rourke pic under your pillow for too long. Or maybe it was the Charles Murray Marathons.

#219 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-17 07:50 PM | Reply

But how many members of the 1% do you think made their income by bribing politicians. I'm going to hazard a guess that it was not very many. I know a few, and to the best of my knowledge they don't spend any time hobnobbing with politicians.

#217 | Posted by madbomber

I doubt you could ever know that exact number, but I can tell you ALL of the members of the 1% BENEFIT from the rich bribing politicians, even if they didn't do so themselves. That's why their taxes are so low that they're buying jets and yachts while our schools and roads crumble.

#220 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-17 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No rich person has ever become not rich as the result of taxes. No poor person has ever become not poor because of a tax cut. No company has ever hired even one person because the CEO got a tax cut.

Companies hire based on how much work needs to be done. If 1 worker makes 10 widgets a week and they can sell 500 widgets a week no amount of corporate taxes which are only applied to profits, will make them choose to only make 490 widgets a week. It is proven that higher corporate taxes lead directly to higher wages as they can avoid taxation altogether by moving the money from the profit column to the labor cost column. Low corporate taxes incentivise cost cutting which means lower wages and neglected maintenance

#221 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-17 08:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"But how many members of the 1% do you think made their income by bribing politicians."

It's not just the 1%, it's the top 10%. Tip off? If there is a picture of Trump or GWB in their office then they are part of bribing politicians. And, I have personally witnessed decent people who earned their success still knuckle under and pretend to be part of the right because to do otherwise would cause them to be ostracized by the business community. Don't even try to deny it, I've seen it up close and personal.

#222 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-17 08:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"More likely they had kids at home, which would allow them to continue to receive benefits without providing anything in return"

Sounds to me like they're providing a home for those kids you just mentioned.

#223 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-05-17 09:38 PM | Reply

I know a few, and to the best of my knowledge they don't spend any time hobnobbing with politicians.

To be in the 1% you need a net worth of about 8 million. I doubt you know "a few" 1 %ers.

You are right though most of the 1% do not actively hob knob with politicians. However once you reach a certain strata you will know politicians. You will have friends, neighbors, fellow club members who are politicians and you will wield an out sized say in government. Add on the few that do lobby and the 1% certainly benefit from government policies more than the rest of the country.

#224 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-05-17 10:09 PM | Reply

"It is proven that higher corporate taxes lead directly to higher wages as they can avoid taxation altogether by moving the money from the profit column to the labor cost column. Low corporate taxes incentivise cost cutting which means lower wages and neglected maintenance"

Spot on.

Higher tax rates incentivize reinvestment. Lower tax rates incentivize taking money out of the business as profits.

Real World 101.

#225 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-17 11:35 PM | Reply

"That's not the point. The point is that enough of the 1% have paid enough money to get laws written that benefit them all."

The top 1% covers about 50% of the total federal income tax burden. When you drive on a road, or fly on an airplane, or use your EBT card, you should be thanking a member of that community. And if were within that community, I would probably be doing what I could to make the other 99% pay their "fair share" as well.

"That's why their taxes are so low that they're buying jets and yachts while our schools and roads crumble."

They pay for 45.7% of federally funded programs...and they're taxes are too low? Exactly what percentage of the cost of running this country should they pay? And if you decided that the cost of running this country is their and theirs alone, what happens when they decide not to?

"To be in the 1% you need a net worth of about 8 million. I doubt you know "a few" 1 %ers."

No, to be in the top 1%, you need to be in a household that makes around $385 per year. That's not unusual for a household comprised of two professionals.

#226 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-18 09:06 AM | Reply

"The top 1% covers about 50% of the total federal income tax burden."

Why limit to income taxes?For example, 2/3rds of workers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes over their lifetimes. How much of the payroll taxes come from the top 1%?

"When you drive on a road..."

Roads are largely paid for via regressive federal gasoline taxes.

"They pay for 45.7% of federally funded programs"

No, they don't. You're pretending income taxes = all federal taxes.

#227 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 09:10 AM | Reply

"Higher tax rates incentivize reinvestment. Lower tax rates incentivize taking money out of the business as profits."

The entire reason a for-profit enterprise exists is, well, to turn a profit. Higher tax rates may incentivize investment, but it's not investment that's good for the firm. It will occur as a the result of a demand signal that does not originate within the market. And it would almost certainly not result in an increase in jobs or wages for workers, particularly those without skills. If I am the CEO, and I'm going to be more or less forced into investing, I'm going to invest in efforts that will reduce costs or maximize profits. That will create jobs, but it will be jobs for high skilled workers. And there's alsoread a shortage of those.

It's just a shame more of these unskilled workers don't get after it and gain a skill...

#228 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-18 09:14 AM | Reply

"Higher tax rates may incentivize investment, but it's not investment that's good for the firm."

You have no way of knowing that, so as a blanket statement, that's false.

"If I am the CEO, and I'm going to be more or less forced into investing, I'm going to invest in efforts that will reduce costs or maximize profits. That will create jobs, but it will be jobs for high skilled workers."

Thanks for admitting my point.

#229 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 09:17 AM | Reply

"Higher tax rates may incentivize investment, but it's not investment that's good for the firm."

You are full of crap. We built the largest economy in the world with that as the model.

"It will occur as a the result of a demand signal that does not originate within the market."

Someone tell Bill GAtes and STeve Jobs. There was no market for their products because hardly anyone even knew what their products could do.

"That will create jobs, but it will be jobs for high skilled workers. And there's alsoread a shortage of those."

Not in any way necessarily, what if you invested in housing? You could build thousands of homes (Levitown) without highly skilled workers but then, in your little brain, we aren't going to build any more houses.

All your thinking is backwards, you have a Libertarian viewpoint and your thoughts go from that viewpoint although, in reality, your thoughts need to go from the actual reality and then you can determine which ideological view point fits best. Libertarianism pretends that it is the other way around. YOu pretend that your ideological view point can create reality, it can't. It has been tried though, in Chile, if failed miserably. Always remember, reality comes before ideology.

#230 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 09:32 AM | Reply

"Higher tax rates may incentivize investment, but it's not investment that's good for the firm."

That statement is drawing attention so I'll address it as well.

I would amend it to say it's not necessarily good for the firm. It may be or not.

I know farmers who routinely trade for and buy new equipment towards the end of the year they admittedly don't need and it's always for the same reason.......to avoid taxes.

CPAs advise this even though they know the new equipment isn't really needed. The downside of that is when grain prices slump and then they wish they hadn't done that. Instead, they wish they had just paid a little more in taxes and kept the difference to bridge them through the cycle of lower prices.

#231 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-18 09:36 AM | Reply

"I would amend it to say it's not necessarily good for the firm. It may be or not."

IOW, you agree with my statement: as a blanket claim, it's false.

#232 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 09:38 AM | Reply

232

yeah.

#233 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-18 09:43 AM | Reply

Whatever guys.

The U.S. treasury isn't a charity. If you cant take care of yourself, you need to look at yourself. Period.

Call it heartless or whatever, but it's truth.

#234 | Posted by boaz at 2017-05-18 09:58 AM | Reply

"The U.S. treasury isn't a charity. If you cant take care of yourself, you need to look at yourself."

Do you feel the same way about corporations? If they need a subsidy (oil), they should look to themselves?

#235 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 10:01 AM | Reply

"The U.S. treasury isn't a charity. If you cant take care of yourself, you need to look at yourself. Period. "

Then you get sick and apply for SS Disability or other government assistance though all your life you have insulted others who did the same. Don't say it can't happen BOAZ, famous last word.....

#236 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 10:12 AM | Reply

Call it heartless or whatever, but it's truth.

No it is not the truth. We are a decent society who can afford and who should take care of those who are incapable of caring for themselves even if -------- like David Koch disagrees. He's a piece of crap who is spending Daddy's money that he earned working for Stalin.

#237 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You are full of crap. We built the largest economy in the world with that as the model."

You didn't build anything. And based on this idiotic statement, you'd be incapable even if you tried.

"Someone tell Bill GAtes and STeve Jobs. There was no market for their products because hardly anyone even knew what their products could do."

Really?

Are trying to state that Apple and Microsoft got to where they are as a result of tax codes?

"Not in any way necessarily, what if you invested in housing? You could build thousands of homes (Levitown) without highly skilled workers but then, in your little brain, we aren't going to build any more houses."

Do you really think a company like Apple is going to get into the house building business? I don't. And even if they did, they only would if it would make them money.

"I would amend it to say it's not necessarily good for the firm. It may be or not."

A rational actor is always going to do what is in their best interest. If your intent is to create jobs for low skilled workers, you're going to need more than tax code, because hiring unskilled workers will almost always NOT be in the best interest of the firm.

#238 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-18 10:29 AM | Reply

"If your intent is to create jobs for low skilled workers, you're going to need more than tax code, because hiring unskilled workers will almost always NOT be in the best interest of the firm."

Why are you moving the goalposts? Is it because you actually agreed with me, that higher rates incentivizes reinvestment, while lower rates incentivize taking money out of the business via profits?

"A rational actor is always going to do what is in their best interest."

Meaning if you increase the reward for reinvestment, you'll get more reinvestment.

#239 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 10:32 AM | Reply

"Do you feel the same way about corporations? If they need a subsidy (oil), they should look to themselves?"

I do.

A firm that finds itself in financial trouble is there for a reason. Maybe it's mismanagement. Maybe it's a change in the markets. Sears was once the largest retailer in the US. It's unlikely the company will be around much longer. Consumers have outgrown it, so there would be no use in trying to salvage it.

"No it is not the truth. We are a decent society who can afford and who should take care of those who are incapable of caring for themselves even if -------- like David Koch disagrees."

So how much of your personal earnings are you willing to devote towards this cause? As an American, you're probably flush with extra cash you could give to those who need it more than you.

#240 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-18 10:36 AM | Reply

"I do."

So did you vote for the folks wanting to increase the oil subsidies, or the ones who wanted to decrease them?

#241 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 10:38 AM | Reply

"Why are you moving the goalposts? Is it because you actually agreed with me, that higher rates incentivizes reinvestment, while lower rates incentivize taking money out of the business via profits?"

I think I misunderstood your position, thinking that you were saying that higher taxes would result in increased jobs or wages for low skilled workers. Danni says that a lot, I thought you might be echoing her sentiments. My mistake.

"Meaning if you increase the reward for reinvestment, you'll get more reinvestment."

Absolutely. A firm that passes on reinvestment that would increase profitability is probably under bad management.

#242 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-18 10:39 AM | Reply

Spot on.

Higher tax rates incentivize reinvestment. Lower tax rates incentivize taking money out of the business as profits.

Real World 101.

#225 | Posted by Danforth

Ummm . . . investment only comes from after-tax income.

Accounting 101.

Paying down principal, building a new factory . . . all after taxes. And you want to raise them.

#243 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 10:51 AM | Reply

"Ummm . . . investment only comes from after-tax income. Accounting 101."

Buying a business machine, or paying a wage, reduces taxable income.

Tax code 101.

#244 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 10:54 AM | Reply

I know farmers who routinely trade for and buy new equipment towards the end of the year they admittedly don't need and it's always for the same reason.......to avoid taxes.

CPAs advise this even though they know the new equipment isn't really needed. The downside of that is when grain prices slump and then they wish they hadn't done that. Instead, they wish they had just paid a little more in taxes and kept the difference to bridge them through the cycle of lower prices.

#231 | Posted by eberly

That's only because of the accelerated depreciation rules that are available for heavy construction equipment and farm equipment. Switch those back to a regular straight 5-year schedule, and the farmers would stop doing that.

Doubtless some lobbyists for Deere and CAT snuck that into a spending bill somewhere.

#245 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 10:55 AM | Reply

Buying a business machine, or paying a wage, reduces taxable income.

Tax code 101.

#244 | Posted by Danforth

You're half right. Paying a wage does reduce income. Buying a machine does to the extent of the depreciation allowance.

But then if you sell the machine later, you have to recapture it at regular income tax rates.

It's dumb to hire someone to save tax dollars. Your really only saving the tax rate of the expense. Doesn't work that way. If you ever hear of a CEO who is buying equipment or hiring new employees to save on taxes, let me know and I'll short his company's stock.

#246 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 10:58 AM | Reply

Then most of corporate America is under bad management.

When we talk about vulture capitalists that is what they do. They take companies and tear them apart and extract cash from the pieces with no thought to the workers or the future of the company.

That is the current soul of the conservatives. They would rather have that extra nickel of profit NOW instead of a dollar in 5 years.

It is the same rationale that allows them to put off repairing roads so they can have an extra nickel in tax cuts NOW even though a strong infrastructure is needed for commerce.

Bad roads lead to higher shipping costs because shipping takes longer and vehicles require more repairs. That creates a much higher drag on the economy than the taxes required to adequately maintain the roads.

#247 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-18 10:59 AM | Reply

Paying down principal, building a new factory . . . all after taxes.

Yes, and no.

Paying down principle (i.e., paying yourself via reducing liabilities) shouldn't trigger a tax break.

Take paying a mortgage, for example. Of the PITI, (Principle, Interest, Taxes, Insurance), the interest and taxes are deductible, as is a portion of the insurance if someone has a home office. But the principle is NEVER deductible, since it's simply transferring assets from one account of yours to another.

Building a new factory--at least this year's depreciable amount--comes into the equation BEFORE taxes are computed.

#248 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 10:59 AM | Reply

"But then if you sell the machine later, you have to recapture it at regular income tax rates."

1. Only to the amount it's been depreciated, and you realize a gain
2. It saves payroll taxes up front, and those aren't recaptured.

#249 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:01 AM | Reply

"It's dumb to hire someone to save tax dollars."

Absolutely. I tell folks all the time, never buy anything just because it's deductible.

But that's not the specific issue; it's the relative effect. Higher rates incentivizes reinvestment, as compared to lower rates, which incentivize taking profits out.

#250 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:07 AM | Reply

"You're half right. Paying a wage does reduce income. Buying a machine does to the extent of the depreciation allowance."

Which is exactly what I wrote.

That would make me all right, and your claim wrong.

#251 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:09 AM | Reply

I know paying down principal doesn't get a tax break. That was my point.

Building a new factory is usually on a 22.5-year depreciation schedule for the building and 5 minimum for each machine inside. If you're doing that to save taxes, you need a new CFO. It's too large a cash outlay for too long a period. You do it because you see a market opportunity, and because your after-tax profits make it worthwhile to pay back the bonds. Again, a lower tax rate is MORE beneficial to the building of factories, because the hurdle rate of return is lower.

"1. Only to the amount it's been depreciated, and you realize a gain."

No. You don't have to realize a gain to have to pay taxes on accumulated depreciation. Any sales amount over the tax basis (purchase price less accumulated depreciation) is a taxable as income.

You buy a machine for $10,000 on a 5-year schedule. You sell it 6 years later for $6,000, after fully depreciated. You owe income tax on $6,000 at regular income tax rates, not capital gains rates.

#252 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 11:16 AM | Reply

Higher rates incentivizes reinvestment, as compared to lower rates, which incentivize taking profits out.

#250 | Posted by Danforth

Preposterous. High tax rates increase the hurdle rates of return, which happens to be a knowable fixed cost. Why do you think companies move factories FROM high tax areas to lower-tax ones? Are they stupid?

Godalmighty.

#253 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 11:19 AM | Reply

Which is exactly what I wrote.

That would make me all right, and your claim wrong.

#251 | Posted by Danforth

No. You said that high tax rates incentivizes hiring and business investment. Which makes you all wrong.

"Hey! I have a great idea! Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 95%, to encourage them to build more factories here!"

#254 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 11:22 AM | Reply

"Preposterous."

I'm talking relative to each other. Are you dense, or purposely not understanding?

"Why do you think companies move factories FROM high tax areas to lower-tax ones?"

Greater profits.

Now...if tax rates drop like a rock, are folks more incentivized to reinvest, or take profits out?

Meanwhile, if tax rates double, will people more often choose to reinvest vs. pay the higher tax rate?

#255 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:23 AM | Reply

"No. You said that high tax rates incentivizes hiring and business investment."

In relative terms, as compared to lower rates.

Do I need to type slower?

#256 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:25 AM | Reply

"Hey! I have a great idea! Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 95%, to encourage them to build more factories here!"

If the marginal rate was 95%, would you buy that $1000 computer for $50?

If the marginal rate was 5%, would you buy that $1000 computer for $950?

And now the test question:

Does one of these rates incentivize reinvestment over the other?

Note: I'm not claiming 95% is good, or 5% is bad. I'm simply turing the contrast up to eleven.

#257 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:29 AM | Reply

Meanwhile, if tax rates double, will people more often choose to reinvest vs. pay the higher tax rate?

#255 | Posted by Danforth

If taxes rates double, they would be foolish to reinvest there. They need to close the plant and move it elsewhere. Which is exactly what does happen.

Factory Danforth: $1,000,000 in profits, 50% tax rate: $500,000 available to investors for reinvestment
Factory Devil: $1,000,000 in profits, 10% tax rate: $900,000 available to investors for reinvestment

Which factory do you suppose is going to see more reinvestment? Yours or mine?

#258 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 11:32 AM | Reply

"Factory Danforth: $1,000,000 in profits, 50% tax rate: $500,000 available to investors for reinvestment
Factory Devil: $1,000,000 in profits, 10% tax rate: $900,000 available to investors for reinvestment"

But Danforth decided to install new equipment that cost $300,000.00 which reduced his taxes and doubled his profits the following year while you put your profit in your pocket but became less competitive in the following year, soon going out of business.

#259 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 11:35 AM | Reply

"Which factory do you suppose is going to see more reinvestment? Yours or mine?"

Mine.

Yours has a much greater incentive to pay the taxes and pocket the profits. With mine, reinvestment is much more attractive.

Not that tax rates are going to double. Again, this is for contrast only.

#260 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:35 AM | Reply

If the marginal rate was 95%, would you buy that $1000 computer for $50?

If the marginal rate was 5%, would you buy that $1000 computer for $950?

And now the test question:

Does one of these rates incentivize reinvestment over the other?

Note: I'm not claiming 95% is good, or 5% is bad. I'm simply turing the contrast up to eleven.

#257 | Posted by Danforth

Holy cow. Are you saying that a high tax rate REDUCES the cost of capital goods? Do you really believe that? Or are you trying to make a joke or something?

A capital item is paid for with post-tax dollars, and depreciated over time for the cost of the item. The tax rate is irrelevant to the purchase of capital goods--on a tax basis they cost nothing, whether the tax rate is 95% or 5%.

#261 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 11:37 AM | Reply

The higher the income tax the greater the incentive to reinvest. Business owners ask themselves if they want to buy new equipment of just hand the money over to the government? With the lower tax rate they just put the profits in their pockets. This economic principle has been proven right unlike trickle down economics which has been proven wrong and that is exactly the economic model your stupid comparisan is based on.

#262 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 11:38 AM | Reply

Wow. Just wow.

Have you ever taken an accounting course in your life? Bookkeeping even?

#263 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 11:38 AM | Reply

The corporate tax rates for China, Mexico and Canada are all about the same. The factories moved to low wage countries not low tax. Ireland has much lower tax rates and it attracted shell companies not factories.
Come visit reality sometime, it is a nice place.

#264 | Posted by bored at 2017-05-18 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Holy cow. Are you saying that a high tax rate REDUCES the cost of capital goods? "

No, I'm comparing one rate vs. another rate, and the relative effect rate changes have. I've made that clear multiple times.

You're debating something else entirely, so I'll let you continue the debate by yourself.

#265 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:43 AM | Reply

"A capital item is paid for with post-tax dollars"

Tell that to my clients who buy a $10K machine, expense it the first year, and see their tax bill drop because of the purchase.

#266 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"...so I'll let you continue the debate by yourself." - #265 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:43 AM

In that regard, whitedevil is clearly a masterdebater.

#267 | Posted by Hans at 2017-05-18 11:46 AM | Reply

This thread is definitely a keeper.

If your clients expensed it all in the first year, they don't get to claim a deduction in years 2-5. And so do they believe that tax rates will be going down in ensuing years? If so, smart to take the 179 now. Otherwise the tax rate is completely irrelevant. And if your clients are told otherwise, they're being lied to.

#268 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 12:01 PM | Reply

"Otherwise the tax rate is completely irrelevant. "

Nonsense. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar four years from today, unless deflation occurs in the meantime.

So far, you've claimed wages don't affect taxes, capital investments don't affect taxes, and now, inflation has no effect.

It's almost like you're completely clueless when it comes to taxes. Well, not almost.

Shouldn't you quit while you're behind?

#269 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LMAO. I happen to be an expert when it comes to taxes. At least I thought so, until I began studying how Google and Apple and all the other oligopolies run by uberrich liberals manage to make more money than God, and pay zero taxes. When someone like me starts shaking his head and says, "wow, is that legal? I can't believe that's not illegal"--then that is where I find even myself among true giants: find a really rich liberal in Hollywood or Silicon Valley who says all the right things about progressive tax rates and climate change, and then just read their financial statements. You'll get a primer real quick on the best ways to screw everyone from DC to Sacramento, and not pay a dime.

So I'll defer to them. So where did you study accounting? Just curious.

I'm also curious why so many factories are leaving high-tax climes for lower-tax ones, if the high tax rates causes the owners to reinvest even MORE capital into those factories. Maybe the tax rates aren't high enough? Maybe make the tax rate 99.9%? The money should really be pouring in then, right?

#270 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 12:19 PM | Reply

"LMAO. I happen to be an expert when it comes to taxes."

Riiiiight.

That's why you believe paying wages doesn't lower a tax bill. Some "expert".

#271 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, to be in the top 1%, you need to be in a household that makes around $385 per year. That's not unusual for a household comprised of two professionals.

Mad,

You are looking at income I'm looking at net worth. When it comes to influence net worth is much more telling of your opportunity to influence policy. Only about half the 1% by income are in the 1% by net worth.

Whatever this thread is way off the rails at this point but as far as the title goes we all already know that you are cool with me having to cover my 100k a year health care with no help and if I can't then f' me investment bankers need a tax cut.

#272 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-05-18 12:27 PM | Reply

To be a right you would have to enslave some to pay for others.

#14 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355 AT 2017-05-16 08:44 PM | FLAG:

Well you do have a right to an attorney for your defense paid for out of tax money "enslaved" from others if you cannot afford that.

Now I suppose you are going to say that isn't a right either.

#273 | Posted by 726 at 2017-05-18 01:04 PM | Reply

Building a new factory is usually on a 22.5-year depreciation schedule

What tax expert doesn't know that commercial real estate is depreciated over 39 years and has been since 1986?

#274 | Posted by 726 at 2017-05-18 01:11 PM | Reply

"Factory Danforth: $1,000,000 in profits, 50% tax rate: $500,000 available to investors for reinvestment

$1,000,000 left the company

Factory Devil: $1,000,000 in profits, 10% tax rate: $900,000 available to investors for reinvestment"

$1,000,000 left the company

Factory better idea: Instead of splitting $1,000,000 between investors and taxes, neither of which directly benefit the company, They spend $400,000 to replace the 30 year old widget maker with a new one that doesn't need 30% downtime for repairs like the old one did, they spend $200,000 setting up a wellness program that reduces lost hours for sick time and increases employee loyalty, and they buy a new gadget making machine for $400 so they can produce a new item and generate more revenue.

No money left the company, the company value increased by $1,000,000

The constant stream of profits out of the company to investors who never did any work for the company and unless they bought the IPO never actually gave the company any money is like an interest only loan. The principal is never paid off.

The total amount of investment capital generated by IPOs globally in 2016 was only $132 Billion on 1055 IPOs That is the only money in the stock market that was new investment. The rest was just money changing hands without benefitting the companies. When Joe Schmoe buys stock from John Doe the company doesn't get a penny

www.ey.com$FILE/ey-global-ipo-trends-report-4q16.pdf

IPOs is money being invested
Dividends is money leaving the company

Dividends far outweigh investment. There are 2,800 publicly traded stocks on the NYSE. That dividend money is not earned. That is why the IRS calls it unearned income. While that money is not earned by the people who get it, It is worked for.

From their own financial statements, for every vehicle GM sells labor costs are $2374 Average vehicle revenue is 17,669 so labor costs are just 13.4% of revenue. At the same time they paid out 4.68% in dividends.

shareholders got paid $826.90 for every car GM sold. FOR DOING NOTHING

#275 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-18 01:59 PM | Reply

"shareholders got paid $826.90 for every car GM sold. FOR DOING NOTHING"

Um, don't they own the land and equipment that were used in the manufacture of the vehicle? That's kind of important, don't you think?

#276 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-18 05:09 PM | Reply

let it go, mad.

not even the sycophants who debate with you jumped on that retarded post in 275. Even they know that guy is a loon.

#277 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-18 05:11 PM | Reply

No, they don't own that. They own a piece of paper they bought from someone else who owned the piece of paper. The company has paid for that land several hundred times over in the form of dividends.

Like I said. It's an interest only loan with no end ever. Just money down the toilet.

The revenue is generated by the workers, not by the land

#278 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-05-18 05:13 PM | Reply

What tax expert doesn't know that commercial real estate is depreciated over 39 years and has been since 1986?

#274 | POSTED BY 726 AT 2017-05-18 01:11 PM | FLAG:

Every tax expert knows that. And they'll also tell you that a factory is not commercial real estate.

Aren't you the guy who told me your rich clients were buying municipal bonds at 15% yields?

I love coming to this place.

#279 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 09:16 PM | Reply

No, they don't own that. They own a piece of paper they bought from someone else who owned the piece of paper. The company has paid for that land several hundred times over in the form of dividends.
Like I said. It's an interest only loan with no end ever. Just money down the toilet.
The revenue is generated by the workers, not by the land

#278 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2017-05-18 05:13 PM | FLAG:

And for nuggets like this one too.

Dividends! Hundreds of times over!

It's beautiful. First-year finance majors should come to the DR. Prof could say, "See? This is why the world needs you.'

#280 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 09:21 PM | Reply

"The revenue is generated by the workers, not by the land"

The revenue is generated as a result of the collaboration of ALL the factors of production. Land, Labor, Capital, and in some cases entrepreneurship...depending on who you talk to. Without one factor of production, the others are meaningless in the sense of wealth production.

And really what one does when they buy a stock is they buy the possibility of both risk and reward. A worker is guaranteed a wage. The suppliers who provide the raw materials are guaranteed payment as well. Capital, on the other hand, is guaranteed nothing. If the business begins to fail, they are the last to recover any value from the company.

"It's beautiful. First-year finance majors should come to the DR. Prof could say, "See? This is why the world needs you."

With a few notable exceptions, progressives tend to shy away from larnin that economics stuff. I think it's too much in conflict with their ideology. Like an evangelical who refuses to take a natural history class because they believe the bible teaches that the earth is 4,000 years old.

#281 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-18 10:45 PM | Reply

"The revenue is generated as a result of the collaboration of ALL the factors of production. Land, Labor, Capital, and in some cases entrepreneurship...depending on who you talk to."

Absolute -------- and a complete denial that our economy is primarily a service economy. Can you imagine Bill Gates looking at his potential under the restrictions of MB's economic rules? No. Trust me, Gates didn't need land, didn't need labor, didn't even need capital. He created a huge industry without any of those things, yes he did hire people, yes he did build infrastructure but the core business wasn't dependent on any of those things, he built his business on ideas. Steve Jobs too. They had ideas that created programs that changed the world, programs are really ideas. Not hardware. That was Bill Gate's genius, he realized that Windows, an idea, was much more valuable than the hardware manufacturing.

#282 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 11:13 PM | Reply

"The revenue is generated as a result of the collaboration of ALL the factors of production. Land, Labor, Capital, and in some cases entrepreneurship...depending on who you talk to."

Absolute -------- and a complete denial that our economy is primarily a service economy. Can you imagine Bill Gates looking at his potential under the restrictions of MB's economic rules? No. Trust me, Gates didn't need land, didn't need labor, didn't even need capital. He created a huge industry without any of those things, yes he did hire people, yes he did build infrastructure but the core business wasn't dependent on any of those things, he built his business on ideas. Steve Jobs too. They had ideas that created programs that changed the world, programs are really ideas. Not hardware. That was Bill Gate's genius, he realized that Windows, an idea, was much more valuable than the hardware manufacturing.

#283 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 11:13 PM | Reply

"A worker is guaranteed a wage."

Not if you threaten to sue them for years.
~DJT

"The suppliers who provide the raw materials are guaranteed payment as well."

See advice Roy Cohn gave me, above.
~DJT

"Capital, on the other hand, is guaranteed nothing."

That's why you get the tax credits up front, loser.
~DJT

"If the business begins to fail, (capital investors) are the last to recover any value from the company."

Like hell.
~Steelworkers

#284 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:18 PM | Reply

""The revenue is generated by the workers, not by the land""

Then try to tax an acre in Montana that is producing nothing. Land does not earn anything without workers, thus all real income comes from labor. Yes, you can make money in the stock market, etc. but you cannot create real income without labor because Labor is the real origination of all wealth.

#285 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-18 11:21 PM | Reply

"Then try to tax an acre in Montana that is producing nothing."

You'll get taxes. All kinds of land that produces nothing is taxed.

"Land does not earn anything without workers"

Really? Then who gets the earnings when land turns a profit?

"all real income comes from labor."

Nonsense. Many products are only possible via a combination of labor and machinery which multiplies their output.

"you cannot create real income without labor because Labor is the real origination of all wealth."

Well, that depends on your definitions of "real" income and "wealth".

#286 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-18 11:46 PM | Reply

Bill Gates didn't need labor or capital. Fascinating.

#287 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-05-18 11:53 PM | Reply

"Absolute -------- and a complete denial that our economy is primarily a service economy."

It's statements like this that leave no doubt that you've never set foot in an economics class. This is pretty much day-one ----.

"Then try to tax an acre in Montana that is producing nothing. Land does not earn anything without workers, thus all real income comes from labor. Yes, you can make money in the stock market, etc. but you cannot create real income without labor because Labor is the real origination of all wealth."

That's basically what Marx said too, about 180 years ago. Of course Marxism has not been part of contemporary economics programs for decades. You might still find his preachings taught in a philosophy department once in while.

The fact is that, as a wealth generator, an acre of farm land is as valueless as a farmer without a plot to farm. Neither will be doing much of anything. Just like a machine that makes widgets will generate no wealth through the production of wigets without first having an operator to run the machine and precursor materials to turn into widgets.

Again, this is ECON 101 stuff. You would know this had you ever bothered to take the class. Although I can see how it could cause conflict with your chosen faith.

#288 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-05-19 08:42 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort