Lucky...

Per the graph it appears the real wealth is made when by the rich when the poor earn income: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm The distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income, especially when focussing on the bottom 60% of all households. The bottom 60% of households possess only 4% of the nation's wealth while it earns 26.8% of all income. So I guess the rich need to have the poor working so they can continue their greedy quest to own it all. Also, under Capitalism, you're right, which is why Capitalism is so slimy. Under Socialism the status of teh poor isn't tied to the rich, they are empowered w/o sucking off the rich, as with Capitalism; you say you prefer Capitalism and you're not rich? And here I predicted more drooling. I'm not looking for some even distribution, just one that's not so skewed, one where there is a reasonable baseline of benefits, HC, etc. I'd like to see teh data, but even if true, I don't believe it is, but poor people are guaranteed HC, vacation with their employer, etc. I don't see a greater disparity in wealth between upper and lower counting HC, vacation and other benefits. Empowered doesn't mean they have to rule, it just means they have some power/control/benefit of their nation such as vacation, HC, etc. I believe all W.E. countries guarantee all of these, whereas we don't. No, the people in power will distribute some of that to the lower classes, the people will have control of teh means of production thru unionization, election, etc. Capitalism is idea that those with capital will control the market and exploit it for their own good and benefit. That's Communism; I don;t expect you kn ow the difference or if you do, you don't care enough to be correct. That's Communism. If the gov gets out of control under Socialism, the peopel revolt, if that revolt is met with force and no resolve is realized, that's Communism. No, I despise governments that allow the rich to run unchecked, this is not a scenario of teh rich running amuck, they will if you let them, this is a case where some gov officials let and encouage the rich to run unchecked. I could analogize that with cops; most cops aren't inherently dirty, but when some, many see teh courts let them get away with murder, they then abuse their power. Get it?

Data?? You have gotten nutty conclusions bases on twisted views of data All those here who can think for themselves understand that To me, you are just funny you are the ryhs of government and taxation policy You need to actually take my interpretation of that data and refute it with counter-data or something, anything cogent. But no, we love you the way you are; so predictable.

LOL I've typed and erased 5 different replys..I give up I'm sorry your typing skills are so bad.

So tell us. In your enlightened views, what is the difference between socialism and communism? Communism = the means of production are controlled by the government. Socialism = the means of production are controlled by the people. Capitalism = the means of production are controlled by the market and the elite control the market, so it is controled by the elite.

ROFL...oh yeah! There are so many empowered poor in Cuba, China, and North Korea. Wow! Seriously Lucky...now that you've had a chance to see that statement are you sure you don't want to re-think what you said? I see, claiming that N Korea, Cuba and China are Socialist is the problem; they are Communist. They may have Socialist elements to them, as do we, but they are definitiely Communist. I guess you have to misrepresent them in order to make your point. Is Canada Communist too, or is this just your delluded puzzle where you get to fill in the blanks? Communist, socialist...I don't care. Their poor are so empowered. Communist, no. Socialist, yes. The countries in W.E. have as federal law that all working citizens must get between 30 days and 9 weeks vaction, depending upon which country. They all have medical access guaranteed them in different ways. They are empowered.

I don't think that, I have ahard time understanding how you could interpret that..... wait, the guy who never posts objective supportring data....yea, I get it. I was illustrating how the guy I was responding to was calling Cuba, China and N Korea Socialist whne they are Communist. Get it yet? If those countries are Socialist, so must be Canada. all those countries you assert are communist ARE socialist , and you said " never " ! They may have socialist elements, as we ahve socialist elements, as I just said, but they are primarily communist. If that's hard to grasp, I can't make it any more clear. We have socialist security, that doesn't mean we're a socialist nation.

No, she's not a witch, not anymore than Larrry Craig was a homosexual; it's all smoke and mirrors, that and a LW/RW conspiracy. It's called a joke. Try to keep up. For fuck sake I even said "thusly." I hate that word. It's like saying thereforely. My bad, I took you as literal; I thought you were trying to be ornate. thus·ly (sl) adv. Usage Problem Thus. Usage Note: Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles this way, like this, and other such expressions are more natural.

Geez, maybe gender has zero to do with this. What a joke.

The deficits of Obama are the ones he inherited from GWB; make sense. Just because he didn't do the Republican / Libertarian sociopathic thing and chop all social svs and throw people onto the streets doesn't make the inherited mess his own.

While a popular sentiment for better than the past 100 years, it's too extreme. If sitting politicians are never re-elected, institutional memory and competence at the managerial levels of government will always be at the rookie level. But capable management needs to have some experienced hands at the helm. The better solution is a balancing of competing interests: re-elect people who have shown to have a reasonable level of competence, but have term limits to keep them from becoming too entrenched, and to maintain a supply of fresh blood in the system. Don't take the purveyor's of that rhetoric as serious, when they say out with teh incumbents, they mean out with the majority; the Dems. They don't really mean all incumbents.

Izzat the best you got? It was a funny gaffe on Obama's part, to be sure; but in his case, everyone who is not a complete moron understands that it was a slip brought on by the fatigue of the campaign trail. I'd stack up Obama's intellect, education and professional accomplishments against those of either O'Donnell or Palin any day of the week. Right..all Republicans are dumb and all Democrats are smart. We get you. Maybe she was just high on a little pot when she said it. You get an "A" and a little Gold Star for defending Obama. He's going to be needing you in the future as his "accomplishments" add up. And anyone who disagrees is a complete moron. Yea, his accomplishments look horrible so far: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 Well no shitYep, just shows if you keep pissing money away there is some temporary blips. Brilliant concept. Problem is it has to be paid back. The LW morons can't seem to wrap their pea sized brains around this concept. Great job your moron is doing. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1351 Using your source: - The federal government incurred a deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2010, CBO estimates in its latest Monthly Budget Review—a total that is about $100 billion less than the shortfall recorded through August of last year. - Outlays are about 2 percent less than they were in the first 11 months of 2009, whereas revenues have increased by 1 1/2 percent. OK, so the deficit is down from the previous year, outlays are down and revs are up; not sure you've built a case against me. But keep it up anyway . With all that, considering the mess Obama inherited, what did you expect? Did you expect a 2-week turnaround? Or are you using the mess created by your side to slam the people who are fixing it? The economy is repairing; the Republicans have shown you can hammer the economy is short time, but it always takes a long time to repair, which makes sense. This is the same rhetoric the RW laid down when FDR inherited a POS; it's taking too long. Well then tell your party to quit fucking it up and we can avoid this shit.

Izzat the best you got? It was a funny gaffe on Obama's part, to be sure; but in his case, everyone who is not a complete moron understands that it was a slip brought on by the fatigue of the campaign trail. I'd stack up Obama's intellect, education and professional accomplishments against those of either O'Donnell or Palin any day of the week. Right, that slip was like Quale's Potatoe-gate. Of course he became insistent after he was told he was wrong, but still, he actually is a bright guy. Neo-cons like to label people from 1 remark rather than a sum total of all remarks. That's like watching a racer take one corner and calling the race on that rather than reality, a sum total of all corners plus the straightaways. drag racers ? Same analogy; you *try* to figure it out.

I don't think that, I have ahard time understanding how you could interpret that..... wait, the guy who never posts objective supportring data....yea, I get it. I was illustrating how the guy I was responding to was calling Cuba, China and N Korea Socialist whne they are Communist. Get it yet? If those countries are Socialist, so must be Canada.

Izzat the best you got? It was a funny gaffe on Obama's part, to be sure; but in his case, everyone who is not a complete moron understands that it was a slip brought on by the fatigue of the campaign trail. I'd stack up Obama's intellect, education and professional accomplishments against those of either O'Donnell or Palin any day of the week. Right..all Republicans are dumb and all Democrats are smart. We get you. Maybe she was just high on a little pot when she said it. You get an "A" and a little Gold Star for defending Obama. He's going to be needing you in the future as his "accomplishments" add up. And anyone who disagrees is a complete moron. Yea, his accomplishments look horrible so far: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

Izzat the best you got? It was a funny gaffe on Obama's part, to be sure; but in his case, everyone who is not a complete moron understands that it was a slip brought on by the fatigue of the campaign trail. I'd stack up Obama's intellect, education and professional accomplishments against those of either O'Donnell or Palin any day of the week. Right, that slip was like Quale's Potatoe-gate. Of course he became insistent after he was told he was wrong, but still, he actually is a bright guy. Neo-cons like to label people from 1 remark rather than a sum total of all remarks. That's like watching a racer take one corner and calling the race on that rather than reality, a sum total of all corners plus the straightaways.

Sort-of yes. Palin went around the country campaigning on behalf of helping several previously-obscure Tea Party candidates. To Palin's political credit, several of them won, including O'Donnell. It was a smart strategy by Palin's political staff; the results have definitely boosted Palin's political influence, obviously in preparation for 2012. I really can't believe that people really pay attention to Palin! I guess, it's like anything else... get it out there and keep it out there and people will buy it. Oh my gravy! Chuck RW idiots crave people like her. You really can't blame her, Bush or any RW morons, they are a product of the desire people with limited intellect crave and Palin, O'Donnell deliver.

ROFL...oh yeah! There are so many empowered poor in Cuba, China, and North Korea. Wow! Seriously Lucky...now that you've had a chance to see that statement are you sure you don't want to re-think what you said? I see, claiming that N Korea, Cuba and China are Socialist is the problem; they are Communist. They may have Socialist elements to them, as do we, but they are definitiely Communist. I guess you have to misrepresent them in order to make your point. Is Canada Communist too, or is this just your delluded puzzle where you get to fill in the blanks?

Diff is I'm not a major media outlet with a huge staff. As well, I didn't quote the onion, I initially though they were a RW rag. But I guess I can take that knowing I'm not so naive that I thought impeachment was a conviction as did Belgian.

You've taken substantive but errant arguments and reduced them to rhetoric; common in argument losses. Other than throw them in the fucking garbage can, what do you do with the millions on social security, elders, disabled, etc who you would have cut from the roles? Wwe know. It sounds really neat to say that we can just cut spending and everyone smiles, truth is that tax increase fix things, they motivate reinvesting profits which keep the whole thing moving. I showed you your 1997 capital gains cut was errant, do you have other theories? Can you show me a major fed tax cut that has helpeed?

Love to: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Financial Wealth Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent 1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7% 1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6% 1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7% 1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0% 1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1% 2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7% 2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5% 2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0% 42.7 + 50.3 = 93%; anymore easy questions? Or just your strawman? I see, bow down tht rich and then maybe, just maybe they'll let us have a few crumbs donw here. Well, your recollection is as meaningless as what you post, the Nasqaq increased 400% in Clinton's 8 years. But because it was higher and was left only 400% higher that's not good enough. Nasdaq = 696 to 2772. So Reagan gets the credit for Clinton's massive growth? Even tho jobs were stale under GHWB, Clinton's tax measures reinvigorated and beat Reagan's by far, the GWB's tax cuts iced them to 1.1% in 8 years, < 1/20th of what Clinton did in his 8 years. Tax cuts shift the tax burden onto the higher rates from the lower rates, and cause a reduction in tax avoidance. That's not raw data, that's interpretation by a Nazi site. You would shit if I posted Moveon.org, yet you feel justified posting partisan BS and asking me to consider it credible I hope you're joking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-w_n_719436.html This is funny shit, it is best to let Wikipedia articles sit for a while to get straightened out, then they are usually pretty reliable.

Or have a look right here? http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-09-17/americans-poor-tent-city.html He's looking, he just can't see http://design.sva.edu/site/projects/show/5

Per the graph it appears the real wealth is made when by the rich when the poor earn income: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm The distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income, especially when focussing on the bottom 60% of all households. The bottom 60% of households possess only 4% of the nation's wealth while it earns 26.8% of all income. So I guess the rich need to have the poor working so they can continue their greedy quest to own it all. Also, under Capitalism, you're right, which is why Capitalism is so slimy. Under Socialism the status of teh poor isn't tied to the rich, they are empowered w/o sucking off the rich, as with Capitalism; you say you prefer Capitalism and you're not rich?

I wonder how many of them are illegals? The feds only have reported income to go off of. Not income received "under the table" or "off the books". Just like the guy that has a 4 bedroom house and 3 SUVs and makes his living begging for change on the corner. Wow - that sounds familiar, somone making a living with change, coincidence? Since the top 20% of the population holds 93% of all cash, 85% of all cash/assets is it really intelligent to worry about the crumbs at the botom 60% of the scale that = 4% of all cash/asset? http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm Thinking someone is begging for change and buying a new Escalade and a 4 bedroom house is so unaware of reality that I don't know whether to respond or to call the men in white suits.

Finally you make sense. Finally, a 1-liner. Thx for contributing, we're all the better for it. It was far better than your rambling rant And enormous list of data that you don't even have a clue as to how to respond.