By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is Ann Coulter REALLY that stupid?

Kasz216 on 15 August 2012
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

Reality is, as it is now, standard of living increases has flatline for everyone but the top.  The tide is not causing all boats to rise.  

The tide isn't rising at the moment, and according to the CBO, it's the wealthy who have been hardest hit by the recession. Of course, they are better able to sustain that kind of a hit, but the whole narrative about the rich getting richer while everyone else gets soaked is generally a bunch of bull.

The longer term trend demonstrated a middle class that was shrinking as more people climbed out of the middle class and into the upper class.

Also worth noting... that 1 in 3 people who were in the top 1% in 2007.  Weren't there in 2009.

 



Around the Network
binary solo on 16 August 2012
badgenome said:
binary solo said:

I favour a (downwards) redistributive taxation and welfare system because, like cream, money always floats to the top in our economic system. So trickle down can't ever work with the current economic paradigm where wealth accumulation is a virtue, THE virtue.

I think that's a wrong way of looking at it. Income inequality offends some people's sense of fairness but is basically irrelevant as no one is doing worse because someone else did better. Economic growth is far more important. The standard of living for poor people is unbelievably high compared to what it was 50 years ago, because a rising (economic and technological) tide did indeed lift all boats.

Yes they are doing worse relatively speaking if the economic growth is inequitably distributed. If overall economic growth in the last 50 years was 200% then an equitable distribtion of that economic growth would be every economic stratum of society would have seen a 200% increase. But does that reflect reality? A widening income disparity is bad regardless of Economic growth if most of the increase in wealth from economic growth is going to the already wealthy then that's bad. Over the long term income disparity has increased considerably. This suggest the distribution of economic growth has been inequitable. In addition, having a robust welfare and public health system and a reasonable redistributive tax system is not incompatible with good economic growth. Economic growth, in under a reasonable redistributive tax system stimulates economic activity among the masses. And it's from the masses that the few get wealthy.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo on 16 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

Reality is, as it is now, standard of living increases has flatline for everyone but the top.  The tide is not causing all boats to rise.  

The tide isn't rising at the moment, and according to the CBO, it's the wealthy who have been hardest hit by the recession. Of course, they are better able to sustain that kind of a hit, but the whole narrative about the rich getting richer while everyone else gets soaked is generally a bunch of bull.

The longer term trend demonstrated a middle class that was shrinking as more people climbed out of the middle class and into the upper class.

Also worth noting... that 1 in 3 people who were in the top 1% in 2007.  Weren't there in 2009.

 

That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Those who are in the top 1% at any given time will be subject to change. What matters is the change in worth of the current one percent, which has gone down. The point is who is in the top 1% is irrelevant.

In any case, it's not the 1% who are the perpetual winners, it's the 0.1%. The 0.1% look upon the rest of the 1% the same as the 1% look upon the 99%.

And the short term swings and roundabouts are pretty meaningless. Everyone who plays the stock market smartly knows that while they may take a 20% hit today they'll get a 40% gain tomorrow (of course not that fast, but over time). So the top 1% might have been hardest hit %-wise since 2008, but they will also be the quickest to make it all back, and then some.

If a large stack of my wealth is tied up in shares in companies that are sound, but who's shares have lost value simply because the market sheep have all panicked together, then those sound companies are going to come back with avengance once the sheep come merrily bleating back into the market. On paper I've lost a bucket load of money, and handily I can write that off to reduce my tax bill, even though my day job is paying me the same. But it really doesn't affect me day to day and I know given more time the value of my investments will increase well beyond what they were when the market started to drop. I have several thousand shares in that very situation. But I'm patient, I know the investments are sound and it's just the panicking sheep are still spooked. It'll probably be a year or two before things come right, but then my shares will be worth way more than they were when I bought them.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Zappykins on 16 August 2012
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

The narrative now being spun is that everything Obama is doing is an entitlement and welfare.  He doesn't want people to work, but wants to tax those that do, and owners, to build of bunch of people who remain on the government dole, so they vote Democratic and stay in power.  This is because this tax money enables these lazy and shiftless people to living high on the hog, not being required to use the health service in place that they are meant to use, called the emergency room.  So everything Obama does, has to fit into this, including killing bin Laden.

Or it's an entitlement program because insurance companies are being prohibited by law from doing what they're supposed to do: assess risk. When a 60-year-old diabetic smoker with half a lung is paying the same for an insurance policy as a healthy 20-year-old who has never touched a cigarette in his life, it's pretty clear who is paying for whom.

Of course, Republicans are totally on board with this part because they are a bunch of feckless shitheads.


I think you have a point - which is why we pobably should do away with the health insurance companies completly.  If the same money went to health care and related cost, as apposed to the current system where much goes to insurance companies' waste and stockholder's pockets.   Even if it's less efficiant, we could give everyone better health care than they have now, and a $500 refund.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Kasz216 on 16 August 2012
Zappykins said:
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

The narrative now being spun is that everything Obama is doing is an entitlement and welfare.  He doesn't want people to work, but wants to tax those that do, and owners, to build of bunch of people who remain on the government dole, so they vote Democratic and stay in power.  This is because this tax money enables these lazy and shiftless people to living high on the hog, not being required to use the health service in place that they are meant to use, called the emergency room.  So everything Obama does, has to fit into this, including killing bin Laden.

Or it's an entitlement program because insurance companies are being prohibited by law from doing what they're supposed to do: assess risk. When a 60-year-old diabetic smoker with half a lung is paying the same for an insurance policy as a healthy 20-year-old who has never touched a cigarette in his life, it's pretty clear who is paying for whom.

Of course, Republicans are totally on board with this part because they are a bunch of feckless shitheads.


I think you have a point - which is why we pobably should do away with the health insurance companies completly.  If the same money went to health care and related cost, as apposed to the current system where much goes to insurance companies' waste and stockholder's pockets.   Even if it's less efficiant, we could give everyone better health care than they have now, and a $500 refund.

Except you couldn't be further from the truth.  Which is another reason the health insurance law was stupid.

Health insurance profit margins are actually very low.

I mean, to quote one of the most liberal economists out there.

"The health-care sector is absurdly profitable. According to this data at Yahoo Finance, the sector-wide profit margin is 21.5 percent. But the insurance industry is one of its least-profitable parts: Its profit margin is at 4.54 percent. Hospitals are also a bit strapped, with an average margin of 3.5 percent."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/health-insurance_industry_stil.html

 

And 4.5% is actually a GOOD Year for profit margins.  Usually it's 2-3% at best. 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

 

Healthcare cost is usuaully driven by the adoptation of new technology, of procedures done, and perscribing of drugs.

The only real way to cut healthcare costs is to ration these things... which Americans don't particularly want to do.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 16 August 2012
binary solo said:
Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

Reality is, as it is now, standard of living increases has flatline for everyone but the top.  The tide is not causing all boats to rise.  

The tide isn't rising at the moment, and according to the CBO, it's the wealthy who have been hardest hit by the recession. Of course, they are better able to sustain that kind of a hit, but the whole narrative about the rich getting richer while everyone else gets soaked is generally a bunch of bull.

The longer term trend demonstrated a middle class that was shrinking as more people climbed out of the middle class and into the upper class.

Also worth noting... that 1 in 3 people who were in the top 1% in 2007.  Weren't there in 2009.

 

That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Those who are in the top 1% at any given time will be subject to change. What matters is the change in worth of the current one percent, which has gone down. The point is who is in the top 1% is irrelevant.

In any case, it's not the 1% who are the perpetual winners, it's the 0.1%. The 0.1% look upon the rest of the 1% the same as the 1% look upon the 99%.

Couldn't disagree more.

What matters the most is absolute change in wealth.  If I start making enough to earn one more videogame a year, I don't care if someone else is able to afford an extra Yacht or something.

What matters second most, is oppurtunity to be rich.  The more whatever you want to define as rich changes, the better.  That shows there are ups and downs and people are rewarded.  So if people care enough, they can go for it. 

What matters least, is a changing in the percentage of wealth.  It doesn't really mean anything.  So some .01% of the country is rich enough to own a foosball table on the moon.   This matters why exactly?

Getting mad about it is like getting mad that my neighbor can paint better then me, and demand that they burn their artwork because I can't draw worth shit do to disgraphia.

It's pure stupitidy.  Once they die their relatives are likely to lose it all anyway. 

I mean,  you do realize economics isn't a zero sum game, right?