Friday, July 25, 2014

Here They Are (But I'll Bet that Liberals Can)


5 Truths You Cannot Disagree With

12 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I can hardly wait until the liberal trolls begin commenting on this one.

Joe said...

GEC: I don't expect them to respond. They never do respond to the incontrovertible.

Duckys here said...

Well Joe, it's all in the way you use language. Take number one.

If you think anyone is proposing legislating the wealthy out of prosperity then you're a fool. Taxing the likes of carried interest at a rate lower than many people's meager CD interest seems ill advised to me.

But you and Glenn would rather see the upward transference of wealth accelerate and create a larger permanent underclass because that's what you think form a healthy, vibrant society.
You two should stick to your pithy aphorisms.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it? Actually, you can. Look into multiplier effects and report back to the class. Or just join Glenn in being snotty and ignorant and mired in your 15th century Calvinism.

Societies start to break when the wealth disparity becomes very large and basic needs like health insurance are unavailable to low income earners.

Of course with increased automation jobs are becoming scarcer and unemployment higher but deep thinkers like yourself think that there are jobs begging for everyone.
You are being intensely shallow.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Once again you show yourself to be the fool, as well as a liar with false accusations.

“But you and Glenn would rather see the upward transference of wealth accelerate”

Amazing how you can claim to be such a mind-reader! What I want to see is that people earn a living and are not looked down on if they get rich doing so. What I also want to see is an equal tax burden whether one is poor or rich; imagine if EVERYONE had to pay 15% income tax. I’d pay less, the wealthy would pay less, and the poor would pay more. It is not fair to burden the richer people with a higher rate of taxation— it merely punishes them for being successful and rewards the indigent.

Glenn in being snotty and ignorant and mired in your 15th century Calvinism.

Calvinism — You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

No one who knows me would ever accuse me of being a Calvinist, and I have stated that to you many times. But you obviously know better and know what I believe no matter how often I state otherwise.

Societies start to break when the wealth disparity becomes very large and basic needs like health insurance are unavailable to low income earners.

Suppose you give me an example from history where “wealth disparity” (an ambiguous term) has caused a society to “start to break.” Nice assertion, an argument without argument - and it makes YOU feel good.

Suppose you tell me when health insurance began and who all had it prior to Obamacare causing people to lose it. Health insurance through employers was started as a way of attracting employees. The government has no right under any law (let alone the Constitution) to tell employers that they must provide health insurance. Health insurance is NOT a “basic need” any more than is home-owner’s insurance or car insurance or dental insurance or vision insurance. Everyone has always had access to necessary health care. Insurance is NOT a right.

The rest of your claims against us have no basis in reality - which is normal for you.

Joe said...

Ducky: As usual, you have misstated my position, as well as the position of most conservatives. I do not believe in taxing the rich more just because they "can afford" it is good economic policy. Nor do I think 45%+ on some kind of government welfare is a good thing (myself included - although Social Security is somewhat different from other welfare forms).

Do a little study about what constitutes Calvinism. Don't forget to include TULIP.

Glenn is not a Calvinist, nor am I.

With regard to health insurance: there are more people have lost theirs than there are of people who did not have it but have gained it under ObamaCare.

I work at a physician referral service in the call center. The percentage of callers who have to change doctors because theirs is not listed on their insurance has grown by leaps and bounds. It is about 47% of our calls, now.

Before ObamaCare, it was almost rare.

Duckys here said...

Oh my, isn't the bee hive all stirred up.
Let me explain my vernacular usage of "Calvinist". I refer to your belief in an elect which you must have because you believe that wealth accumulation is strictly and always a matter of individual achievement.
Just ask the heirs to the Walmart fortune and the Koch Bros., right? But to quote Thatcher, a favorite of yours, "There is no society", right?
Just the elite and the undeserving.

And Glenn comes through like a champ with the flat tax. Right on cue he suggests that the poor who are struggling should have their taxes increased while the wealthy see a reduction. God thinking, Glenn.

I noticed you didn't try to respond to the issue of multipliers. Keep trying. You'll come up with a reason why letting wealthy slugs pile up a bunch of cash untaxed in the Caymans generates more growth than using a graduated tax to see that some money goes to the poor who spend it on food.

But no, we'll get a canned bogus rant about the Affordable Care Act while you lick your wounds.

Let's have some more pithy aphorisms.

Joe said...

Ducky: "'There is no society', right?

"Just the elite and the undeserving."

The only undeserving are those who can work but won't. Everyone else can become rich if they want to. I say let's teach them how. There is NOT a finite amount of money.

There is no "vernacular" use of "Calvinist."

Duckys here said...

@Glenn ---
Suppose you give me an example from history where “wealth disparity” (an ambiguous term) has caused a society to “start to break.”
---------
Why not start with the French Revolution and continue your studies from there.

Duckys here said...

Joe,for your consideration

Joe said...

Ducky: Considered. Rejected. It is false.

Oh, and BTW, China does not have a "trickle down" economy. It would be impossible for them to do so unless you deliberately change the meaning of the phrase in order to deceive.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

Let me explain my vernacular usage of "Calvinist". I refer to your belief in an elect which you must have because you believe that wealth accumulation is strictly and always a matter of individual achievement

You just demonstrated your complete ignorance of what Calvinism is, and it has nothing to do with wealth accumulation.

Heirs of someone who accumulated the wealth have not accumulated wealth when they inherit it, rather they inherit wealth. But that wealth was not magically created - it was earned through the hard work of the accumulator.

And Glenn comes through like a champ with the flat tax. Right on cue he suggests that the poor who are struggling should have their taxes increased while the wealthy see a reduction. God thinking, Glenn.

So, if someone is poor, they should pay no tax at all?!?!?! The real “poor” in the USA are a very, very small minority, and exemption could certainly be made for income which is extremely low, but that can get to be very subjective, can’t it? Who gets to determine what “poor” is?

You liberals are always demanding “equality” or “equity” yet when someone with common sense says everyone should pay the same percentage of their income as tax, suddenly you are no longer for equality — you want to punish the rich.

Are you able to read? Try this one:
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/2014/01/are-they-as-poor-as-government-says.html

Or this one:
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/2014/04/redistributing-wealth-doesnt-end-poverty.html

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,
Why not start with the French Revolution and continue your studies from there.

It was about class warfare, just like what you and your ilk want to start. But overall it was about ABUSE by the nobility and the Romanist Church rather than income disparity. But, you liberals always like to revise history.