Simple question...

[Arkady]

If you're intimidated by the arguments I provided, that's fine. But don't make the mistake of thinking your cowering from them wasn't noticed.

 

[zzigzzag]

He should correct that, obviously. Nothing has gotten him in more trouble than his own stupid words.

BTW, the teleprompter thing is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally stupid. Don't make it worse by pretending you need an explanation for that.

 

[zzigzzag]

What has he spent that you disagree with? Blind assertions are a dime a dozen. Their value is going down with the glut on the supply side.

 

[zzigzzag]

So you're clueless. Stop the presses for this bulletin: "58 has no clue what people who were employed and doing well before the Bush recession are going through".

Trust your winger sites. They never let you down like facts do.

 

[oicu812]

Can you have economic growth where there are a lot of VERY rich people getting even more rich, while the majority of people don't?

absolutely...do i want more wealth? absolutely...should it be taken from others and given to me? YOU BETCHA!

 

[Lukey]

If you're intimidated by the arguments I provided, that's fine. But don't make the mistake of thinking your cowering from them wasn't noticed.

LOL! Hardly. It is a complete fabrication that we are now living in a "less socialistic" time. That's just not rational - entitlements and regulation have continued to skyrocket regardless of what has happened with tax rates (which are, frankly, less important than spending). And I have news for you - we're still engaged in the "war on poverty" to a greater extent than we were in the 60's. We backed off it briefly in the 80's and again in the late 90's - BOTH of which timeframes were marked by rapid economic growth and growing widespread prosperity. As for your second point, I might suggest that it is merely a result of the shop worn bromide that liberalism/progressivism/socialism always (ALWAYS) achieves the opposite of its intended effect. The big government policies and entitlements of the welfare state cause governments to run inflationary monetary policies that result in lower standards of living for the poor and middle class who cannot afford to invest in invest in inflation hedges, leaving them worse off over time despite all the policies intended to elevate their financial condition. Try getting a job if you want to rise out of poverty. Try getting (and staying ) married. Try attending/finishing school. As for your third point, it shows either an ideological bias or an academic naivete to assume all societies are equivalent for the purposes of comparing coefficients of socialism. Certainly societies with an almost non-existent underclass can run more socialist than nations with large proportions of under achievers with negligible ill effects and certainly those who maintain small or non-existent military efforts can also do so even if they have a larger contingent in their welfare class, as their spending can be constrained by lower military outlays. Now, if you want to make an argument that we should disarm and concentrate instead on being Venezuela I'm open to discussing that on a new thread. Please feel free to top post that.

So Arkady, as you can see I am well suited and more than willing to deconstruct your economic arguments for more socialism but I would suggest you move these matters over to the Economics and Business board where I don't have to wade through so much other stuff to get to it. Thanks.