There are some STUPID FUCKS on this board and there are some smart ones, too!

That's not what the graph is saying either. You're 0 for 2 in this thread. Originally Posted by Doove

And you are still a ZERO! * But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong

Let's all agree that the initial graphs couldn't possibly be tainted data since LSW wouldn't do that. Its all deregulation and derivatives that caused the problem. (While I pointed out that a derivative in and of itself is harmless) But if this is the case, then we would expect countries that are more regulated to be much more aligned with LSW's view of utopia. Then explain why Britain which has regulated more and more now states that the top 10% are 100 times richer than the bottom 10%?? According to LSW's view of regulation, this shouldn't ever happen.

Maybe a better question isn't why there is income disparity but why we would even care. According to the US Government definition of poverty, there are 15.1% in poverty. But according to our own census bureau, "poverty" today would be much better than "middle class" in the 1960s.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.




The census bureau concludes a major cause of poverty in the USA is........(drumrolll)...


Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.




Again, it seems like LSW is arguing that either 1) life should be fair or 2) he did not make the right decisions to move into the better brackets so he want wealth redistribution. If there is another point, can someone please make it?

First, Waco, I've always loved reading your posts and consider you a "stand-up" guy and a solid contributor to the board - that is, of course almost everywhere BUT POLITICS!

"You've got to be in a position for luck to happen. Luck doesn't go around looking for a stumblebum."
-- Darrell K. Royal Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Excuse me while I get my philosophy quotes from Plato, Socrates or even Mark Twain and others while I skip Darrell Royal. Thank you! Darrell could whine better than any coach of his time and you call out Democrats. He complained about slow, poorly-conditioned, small, less talented and generally inferior crops of athletes at Texas his whole time there and used it beautifully to lull opponents into a false sense of security. Hell, he had some of the best athletes in the whole nation when he was coaching and still cried what seemed like real tears when interviewed by sportswriters.

Some of the reporters even fell for the lines like you're falling for Fox Noise crap! Their next story after Royal quit crying would be headlined "Amazing! Small Texas Team Pummels Heralded Wichita Falls Rider High School!" Of course, Royal, like Fox and Limbaugh, would be the one who had been "heralding" the opponent as almost unbeatable.

What does that mean, Stevie? it means that single mom shoulda not been fuckin' around AND she's just another loser making excuses......and what makes you think you are smarter than .. anyone? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Great! Your solution for preventing future trouble is to go back and fix the past or throw the people away by holding what could have been a single, innocent, non-criminal mistake against them forever? I admire and envy your 20/20 hindsight!

I will always listen to your advice on hobbying but with politics your tinfoil Reagan beanie is in dire need of polishing!

Oh, and the smart deal? I just observe what and how others arrive at and convey their ideas. After that, figuring out their real intelligence is pretty simple. We're not talking street smarts, public relations or business sense here. We're talking about the ability to critically analyze political and economic data like being able to tell that Louie Gohmert's two-page "Jobs Bill" was nothing but tax cuts.

I'm almost ready for the next chart on how many jobs these "Job Creating" entrepreneurs and small business people are really creating.

Hell, I'd vote Republican if Eisenhower were running. You would NEVER see HIM balking at fixing bridges, roads and schools and paying out-of-work people to do it! People like the Koch Brothers make their money by shipping jobs overseas or laying off workers. Their Nazi father, who co-founded the John Birch Society, called Eisenhower a Communist when he helped push the Interstate Highway system. They are one of the biggest funders of the Tea Party and Americans for Prosperity through their "charitable" Claude R. Lambe Foundation.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...ble_Foundation

You guys listen to this SHIT and believe it because you think one day you'll be that wealthy and you'll need those tax shelters. LMAO! You're all ready to slam the girl who had sex and got pregnant and missed her last year of high school and never made it to college but not ready to quit listening to the people who have been causing the problems for years! Now THAT is what I call "STUPID-on-a-STICK"!

And you are still a ZERO! * But that's just my opinion... I could be wrong Originally Posted by MrGiz

You ARE wrong, Giz, but the real question is: "Just how many times are you willing to stick your neck out there and have it proven?"

Its getting deep in here and I need to go put my rubber boots on....

You ARE wrong, Giz, but the real question is: "Just how many times are you willing to stick your neck out there and have it proven?" Originally Posted by Little Stevie

If you had any idea of how little I care about your opinions.... well then, you would really know something!

Let's all agree that the initial graphs couldn't possibly be tainted data since LSW wouldn't do that. Its all deregulation and derivatives that caused the problem. According to LSW's view of regulation, this shouldn't ever happen.

The census bureau concludes a major cause of poverty in the USA is........(drumrolll)...

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Again, it seems like LSW is arguing that either 1) life should be fair or 2) he did not make the right decisions to move into the better brackets so he want wealth redistribution. If there is another point, can someone please make it? Originally Posted by blue3122

Horseshit, you hypothesis restructuring nitwit! I left a few of your rearranged "LSW" mind reads alone just for people to see your restating of what I actually said.

Why don't you factor in how many people come from families with two or more "breadwinners" and then we'll see just how rich we really are.

Don't use long dissertations of superfluous data and "massaged" LSW "quotations" to wax poetically about how the chart is somehow irrelevant.

Also, I don't think I mentioned "fairness" anywhere but you attributed that concept to what I was saying. Bullshit again. I was merely saying Waco Kid's "prevention" is not possible AFTER the fucking fact - get it right, would you?

Hold a thought and try not to pull the Ron Paul BULLSHIT out. We've heard it.

If you are in the upper 1% in income, you wouldn't be fucking off here and since you're not, you'd better be practicing your Chinese for when they buy your employer out they have you cleaning their toilets.

That is, of course, AFTER you've allowed the same thieves you're defending to "privatize" and steal what is left of Medicare and Social Security.

Oh don't worry, I know you'll be happy with the paper they print your Medicare/Social Security Default Swaps on.

Waco.... it is our fault that her luck sucks so bad, it has driven her to make bad life decisions... don't you understand anything?

We all make bad decisions, some people just deal with it better.

She never had a chance... because we opportunistic heathens sucked all the good luck from her environment.*

I didn't, did you? Oh there's that lame ass "environment" excuse .. again.
Originally Posted by MrGiz

Why not? who stopped her? not me. she stopped herself by giving up before even trying. anyone who does that is a loser.

Why not? who stopped her? not me. she stopped herself by giving up before even trying. anyone who does that is a loser. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I take it by your condescending manner that you aborted your own pregnancy, Waco. Your secret is safe with all your like-minded fuck buddies at ECCIE. We will never tell Michele or her "pray away the gay" husband!

I didn't, did you? Oh there's that lame ass "environment" excuse .. again. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Yes... we exploit others' environments for our own greed. . . that is what we do. . . it is how we succeed!

I know... it's just not fair

First, Waco, I've always loved reading your posts and consider you a "stand-up" guy and a solid contributor to the board - that is, of course almost everywhere BUT POLITICS!

oh well 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

He complained about slow, poorly-conditioned, small, less talented and generally inferior crops of athletes at Texas his whole time there and used it beautifully to lull opponents into a false sense of security.

it's called "messin' with your opponent's head." Seemed to work too.

Some of the reporters even fell for the lines like you're falling for Fox Noise crap!

the only foxes i fall for are Asian.


I will always listen to your advice on hobbying but with politics your tinfoil Reagan beanie is in dire need of polishing!

I wear a Colander it's more stylin' and it keeps the "voices" outta my head.



Oh, and the smart deal? I just observe what and how others arrive at and convey their ideas. After that, figuring out their real intelligence is pretty simple.

Your opinion is you're smarter than me. my opinion .. is something else.

Hell, I'd vote Republican if Eisenhower were running. You would NEVER see HIM balking at fixing bridges, roads and schools and paying out-of-work people to do it!

I'll agree with ya on that, Stevie. Eisenhower, a five star General, also warned about the "Military Industrial Complex" too bad no one seemed to listen.


You're all ready to slam the girl who had sex and got pregnant and missed her last year of high school and never made it to college but not ready to quit listening to the people who have been causing the problems for years! Now THAT is what I call "STUPID-on-a-STICK"! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I'll slam anyone who makes a mistake .. and then wears it as an excuse for the rest or their lives.

Horseshit, you hypothesis restructuring nitwit! I left a few of your rearranged "LSW" mind reads alone just for people to see your restating of what I actually said.

Why don't you factor in how many people come from families with two or more "breadwinners" and then we'll see just how rich we really are.

Don't use long dissertations of superfluous data and "massaged" LSW "quotations" to wax poetically about how the chart is somehow irrelevant.

Also, I don't think I mentioned "fairness" anywhere but you attributed that concept to what I was saying. Bullshit again. I was merely saying Waco Kid's "prevention" is not possible AFTER the fucking fact - get it right, would you?

Hold a thought and try not to pull the Ron Paul BULLSHIT out. We've heard it.

If you are in the upper 1% in income, you wouldn't be fucking off here and since you're not, you'd better be practicing your Chinese for when they buy your employer out they have you cleaning their toilets.

That is, of course, AFTER you've allowed the same thieves you're defending to "privatize" and steal what is left of Medicare and Social Security.

Oh don't worry, I know you'll be happy with the paper they print your Medicare/Social Security Default Swaps on. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

First, I never resort to name calling because it makes those who do just look like silly children on a playground. Second, I did not restructure a hypothesis because, if you read your initial post carefully, there is no hypothesis. Third, I did not massage any quote of yours. Or quote anything of yours. I was just trying to figure out what your point was. I still don't know. It seems (and I am guessing about your point) that you are upset because there is wealth disparity. But I then would question why you are upset at wealth disparity?

I never read Waco's post or referred to it in any way. I am not sure what your diatribe on that is.

As for "fairness", it goes back to trying to guess what your point is. Are you upset that life is not fair for some? Do you need to pin blame for your condition? Do you weep for humanity? I really can't tell. Please enlighten us about your point or any hypothesis. But if you are going to state a hypothesis, try to come up with one that can be tested against data.

I don't think I have ever listened to Ron Paul say much that I would agree with and I don't listen to politicians as rule on anything regarding economics or job creation because very few have any background in economics (I do) or job creation. Most are lawyers.

To completely ignore technological effects on the change in the US and world economy is laughable. That means you would still be plowing fields with a wooden plow and ox because steel plows were never invented. And you would be in a horse and buggy because cars were not invented. Technological changes are always a driver in economics and society. And there are always winners and losers.

The Koch's (who are not my employers) are creating jobs overseas but not sending them there. You see, it is very difficult to tear down a gas pipeline and send it somewhere just because the labor is cheaper. They are building new refinery facilities overseas mainly because the regulatory environment here will not allow them to build in the USA. I don't know them personally nor do I care what there forebears may have done. They are job creators in the US though.

Was your initial post just informational to let us know that we are all doomed and should give up and suck the tit of everyone else rather than learn, create, live and be happy?

I take it by your condescending manner that you aborted your own pregnancy, Waco.

Then why am i here?

Your secret is safe with all your like-minded fuck buddies at ECCIE. We will never tell Michele or her "pray away the gay" husband! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Good God, if Michele Bachmann actually does get elected President i'll move to New Zealand. They do have AMP's in New Zealand, don't they??

come on now Stevie, at least admit you like the Colander.

What is so fucking amusing to me is I'm sitting here wondering how many of your right wingers who are struggling to find explanations for this are the very one who get fucked in the system that it portrays. I wonder how many are in the top 20 percentile? How many lower? How many in the top 1 percentile, etc.? But I'd all but guarantee that many who are searching and scratching for justifications for the unjustifiable are the very ones who are getting fucked in the lower 80 percentiles. The ability of the Republican Party to get those who are economically disadvantaged by their policies to make their fights for them is nothing short of incredible to me.

I justify my working against these policies, despite being above the 0.5 percentile but below the 0.1 percentile in income by figuring that I can't continue to prosper unless everybody prospers. What is your justification?

What is so fucking amusing to me is I'm sitting here wondering how many of your right wingers who are struggling to find explanations for this are the very one who get fucked in the system that it portrays. I wonder how many are in the top 20 percentile? How many lower? How many in the top 1 percentile, etc.? But I'd all but guarantee that many who are searching and scratching for justifications for the unjustifiable are the very ones who are getting fucked in the lower 80 percentiles. The ability of the Republican Party to get those who are economically disadvantaged by their policies to make their fights for them is nothing short of incredible to me.

I justify my working against these policies, despite being above the 0.5 percentile but below the 0.1 percentile in income by figuring that I can't continue to prosper unless everybody prospers. What is your justification? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Adam Smith. And don't even go off on Nash. That was pretty well proven to be erroneous by Wooders, Page, etc.. (The Nobel committee looked foolish when Nash was collapsed by better mathematicians/economists. But Krugman outdid that. Vickery at least was an apologetic socialist and had the sense to die before talking too much plus he was really old).