Good observation, BB Idaho. Actually, I have a number of them; all with the same design....David Boren and Nelson Rockefeller for those of you (probably only wd) who couldn't figure it out.
I kind of guessed Rockefeller. But I'd never heard of David Boren. I called the guy "Captain Combover" in my head as I awaited the revelation of his nme.
dmarks, David Boren - former moderate Democratic Senator from Oklahoma and currently the President of the U of Oklahoma.......Yes, Russ, me-buck, extremely obvious.
The vast, VAST, percentage of the people in the top 1% (more than half of which don't even stay in that category, decade to decade) had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis and for the 99%ers to insinuate that they did is well beyond loathsome.
And the ruling elites, our elected representatives (aka "the people" according to WD) had everything to do with the crisis. And they lord it over the 100%. The banks would not have made bad loans to undeserving people had not Congress intervened and backed them up. Bad loans are discouraged if things are left to the free market.
dmarks: The banks would not have made bad loans to undeserving people had not Congress intervened and backed them up. Bad loans are discouraged if things are left to the free market.
What a load of crap. The financial crisis was due to the greed of the banksters. Yes, they knew the Federal Government would bail them out, and they may have been more cautious if they knew they would not be rescued... but they paid off those in government so they would protect them from failing/allow them to get so large so they were "to big to fail".
Not enough effective regulation and the fact that our regulators have been captured was the problem (and still is). The financial crisis wasn't due to this fantasy dmarks has about the "ruling elites" "backing up" the banks (revised from his earlier silly claim of "forcing").
dmarks: All the 1% rhetoric is just greed and jealosy. Piteous whining by the shiftless against those who have their act together.
Not at all. It's identifying the unfairness of the system being rigged. dmarks imagines "greed and jealously" to justify his support for the greed of the wealthy elites.
WD....please,if you can give us just a brief explanation how the "system is rigged." I dont think any of us exactly knows what you mean by that comment.If the "system" is "rigged" perhaps you could give us....say three examples just how its "rigged."
If you find it impossible to post examples of this supposed "rigged system" it would be a good idea to get a couple different buzz words...dont you think.
You're missing a couple of points here, wd. If Greenspan and the FED hadn't artificially lowered interest rates and kept them there, there would never have been such a massive misallocation of money away from where it more naturally would have gone (tech, education, recreation, etc.) and ended up in the housing area. And, while Fannie and Freddie weren't nearly as culpable as the FED, the fact that they continued to buy up more and more of these toxic loans from the banks was a great inducement for the banks to continue these practices. I mean, My God, when they finally did go belly-up, the sons of bitched were leveraged nearly 1,000 to 1!!
It is rigged, alright. In favor of people like them. Those who work hard to earn it instead of sitting back and whining for it. And yes there are some who think that getting the reward of working hard and wisely is 'terrible'.
I didn't claim that my short explaination included every single contributing factor... but at least you admit I got it mostly right. dmarks still clings to his FALSE rewriting of history.
dmarks: I strongly oppose handouts to the greedy wealthy and have said so many times. Your accusation is baseless.
I didn't make this accusation. My accusation concerning the greed of the wealthy elites has to do with their screwing of American workers by [1] underpaying them, [2] union busting, [3] offshoring their jobs... and making allies of Republican politicans (via campaign contributions... aka bribes) in their efforts to screw them.
dmarks: It is rigged, alright. In favor of people like them.
It is rigged against them.
The Fiscal Times: The Financial System Is Rigged in Favor of the Rich. [Article discusses the bush bailouts, which dmarks SAYS he opposed].
David Axelrod: We have a tax system that is rigged against the average person, rigged in favor of the very wealthy...
Axelrod? Obama you mean. He's a paid mouthpiece of the administration. You have essentially presented a mindless campaign slogan as if it were a meaningful argument.
And Axelrod is an example of an actual wealthy elite. He is definitely in the powerful ruling class. He was not elected. And he receives massive overpay: government wasting mad money on a millionaire. One of the greedy wealthy ruling elites for sure.
I oppose all corporate welfare, including the bank and auto industry handouts... before, during, and now.
But the bailouts were not corporate welfare? Or, they were but they aren't an example of how the system is rigged? Stop dodging the question.
The only point of the Axelrod quote was to show to you that intelligent people hold this (fact based) opinion. You and Will speak to me as if I'm stupid whenever I bring up the fact that our economic system is rigged.
Both Obama and Axelrod want to be taxed more. How the hell is that "greedy"?
And workers being underpaid not only exists, but is the norm. Workers can not just "go elsewhere". Tight labor markets drive up the cost of labor. We aren't in a tight labor market (unemployment would have to be below 4 percent... at least). You really need to buy a clue dmarks.
WD said: "But the bailouts were not corporate welfare? "
Read the very section you were quoting, and everything else I have ever said on the subject:
"I oppose all corporate welfare, including the ....handouts."
I have no idea where you got the idea that I said the bailouts were not corporate welfare. Certainly not from me. I know they are, and have always said so, including when you quoted me.
"The only point of the Axelrod quote was to show to you that intelligent people hold this (fact based) opinion"
Since it is incorrect, it is a false opinion. In fact, the rich pay much more as a group, in dollars individually, and as a percentage of individual income, than the non-rich.
"And workers being underpaid not only exists, but is the norm."
No it is not, You are making up some imaginary, arbitrary numbers, and shooting in the dark with them.
dmarks SAYS he opposed the bailouts, but regarding the question concering whether or not the bailouts are an example of how the system is rigged... dmarks REFUSES to answer... because he knows they are.
Unless he thinks the bailout money went to middle class and poor people.
dmarks: I have no idea where you got the idea that I said the bailouts were not corporate welfare.
Because you say the system isn't rigged. This is a obvious example of rigging.
dmarks: In fact, the rich pay much more as a group, in dollars individually, and as a percentage of individual income, than the non-rich.
So what? They "make" most of the money and therefore should pay most of the taxes. They should pay more.
dmarks: No it is not, You are making up some imaginary, arbitrary numbers, and shooting in the dark with them.
You only wish I was "shooting in the dark". In reality the facts back up what I'm saying. For example, "[the] Census report of Income [shows that] the median male is now worse on a gross, inflation adjusted basis, than he was in 1968. While back then, the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since declined to $32,137 as of 2010".
The reason workers are being underpaid is because the greedy wealthy elites are taking that money for themselves. Inflation adjusted income for the wealthy elites is going up while it is going down for the rest of us. Anyone who denies this either has their head burried in the sand or is a stinking liar with an agenda.
There are probably only 3 people where I work who are in the top 10%; the administrator, the director of nursing, and the rehab director, and they all work exceedingly hard (long hours and have to deal with a bunch of BS). I don't know where wd comes across with all of this "" stuff.
Will: He even put quotes around what the top 10% "makes".
What the hell are you talking about? I never expanded the 1 percent to 10 percent.
dmarks: Plutocrats, all! WD is so funny and clueless about income distribution and wealth. The jealousy clouds his judgment.
You're laughing at a "joke" Will made. I didn't expand the 1 percent to 10 percent and then label everyone in that group a "plutocrat".
dmarks hates it when he hears others tell the truth about the wealthy elites he worships... which is why he has to lie and and make stuff up in order to make them look bad... that's where this "jealousy" BS comes from.
dmarks: the top 10% of earners paying 70% of taxes... so if anything the share is more than 'fair'. - It's less than fair. The "make" most of the money, therefore they should pay most of the taxes. Obama is right on this.............There it is asshole. You put "" around make regarding the top 10%, implying that they don't legitimately earn it. What a small and petty man you are.
Will: There it is asshole. You put "" around make regarding the top 10%, implying that they don't legitimately earn it.
So dmarks said it... I was only responding to him. My mistake for misreading what dmarks wrote. But the upper 10 percent does include the 1 percent... and for some of those people... no, I do not believe they legitimately earn their money. They get it by [1] paying as low wages as possible [2]outsourcing to low wage countries instead of paying Americans decent wages.
For the record, I believe most people in the top 10 percent work hard and do earn what they make... although they still benefit from our rigged economic system.
"Small and petty" is how I would describe you... you want to run our economic system to benefit a small number of people, and petty because you want to punish workers you view as "losers".
Wanting to increase prosperity for all doesn't make me small or petty. You calling me an asshole is yet another example of how you worship the wealthy.
So quick to jump to the defense of the wealthy, but equally as quick to shit on anyone making lower wages... I seriously wonder what the hell is wrong with people like you.
There is nothing illegitimate about paying a fair wage (the meeting place between the lowest the employer will pay and the highest the employee demands). Most working people agree. I stand with them.
Full of shit as usual, wd (yeah, you misunderstood him, right). a) How does a nurse with a masters degree working 50 hours a week making $120,000 benefit from a rigged system ("They still benefit from a rigged system")? Once gain with the pettiness.......b) And wages (as dmarks has indicated here) are determined by the market. If a business offers too low of a wage, they won't get qualified people, and if a person doesn't like what they make for a wage, they are either free to go elsewhere or accrue more skills and bargain for a better wage.......c) Sometimes companies have to go overseas to remain competitive. If a French company reduces its bottom line by outsourcing, the American CEO would be committing malpractice if he didn't at least consider it. And it isn't just wealthy people who benefit from a healthy bottom line. A shit load of middle class people invested in pension plans and whole life policies benefit, too. This, just like every other thing that you look for clear-cut dichotomies in, is a complicated issue and one that evidently goes well above you.......d) And in order to "worship" something or somebody, don't you also have to think about that thing/person/construct? I don't spend even a second of my life thinking about rich people (as opposed to you who is absolutely obsessed with them). That, and I'm in favor of the top rates going back to 39.6% - something along the lines of the Schumer compromise. Dummy!
What the hell is wrong with us? Well, what is 'wrong' is that we have a view of economics that is reality-based and balanced, not colored by hardline hypocritical partisanship and jealousy. And we don't see every employer as an evil plotocrat, and we lack WD's arrogance and thus respect the rights of workers and employers to deal fairly with each other.
43 comments:
How can I save money on my car insurance?
Holy christ.....you're my dentist.
And no doubt WD's proctologist as well.
Ya only got the one necktie?
The pictures are of two different people, therefore they cannot both be Will.
I've never been to a proctologist.
@ wd - "I've never been to a proctologist."
Perhaps you should consider it?
You know, for prostate health and all.
Good observation, BB Idaho. Actually, I have a number of them; all with the same design....David Boren and Nelson Rockefeller for those of you (probably only wd) who couldn't figure it out.
WD,you should consider making an appointment with a proctologist...he may be able to pull your head out of your ass.
Hey, Russ, don't you think that, after wd starts ragging the guy for being a part of the 1%, he just might reinsert that head?
I kind of guessed Rockefeller. But I'd never heard of David Boren. I called the guy "Captain Combover" in my head as I awaited the revelation of his nme.
In the majority of his postings its pretty obvious where his head is.
dmarks, David Boren - former moderate Democratic Senator from Oklahoma and currently the President of the U of Oklahoma.......Yes, Russ, me-buck, extremely obvious.
All the 1% rhetoric is just greed and jealosy. Piteous whining by the shiftless against those who have their act together.
The vast, VAST, percentage of the people in the top 1% (more than half of which don't even stay in that category, decade to decade) had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis and for the 99%ers to insinuate that they did is well beyond loathsome.
And the ruling elites, our elected representatives (aka "the people" according to WD) had everything to do with the crisis. And they lord it over the 100%. The banks would not have made bad loans to undeserving people had not Congress intervened and backed them up. Bad loans are discouraged if things are left to the free market.
dmarks: The banks would not have made bad loans to undeserving people had not Congress intervened and backed them up. Bad loans are discouraged if things are left to the free market.
What a load of crap. The financial crisis was due to the greed of the banksters. Yes, they knew the Federal Government would bail them out, and they may have been more cautious if they knew they would not be rescued... but they paid off those in government so they would protect them from failing/allow them to get so large so they were "to big to fail".
Not enough effective regulation and the fact that our regulators have been captured was the problem (and still is). The financial crisis wasn't due to this fantasy dmarks has about the "ruling elites" "backing up" the banks (revised from his earlier silly claim of "forcing").
dmarks: All the 1% rhetoric is just greed and jealosy. Piteous whining by the shiftless against those who have their act together.
Not at all. It's identifying the unfairness of the system being rigged. dmarks imagines "greed and jealously" to justify his support for the greed of the wealthy elites.
WD....please,if you can give us just a brief explanation how the "system is rigged." I dont think any of us exactly knows what you mean by that comment.If the "system" is "rigged" perhaps you could give us....say three examples just how its "rigged."
If you find it impossible to post examples of this supposed "rigged system" it would be a good idea to get a couple different buzz words...dont you think.
You're missing a couple of points here, wd. If Greenspan and the FED hadn't artificially lowered interest rates and kept them there, there would never have been such a massive misallocation of money away from where it more naturally would have gone (tech, education, recreation, etc.) and ended up in the housing area. And, while Fannie and Freddie weren't nearly as culpable as the FED, the fact that they continued to buy up more and more of these toxic loans from the banks was a great inducement for the banks to continue these practices. I mean, My God, when they finally did go belly-up, the sons of bitched were leveraged nearly 1,000 to 1!!
Wd you will find no such support. I strongly oppose handouts to the greedy wealthy and have said so many times. Your accusation is baseless.
The government causing banks to make bad loans through over-regulation is history not fantasy, WD.
Without Fannie and Freddie, the banksters would not have done this. The free market (unregulated) discourages and punishes bad loans.
Lack of regulation had little to do with the crisis: over-regulation (government meddling; the hubris of the ruling elites) caused it.
It is rigged, alright. In favor of people like them. Those who work hard to earn it instead of sitting back and whining for it. And yes there are some who think that getting the reward of working hard and wisely is 'terrible'.
Will: You're missing a couple of points here, wd.
I didn't claim that my short explaination included every single contributing factor... but at least you admit I got it mostly right. dmarks still clings to his FALSE rewriting of history.
dmarks: I strongly oppose handouts to the greedy wealthy and have said so many times. Your accusation is baseless.
I didn't make this accusation. My accusation concerning the greed of the wealthy elites has to do with their screwing of American workers by [1] underpaying them, [2] union busting, [3] offshoring their jobs... and making allies of Republican politicans (via campaign contributions... aka bribes) in their efforts to screw them.
dmarks: It is rigged, alright. In favor of people like them.
It is rigged against them.
The Fiscal Times: The Financial System Is Rigged in Favor of the Rich. [Article discusses the bush bailouts, which dmarks SAYS he opposed].
David Axelrod: We have a tax system that is rigged against the average person, rigged in favor of the very wealthy...
I oppose all corporate welfare, including the bank and auto industry handouts... before, during, and now.
And offshoring happens a lot of the time because unions force companies to do it. Another example of unions busting workers.
The 'underpaying' workers that you mention simply does not exist. You confuse fair pay with underpay. If workers get underpaid, they go elsewhere.
Axelrod? Obama you mean. He's a paid mouthpiece of the administration. You have essentially presented a mindless campaign slogan as if it were a meaningful argument.
And Axelrod is an example of an actual wealthy elite. He is definitely in the powerful ruling class. He was not elected. And he receives massive overpay: government wasting mad money on a millionaire. One of the greedy wealthy ruling elites for sure.
I oppose all corporate welfare, including the bank and auto industry handouts... before, during, and now.
But the bailouts were not corporate welfare? Or, they were but they aren't an example of how the system is rigged? Stop dodging the question.
The only point of the Axelrod quote was to show to you that intelligent people hold this (fact based) opinion. You and Will speak to me as if I'm stupid whenever I bring up the fact that our economic system is rigged.
Both Obama and Axelrod want to be taxed more. How the hell is that "greedy"?
And workers being underpaid not only exists, but is the norm. Workers can not just "go elsewhere". Tight labor markets drive up the cost of labor. We aren't in a tight labor market (unemployment would have to be below 4 percent... at least). You really need to buy a clue dmarks.
WD said: "But the bailouts were not corporate welfare? "
Read the very section you were quoting, and everything else I have ever said on the subject:
"I oppose all corporate welfare, including the ....handouts."
I have no idea where you got the idea that I said the bailouts were not corporate welfare. Certainly not from me. I know they are, and have always said so, including when you quoted me.
"The only point of the Axelrod quote was to show to you that intelligent people hold this (fact based) opinion"
Since it is incorrect, it is a false opinion. In fact, the rich pay much more as a group, in dollars individually, and as a percentage of individual income, than the non-rich.
"And workers being underpaid not only exists, but is the norm."
No it is not, You are making up some imaginary, arbitrary numbers, and shooting in the dark with them.
dmarks SAYS he opposed the bailouts, but regarding the question concering whether or not the bailouts are an example of how the system is rigged... dmarks REFUSES to answer... because he knows they are.
Unless he thinks the bailout money went to middle class and poor people.
dmarks: I have no idea where you got the idea that I said the bailouts were not corporate welfare.
Because you say the system isn't rigged. This is a obvious example of rigging.
dmarks: In fact, the rich pay much more as a group, in dollars individually, and as a percentage of individual income, than the non-rich.
So what? They "make" most of the money and therefore should pay most of the taxes. They should pay more.
dmarks: No it is not, You are making up some imaginary, arbitrary numbers, and shooting in the dark with them.
You only wish I was "shooting in the dark". In reality the facts back up what I'm saying. For example, "[the] Census report of Income [shows that] the median male is now worse on a gross, inflation adjusted basis, than he was in 1968. While back then, the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since declined to $32,137 as of 2010".
The reason workers are being underpaid is because the greedy wealthy elites are taking that money for themselves. Inflation adjusted income for the wealthy elites is going up while it is going down for the rest of us. Anyone who denies this either has their head burried in the sand or is a stinking liar with an agenda.
WD said: "The reason workers are being underpaid is because the greedy wealthy elites are taking that money for themselves. "
Please be specific. Describe how this money is taken.
WD said; "So what? They "make" most of the money and therefore should pay most of the taxes. They should pay more"
And they do. A hell of a lot more. If the system were rigged against them, they'd be paying less, not more.
Also, there are no quotes needed around "make". We are talking about people who earn their money.
He even put quotes around what the top 10% "makes" (the mean income of this group being around $113,000).
Plutocrats, all! WD is so funny and clueless about income distribution and wealth. The jealousy clouds his judgment.
There are probably only 3 people where I work who are in the top 10%; the administrator, the director of nursing, and the rehab director, and they all work exceedingly hard (long hours and have to deal with a bunch of BS). I don't know where wd comes across with all of this "" stuff.
Will: He even put quotes around what the top 10% "makes".
What the hell are you talking about? I never expanded the 1 percent to 10 percent.
dmarks: Plutocrats, all! WD is so funny and clueless about income distribution and wealth. The jealousy clouds his judgment.
You're laughing at a "joke" Will made. I didn't expand the 1 percent to 10 percent and then label everyone in that group a "plutocrat".
dmarks hates it when he hears others tell the truth about the wealthy elites he worships... which is why he has to lie and and make stuff up in order to make them look bad... that's where this "jealousy" BS comes from.
dmarks: the top 10% of earners paying 70% of taxes... so if anything the share is more than 'fair'. - It's less than fair. The "make" most of the money, therefore they should pay most of the taxes. Obama is right on this.............There it is asshole. You put "" around make regarding the top 10%, implying that they don't legitimately earn it. What a small and petty man you are.
Will: There it is asshole. You put "" around make regarding the top 10%, implying that they don't legitimately earn it.
So dmarks said it... I was only responding to him. My mistake for misreading what dmarks wrote. But the upper 10 percent does include the 1 percent... and for some of those people... no, I do not believe they legitimately earn their money. They get it by [1] paying as low wages as possible [2]outsourcing to low wage countries instead of paying Americans decent wages.
For the record, I believe most people in the top 10 percent work hard and do earn what they make... although they still benefit from our rigged economic system.
"Small and petty" is how I would describe you... you want to run our economic system to benefit a small number of people, and petty because you want to punish workers you view as "losers".
Wanting to increase prosperity for all doesn't make me small or petty. You calling me an asshole is yet another example of how you worship the wealthy.
So quick to jump to the defense of the wealthy, but equally as quick to shit on anyone making lower wages... I seriously wonder what the hell is wrong with people like you.
There is nothing illegitimate about paying a fair wage (the meeting place between the lowest the employer will pay and the highest the employee demands). Most working people agree. I stand with them.
Full of shit as usual, wd (yeah, you misunderstood him, right). a) How does a nurse with a masters degree working 50 hours a week making $120,000 benefit from a rigged system ("They still benefit from a rigged system")? Once gain with the pettiness.......b) And wages (as dmarks has indicated here) are determined by the market. If a business offers too low of a wage, they won't get qualified people, and if a person doesn't like what they make for a wage, they are either free to go elsewhere or accrue more skills and bargain for a better wage.......c) Sometimes companies have to go overseas to remain competitive. If a French company reduces its bottom line by outsourcing, the American CEO would be committing malpractice if he didn't at least consider it. And it isn't just wealthy people who benefit from a healthy bottom line. A shit load of middle class people invested in pension plans and whole life policies benefit, too. This, just like every other thing that you look for clear-cut dichotomies in, is a complicated issue and one that evidently goes well above you.......d) And in order to "worship" something or somebody, don't you also have to think about that thing/person/construct? I don't spend even a second of my life thinking about rich people (as opposed to you who is absolutely obsessed with them). That, and I'm in favor of the top rates going back to 39.6% - something along the lines of the Schumer compromise. Dummy!
What the hell is wrong with us? Well, what is 'wrong' is that we have a view of economics that is reality-based and balanced, not colored by hardline hypocritical partisanship and jealousy. And we don't see every employer as an evil plotocrat, and we lack WD's arrogance and thus respect the rights of workers and employers to deal fairly with each other.
Post a Comment