Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGFudM7JnDM[/youtube]

Thom Hartmann has a website for this and everything

http://www.nobillionaires.com

I love the fact that he makes all of these grandiose statements yet has no specifics...particularly how these "billions" will be redistributed to those in the middle class and in poverty.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13760 ... s-campaign

Apparently Fox News "gave it legitimacy" by discussing this on air.

I made it through 37 seconds... only because the intro was 30 seconds long. Guy can go fuck himself.

I love how he equates increased productivity with "working harder". Yeah...it had nothing to do with the invention of the fucking COMPUTER, you genius.

When he didn't morph into Stephen Colbert by the 2:30 mark, I went back to billable work.

DSUrocks07 wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGFudM7JnDM[/youtube]

Thom Hartmann has a website for this and everything

http://www.nobillionaires.com

I love the fact that he makes all of these grandiose statements yet has no specifics...particularly how these "billions" will be redistributed to those in the middle class and in poverty.

Well yeah it's hyperbolic, maybe allegorical, but I love the chord it's striking.

I've noticed conks always struggle with big picture, visionary connections, complain about the state of things yet fail to see any correlation whatsoever between trickle down economics and debt.

Hartmann must be some sort of a commie.

Besides...without billionaires, you guys would be relieved of Warren Buffet, Babs, Bill Gates, and George Soros. So you'd at least have that goin' for ya. Which is nice.

Donks talking about money.

CAA Flagship wrote:Donks talking about money.

Full Disclosure: I used to listen to Hartmann's radio show quite a bit. But he got a little too liberal for me.

That being said, he and his wife have started several different and immensely successful companies and one non-profit school and he probably has more business and money knowledge and been a more successful businessman than anyone on this board.

So...conks and their presuppositions...?

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Donks talking about money.

Full Disclosure: I used to listen to Hartmann's radio show quite a bit. But he got a little too liberal for me.

That being said, he and his wife have started several different and immensely successful companies and one non-profit school and he probably has more business and money knowledge and been a more successful businessman than anyone on this board.

So...conks and their presuppositions...?

OK. Fine. I will amend my pointed laughter.

Donks talking about government revenue and spending.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
Full Disclosure: I used to listen to Hartmann's radio show quite a bit. But he got a little too liberal for me.

That being said, he and his wife have started several different and immensely successful companies and one non-profit school and he probably has more business and money knowledge and been a more successful businessman than anyone on this board.

So...conks and their presuppositions...?

OK. Fine. I will amend my pointed laughter.

Donks talking about government revenue and spending.

That's better.

Now...let's discuss ruthless, cutthroat billionaires, managing a non-profit.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: OK. Fine. I will amend my pointed laughter.

Donks talking about government revenue and spending.

That's better.

Now...let's discuss ruthless, cutthroat billionaires, managing a non-profit.

Zing.

kalm wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGFudM7JnDM[/youtube]

Thom Hartmann has a website for this and everything

http://www.nobillionaires.com

I love the fact that he makes all of these grandiose statements yet has no specifics...particularly how these "billions" will be redistributed to those in the middle class and in poverty.

Well yeah it's hyperbolic, maybe allegorical, but I love the chord it's striking.

I've noticed conks always struggle with big picture, visionary connections, complain about the state of things yet fail to see any correlation whatsoever between trickle down economics and debt.

Hartmann must be some sort of a commie.

He thinks we should outlaw billionaires and that suddenly makes him "big picture" and "visionary"?

Man, your bar is set pretty low, klammy.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well yeah it's hyperbolic, maybe allegorical, but I love the chord it's striking.

I've noticed conks always struggle with big picture, visionary connections, complain about the state of things yet fail to see any correlation whatsoever between trickle down economics and debt.

Hartmann must be some sort of a commie.

He thinks we should outlaw billionaires and that suddenly makes him "big picture" and "visionary"?

Man, your bar is set pretty low, klammy.

I should have dummed down my post further you. I apologize.

So much to critique in that I don't think it's reasonable to try to get to all of it. Like implying that Thomas Jefferson would be for a 100% tax on income over $999,999,999. The basic fallacy is the idea that there is some pie of wealth out there and if we said that some people can't have more than some amount of it means others would have more. Just not true.

Another thing I wonder about when progressives start wanting to keep people from being too rich:

Your whole paradigm (progressives) for financing the massive government you want is to have a small percentage of the population which is very rich bear the cost of government while everyone else goes along for the ride. How do you think that's going to work if you eliminate people in that small percentage of the population?

You're going to have to (shudder) actually ask the "middle class" and maybe even "the poor" to actually bear a meaningful portion of the cost. How do you think that's going to work out?

JohnStOnge wrote:So much to critique in that I don't think it's reasonable to try to get to all of it. Like implying that Thomas Jefferson would be for a 100% tax on income over $999,999,999. The basic fallacy is the idea that there is some pie of wealth out there and if we said that some people can't have more than some amount of it means others would have more. Just not true.

Another thing I wonder about when progressives start wanting to keep people from being too rich:

Your whole paradigm (progressives) for financing the massive government you want is to have a small percentage of the population which is very rich bear the cost of government while everyone else goes along for the ride. How do you think that's going to work if you eliminate people in that small percentage of the population?

You're going to have to (shudder) actually ask the "middle class" and maybe even "the poor" to actually bear a meaningful portion of the cost. How do you think that's going to work out?

Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...

"We stand for a living wage.
Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Your idea of what progressives want is flawed.

I'm sure you'll also be surprised to find out most progressives believe in capitalism. And not the monopolistic crony type that's pushed by both party's today...

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:So much to critique in that I don't think it's reasonable to try to get to all of it. Like implying that Thomas Jefferson would be for a 100% tax on income over $999,999,999. The basic fallacy is the idea that there is some pie of wealth out there and if we said that some people can't have more than some amount of it means others would have more. Just not true.

Another thing I wonder about when progressives start wanting to keep people from being too rich:

Your whole paradigm (progressives) for financing the massive government you want is to have a small percentage of the population which is very rich bear the cost of government while everyone else goes along for the ride. How do you think that's going to work if you eliminate people in that small percentage of the population?

You're going to have to (shudder) actually ask the "middle class" and maybe even "the poor" to actually bear a meaningful portion of the cost. How do you think that's going to work out?

Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...

"We stand for a living wage.
Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Your idea of what progressives want is flawed.

Why does a HS or college 15 yrs old to early 20s living at home need a living wage?

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...

"We stand for a living wage.
Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Your idea of what progressives want is flawed.

Why does a HS or college 15 yrs old to early 20s living at home need a living wage?

They don't.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:So much to critique in that I don't think it's reasonable to try to get to all of it. Like implying that Thomas Jefferson would be for a 100% tax on income over $999,999,999. The basic fallacy is the idea that there is some pie of wealth out there and if we said that some people can't have more than some amount of it means others would have more. Just not true.

Another thing I wonder about when progressives start wanting to keep people from being too rich:

Your whole paradigm (progressives) for financing the massive government you want is to have a small percentage of the population which is very rich bear the cost of government while everyone else goes along for the ride. How do you think that's going to work if you eliminate people in that small percentage of the population?

You're going to have to (shudder) actually ask the "middle class" and maybe even "the poor" to actually bear a meaningful portion of the cost. How do you think that's going to work out?

Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...

"We stand for a living wage.
Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Your idea of what progressives want is flawed.

You forgot iphones, ipods, ipads, 20" spinners, quads, and a couple 55" flat screens. They NEED those things too.

Everyday, the left in this nation just continue to show how clueless they are. They will not be happy until we are all in a bread line, washing each others asses in a fucking creek. DOUCHEBAGS!!!

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...

"We stand for a living wage.
Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Your idea of what progressives want is flawed.

You forgot iphones, ipods, ipads, 20" spinners, quads, and a couple 55" flat screens. They NEED those things too.

That is indeed a huge part of the problem. But hey, the Jobs and Walton heirs have to eat too!

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:So much to critique in that I don't think it's reasonable to try to get to all of it. Like implying that Thomas Jefferson would be for a 100% tax on income over $999,999,999. The basic fallacy is the idea that there is some pie of wealth out there and if we said that some people can't have more than some amount of it means others would have more. Just not true.

Another thing I wonder about when progressives start wanting to keep people from being too rich:

Your whole paradigm (progressives) for financing the massive government you want is to have a small percentage of the population which is very rich bear the cost of government while everyone else goes along for the ride. How do you think that's going to work if you eliminate people in that small percentage of the population?

You're going to have to (shudder) actually ask the "middle class" and maybe even "the poor" to actually bear a meaningful portion of the cost. How do you think that's going to work out?

Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...

"We stand for a living wage.
Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Your idea of what progressives want is flawed.

I suppose that 'progressive' philosophy that you love is parallel with the longshoremen that wanted to strike because they wanted more than their 130K ave salary gave them....

So 130K is not a 'living wage' in your opinion?

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:

kalm wrote:
Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...

"We stand for a living wage.
Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations.

The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include:

enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--

a standard high enough to make morality possible,

to provide for education and recreation,

to care for immature members of the family,

to maintain the family during periods of sickness,

and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Your idea of what progressives want is flawed.

I suppose that 'progressive' philosophy that you love is parallel with the longshoremen that wanted to strike because they wanted more than their 130K ave salary gave them....

So 130K is not a 'living wage' in your opinion?

No, I'd definitely say that's a living wage. But don't hate them just because they're going out and using leverage to "get there's". I'll bet the filthy buggers probably also donate to Democrats! But wait, isn't a union the same as a person? Why do you hate freedom of speech and corporations so much?

Look, there are definitely issues where I'm progressive. Just like there are issues where I'm conservative. On unions I'm neutral. I can tell absolute horror stories of a family member who's in law enforcement administration and has to deal almost daily with the Police Guild. Makes me want to ban all public employee unions because hey...they work for me!

That's the problem with buying too much into labels and part of the fun of being an independent/internet conservative.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

....."why do I hate corporations?".......interesting.....My small business is incorporated....


What is a 'living wage?'

For some people it means having all of their 'toys', or others it means having a lake home or vacation home also. Maybe for others it means putting their kids thru college w/o relying on the gov for money. Maybe it means just having a home and a good job to provide for their family.

Could that 'living wage' be 25k or 75K or 200K....ya, depending on the family.