Well yeah it's hyperbolic, maybe allegorical, but I love the chord it's striking.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.
Full Disclosure: I used to listen to Hartmann's radio show quite a bit. But he got a little too liberal for me.CAA Flagship wrote:Donks talking about money.
OK. Fine. I will amend my pointed laughter.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.CAA Flagship wrote:Donks talking about money.
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...?
That's better.CAA Flagship wrote:OK. Fine. I will amend my pointed laughter.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...?
Donks talking about government revenue and spending.
Zing.kalm wrote:That's better.CAA Flagship wrote: OK. Fine. I will amend my pointed laughter.
Donks talking about government revenue and spending.
Now...let's discuss ruthless, cutthroat billionaires, managing a non-profit.
He thinks we should outlaw billionaires and that suddenly makes him "big picture" and "visionary"?kalm wrote:Well yeah it's hyperbolic, maybe allegorical, but I love the chord it's striking.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.
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.
I should have dummed down my post further you. I apologize.AZGrizFan wrote:He thinks we should outlaw billionaires and that suddenly makes him "big picture" and "visionary"?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.
Man, your bar is set pretty low, klammy.
Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...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?
Why does a HS or college 15 yrs old to early 20s living at home need a living wage?kalm wrote:Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...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?
"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.
They don't.BDKJMU wrote:Why does a HS or college 15 yrs old to early 20s living at home need a living wage?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.kalm wrote:Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...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?
"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.
That is indeed a huge part of the problem. But hey, the Jobs and Walton heirs have to eat too!AZGrizFan wrote:You forgot iphones, ipods, ipads, 20" spinners, quads, and a couple 55" flat screens. They NEED those things too.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.
kalm wrote:Progressives believe in a strong middle class that makes enough wages to pay taxes and...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?
"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.
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!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?
But wait, isn't a union the same as a person? Why do you hate freedom of speech and corporations so much? 