United States of Entropy

[PhilsFan]

Why can't people on the Left converse without profanity?

And my counter-thread would be "Who Gives a Shit about Profanity?"

My only regret in using profanity is that you'll talk about that instead of talking about what we're talking about.

 

[PhilsFan]

Except from President Obama to radical environmentalist to Occupy Wall St I can quote my strawmen and that's the meanest thing one can do... quote a Leftist. Call it social justice, leveling the playing field, fairness, shared prosperity, environmental justice or income inequality; what motivates and propels the Left is inequality of outcome and the desire to solve it through welfare-state egalitarianism.

Need proof?

Here we are in the 2nd term of our most leftist president and what do we have? What a surprise; bigger and more intrusive government, 4 straight years of $trillion deficits, higher taxes on wealth and calls for them to go even higher, a scheme to transfer healthcare decisions from the physician's office to a panel of masterminds in Washington D.C. and record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps, and unemployment insurance and Medicaid and S.S. Disability. Ya gotta spread the wealth around right

Now to this: again and again and again and again and again and again, all you have done is taken quotes from either unreliable or unrepresentative sources that say what you think we are all thinking (see: your quotes from Sharpton and some random freshman from college), or you've taken quotes from more representative and rational sources like our President and twisted them around to fit your agenda. Neither pushes this discussion forward.

The fundamental disagreement between the Left and the Right is NOT inequality of outcome. It's cause of inequality. The Left believes that there are many causes of inequality, most commonly nothing other than circumstance. Where you're born, what economic class you're born into, what educational opportunities those things offer you. The Right, as far as I can tell, believes that the people who fall behind are those who don't have the common sense to graduate, get a job, get married and have children, all in that order. That's the difference. Is that not true?

Here we are in Obama's second term and where have we gotten? We've made some small progress, but ultimately not very far. Why? Because the GOP spent the last four years ignoring the interests of the citizens that elected them in hopes that the lack of economic progress in this country could be pinned on the president.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Maybe I'll start a new thread: why can't people on the Left converse without profanity?

Try it sometime. It might externalize some of your inner anger. Cleans you right the fuck out.

Or stick to your religious suppression. Whatever works for you

 

[Irvine511]

sooooooo ... i came across this, and i think it's related and i hope a way to continue discussion:

“Why I Might Become A Gay Republican”
APR 17 2013 @ 7:41AM

A reader vents during tax season:

I’ve always wondered how any self-respecting gay man (or woman) could ever support the Republican Party. But a series of recent events in my personal life momentarily made me think about it. My partner and I have a beautiful baby girl. We begged, borrow and stole (well, not the last thing) to have her via surrogacy, and she is the great joy of our life. We love being dads, and would love to have another child – a little brother and sister for our baby girl.

So, we started the process, which is about 18 months to two years until birth. The financial considerations were a huge part of it. It costs about $160,000 for a surrogacy in California, and one has to pull out all the stops to even have a chance of making it happen.

And unfortunately, our chances appear to have been kaboshed. Two weeks ago I got a call from my accountant. As a self-employed composer and writer, I always pay my estimate tax payments, and I did so last year. But I earned a lot as many of my projects came to fruition, and I unexpectedly have a very big tax bill. Unfortunately paying that bill will completely deplete all of our savings, which were meant for our second surrogacy. I’ve never minded paying tax before, but this time it hit hard. I worked extremely hard to make all that money.

At the same time I had a long chat with my partner’s niece at a family gathering. She is 22 years old, and has three children. The first was born when she was sixteen. She subsequently dropped out of high school. The State of California and the federal government gave her all sorts of benefits because she was a poor single mother, and so she decided to have some more babies.

The father of the second and third is the same, and they have built a nice little family together (he has another daughter too, by another woman). They both work full time jobs but earn very little because neither has a high school diploma. But there’s no ways they’d support their family without those government benefits. That’s what I thought …

I was astonished to learn she recently paid for a boob job, and a new iPad for her son’s birthday, and just bought her mom a TV set. She refers to her partner on Facebook as her husband, but they’re not legally married. I asked why, and she told me many of their single mother benefits would evaporate if they did.

She’s a sweet person and frankly, I don’t think she knows better. In her mind, she’s working hard to support her family. I don’t blame her given her lack of education. I blame the government for setting up benefits in such a way that they create these odd dependencies and actually inspire poor people who can’t afford it to have more children out of wedlock and NOT get married. Most of all, I’m angry because my huge tax bill is going to pay for this type of stuff, when actually I really need the money so I can have another baby in my lovely gay family.

Of course, most of the Republican Party base hates the fact I want to legally marry my partner and have more children with a surrogate. And so yes, right now I’d never ever vote for them. But if they dumped their anti-gay base, and came out with a lower taxes and responsible spending (not necessarily spending cuts) philosophy, I might well find it very tempting.

“Why I Might Become A Gay Republican” ? The Dish

 

[BEAL]

Unfortunately I'm not sure either party would really address the problem here, that the system appears to have issues. Rather than fix these issues (which I would agree seem unfair and promote dependency on Government), the Dems would talk about the hardships of being a single mother supporting her family (which she is), and cry about why can't SSM be legal. SSM should be legal and benefits should be reviewed to ensure fairness and if it's beneficial.

The GOP, well they'd call this girl a whore (though maybe praise her for not having abortions) and demonize SSM and the rights of gays to be parents.

 

[Irvine511]

it does get at a problem, though, yes? that by supporting our most vulnerable -- uneducated single mothers -- you do create at least a small incentive to become one?

however, i think the boob job and iPad examples are a little extreme and likely atypical, and i don't think that government bennies are all that much to write home about -- and represent a very small amount of taxpayer dollars, especially in comparison to health care spending, for example.

 

[anitram]

There are just a lot of separate things going on in that letter.

With respect to his tax liability, to be perfectly frank it is his own fault for not properly tracking his accounting during the year. Because it sounds like he is not an employee but some form of independent contractor, this effectively means that he doesn't pay tax on his earnings like the rest of us, but pays them in a lumpsum at the end of the year. The fact that he did not keep track of how much he made and budgeted appropriately for his tax bill has nothing to do with his niece's situation. Moreover, he doesn't mention that in fact, unlike the rest of us he has a real, tangible economic benefit to doing his taxes the way he does. It comes down to the time value of money - he gets to keep his entire earnings for a full year, to invest as he pleases (and collect interest, capital gains, etc) before remitting. The rest of us remit weekly/biweekly/whatever the arrangement we have with our employer and therefore we do not benefit from the time value of money, which, by the way, can be very significant at high incomes. So to be honest, this leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, because it sounds like entitlement from a high income earner who didn't bother budgeting, didn't bother checking in with his accountant throughout the year and didn't bother admitting that he gained a financial benefit by virtue of being an independent contractor.

Aside from that, what he is referring to with his niece has little to do with the concept of a welfare state and everything to do with (i) fraud and (ii) lack of oversight. It would appear to me that if the State of California had proper oversight, then two people who are cohabiting unmarried should, for all intents and purposes, be considered a common law partnership to whom single parent benefits are not available. There just isn't enough information in the letter to draw any conclusions - are they living "apart" by using different addresses (fraud and also he should then be paying child support), does she receive child support payments from father #1 (if not, why not and why is the taxpayer shouldering the burden for this man's child?), are they living together but the tax system in California does not require them to file jointly, etc, etc.

It's basically a story on which you can't really intelligently comment without speculating.

 

[U2DMfan]

Really what he's talking about gets RIGHT AT IT.

It's about resentment towards those getting undue slices of the pie.
It's not actually a raw economic argument. It's a fairness argument.
It's really the same sort-of argument the Left makes.

It's all about fairness and who should properly get what.

 

[BEAL]

it does get at a problem, though, yes? that by supporting our most vulnerable -- uneducated single mothers -- you do create at least a small incentive to become one?

however, i think the boob job and iPad examples are a little extreme and likely atypical, and i don't think that government bennies are all that much to write home about -- and represent a very small amount of taxpayer dollars, especially in comparison to health care spending, for example.

Yes, i think it points out a problem. I think that's one of the risks for providing aid. You can create dependencies on it, and even encourage those to continue that life on government.

Does this mean every single mother is this way? No. I also agree that not every single mother has more kids to buck the system, and then gets boob jobs or the fancy electronics.

The problem is the potential for that to happen. So what can we do in the government and society to discourage that route?

Another problem too, why so much for the surrogacy? I am not 100% familar with this process, but it seems like a hefty price to pay.

 

[Irvine511]

Another problem too, why so much for the surrogacy? I am not 100% familar with this process, but it seems like a hefty price to pay.

when it's two men, you need, 1) an egg, and 2) a totally separate womb. so it involves two women, and eggs and wombs are much more expensive than sperm.

it's way cheaper to be a lesbian.

 

[anitram]

Here's a good summary of the costs/expenses:

Surrogacy: Gestational Surrogacy (IVF) Estimated Costs

 

[INDY500]

Now to this: again and again and again and again and again and again, all you have done is taken quotes from either unreliable or unrepresentative sources that say what you think we are all thinking (see: your quotes from Sharpton and some random freshman from college), or you've taken quotes from more representative and rational sources like our President and twisted them around to fit your agenda. Neither pushes this discussion forward.

Sorry but all those quotes are valid and I use them to illustrate my points. And the president's quote could not have been more clear. I will quote the president again in a minute, so be warned.

The fundamental disagreement between the Left and the Right is NOT inequality of outcome. It's cause of inequality. The Left believes that there are many causes of inequality, most commonly nothing other than circumstance. Where you're born, what economic class you're born into, what educational opportunities those things offer you. The Right, as far as I can tell, believes that the people who fall behind are those who don't have the common sense to graduate, get a job, get married and have children, all in that order. That's the difference. Is that not true?

For one thing the further left you go the less desirable ANY income inequality is. As well, the further left you go the more blame for income inequality shifts from the individual’s values and choices to environmental factors such as racism, greed and exploitation. Conservatives believe income inequality is actually desirable, not the point where it should be ignored however. Income disparity provides incentive through reward and profit for hard work and innovation. Profit becoming less desirable the more left one goes also by the way. We recognize that, while all are equal before God and the law, we are not all equal in talents, motivation or desires.

The causes; it’s complex but yes, family dysfunction and poor individual decisions are a major reason. The interesting point about the Charles Murray book is he stripped all race from the study and showed how white America is splitting into a two class culture. Again, many factors but the differences in marriage rates, graduation rates and out-of-wedlock births and church attendance is stunning. Graduation, marriage then children (with civic involvement such as church also important) is simply the ideal that should be expected, encouraged and supported through the culture. It certainly doesn’t mean that some can thrive outside the ideal or that everyone can live up to the ideal. This is where your mocking of “pulling up by the bootstraps” is a strawman of your making. Who says we should not, as a society and individuals, help those trying to help themselves? No one. (provide a quote please) Well there is one person actually, Barack Obama:

"Their philosophy is simple: 'We are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.' I am here to say they are wrong," the president said.

First, here is our president, setting up the classic false choice between his compassionate and reasoned stance and a caricature of conservatives. Second, no nation on earth donates more time or money privately than the U.S. to assist the needy, sick or homeless so our president demagogues. And third, enough with defining ANY opposition (moral, effectiveness or financial) to more government spending as [fill in the blank] fend-for-themselves, anti-poor, mean-spirited, anti-black, anti-child, throw-granny-off-the-cliff, etc. Another trait found the further left you go is smearing dissention replaces debate.

As a society we should praise self-reliance and marriage* and stigmatize sloth and entitlement (sorry but libertarianism and a welfare state can’t coexist for long). We should work for true equality of opportunity by improving education (now who fights to get children out of failed schools with vouchers and school choice and who fights for teachers unions and blocks those measures?) and providing optimal economic conditions for growth that benefits everyone. The "shared prosperity" of liberty not the shared prosperity of politicians and bureaucratic design. We should celebrate success not demonize it. We should encourage entrepreneurship not strangle it with more and more regulations and taxes. And the last thing we should do is raise the minimum wage. At least for teenagers we should eliminate it, unless of course you think unemployment rates of 25% (higher for black teens) is acceptable.

Here we are in Obama's second term and where have we gotten? We've made some small progress, but ultimately not very far. Why? Because the GOP spent the last four years ignoring the interests of the citizens that elected them in hopes that the lack of economic progress in this country could be pinned on the president.

It’s always someone else’s, anyone else’s, fault but Barack Obama, his policies or his priorities.

* as defined by all major religions and civilization throughout all previous generations prior to our current generation.

 

[cobl04]

Graduation, marriage then children (with civic involvement such a church also important) is simply the ideal that should be expected, encouraged and supported through the culture.

Gotta agree with JT, this is almost like self-parody.

Your minimum wage comments are a disgrace. Being an Australian, it was a shock to come to the States and find young people working for such piss-poor money. No wonder tipping is such a huge part of your culture.

How can you say one must be self-sufficient and work hard on one hand and then say minimum wage should be abolished on the other? I met waiters who were getting paid an absolute pittance. That doesn't help anyone.

 

[INDY500]

It's awfully convenient of you to just decide that "the Left" is a homogenous mass that engages in lockstep groupthink.

Well, I went out of my way to state that classic liberals or Democrats may not hold all the views of Leftism but Leftism is certainly taking over the Democratic party.

Well if this is one of the facts then I suppose you could've said the exact same thing during the second Bush term. Hey... why weren't you up in arms then?

Are you sure about that? I remember posting that the GOP deserved to lose the House in 06 because of their spending and I can tell you that I did not vote for Bush in 04.

When you need to take immediate action to save the country from the 2nd great depression, you will incur some deficits.

Actually the recession was over 6 months into his presidency and TARP and those drastic measures all occurred while Bush was still president. Yet the spending continues and continues.

So high they would return to the same level back when... we had a balanced budget and the rich were still increasing their wealth at a much higher rate than anyone else in the country.

And we had a sane GOP congress and a president declaring "The era of big government is over."

I'd take Gingrich and Clinton over Boehner and Obama in a heartbeat.

 

[INDY500]

Gotta agree with JT, this is almost like self-parody.

Really, you wouldn't teach your children that? If no why, because you don't think it true? If yes then why not teach all children that?

Your minimum wage comments are a disgrace. Being an Australian, it was a shock to come to the States and find young people working for such piss-poor money. No wonder tipping is such a huge part of your culture.

“The real minimum wage is zero: unemployment.” — Thomas Sowell

 

[cobl04]

Really, you wouldn't teach your children that? If no why, because you don't think it true? If yes then why not teach all children that?

I've graduated and I hope to get married and have kids myself. But life isn't that simple. Saying that it's an ideal that everyone must live up to creates unrealistic and pressurised expectations. (Not to mention church isn't for everyone. I always found it incredibly boring, even when I was still debating whether I was a believer or not.)

I know people who dropped out of high school and have no plans to get married or have kids, and they're just as successful and happy as those who fit your ideal.

 

[anitram]

The causes; it’s complex but yes, family dysfunction and poor individual decisions are a major reason.

This is so ignorant of economic facts and realities that it's almost not worth responding to but here goes nothing.

There are two main drivers of income inequality in the US.

First, the current tax system is progressive in terms of marginal rates but it is not really progressive, especially when you get to the 1% of income tax earners. The unfairness arises from things such as: rates too low (not so much on the top 10% but certainly on the top 1% - lowest among all OECD countries), the low tax rate on capital gains, passing of assets to future generation, treatment of luxury assets (like vacation homes, for example) and the absurd carried interest rates which allows hedge fund managers' incomes to be taxed at capital gains rates (!!).

Second, in the last 2 decades or so there has been a stunning rise in return on capital and a corresponding lower return on labour. Plainly speaking, the rich own the capital, the poor have the labour. The rich have experienced huge returns on capital while the poor have not seen returns on their labour (work). The main drivers of this are as follows. First, international trade which has resulted in jobs, particularly manufacturing and industrial sectors, to move abroad. What does this mean? Huge returns on the corporate level (ie. returns on CAPITAL), no return on labour. Second, technology has resulted in corporations being able to split up jobs into tasks. This means that you can do with fewer workers. Again, return on CAPITAL, no return on labour.

As a result of all of this, you have the following corporate profits as a share of GDP outcome:

That's shocking! And as corporate profits rise, inequality grows.

So then what you have is low rates of savings among Americans. Here you'll come in to tell us about everyone who overspent on a large house or who can't manage their money, but the truth is that by and large, most Americans cannot afford to save adequate amounts of money. Which translates to relying on the government to make up the difference. In 1929, the share of government subsidy in a person's disposable income was 1%. Today, it is 20%. One fifth of an average American's disposable income comes from the government! This is what the Republicans want to cut. BUT if you cut that, then the private sector needs to step in. There are essentially two ways: by raising corporate taxes and taxes on top income earners OR by corporations voluntarily starting to pay people considerably more money such that they make a living wage (instead we have full-time Walmart employees on food stamps).

The point being is that this isn't about values or gay marriage or sluts having sex outside of marriage or people not getting degrees or cohabiting before marriage or not going to Church on Sunday. It is a long process that has been punctuated by runaway corporate profits which have NOT filtered down to the lower and middle classes and the rich benefiting by virtue of holding all the capital. Every economist out there will tell you that this is not sustainable. You can keep yammering about values or you can wake up and smell the coffee and educate yourself about the statistics and the data.

 

[PhilsFan]

The causes; it’s complex but yes, family dysfunction and poor individual decisions are a major reason.

This is the point where I stop reading. Care to explain what you are basing this off of, if anything? Because as far as I can see, it's spitting in the face of reality.

 

[Jive Turkey]

* as defined by all major religions and civilization throughout all previous generations prior to our current generation.

How many times has it been pointed out to you that this is HORSE SHIT? Yet you continue to post it either because you're stubborn or fucking dumb. Which is it?

But lets say for the sake of argument that it's true. What bearing does that have on anything whatsoever? This is the single point you'll agree to be chummy with the other religions on despite believing they'll all burn in hell for believing in the wrong god anyway? You seem to think this is something to hang your hat on. At least you've moved on from believing christians are solely responsible for defining it I guess. How long have you been a big dictionary connoisseur for?

 

[Jive Turkey]

“The real minimum wage is zero: unemployment.” — Thomas Sowell

neat!

 

[Jive Turkey]

Really, you wouldn't teach your children that? If no why, because you don't think it true? If yes then why not teach all children that?

I think you're a perfect example of why we should all keep our kids as far away from church as possible

 

[BVS]

but by far income disparity is a values problem.

You've been given a lot of flack for this comment, but I think I have to agree. We live in a society where you and others no longer value education, science, or sustainability. Hence why used car salesmen, drug reps, and false economy pushers make more than our teachers, scientists, and architects. You've worshiped this system that valued the wrong things for so long that you've become completely blind.

Graduate, get a job, and then have children after you get married and your chances of living in poverty are almost zero. But you can't tell people that anymore because common sense is now deemed "mean."

Paul said this, right?

 

[Kieran McConville]

This thread is horseshit almost from start to finish. All the values in the world won't get us out of the bind that we (by 'we' I mean all developed economies) are likely automating away a substantial majority of livelihoods. Well, have been for a century or more, but there was always slack in the system before. Less so now, I suspect.

There are pluses and minuses to this (for example many menial service jobs are pretty fucking boring and/or demeaning), but to pretend that respectable existence, for a smaller or larger majority, in the future can or will hinge on a paying wage occupation is... a bit of a worry.

Death to the protestant work ethic. It is a curse on society. It's the wrong hammer for the wrong problem.

 

[Irvine511]

* as defined by all major religions and civilization throughout all previous generations prior to our current generation.

you realize your boyfriend Charles Murray supports SSM.

 

[INDY500]

you realize your boyfriend Charles Murray supports SSM.

No, he's simply chosen not to fight SSM as he feels our economic situation is too perilous to waste debating such an emotional issue.

 

[Irvine511]

No, he's simply chosen not to fight SSM as he feels our economic situation is too perilous to waste debating such an emotional issue.

No, he actually supports it.

And, unlike you, he doesn't think it's making unmarried black teenagers get pregnant.

 

[INDY500]

There are two main drivers of income inequality in the US.

First, the current tax system is progressive in terms of marginal rates but it is not really progressive, especially when you get to the 1% of income tax earners. The unfairness arises from things such as: rates too low (not so much on the top 10% but certainly on the top 1% - lowest among all OECD countries), the low tax rate on capital gains, passing of assets to future generation, treatment of luxury assets (like vacation homes, for example) and the absurd carried interest rates which allows hedge fund managers' incomes to be taxed at capital gains rates (!!).

I'm all for tax reform and simplification. I'd do away with separate contributions for S.S. and Medicare since the idea that it's a "contribution" is a joke anyway and go with just one flat rate, maybe two. Allowing workers on the bottom of the tax code to be refunded S.S. and Medicare and not exempting it on the higher scale is the type of fix I could support morally and fiscally.

But again I ask; does a tax code exist for the purposes of raising revenues or for “fairness.”

Second, in the last 2 decades or so there has been a stunning rise in return on capital and a corresponding lower return on labour. Plainly speaking, the rich own the capital, the poor have the labour. The rich have experienced huge returns on capital while the poor have not seen returns on their labour (work). The main drivers of this are as follows. First, international trade which has resulted in jobs, particularly manufacturing and industrial sectors, to move abroad. What does this mean? Huge returns on the corporate level (ie. returns on CAPITAL), no return on labour. Second, technology has resulted in corporations being able to split up jobs into tasks. This means that you can do with fewer workers. Again, return on CAPITAL, no return on labour.

As a result of all of this, you have the following corporate profits as a share of GDP outcome:

That's shocking! And as corporate profits rise, inequality grows.

Well now who’s only telling part of the story? Private corporations are indeed making large profits, which for workers with retirement funds invested in the stock market is a good thing. Profits are a good thing. What is not good is that companies are sitting on their profits rather than hiring, expanding or investing in capital projects. Some 2 trillion dollars of liquid assets which greedy companies should be investing in growing and making even more money but aren’t. Why? My guess is economic uncertainty over Obamacare, tax rates and looming regulation.

Now the drivers you don’t mention. The main driver of inequity is that we live in a meritocracy which, due to technology, the licensing of professions and other factors increasingly rewards brain power and unique talents. Due to globalization, automation and immigration the value of low-skill labor is decreasing.
One example; in 1980 Nolan Ryan became the first major league baseball player to make one million dollars per year. 30 years later the average salary is well over one million dollars. Why should CEO’s, Wall St fund managers and others be different, which in no way endorses everything that goes on in boardrooms or Wall St.
There is a return on labor, just not all labor.

So then what you have is low rates of savings among Americans. Here you'll come in to tell us about everyone who overspent on a large house or who can't manage their money, but the truth is that by and large, most Americans cannot afford to save adequate amounts of money.

Why is personal savings low? For one why would you when interest rates for savings accounts are zero, held artificially low because of what would happen to our debt service costs should they rise to normal levels? Two, taxes. Mid to low income populations might save more if they were allowed to keep more of their money. Here are tax burdens and Tax Freedom Day by decade. Would I go back to 1920 levels of taxation and give up interstates, the CDC, SDI, NASA and other things that make us safer or assist in my pursuit of happiness, no. But higher taxation does come out of the family budget.
Year TFD Percentage tax burden
1900 January 22 5.9%
1910 January 19 5.0%
1920 February 13 12.0%
1930 February 12 11.7%
1940 March 7 17.9%
1950 March 31 24.6%
1960 April 11 27.7%
1970 April 19 29.6%
1980 April 21 30.4%
1990 April 21 30.4%
2000 May 1 33.0%
2012 April 17 29.2%

Which translates to relying on the government to make up the difference. In 1929, the share of government subsidy in a person's disposable income was 1%. Today, it is 20%. One fifth of an average American's disposable income comes from the government! This is what the Republicans want to cut. BUT if you cut that, then the private sector needs to step in. There are essentially two ways: by raising corporate taxes and taxes on top income earners OR by corporations voluntarily starting to pay people considerably more money such that they make a living wage (instead we have full-time Walmart employees on food stamps).

No surprise since 2/3rds of federal spending is now entitlement spending. And how much is that going up with Obamacare subsidies available well into the middle class?
But to the point, male participation rate is at its lowest point since they began taking figures in 1948. How much of this 20% is the government stepping in to supply what wage-earning fathers used to supply? Ever watch the Obama administration's "Life of Julia"— the cartoon explaining the cradle-to-grave government programs that provide for Julia's happy, successful and husbandless life? The Life Of Julia - YouTube


You may not want to admit that there are good and poor lifestyle choices and that they contribute to income disparity but, for example, single mothers are six times more likely to live in poverty than married mothers.
Again, libertarianism and the welfare state can’t coexist for long.

The point being is that this isn't about values or gay marriage or sluts having sex outside of marriage or people not getting degrees or cohabiting before marriage or not going to Church on Sunday. It is a long process that has been punctuated by runaway corporate profits which have NOT filtered down to the lower and middle classes and the rich benefiting by virtue of holding all the capital. Every economist out there will tell you that this is not sustainable. You can keep yammering about values or you can wake up and smell the coffee and educate yourself about the statistics and the data.

Marxist yammering.
Corporations only make profits when the services or products they provide find favor with consumers, including lower and middle income consumers. By the way, what happens to the employees of a company that fails to make a profit? And profits do filter down in compensation other than wages such as health care, paid family leave as well as 401K contributions. If you think corporation X is making “runaway profits” why aren’t you on the phone buying stock in their company?
And finally, what is sustainable about a government that borrows 40 cents of every dollar they spend and has unfunded liabilities on $70 trillion. What happens to the truly needy when it all implodes?

 

[anitram]

If you think corporation X is making “runaway profits” why aren’t you on the phone buying stock in their company?

Don't worry, my partner and I have done extremely well. I'd be willing to wager good money that we've done exponentially better than you under the current "meritocracy" system. If I were to adopt your attitude, I'd have to conclude that you're lazier than us and/or have made worse life choices. Because it's really that simple in life?

 

[Irvine511]

By this logic of profit is everything, my homo values and choices are likewise superior to INDY.

Making matters worse, one of us is a media executive and the other is a Fed. Horrors. And our disposable income is spent on foreign travel.

And yet, I've never made anyone a single mother.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Don't worry, my partner and I have done extremely well. I'd be willing to wager good money that we've done exponentially better than you under the current "meritocracy" system. If I were to adopt your attitude, I'd have to conclude that you're lazier than us and/or have made worse life choices. Because it's really that simple in life?

By this logic of profit is everything, my homo values and choices are likewise superior to INDY.

Making matters worse, one of us is a media executive and the other is a Fed. Horrors. And our disposable income is spent on foreign travel.

And yet, I've never made anyone a single mother.

I think both these statements perfectly support Indy's hypothesis when we take into consideration the values he displays here