World's 85 richest have same wealth as 3.5 BILLION poorest

[jem]

why do so many of your posts come with a little self aggrandizing clause. Its some sort of passive aggressive put down. It may be ok once in a while, but I suggest you go for the put down. At least then it does does not seem like you are compensating for something.

As far as your logic... 2 points.

1. when you can start providing examples of every recent tax cut... it begins to look like there may be a link. ... however I wrote this...

"you do not understand economics if you do not understand how lower taxes could lead to more revenue. " Note the word could.

It is not a fallacy to understand that at some point on the curve increasing taxes decreases revenue and decreasing taxes increases revenue.
Its core enconomics.

Quote by Jem in response to Badnewsbear:
Jem, Post Hoc, ergo prompter hoc. If you don't know what it means look it up.

Your reasoning is a nice example of what is known as the "Post Hoc" fallacy.

 

[piezoe]

It is a pity that the writers of books like the Bible, the Koran and of course The Constitution didn't allow for change and evolution. Their philosophies are written in stone and are holding back their supporters who are destined to harp back all the time, while things have obviously progressed.

Humpy, I could not agree more. The U.S. Constitution is obsolescent, and I have suggested more then once that we ought to burn it and start over. But that's rhetoric.

Of course, I am not so naive as to ignore the dangers of starting over in a much more democratic nation than the loose, non-democratic confederation of States that were represented by wealthy land owners at the first constitutional convention. We wouldn't have the benefit of only the educated participating if we were to start over now!

The practical approach is to amend. We must spell out in the Constitution: 1. More specifically than at present, how one qualifies to run for the various federal offices; how much can be spent on electioneering, how that amount is to be determined, who or what shall pay it, and make illegal the spending of so much as a dime beyond this amount by anyone or any entity on behalf of any candidate or election issue; 2. The length of the election campaign; 3. The venues that are allowable for electioneering; 4. The type of electioneering that is allowable and the kind of political advertising allowed, if any; 5. How the rules are to be enforced and penalties for non-compliance to be determined, and by what controlling body; 6. The procedure for determining who shall serve on that body, how they are to be compensated and limits on that compensation.

If well drafted, such an amendment will supersede the 1st Amendment, with respect to elections, get around such problems as "Citizens United", take special interest money out of political campaigns, and equal the playing field for incumbents and challengers. It will do nothing to take the money out of politics in general, but it will take tainted money out of elections; the origin of much subsequent political corruption.

The campaign for such an Amendment must start in the States, be initially funded by philanthropists and then by a grass roots movement. It will pass and be ratified over Congress' objections. It will have to be.

 

[piezoe]

why do so many of your posts come with a little self aggrandizing clause. Its some sort of passive aggressive put down. It may be ok once in a while, but I suggest you go for the put down. At least then it does does not seem like you are compensating for something.

You've made yourself an easy target. At least I exercised restraint in not calling you a "simpleton". (I might have thought it, but I didn't say it!)

 

[jem]

You've made yourself an easy target. At least I exercised restraint in not calling you a "simpleton". (I might have thought it, but I didn't say it!)

Wow... you lift most of your arguments from pro publica or slate and I prove them lacking or just plain wrong on just about every thread and you come back with that? Logic facts and the constitution are your enemy . The left can't survive in a factual environment.

 

[failed_trad3r]

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but what the public REALLY doesn't understand is that BOTH parties do nothing more than grant favors for those that put them in office, whether putting them in office was through voting or through donations to their campaign. Politicians are bought and paid for by bankers and titans of industry. When people understand this simple fact...they'll understand why both parties are subject to doing a lot of things that benefit the wealthy but yet hurt the majority.

they only go so far as this. they say both parties are criminal, then when we want to rate the criminalness they say democrats are like murderers and republicans are like theieves, when data shows democrats are thieves and republicans murderers.

their logic only goes halfway, then for some reason they have inverse logic.

 

[SIUYA]

Given its Friday....

A question for those who advocate no taxes, free markets, a fair go for those who work hard, the idea of 'parasitic classes'....etc;

generally the folks who people should not be given handouts.

Q: why is it more fair to give handouts to your children either before or after you pass away?

* I have my own views on this so before you proclaim me a lefty, and have a rant and simply establish you have not thought through the consequences before replying, I am genuinely interested in peoples responses and if they can explain them with out reverting to 'cause them's mine'.
thanks.