131 share
40 share shows
very high reader interest
Warren Buffet, as big a hypocrite as lives in the political world, a supporter of Obama, is funding 25% of Burger King's purchase of a Canadian food chain, as it uses that acquisition as an opportunity to officially move its headquarters from the US to Canada, avoiding the repressive taxation that is current US policy. The Administration wants to criminalize such moves, but, as yet, does not have the support in Congress, to do so.
That's how your trickle down works .... providing jobs for people everywhere but here. Just so the CEOs can make a few million more off cheap Indian/Indonesian/Malaysian labor... while everything they sell is made in China. How's that trickle down workin' for us?
ReplyDeleteThere is no alternative to "trickle down." Also, every single Progressive Marxist CEO in this country, is a capitalist, so stop whining about that which is reality.
Delete“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.” -- Pope Francis
DeleteThe good Pope is simply wrong. Our nation, China, and most of the European continent, have succeeded because of "trickle down" economics or "capitalism." Greed is the problem, but there is no alternative to trickle down. Understand that in the nation you reject, our "poor" are in the top 25% of the world's population. You, Mr Anonymous, have prospered from trickle down (capitalism).
DeleteYour opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.
DeleteBe a good pawn of the top 1%. Be a republican.
So writes a One Percenter. The degree of your hypocrisy is stunning. Your are not a capitalist, when earning your living? You do not benefit from so-called "trickle down" economics? You have in mind an alternative to trickle down ? You deny that our poor are among the richest people in the world? You deny htat China uses capitalist principles? You think welfare is not "trickle down" socialism? You deny that Europe practices a form of capitalism, regardless of the country named? You apparently don't believe in a free market system; can you name me a successful economic system that is not a free market system to some degree? You think there is only "so much" wealth in the world, and GM has stolen your share? You spend what you earn on life's necessities, and give the rest back to the poor and needy or to Central Planning? You deny that everyone in Progressive Marxist Socialist Anti-Capital leadership is filthy rich? You deny that you are a One Percenter? You deny that the Pope lives off the donations of those who work for a living?
DeleteNews flash: I do not intend on publishing any more of your comments unless and until, you decide to answer the above questions. The readership needs to know that this is how the Leftists in this World, those driven my Alinbsky type debate principles, manage a "discussion." They (the Marxist Left - not all Democrats are considered "Marxists Left" btw) throw out insults and ad hominem arguments, refusing to answer questions and defend their point of view while staying on subject. Understand that our Anonymous opponent, cannot answer any of the above questions in this "comment" without surrendering his point of view - so he doesn't . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . answer my questions.
Kind of wonder what your opponent friend thinks of how Buffet made his money, or the Gates, or Steyer, or Pelosi, or Reid or Schumer, or Durbin, or Lizy Warren or Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
DeleteExactly. No problem. He won't give an answer to any of this. He can't.
DeleteWhen Buffet started his career, income inequality wasn't anything like it is today, thanks to the Reagan policies.
Delete"Leave no CEO behind"
"Citizens United" - let the CEOs purchase our leadership. It's a small club and you're not in it. But you support it, because they're smarter than you, and know how to get you to support them.
The reader can see the ignorance embedded in your comment(s). With your Buffet comment, I simply say, "So what?" And Reagan did a better job dealing with income equality than Carter or Obama.
DeleteYour next two comments are too silly to respond to.
What do you think is the source of income inequality?
ReplyDeletehttp://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/06/tracing-the-source-of-income-inequality/
poor education; laziness; failure to accept personal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteRonald Reagan... and the 'raise all boats' GOP myth. Ask any economist with a brain.
ReplyDeleteI owned a business back then, voted for Carter the first time, and know exactly what happened. Reagan was and is a hero, on a national scale, and all your rewriting of history is nothing but misinformation. Again, I KNOW because I was there. It was a Democrat congress that over-spent and failed to keep its promises to Reagan. It was a Democrat congress, as always, that failed to effectively deal with closing down the border (they have always be a "One World, Utopian World without Borders," Marxist driven party). Peddle your lies somewhere else.
DeleteMaybe we should ask the guy who designed Reaganomics?
Deletehttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10
From the article you cite: "Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish."
DeleteMaybe you should research the author of "Reaganomics" (David Stockman) as to it’s effectiveness, now that you see him as some sort of authority. Now that Stockman is your new, best friend, you may find this article, written by Stockman, as critically important as I do: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/trashing-obamas-economic-team/
Understand that he sees Obama as a failed president. No doubt, you will enjoy this article, written by your new economic advisor. I know I did. See what Stockman says about Obama, here: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-most-destructive-presidencies-in-u-s-history-george-w-bush-and-barack-h-obama/
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI deleted a comment arguing the against the existence of the "historical Jesus." Might as well argue against the historical George Washington or the historical Elvis Presley or the historical Roman Empire. You quoted an atheist publication as if the unbeliever has authority in matters of Christian faith. Not here. Not ever. The fact of the matter is this: Jesus Christ is the single most important historical influence in world history. Arguing against that reality is just plain silly . . . . . like first grade silly.
DeleteWhy are you threatened by such facts? Isn't your faith strong enough?
DeletePerhaps facts are meaningless to you? Why would you not at least listen to the findings of scholars on the subject instead of discounting it out of hand? If so, it says a lot about the way you think and reason.
I would say that Santa Claus has been an extremely influential person in history as well.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/30/did-the-historical-jesus-exist-a-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/
Why do you think I am threatened? I have been a Christian for 57 years . . . . sometimes hot, sometimes cold, but, still, having a God whom I regard as consistent and accepting. There is more evidence for the existence of the historical Christ than for Shakespeare, or Napoleon or Hitler, or Karl Marks.
DeleteI have a graduate degree in "theocentric pyschology" and have read all the liberal opinions I care to read (Boltmann - important to Black Liberation Theology - Paul Tillich, Hagel, a fellow named Schleiermacher who laid the academic foundations for 19th century classic liberalism. I have debated a number of individuals on the subject of evidences and the assumed importance of same. IN other words, you are not going to offer anything I have not considered, over the years. .
Theocentric psychology is like "Biblical archeology." Not legitimate, unless you live in a bubble where everyone is assumed to start from a base of theocentrism, which is not based on tangible fact. Whose theology? Yours? Buddha's? Krishna's? Abraham's? Pick a god, but for it to be valid, it must be YOUR god, and everyone in your bubble must agree.
DeleteYour statement: "There is more evidence for the existence of the historical Christ than for Shakespeare, or Napoleon or Hitler, or Karl Marks" is about as ludicrous as anything you have ever written and simply shows that when one is 'invested' as long as you have been in a belief system, there is no amount of reason, or fact, or evidence that can change that. That sums up your psychology.
And... it fits perfectly with the psychological profile of conservatives, unable to adjust to new evidence, new information ... instead focused on persistent responses, and as respondents in a recent poll accurately stated: "stuck in the past." You want to believe, you need to believe.
There are scholars that know far more than you and I that say the evidence for a historical Jesus is minimal, dubious, and uncertain ... at best. Just because a lot of people believe in Santa Claus, doesn't make him a real person... (as much as I like the concept of Santa).
Actually, no one past the age of 10 believes in Santa Clause, so your point is muted because of that fact.
DeleteSecondly, there are no unbelieving scholars who know more about the historicity of the Nazarene that myself and folks of similar training.
Third, I could utilize the same arguments against the people named in my response you use to debunk a historical Christ, and do so more effectively. You have no clue as to the evidence for a historical Christ. You are a truther when it comes to the Twin Towers, and someone who believes a man can say he is a woman and, BAM, he is a woman . . . . . so what do you know about the apparent ghost you call the "historical Christ?"
Evidence shows that when one is vested in a particular point of view for 5 decades, that point of view is more often right than wrong. But, of course, evidencing the One true God is not the critical matter. Accepting him is. You begin with faith and move to knowledge. If you have to have "proof," God is not Sovereign and can be defeated.
You confuse knowledge with faith and belief. Knowledge, by it's nature, changes, evolves and can on occasion be discarded to accommodate new information. Belief and faith do not have this attribute, they are fixed, unyielding, no potential for growth outside of the predetermined framework.
DeleteThe problem is that mainstream Christian belief is based on a manipulated set of writings... where some writings were interpolated, forged, not based on reality, contradictory, and edited to remove unwanted text by Constantine and others because of politics. For example, the Gospel of Thomas was rejected by Constantine because it rejected the authority of the bishops and priests. Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas taught that people did not need such religious authorities /intermediaries of the Church (bishops and priests), and that the Kingdom is within all and is directly accessible to everyone without them and we all are sons/daughters of God. Instead, Constantine chose Paul's story as the 'official gov't religion.' Paul - one of the earliest Biblical writers and considered one of the most important, never met Jesus, never heard him preach, never met any of his immediate disciples nor did he even speak the same language. How's that for a source to base an entire world religion on?
You write: "Belief and faith do not have this attribute, they are fixed, unyielding, no potential for growth outside of the predetermined framework. " facts and science are no different. And look what science has given us: a nine planet solar system when there were only 8 planets; 17 years of stable global temp averages; 9 years of hurricane drought when you all predicted a glut of hurricanes beginning with 2006; polar bear extinction when there are more than ever; an ozone crisis that was going to kill us all; a hunger bomb that would be the end of humanity and on and on.
DeleteYou, of course, are not studied in theology and have no clue what you are talking about. I have no interest in discussing issues of faith with a man who flunked Faith 101, lives like a king while criticizing others for doing the same and declares himself to be the intellectual center of the existential universe.
How do you know there are 8 planets instead of nine? Science. The foundation of astronomy was reexamined, previous understanding discarded.
DeleteDo you think religion would go as far as admitting a foundational mistake in which millions believed? Never.
That, my friends is the difference between knowledge and belief.
You really are kinda stupid. That is my psyche evaluation of you. In bringing up the 8 versus 9 planet scenario, what in the world do you think was my point ? Obviously, you have no clue, so let me enlighten. I mean, if science was wrong about the solar system, why should I stand with confidence in their Utopian concerns about climate change, or the next “let’s scare the hell out of the sucker-public?” When it takes science a century to learn how to count planets, the fantasy of scientific infallibility vanishes. Indeed, there are honest, hardworking and capable scientists, but the notion that science is reliable to a fault is demonstrably stupid. And I can support "demonstrably." Look up the word and you might get the impact of this claim. How many times has the FDA been wrong about their warnings, or the drugs they have approved? I dare say hundreds of times over the years - or do you think the FDA has nothing to do with science? How many times has weather scientists missed their popular 10 day forecasts? Hint: almost every such forecast is wrong and often, critically so. But, of course, they KNOW what they are talKing about when it comes to “global warming.”
DeleteMore than this, you think being suddenly able to count is a foundational issue for science, and brag on this acquired skill, you want to believe the Christian religion, properly understood and practiced, is a parallel, finite entity. Understand this: I do not regard anyone who stands in his own understanding and draws direction in life from looking into an existential mirror, as someone to whom I can explain anything as to a matter of faith.
You are the one who does not understand the difference between faith and knowledge. In fact, Your entire world circles around faith, yet, you pretend that faith is a wholly invalid consideration. Pitiful
Actually, I have studied theology, and not limited to 'Judeo Christian theology.'
DeleteOf course to Smithson, there is no other meaningful theology than Judeo Christian.
What is "Judeo Christian" in your highly educated mind, and, how was that lone class, taken during summer school, different from a "world religions" class at any two year community school.?
DeleteAnd what is your definition of theology?
While I do not believe that my education makes me "special," I have a Masters in biblical studies and another 160 units of graduate level work in the same venue, especially from a Barthian perspective. No one is an "expert" when it comes to God, My education has given me an opportunity to consider and reconsider my personal faith, and is in no way, a qualifier, equipping me to be a spokesman for God or an apologist for his person. Theology can never service that function. It only qualifies me to think about my faith . . . . . true for me; true for every other "theologian." God needs no defense. He will teach you about himself, or no one will.
Science wasn't "wrong" about the solar system, how stupid. You act as if Pluto was a figment of some astronomer's imagination. Designating Pluto as a 'minor planet' is just semantics. It doesn't prove the science was wrong. It is the 10th largest object orbiting the sun.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your other example... the FDA - you don't think politics and capitalism influence drug approvals by the FDA? Have you watched daytime network TV? Every other commercial is a drug commercial. It's a multi - billion dollar business and there are more motivations than science regarding the FDA. I don't personally see a lot of good long term risk assessment coming out of the FDA. Politics and capitalism have a way of pushing science aside when there is big $$$$$$$$.
Don't care if you're a science denier, that's your problem. Science is fallible, it can be seen as levels of certainty, like the 10 day forecast.... a lot of uncertainty. The exact time it takes light to travel in a year, not much uncertainty. You see, in science, uncertainty is acknowledged. In faith, and in belief.... it almost never is. Even the most ardent climate scientists that discuss climate change do so in terms of certainty. ... i.e. 50% or 80% certainty, etc...
You ask someone like Smithson if there is a chance the whole Jesus story is an embellished fable, he'll be absolutely 100% certain that is it not. Science is almost never absolutely certain.
That, my friends is a much more intelligent way to go through life. Considering the facts and evidence and making a judgement as to the probability that something can be seen as true.
stupid? Me? For saying that Pluto is NO LONGER a planet? That is the very definition of "wrong." And why are you arguing the point, since you just admitted that science is fallible, which, of course, includes its so-called consensus discovery that global warming is man made, irreversible if we don't soak the poor and middle class from transferable funds (redistribution), and directly related to green house gas production.
DeleteThose drug commercials on TV? They are all approved by the scientists at the FDA. Politics influence science?? Unheard of, on the Left. But of course politics plays a role in science. That is exactly what you and have been arguing about for months. Global warming (I should say "regional" warming) is all about politics.
If religion is does not certain absolute, it is nothing but a useless side show. Of course there are absolutes. Of course there is only One God. Of course, guys like you have come and gone, but the Christian faith is here to stay.
"Of course there are absolutes. Of course there is only One God."
DeleteI thought there were three, a trinity?
"Christian faith is here to stay."
That is exactly what fundamentalists in any faith say... their faith provides the only true god.
Exactly why there is so much division and war in the world today.
Thanks for clarifying. Although you didn't mention Jesus specifically, I take it that, in your view, there is zero possibility that the Bible contains any false information. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Case closed. You flunk logic and critical thinking 101.
You want to continue this discussion. Please another post. This is too much. I will answer your last comment, immediately above, however.
DeleteYou write: "Thanks for clarifying. Although you didn't mention Jesus specifically, I take it that, in your view, there is zero possibility that the Bible contains any false information. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Case closed. You flunk logic and critical thinking 101."
Actually, you do not know what I believe as to the infallibility of Scripture, so you present a strawman argument for fear that saying nothing, on your part, would be outrageous.
Again, you write, " . . . . . faith provides the only true god." Talking about flunking logic and critical thinking 101, explain to the readership how strawman arguments and false assumptions about my personal view points is related to "logic and critical thinking."
To the original theme of this post... economics.
ReplyDeleteConservatives need to stop obsessing about private morality -- what happens in bedrooms between consenting adults -- and focus instead on public morality -- what happens in boardrooms among corporate executives. The moral crisis of our age has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion; it’s insider trading, obscene CEO pay, wage theft from ordinary workers, Wall Street’s continued gambling addiction, corporate payoffs to friendly politicians, and the billionaire takeover of our democracy. -- Robert Reich
Serving in the Ford, Carter and Clinton admins, Time magazine named Reich as one of the Ten Best Cabinet Members of the century.
When I have to married a gay couple by order of the government; when I have to pay for your abortions and birth control, then I will have something to say about those realities. YOU invited me into your bedroom every time you charge my account for an abortion or force me to use my private property to condone your sense of morality.
Delete"Comments" are closed for this post.
ReplyDelete