| Pages:
1
2
3 |
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
Funny, as I look around me here in Redding, CA I am having a hard time seeing any "serf's"--------things look pretty prosperous in my neighborhood,
and beyond.
I must be delusional, tho.
It is pure envy, I say----------I WANT what they have!!!! (even tho "they" often worked hard and took many risks to get where they are, and
conducted their lives and work for the benefit of their families thru the generations)
But I agree with you Howard, that the concentration of wealth is way out of wack, but there are good reasons why that is so, and it is not all bad.
Still, it has gotten to the point that only the "rich" can afford to "support" the Government, and life-styles of the majority of Americans, and that
is a recipe for disaster in my book.
(this thread has gone OFF-Topic, so I will quit)
Barry |
You know, Barry, you have written quite a bit that is contradictory in the above quote. You look around your area and you don't see any "serfs", and
next counter that observation by writing "...the concentration of wealth is way out of wack" and then immediately contradict that by stating "there
are GOOD reasons why that is so...". If there good reasons for it, how can it be "out of wack"?
Next you go on to state that "only the rich can support the government" which I am going to presume that you think is not a good state of affairs,
albeit true. But, the question in my mind is do you think it is bad because the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top is so severe
that only the top 50% have any money to pay taxes or do you think that the concentration of wealth is fine where it is and aught to be but that it's
unfortunate that the government chooses not to suck any money from the bottom 50% in the form of income taxes?
Further, you say the rich are supporting the life-styles of the majority of Americans. Really? First of all, the majority of Americans aren't doing
so well, Barry. You know, there is a national and world wide economic crisis going on. The real earnings of the bottom 95% of us Americans over the
last 30 years has been on a continual slide downward since the early Reagan Administration, and the GDP of the nation and the wealth and income of the
top monied people has gone only upward in those 30 years. What that means, Barry, is that the wealth that was created by the hands and minds of the
bottom has flowed to the pockets of the top.
Just to make it easier to understand, that would be like saying that the plantation slave owners pre Civil War were supporting the slaves life style,
actually, Barry, the wealthy slave owners were being supported by the dirt cheap labor and backs of the slaves that did the work that created the
wealth that flowed to the plantation/slave owner while the slaves just got enough to barely sustain life so that they could both work and procreate.
Barry, the slaves were underpaid, and that underpayment is what contributed greatly to the support of the plantation owners and their inequitable
rewards.
Furthermore, your use of the term "envy" is nothing more than a cheap and insulting conversational tactic to trivialize people that may have opposing
views to yours. It would be like my saying that all the wealthy got their wealth because they are greedy. If you are using the word envy to describe
those that are not wealthy, then you are talking about at least 90% of all Americans. Who are you insinuating are envious? What Portion of the
population, Barry? Have the courage to take a position and be accountable, make it easy on yourself, + or - 10% accuracy.
I think that you have to think through the 'economics' a little better, when you do, you may find 'consistency instead of contradiction'.
[Edited on 8-10-2011 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
MitchMan-----------I would have to write a book to address all the "inconsistancies" you see in my writings---------I believe that you know exactly
what I am trying to say, tho I may not have said it that well. I am a Conservative, and for the most part agree with Supply-Side economics with a
scattering of Keynesian Demand-side thrown in where appropritate and when the time is right.
Much of your assertions I simply don't agree with, but I am not eloquent enough, or patient enough, to explain (especially since I believe you know
what I am saying). You smart guys always make things so complicated that it is a wonder that anything is ever agreed to.
Bottom line I want a FLAT TAX so that everybody is involved in the financing of this Country. I could settle for a Natinal Sales Tax, if I can't get
the Flat Tax. I am less enthused about a VAT.
"Envy" is the only work I can come up with for the motivation of the many who want to tax the rich higher %'s more than themselves------i.e
redistribution of wealth. Maybe there is a better word than "envy". The reality of the present situation is why I stated or admitted that there ARE
real problems, and that at this stage only the "rich" have enough money to begin to fix things, but a good start would be cutting way back on our
spending----wayyyyyyy back, and helping the business community to get back up and running better so that they can hire folks who then can afford to
pay taxes, etc. etc. Blah blah blah . If the Govt. does not do this NOW, I believe that our good days are well behind us, and we will go into
bankruptcy and become essentially a failed state.
Hope that is a little clearer, and not to inconsistant. I am sure I missed many of the inconsistancies that you saw, but this is all that I remember
for now. In my own mind, I am not inconsistant, even when I read your critique and thought about it.
Barry
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Throughout the years, Barry and I have had many conversations along the same lines. We have often conversed by email and even on the phone. I can now
call him a friend. I can separate ideology (some of which would pi$$ me off) from the person. He expresses his opinions based on his personal
experience. In my book, that is always valid!!!
Although his views are quite different from mine, he is always a gentleman. He will debate without personal rancor and is fun to joust with. I wish
more were like him.  
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
Throughout the years, Barry and I have had many conversations along the same lines. We have often conversed by email and even on the phone. I can now
call him a friend. I can separate ideology (some of which would pi$$ me off) from the person. He expresses his opinions based on his personal
experience. In my book, that is always valid!!!
Although his views are quite different from mine, he is always a gentleman. He will debate without personal rancor and is fun to joust with. I wish
more were like him. |
Well thank you, Tony---------I appreciate that.
Best, Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hello Barry, I appreciate your response. I beleve that most people generally are coming from a good place and simply see things differently. When it
comes to politics and economics, much of the discord, has to do with most people not being on the same sheet of music with regard to actual facts and
actual sound correct logic.
For example, you promote the flat tax, you say, so that "everybody is involved in the financing of this Country. I could settle for a Natinal Sales
Tax...". Well, now, that sounds fair on the surface, which is good enough for most all conservatives. If Bill Gates has to pay 10% on all his income
and if a person with a family of four has to pay 10% on his total household income of $40,000 USD, that would be obviously fair, right? 10% and 10%.
Seems fair, doesn't it?
Now, let's look a little closer. There is a thing called Englel's Law which is accepted as a basic principle of income and consumption in classical
economics and states that the more income a person acquires, the smaller percentage of it is spent on food. Conservatives avoid and voluntarily
choose to ignore this law like the plague because it erodes their economic fabric and philosophy lethally in so many ways. What the law recognizes is
that humans consumption has certain common limits. Bill gates can only eat so many lobster dinners, sushi meals, and ounces of Kobe beef. There is a
limit. For instance, Bill Gates' house cost $147,000,000 and when you divide that by his net worth, his $147 million mansion is 1/4 of 1% of his net
worth. Think it through, Barry, there are hundreds and hundreds of examples that show that human consumption to sustain life is limited whether you
are massively wealthy or not.
The other part is the recognition that compensation/income gets wildly out of wack by comparison from person to person in two ways, at the lower
income levels, people get very meager reward for their work, and at the upper end it is gangbusters. There is nothing anywhere that says that the
supply and demand determinant of a job market will result in a livable wage. The job market is the job market and can and often does result in
insufficient and inadequate living wages, especially at the bottom and lavish inequitable rewards for some at the top. Also, what makes anyone think
that markets always work perfectly and equitably benefit all participants? Another common error by almost all conservatives. Actually, this insane
belief in the religion of unfetterd free markets at all costs is at the basis and foundation of the conservative economic folly and the current world
wide economic crisis.
Conservatives in denial refuse to recognize that there is anything wrong or out of kilter for the top 1% to own 37% of the nation's wealth and that
the top 10% owning 71% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60% have only 4% of the nation's wealth and the the bottom 40% have less than 1/4 of 1%
of the wealth. Don't have time to go into detail, suffice it to say that our economy is hopelessly and inequitably skewed to favor the top which is
to say it is hopelessly skewed to disfavor the working class, especially at the bottom. The obvious lesson here is that those at the top are getting
many multiples more in reward from their efforts (largely by way of their 'arranging' things financially rather than actually getting paid for actual
work done or joules of energy expended and hours of time worked) than is the working class.
So what you have is wildly disparate income at only the top and the working class (at least the bottom 95% of USA) barely making it. The top cannot
consume what they have as widly evidenced by their vast sums of savings an wealth mentioned above because pursuant to Engel's Law there was no way
they could atcually consume any signifcant portion of their excessive income or wealth and the rest of working class poplulation barely at subsistance
and you want to apply at $4,000 income tax leaving the family of four above with only $36,000 to live on and you want to limit the tax on over 50
hedgefund managers and Wall Street executives that each made over $450 million in 2008 to $45 million leaving them with ONLY $405 million to live on
for the year!
Can you see the folly of your ways, Barry? Can you see the numeric factual weakness of the argument for a regressive flat tax or sales tax? Please,
I emplore you to internalize the real facts, all the facts, and not succumb to the slogan mentallity and simplicity of what seems fair on the surface.
You know, they give PHDs in economics, it is not as simple as conservatives want it to be. You have to understand how numbers actually work through
and through. You have to look always at the big picture.
If you think that the disparity of income and wealth is unhealthly for the economy and 'out of wack' as you acknowledged previously, as an ex tax
researcher I can tell you that a regressive flat tax or sales tax would make things multiple times wose. Some of those clever ones at the top know
this, unfortunately most conservatives are clueless...and I can prove it. It would be a massive windfall for those at the top (just like the Reagan
tax cut for the wealthy was) and ruinous to those on the bottom and the economy would suffer from a further reduction to demand in our already
suffering economy - most all top credentialed economists acknowledge that our economy big big problem is not at all under supply but fallen and
declining demand (consumption) on the whole.
[Edited on 8-11-2011 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Mitch---------It constantly amazes me that many Progressives (Libs) assume that we Conservatives simply don't know, or understand, the complexities of
economics, etc.. You have not brought up one "fact" that I have not read about, worried about, analyzed, spent days and months thinking
about-------but coming to somewhat different conclusions about, than you have. It is the interaction, interpretation, consequences, and application
of those "facts" that lead to various policies and laws out of the Legislature (both Fed. & State) and the effect they have on society that I (and
others?) ultimately try to focus on---------and then the "mental wiring" of our brains comes into the final decisions and conclusions that we reach
(IMO)--------and they are different (Libs and Conserv), often not to be reconciled, leaving only compromise as a rather unsatisfactory way of moving
forward (or not).
There are many learned and intelligent economists that feel the same way as I do, or similar. (Actually, I feel as THEY do, not the other way
around). There are NOMADS that articulate these ideas much better than I. ("Old Lady" comes to mind, but there are others)
You appear to me to want to "level the playing field" of success in this Capitolist System, but ignore what it took to get to that "success"-----I
resist this, and in fact push-back. I sincerely believe anybody with normal intelligence and an ethic of hard mental and physical work, who pursues
education and continued learning, is willing to take risks (sometimes big risks) and proceed fearlessly into proven methods of becoming successful in
this Country----CAN DO IT!!! and they should be applauded by ALL of us as living the American Dream. I sure do. I also believe that those who
follow this dream are the one's mostly responsible for the continually advancing "standard of living" of all who play the Capitolist game, and also
the many who "just hang on" for the ride---------in other words "trickle down economics". People laugh in disgust at the notion of "trickle down",
but I have seen it in action everywhere I look, and know in my heart that it is true, generally speaking. My God, the poorest person in this town has
so much more than I did when their age it is a wonder to me.
Conversely, I believe that the Nanny-State that we (and Western Europe) have become is the single most detrimental thing that has happened to the
citizens of this Country (world), bar none!!! I will push-back at this pervasive "I'm entitled" phylosoply with all my mental strength and votes for
as long as I am able. (and at 73 that maybe ain't too long).
I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute------don't doubt mine, and don't assume that I am necesarily talking from gross ignorance (tho I don't claim
to have all the answers)--------.
I am long retired (15 yrs), from a moderate-paying job as a Ranger (40K a yr), but I make my real money from the Stock Market (no bonds) and
commodities, and it took many years to get here-----my wife and I invested a steady 30% of our wages in the Market for 40 some years, and it is paying
off hansomely, even with these recent occasional "burps" we are having in the past few weeks.
We love it---------what is not to love?
Barry
ps-----but I too am worried about the concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the citizens (a flaw in Capitolism)-------that is rediculous and
counterproductive and leads to understandable frustration and disgust in the many--------these folks that are "there" in the 1% would be wise to
really step up their chritable giving, and they have, but more is needed. I just don't want the Government telling them they have to. The IRS will
accept any contributions these "rich" want to give, so give!!! It really drives me nuts when certain high-profile billionairs say, "yes, tax the
rich" (Buffett & Gates, and others). If they really feel that way they are welcome to give as much as they want to the IRS------get on with it, I
say, it is a free Country!!!
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hey Barry, I appreciate the attempt at thoughtful response and the effort you put into it. However and unfortunately, I must say that your thinking is
still rather convoluted. You make the typical right wing mistake of drawing flawed inaccurate inferences from the written word and basing your
conclusions on those very same flawed inferences. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have made a living at it. I am going to hold you
accountable.
You stated that I want to “level the playing field of success … but (that I) ignore what it took to get to that success”. What I actually said was
there is a massive inequitable concentration of wealth and income at the top at the expense of those at the bottom and that the reason is due to our
economic system being inequitably and seriously skewed in favor of the top. That is different than your “level playing field of success” inference.
Then you double down on your flawed inference and use that as the basis of your other flawed conclusion of my ignoring what it takes to get success.
I never said anything about leveling a playing field nor have I ever disputed that it often (though not always) takes hard work to gain financial
success, and I challenge you to quote anything that I have written that states that. That was simply another Barryism incorrect inference and an
illegitimate attempt to put your own spin on what was said.
Unlike you, I cited many stats and facts that show the very disparate concentration of wealth and income at the top in this country. Then, unlike you,
I went on to support my conclusion citing that the economy is inequitably skewed by citing established classic economic doctrine further illustrated
with factual examples (e.g., Bill Gates).
Now, if you have a difference of opinion of what the stats that I quoted in my previous post point you to, you know, the facts that you referred to
above that you have spent so much time contemplating, please correlate those facts in an argument to support your point of view. I would love to see
your argument in writing, here and now. Enlighten us all, Barry. I challenge you to employ just a little of that “hard work” you try to take credit
for. I supported my opinions and conclusions, I challenge you to do the same. Be specific, I was. And please, no more lazy cop-outs that different
opinions are merely attributed to different “mental wiring” between libs and dems. We are talking hard core economics here, Barry, not your feelings.
And, it is obvious to me that you have a very limited knowledge of basic economics.
You seem to limit your understanding of things to the simplicity of everyone can, does, and will succeed with hard work, effort, education and that
that trickle down economics works because you have see it in action. Tell me, Barry, the stats show that since the early Reagan administration to now,
real earnings and wealth for the working class has been on a continual down turn while GDP has been increasing around a ½ Trillion per year AND the
income and wealth of the very few at the top has tremendously increased seemingly exponentially. By way of illustration and just one of many
examples, in the early 80s the top 1% owned 20% of the nation’s wealth, just before the crash in 2007/8, the top 1% had increased their share over the
last 25 years to 37% of the nation’s wealth. Currently, the top 10% own 71% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 60% of us own only 4% and the
bottom 40% own less than ¼ of 1%. Tell me, Barry, how do those numbers support your contention that trickle down works? I mean, you stated that you
know the facts and that I haven’t told you anything new.
Give us your version of the truth and support the success of trickle down in the whole economy with real facts and economic theory so we know that you
are not just blowing smoke. You know, Barry, the truth may lie beyond your personal observations and experience. Or, maybe you don’t know that(?)
You are right that we progressives believe that you conservatives don’t know what you are talking about. Here’s your opportunity to prove us wrong.
Let’s see if you have the courage and the knowledge to do it. One very typical cop-out by the conservatives is when they are frequently confronted
with facts, figures and truth, they readily retreat from the argument. I see it all the time in other forums.
You state that the real problem is the nanny state both here and in Western Europe, but the real problem has and is the ability of special interest
big business, especially in the financial sector, to have hijacked the world economy primarily using tax cutting, unnecessary war, deregulation of the
financial sector allowing for predatory lending, deregulated banking and CDOs, CDSs, risky derivatives, offshore tax and regulation havens, the shadow
banking system, all beginning with and at the time of the Reagan administration and Margaret Thatcher deregulation which laid the weak foundation of
the world economy which ultimately crashed in 2007/8, especially here in the USA. $14 trillion of wealth was lost just here in the USA alone, and the
wealthy lost a lot less proportionately than the working class. But, then, ofcourse, you already know all the facts and stats, right? So, give me
some stats and facts that support the success of trickle down in our economy. I am not talking about your neighbor next door or your cousin, I am
talking about the economy taken as a whole.
BTW, Barry, suggesting that those that are for increased taxes on the rich should simply voluntarily donate money to the IRS is really naive and
simplistic. That would be a micro fix to a macro problem. I have heard that argument so many times before and it usually comes from the uneducated
arm chair conservatives who don't know any better.
You know, I think that your heart is in the right place, and that goes along way with me, but, you are mistaken on so many levels, Barry, I just can't
let it go.
[Edited on 8-14-2011 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
OK, Mitch-------here is the only "fact" that I am totally interested in and it originated with me------:
What I said "works for me" (that's a fact) and it also "works for my family" (that is a fact, too) and it has made us all very comfortable following
the prescriptions that I laid out. I would be foolish to not take that seriously, it seems to me. (Go with what works, and all that--------)
I don't doubt your quoted facts-----all very interesting----I just have a different conclusion as to why some happened, and share a few of your
concerns about how others happened.
All the rest of my interpretations come from those I trust, but I certainly don't know personally "the truth" of those facts, and I certainly am not a
scholar, as you have observed but I do try to listen to all sides------I just believe what appears to be in line with what I have observed over the
many years, and seems logical (to me)-------and much of what the Keynesians say just does not seem logical to me, and the facts they put forth are the
"facts" that support their point of view, but certainly not all the facts---(Paul Krugman is a case in point----he seldom makes any sense to me at
all, and the more he tries to explain himself the further in trouble he appears to get).
Who knows, you may be right, but using your MO has never helped me to progress, so I stick with what works for me and my family and
friends--------Capitolism. You should follow whatever works for you, I would suppose.
I only commented in the first place since I was concerned with what you, and others, said, and wanted to put forth another point of view since your
points mostly seemed so negative to me.
Have a good day, Mitch.
Barry
|
|
|
ncampion
Super Nomad
Posts: 1238
Registered: 4-15-2006
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retired and Loving it
|
|
Another Country heard from:
Here are a couple of "facts" to ponder.
1. Socialist economies continue to fail around the world. They destroy initiative and encourage laziness. Why should I work harder when everyone
gets the same.
2. Those “top 1%” people create massive amounts of jobs for people who don’t have what it takes to get to the “top”
Do you also think that we should do away with school grades? Everyone should get a “C” no matter how hard they work or how bright they are.
Should someone who digs ditches make the same money as someone who designs airplanes?
Life is not “fair”. Some people are going to do better than others, accept it and encourage hard work and productivity, not laziness and sucking at
the public tit. Someday we’re going to run out of “rich people” to finance all the newly created “poor people”.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
I 100% agree, ncampion. Well put, short and sweet, and to the point------.
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
ncampion,
I think that you may be worse than Barry, but since Barry has given you cudos, I guess Barry has sunken to a new low.
First of all, no one is promoting socialism here, not me, certainly not Barry, and I defy you to quote anything that I have written that shows a
supporting of socialism. You see, you right wingers go there because you have to create a false premise in order to support your false and incorrect
conclusions. Very common among your type. In fact, it is your collective motis operandi.
You double down on your false premise and false self-manufactured issue of socialism, a premise that someone is supporting or calling for socialism
and then follow up and point to and demonize people at the bottom of the economic ladder and accuse them of laziness, not measuring up, and insinuate
that they are unproductive parasites on society. The final abomination of your diatribe is to insinuate that the rich are financing the "newly
created poor people". Real wages have gone down for the middle class and poor (that's at least 95% of the USA population) since early Reagan
administration and the rich have just been getting massively richer. That is fact, not opinion. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Then I
challenge you to make a substantive comment on that factual trend.
Did you read any of the above? Or do you prefer to wallow in denial and ignorance of the real and pertinent facts? Your intellectual dishonesty may
rule your convoluted minds leading you to sidestep reality and not address these stats: the bottom 60% in America only have 4% of the nation's wealth
and the bottom 40% only own less than 1/4 of 1%. The top 15% in this country own 85% of all the wealth, and accordingly, the bottom 85% own only 15%
of the nation's wealth. Tell me, genius, how does that reflect that the rich are financing the poor? Also, that's alot of people that are in the
bottom 60%, are they all lazy, unproductive parasites? If not all, then, just approximately how many of the bottom 60% are lazy, unproductive
parasites? Come on, give us your answer! You wouldn't say those things about the poor that you said above if you didn't have at least an approximate
idea of how many people in the USA you are critizing, do you? I mean, you posited your opinion so strongly, surely you have a factual basis for your
opinion? Would you have said that if you were only talking about 1/1,000 of 1% of the population, if so, that would be a too small proportion to base
an opinion on. The concept of an adequate and sufficient quantity to be significant is formally called "materiallity". You wouldn't be so ignorant,
intellectually dishonest, and ill-informed as to form an opinion about a segment of the population that is so small as not to be economically
"material", would you? So, ....ncampion, share your knowledge with us. What proportion of the USA population are you talking about? Come on, I will
make it easy for you, + or - 5% margin of error.
Now, genius, how is that a support of socialism? But, you have to ask yourself, how did that disparity happen and is that disparity a good or bad or
normal thing? I challenge you to address this. Only a coward runs and hides from the truth. Stick to the facts of the matter, not inuendo,
insinuation, and mere reiteration of your dogmatic opinions. Show us and prove your position with some substance, and not mere opinions and
accusations. Prove it with fact and valid accepted economics Don't be cowards.
You too, Barry. You haven't defended your positons, you haven't answered any challenges put to you to prove and support your opinions with objective
substance, you haven't commented on the stats and economic theory that were mentioned in this thread with any objective substance of your own to show
how you derived your opposing opinions from the facts we talked about, you merely and simply and solely reiterated your weak and unsupported and
unproven "opinions". Very weak, and, intellectually dishonest, even derelict.
BTW, ncampion, if you make an effort to read this thread more carefully, the issue has not been a promotion of socialism, that was your false creation
as reflected in your statements above. The issue is the massive disparity of income and wealth particularly in the USA since the USA is the second
worst offender in the world on this matter. Even your convoluted cohort, Barry, acknowledges that there is a big disparity and further acknowledges
that such disparity is bad for the country.
Do you think that the disparity is bad for the country...ncampion? Inspite of the stats that I provided herein, do you think that there is a
disparity in the USA? Hmmmmmm? Well, do ya? I challenge you not be a coward and posit your answer so that we can see what you really believe.
Don't be a coward, answer the questions, they are legitimate questions all based on your comments and relevant to your opinions so cavalierly cast
here. Be a man...n,campion.
You too, Bary, answer up! Prove your yourself, stand up for yourself. Don't do the typical right wing thing of merely reiterating your previously
cast opinions, cowardly feigning mental exhaustion, and then run away, run away (reminds me of "Life of Brian"). Very weak and dishonest!
[Edited on 8-15-2011 by MitchMan]
[Edited on 8-15-2011 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tjBill
Everyone who owns stocks has lost about 10% in the last few days. |
Geeze, I didn't know that. My Danaher (DHR) on NYSE) went from $40.68 on 8/9 to $45.06 today (+10%)
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
ncampion
Super Nomad
Posts: 1238
Registered: 4-15-2006
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retired and Loving it
|
|
MitchMan,
You are obviously a borderline fanatic. It’s impossible to engage in an intelligent conversation with such a person.
I would also guess that you are not one on the "wealthy" people in our country.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Mitch-------------back to my original premise--------I am from Mars, and you are from Venus!!!!
Your barrage of veiled and not so veiled insults to me clowds whatever points you are trying to make, that along with what appears to be smoke and
mirrors-------most of the time I don't know what you are really talking about, so it is hard for me to address it. But since you think me a "coward",
it is really pointless, isn't it, to argue with someone who really has no respect for my points, and in fact negates that they are even "points" at
all. Wierd!!!!
I know what my experience is, and I have stated it, and that's a fact.
What you are saying "sounds like" Socialism to me--------I am sorry if that is a false conclusion, but we "right wingers" are always dong that, don't
you know, and that is a "fact" because YOU just said it was.. 
And yes, we "investors" in the Stock Market have lost some money in the last few days, but overall I am a little ahead of where I was on Jan. 1 of
this year as of last week, so to me that is no big deal--------Even with this choppy Market, Stocks in a "buy and hold" portfolio have still yielded
about 7+% (S&P 500) annual return over the years, and THAT is a FACT. My MSCI World (like) portfolio has yielded about 10% + annualized over the
years-------another FACT. It is not a "buy and hold" portfolio, but pretty close to it.
I believe what I can see--------you believe whatever you want to believe. There is always more to a story than each of us admits-----me included.
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
There you go again. ncampion, there you go again. No response to legitimate challenge, no factual support for your contentions, simply a weak and
cowardly exit, followed by a guess in the form of an accusation that you have no knowledge of.
Give us some substance and reasonable intelligent logic and support your contentions. Defend yourself. Here is your golden opportunity, it's free,
use it.
Come on, don't run away with your little head stuck between your little spindly legs. Be a man.
For the record, you actually haven't written anything here that smacks of intelligence or knowledge, and when given the opportunity to do so, you "run
away". Weak, very weak, and I must say, very transparent.
[Edited on 8-15-2011 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry, when you make an accusation against someone, it is incumbent upon the accuser to support and otherwise prove the accusations. The burden of
proof is on the accuser. Support and proof must be substantive, fact based, and objective, not insinuation, innuendo, spin, or mere opinion
reiterated.
Your accusation of "smoke and mirrors" is completely unwarranted. I have only stated solid easily verifiable support, facts and simple logic, not
something vague or convoluted. I challenge you to show, in writing, how what I have written constitutes "smoke and mirrors". If you don't do that or
if you can't do that, then you owe me an apologie.
BTW, I do have respect for you as a person and I have said a couple of times that I believe that you are coming from a good place, and that is how I
ultimately judge a person's character , which happens to be everything to me when it comes to people. All my highschool and most of my college mates
were right wing Christian fundamentalists, all my past business partners were right wingers. The absolute criterion for a friend is not political or
even economic concurrence but honesty, work ethic, morality, of good character, self discipline, and human compassion. Intelligence and being
knowledgeable makes them interesting.
What I do say is that a person is a coward if they make accusations or state opinions without developing or supporting the contention with pertinent,
relevant, logic and fact. In my book that is just plain dishonest and cowardly. People do damage that way; it's easy to say something, anything that
can be false, and untrue and damaging. The moral burden of proof is on the accuser to "prove". That is not only a moral obligation, it is in our
system of Judeo-christian law evolved over milinia.
For the record, I do not brand a person a coward, I brand the actions as cowardly and only after commiting cowardly actions do I then brand a person
who commits cowardly actions as a coward. I am very careful about that. I am a careful reader and a careful writer, on purpose.
If ncampion doesn't come back and meet the fair challenges I have posed to him, to take the opportunity to defend his integrity and credibility by
standing his ground with good solid support, logic and fact, then he will have earned the brand of coward and intellectual dishonesty. It's up to
him, now.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Mitch-------under your criteria I could never make any comments or give my opinions. I have forgotten most of the "facts" that you want to
see-----only the concepts remain easily accessible from my brain------I have always had a notoriosly poor memory for details, and I can't be
researching everything over and over again----way too time consuming. Heck, I don't even remember my phone number most of the time. That is why I
just give my impressions, and personal experience senarios, most of the time------they are the only "facts" that I remember. 
You may brand me a "coward" (or whatever) if you like--------your choice, of course.
I apologize if I have offended you, somehow. I will go back into my corner (for now). 
Barry
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
There's no point in attempting to have a debate with a liberal. Their common sense gene is missing. It's a total waste of time. They're not stupid or
bad people, just misguided and gullible. I used to feel sorry for them.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Mitch----------you want facts, I give you facts----by proxy----
Carve out an hour a week-day from your undoutedly busy schedule and watch THE KUDLOW REPORT at 4pm to 5pm PDT every weekday on CNBC--------listen to
"experts" give you facts on the economy and politics all hour long. Or, be like me an record it on your DVR and watch it at your leisure in the
evening.
It's fun!!!! You will like it!!!! You can take the info you learn to the bank.
Barry
[Edited on 8-16-2011 by Barry A.]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry,
I will take a good solid look at the Kudlow Report again. Thanks for the reference. I have seen it before and do drop in on an ongoing basis. For
the record, I listen to only talk shows on the radio for several hours each day and 90% of the time it is to right wing AM radio. I listen most every
day regularly to Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Praeger, Michael Medved, even Michael Savage. I do not listen much to Limbaugh as he is
obviously much less educated and knowledgeable than the others. Limbaugh is simply accusation and spin and no real information, the others are vastly
more informative and use good support to bolster their contentions. Rush is what I call ignorant, uneducated, cowardly and very, very intellectually
dishonest. He’s a waste of time for even right wingers as you will leave his show with very little real info, the other talk shows serve to truly
educate.
Cypress, your motis operandi is clear: make mealy mouthed accusations, refuse to discuss the issue at hand claiming some lame excuse like “There's no
point in attempting to have a debate with a liberal. Their common sense gene is missing. It's a total waste of time” but cowardly being careful not
putting your foot into the mix. If you have such a great level of common sense and I don’t, this should be a cake walk for you. Actually, I haven’t
seen any debate or common sense coming from you, only unsupported accusation and then you “run away, run away” like a loser.
Cypress you said liberals are gullible and misguided (more accusations, unsupported by you as usual), come on, show me how gullible and misguided I am
on this thread, quote what I have written and illustrate for us all what was misguided and where the gullibility lies. Prove your point.
You know, there is always a “point” to debating an issue whether or not you persuade your opponents to your side or not or whether you win the debate
or not as others read what is being written and if your posts are informative, well presented with substantive support and citations of verifiable
fact, the debate serves to educate others and may even persuade others to your point of view. Now, that’s a worthy endeavor, isn’t it ….. Cypress?
Come on, Cypress, take up the challenge and quote me and prove where I am “misguided” tough guy, give us the benefit your “common sense”. Like I
said, this should be a cake walk for a dude like you, you know, with all that common sense of yours and your lack of gullibility and the fact that
you, as a conservative right winger, are certainly not misguided. Or, is it going to be “run away, run away” like a little teeny mouse?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
