BTW, SFB, my {12} was not addressing any "article", it was clearly as stated, in response to Impaulasible's [8].

And since you admit your comment at [12] was in response to Paula's [8], which was in fact a comment that was in its entirety the discussion of an "article" regarding a "new report just released about income inequality around the world"... complete with a provided link to said "article" which was the subject matter of her entire comment at [8]… let us all know how you weren't discussing an "article."

If you don't like that, you can shove it "where the sun don't shine".

Sorry, old man, I live in Texas where the sun always shines in one way or another. :)

A better idea would be for you to get down off your antiquated soapbox and either make relevant comments or STFU. Paula posted a comment which in its entirety discussed an article regarding a report on income inequality, and then you proceeded to hit "play" on your standard operational bullshit rhetoric which missed entirely the point of the "article" that Paula posted. My point was that you missed the entire point. Focus, old man.

You may be right about people "bemoaning the obvious inequality of my intelect", but nowhere did they ever attempt to tie that to the level of my income,

Well, that's no doubt due to the indisputable fact that the article at the link Paula posted wasn't about you, Stucki; everything is NOT about you. Also, perhaps in your perpetual heightened state of ignorance and laziness, you simply failed to notice you've been referred to as "poor dumb expletive" on multiple occasions on this very blog. I guess the old man has reading comprehension problems, right?

which points out that you're dodging the question and/or too stupid to grasp the point of my post, which was, why do Dem/Lib idiots perpetually bemoan the existence of income inequality without ever tieing it to inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, and yes, inequality of intellect??

If you'll reread your asinine comment which we're discussing, you poor dumb expletive, you will find no actual question contained therein that required answering. Rather, you'll find a comment wherein you flail in your attempts to put words in a poster's mouth and the same standard operational smug, erudite, and preachy bullshit that you spew here often, simply followed by the word "right" and a question mark. You're therefore not actually asking questions, you're spewing your repetitive bullshit ad nauseam and asking others to agree with you, right? <--- That's not really a question, right?

I pointed out that income inequality is the direct result of all those other inequalities, and that it only gets worse every year in the modern hi-tech world, and you instantly fall back on the tired nonsense argument that income inequality really results from the more productive being too greedy to share to the extent your warped bullshit-laden mind considers fair.

In your perpetual state of confusion and undisputed inequality of intellect, I'm sure you've convinced yourself that the above bullshit your wrote is true, but if you'll reread my post, nowhere in my comment will you find a discussion regarding "the more productive" or "sharing," and I discuss the concept of "greed" exactly zero times.

OK, let me say that I am on the record as being against Kicking the Poor, whether they be up OR down!

They completely ignore the simple fact of life that people are born highly unequal in the things that cause inequality of income. We're terribly unequal in talent, unequal in skills, unequal in ambition, unequal in strength and agility.

Yes, they are, but that does not mean we need to kick the poor when they are down.

A more important observation would have been about mobility from birth - if all you say is true and people are born differently then we should see mobility between the quintiles (i.e. 0-20%, 20-40%, etc.). This mobility is declining, not improving.

This decline is due to many factors, but a good summary comes from Charles Murray's (yes, that Charles Murray) "Coming Apart".

The rich are pulling the ladder up behind them. This isn't some evil policy, but policies recently have aided them do this, rather than tried to leave the ladders in place.

I suspect your worldview was formed decades ago when the ladders were still there, particularly for white men. Try reading the above book.

It would be wonderful if education had the power to fully remediate all the defficiencies inherent in the inequalities people are born with, but that's simply not the case.

Education can help, and gawdonlyknows, we spend immense amounts on education, big multiples of what other nations spend, meaning proper education NOT "beyond the grasp of the poor".

Neither I not most Reps/Cons oppose public education, but the scariest statistic concerning education is that the relation between money spent on public education and successful outcomes appears to be inverse!!

Check it out, the highest per-pupil educational expenditures in our country are in the very places where successful outcomes are the lowest.

Ah, if only that were true! Then all we'd have to do to close the gap would be to massively invest in schools and motivation centers. If Republicants really believed that, I think they'd be taking public education more seriously (we can't all go to private schools, despite Betsy DeVos's earnest desire that we do so). Similarly, a respect for science in conservative circles would help us build a more educated citizenry. How do you expect the situation as you've defined it to improve, when proper education is beyond the grasp, geographically or financially, of the poor? You can't accuse the poor of not bettering themselves on one hand, while simultaneously yanking away opportunities to do so with the other. Just sayin'..

You may be right about people "bemoaning the obvious inequality of my intelect", but nowhere did they ever attempt to tie that to the level of my income, which points out that you're dodging the question and/or too stupid to grasp the point of my post, which was, why do Dem/Lib idiots perpetually bemoan the existence of income inequality without ever tieing it to inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, and yes, inequality of intellect??

I pointed out that income inequality is the direct result of all those other inequalities, and that it only gets worse every year in the modern hi-tech world, and you instantly fall back on the tired nonsense argument that income inequality really results from the more productive being too greedy to share to the extent your warped bullshit-laden mind considers fair.

When everybody subsisted by farming, there was still inequality.

p.s., dumb ass: There was NEVER a time in history when everybody subsisted by farming.

Dems/Libs love to bemoan "inequality" endlessly, but they only want to talk about inequality of income.

I call bullshit on you, Stucki, as I have seen multiple Democrats on this blog bemoaning and discussing the obvious inequality of your intellect on multiple occasions.

Your pulling a few words out of an entire article and taking them out of context in order to make a point about income inequality from cradle to grave doesn't change the fact that the article discusses growing incoming inequality in recent history brought on by policy changes that were in no uncertain terms NOT "inevitable" but were quite deliberate and due to policy.

The Orange Blowhole/Pus Bucket campaigned on a platform that he would ease the tax burdens of the Middle Class in order to address the issue of income inequality... which no matter how many times you whine wasn't possible was absolutely and easily attainable, as outlined multiple times on this blog in comments directed to you ad nauseam, but the GOP chose otherwise by legislating policy that exacerbated the problem rather than remotely attempting to create policy that attempted to achieve the campaign rhetoric of multiple GOP talking heads, simply delivering the same tired trickle-down policy we've seen for decades that has indeed widened the "gap."

Read the entire article and comment regarding the issue being discussed or STFU since your standard operational rhetoric in regards to the posted article is as tiresome and repetitive as it is irrelevant. :)

"When you have more than income . . . and still want more, that's greed." No, actually that's just your arbitrary definition of one aspect of greed, and many would disagree.

You neglected to explain why the desire to eat the fruits of the labors of others is NOT greed.

Nobody "wants to contribute", but society sees to it that the productive contribute whether they want to or not. Remember, the "common fund" (streets, schools, etc, came from the more productive elements of society, NOt from the unproductive.

Re "Paying unfair wages" - any worker who receives "unfair wages" has the obligation to offer his time and talents to other employers. If he's unable to find a higher bidder, then by definition, he's getting "fair wages".

That's simple: when you have more than income to sustain and entertain yourself and provide for your loved ones, and yet still desire more, that's greed.
When you don't want to contribute to the common fund from which you've derived common benefit, the motive is greed.
When you refuse to pay fair wages for fair work, that's greed.
When you favor tax breaks over services for children, the elderly, the infirm and disabled, that's greed.

The poor, of course, don't match any of those definitions.

That's simple: when you have more than income to sustain and entertain yourself and provide for your loved ones, and yet still desire more,t

(and still balk at contributing to the common wealth from which you've derived common benefit), that's greed. When you refuse to pay fair wages for fair work, that's greed.
When you favor tax breaks over services for children, the elderly, the infirm and disabled, that's greed.

The poor, of course, can never match that definition.

My brother says that store-bought chicken nuggets ought to be on that menu.

"Growing inequality isn't inevitable . ."

Sorry, dead wrong, growing inequality IS inevitable in the modern hi-tech world.

Dems/Libs love to bemoan "inequality" endlessly, but they only want to talk about inequality of income.

They completely ignore the simple fact of life that people are born highly unequal in the things that cause inequality of income. We're terribly unequal in talent, unequal in skills, unequal in ambition, unequal in strength and agility. Those are the inequalities that produce inequality of income, and they grow more important daily in the high-tech world of reality.

When everybody subsisted by farming, there was still inequality. Now tha we specialize however, all those other inequalities serve to magnify and accentuate inequality of income, because income is the result of productivity.

I'm aware that your emphasis on INequality of income is designed to bring to pass income Equality by transferring the fruits of the labors of the more productive to the less productive, but that never totally cures inequality of income because the more productive are just tooooo "greedy", right?

Interesting how the reluctance to share your income with the less productive is described as "greed", but the desire to eat the fruits of the labor of others is NOT called "greed", right? Why don't you explain that for us!

I think so too - I hope so.

And another indictment drops against Manafort, adding Konstantin Kilimnik as a defendent and charges both with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice. All of Manafort's previous charges remain.

And plenty more waiting for unsealing. What we understand that I believe escapes the Trump minions and their ilk is that Benedict Donald could issue pardons to all his partners in crime, and it still won't erase the charges against the others. Each of those issued pardons will still be subject to questioning in the prosecution of the cases and subject to indictment with additional crimes they commit in the exercise thereto... think "contempt of court" for refusing to testify and/or "perjury" for lying under oath... lather, rinse, and repeat.

It will never end for any of them regardless... unless BLOTUS is willing to pardon the Russians for their crimes against the United States that are undisputed even by his own administration... which in and of itself would constitute obstruction of justice. So it never ends regardless.

As I have stated many times, Mueller is ready for anything. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that Bobby Three Sticks knows exactly what he's doing. :)

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/06/income-inequality-around-the-world-its-a-choice-not-a-destiny/

Income inequality has grown in Europe, but not nearly as dramatically as in the US. In both places, the rich started out with roughly a 10 percent share of national income, but by 2016 that had increased to only 12 percent in Europe while it skyrocketed to 20 percent in the US. Likewise, the middle class in Europe started out with a 24 percent share of income and now have 22 percent. The American middle class can only dream of such largesse. They started out with a lower share of income than their European comrades and have since plummeted to about 13 percent. Obviously, growing inequality isn’t inevitable: it’s the result of very deliberate policy choices.

1) Get rid of those reverse raccoon eyes! Q-tips, ask Melania.

2) Get a better brand of bronzer. Trump's augmented skin tone makes him look he's suffering from liver failure...except underneath his eyes. Ask Melania.

As I see it, Trump is nothing more or less than a salesman, and he's taking his sales pitch on the road. He is not selling any particular product, he is selling the Trump Brand, and the targeted audience is the 40% of Americans who can't enough of it in the form of tweets, YouTube videos, Fox and Fiends, am radio news and resulting E-mail chatter than lands in your inbox from news outlets you have never heard of before.

North Korea is just a backdrop and Singapore is just an exotic venue for filming what amounts to a glitzy commercial. Presidents look presidential when they go overseas...it's the jet, the SUV/motorcycle caravans, the handshakes, the salutes, the dinners.

If you are expecting diplomacy to happen, you are likely to be disappointed. Especially if you are a NATO ally who up until Nov of '16 had a pretty good idea of what America stood for. China is likely to be extremely wary as well, as will S. Korea, which will try and smile for the camera. Russia is probably pleased, since Trump and Putin seemed to be joined at the hip, if not any way you would want to describe to your grandma.

In the words of Lily Tomlin (more or less) - it's going to get a lot worse before it gets worse. Trump and roller coasters share this property.

Separately we learn the DOJ got phone and email records of a reporter in order to identify someone who's been leaking information. This is not a good thing.

We're now entering a race between a genuine fascist takeover and a "peaceful" response to this wannabe dictator via Dem success in the midterms. And if fascism wins it will be because Republicans betrayed their country. They have the power, today, to stop this insanity. It would take courage and it would take a recognition that our country literally is in peril. Those who have any shred of patriotism need to rise to this occasion. God help us.

Oh! So do I. Translators sometimes have to "study up" ahead of time so that they'll know in advance the proper translations for things that they'll be likely to discuss. This one will be extra tough.

Does Trump's translator, for instance, translate the entire phrase "bad hombre" into Korean, or leave the 'hombre' part untouched so that its ironic and racist component is conveyed? Does 'Rocket Man' translate into 'Missile Man' or 'astronaut' or 'penis'?

Does Trump's translator really need to spend time learning the complicated names of North Korean nuclear systems, or could he or she just skip that part and insert Star Trek references instead, figuring that Trump wouldn't know a thermonuclear trigger from a Jeffries tube anyway?