That is a pretty stunning graph. Just had to say that.

John M [4] -

While I generally agree with all the points you make, I have to take exception to:

Why does Jay Leno need with a garage filled with 20 different types of automobiles? You can only drive one at a time and need one as a spare.

See, now, if I won the lottery, I'd have a whole BUNCH of vehicles to cart me around. A 1969 AMC Hurst SC/Rambler. An AMX. A Javelin. A Marlin. An Eagle. A Rebel. An Ambassador, just in case I had to go someplace swanky. A Metropolitan. But then, that's just me...

Don't hate on Leno for having too many cars, because "too many cars" does not compute, for me. And for Leno, "200" might be more appropriate than "20."

Heh.

[For the rest of you, please Google those model names and choose Images...]

But I do fully agree with your last paragraph. I mean, we can't ALL be Jay Leno...

:-)

Paula [5] -

All good points. Just had to say that.

Balthasar [7] -

Also a good point.

-CW

Yeah, speaking of "ever present ignorance", I can scarcely describe how deeply my tender feelings were hurt by you attaching all those hurtful adjectives to "I"!!

You need provide no further proof on this board that although you're the epitome of those "able-bodied unproductive" which you constantly bemoan, at the very least you qualify for the "redistributed" "production" of the rest of us due to your obvious arrested mental development. :)

Yeah, speaking of "ever present ignorance", I can scarcely describe how deeply my tender feelings were hurt by you attaching all those hurtful adjectives to "I"!!

It would seem the Prime Minister has fallen thru the Earth's crust and landed on this kind of ledge thing.

Her script has fallen on a different ledge. Sending down the longest BBC rope and copy of the script would be a good idea.

I love it... and John Cleese spontaneously combusts. Too funny!

How about that squeaker of 325-306? I will say that The Right Honourable T. Mary May is darned lucky that her opposition is Jeremy Corbyn. Much too close to survive another, I would wager, and when the hard Brexiteers and Remainers are ready to go at each other, she'll be as good as gone.

I wonder what Neil thinks about all this? Neil!? Oh, Neil! Do tell. ;)

The question at hand however is, what are their obligations? Everybody would agree on the military, the highways and such things that benefit everybody more or less equally, but how about the "obligation" of the productive to support the able-bodied unproductive? Who the hell says THAT'S one of those "obligations"??

You did in [14] above:

... their kids and grandkids are obligated to provide for my benefits, and I would indeed "hit the streets" if you tried to renege. ~ CRS

Oh, I know who says that, it's those able-bodied unproductive, right?

Said the "able-bodied unproductive" poster quoted above who stated that others' "kids and grandkids are obligated to provide for" his "benefits"... that's who. Why should anyone be obligated to support you? You do realize that with today's technology you are "able-bodied" if you can type and answer a telephone, right? :)

I can't respond to 'why' Streisand 'needs' multiple houses, nor 'why' Leno 'needs' multiple cars, but the point is, if they didn't steal them but rather earned them, then the 'why' is none of your business. The very question is simply a manifestation of your greed and/or jealousy, same as Kick and neilm.

Wrong again, CRS. While I cannot fathom why you would attach either Neil or I with your labels of "greed and/or jealously," I'll just simply chalk it up to a manifestation of your ever-present ignorance. Again and as stated above, if you did a lot more "listening" and less repetitive spewing, you'd already know I have a few collections of multiple things myself and sure not sitting around jealous of anyone else who does.

You must really enjoy appearing stupid. :)

Inasmuch as my SS taxes paid for the retirement of your parents and/or grandparents (along with my own), then yeah, their kids and grandkids are obligated to provide for my benefits, and I would indeed "hit the streets" if you tried to renege.

Wrong again, CRS, as you so frequently are. Neither of my parents nor my parents' parents ever applied for and therefore never received Social Security payments from your "SS taxes" or anyone else's; there was absolutely no need for that, and if you paid any attention whatsoever to posts and "listened" rather than focusing on your incessant spewing of the same line of BS in repetitive fashion and as if on cue ad nauseam, you would already know that it's highly unlikely that Neil's parents did anything of the sort either. Nice try, though, but thank you ever so much for proving that Neil pegged you exactly right when he said you would claim it was "your money."

Do you really find that unreasonable?

As stated above, you really should "listen" more than you spew because now you're making my points for me. There isn't anyone else on this board who moans repeatedly in hot-bag-of-wind fashion about production, redistribution, charity and "involuntary" theft while being on the receiving end of it, and now you've gone and confused being referred to as a "hypocrite" with the idea that you're "unreasonable" for being a voluntary participant.

P.S. Sorry, although I was the nominal payee, I was never a farmer, and I NEVER received any "farm subsidies"

While I'm not concerned with the details regarding to whom you endorsed the sizable "redistribution" of the "production" of many others that you refer to as "charity" and "theft" when it's involuntary, thank you ever so much for admitting you were indeed the "payee" and a willing participant in the system that you routinely decry. While I hear quite a lot of lip service given by Republicans and GOP types in the same manner as you, I have yet to find one who doesn't enjoy that very same "redistribution" as long as it's in the form of their precious farm subsidies or being redistributed upwards in the form of corporate welfare. #hypocrisy

Of course the gov't has to have the power to raise and support the military, build infrastructure, etc. and of course nobody has the right to "ignore their obligations".

The question at hand however is, what are their obligations? Everybody would agree on the military, the highways and such things that benefit everybody more or less equally, but how about the "obligation" of the productive to support the able-bodied unproductive? Who the hell says THAT'S one of those "obligations"??

Oh, I know who says that, it's those able-bodied unproductive, right?

I can't respond to 'why' Streisand 'needs' multiple houses, nor 'why' Leno 'needs' multiple cars, but the point is, if they didn't steal them but rather earned them, then the 'why' is none of your business. The very question is simply a manifestation of your greed and/or jealousy, same as Kick and neilm.

"A marginal tax rate of 70% doesn't even come close to "equal economic benefits for all". And I'm all in favor of charity, compassion for others less fortunate, etc.- just so long as it's voluntary. Otherwise it's just theft, right?"

UH NO. It's not just "theft." Otherwise any government anywhere would never have the logical power to tax anyone for anything, including raising an army for defense. That also includes non-voluntary compulsion for things like the draft for military service. We give government this power precisely in the first place because we recognize that too many people would just ignore their obligations to the greater good of the society they live in otherwise, and civilization would not be able to function at all as a consequence.

Nice try at an argument there on your part, but yours just doesn't hold any water.

It would seem the Prime Minister has fallen thru the Earth's crust and landed on this kind of ledge thing.

Her script has fallen on a different ledge. Sending down the longest BBC rope and copy of the script would be a good idea.

Yet another example of the Monty Python Time Machine in action!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWRr3-Bnxis

Inasmuch as my SS taxes paid for the retirement of your parents and/or grandparents (along with my own), then yeah, their kids and grandkids are obligated to provide for my benefits, and I would indeed "hit the streets" if you tried to renege.

Do you really find that unreasonable?

P.S. Sorry, although I was the nominal payee, I was never a farmer, and I NEVER received any "farm subsidies"

If we switched to a voluntary tax system and you lost your SS and Medicare because I voluntarily decided not to pay my taxes, you'd hit the streets as a Marxist demanding "your" money.

Okay. ^^^That^^^ is exactly what I was trying to say in [10]. You said it way better and straight to the point. :)

Theresa may be looking for a new line of work after losing the latest Brexit vote.

Quite right... Thexit

Yes, ma'am. Totally.

Balthasar
7

Paula [5] Spot on!! Unless Dems are able to resist bot-behavior, it's all in the hands of Russians.

Russia and China... be mindful of both.

And I'm all in favor of charity, compassion for others less fortunate, etc.- just so long as it's voluntary. Otherwise it's just theft, right?

Of course you're "all in favor" of it... because by your own definitions you're a classic case of a receiver of "charity" and also a "thief" since you sure didn't seem to mind "stealing" the redistributed "sweat of somebody's brow" and lapped it up "like manna from heaven" when you accepted quite a sizeable amount of farm subsidies, right? [those are public record] And you sure don't mind sitting on your cantankerous ass while the fruits of younger workers' labors are redistributed to you in the form of Medicare and Social Security... not on a voluntary basis. #hypocrite

If I had a choice to where my involuntary redistributed production was going, I would stipulate that it was under no circumstances whatsoever to be given to hypocrites. :)

BS. If we switched to a voluntary tax system and you lost your SS and Medicare because I voluntarily decided not to pay my taxes, you'd hit the streets as a Marxist demanding "your" money.

The main part comes AFTER the primaries, of course, when it's time to regroup. That's when the primaries have to end. For good. That's when we turn to the Repubs and say, "Okay, we've got our candidate, let's go." And we go.

A marginal tax rate of 70% doesn't even come close to "equal economic benefits for all". And I'm all in favor of charity, compassion for others less fortunate, etc.- just so long as it's voluntary. Otherwise it's just theft, right?

That will be #1. But I think #2 will be how that candidate treats other candidates - anyone who shows sore-loser tendencies will be, I think, rejected. I see a lot of discussion online about the need to not have the Dems to splinter post-primary. Ppl are very sensitive to Russian interference as well - every time someone comes out with anti-Warren, anti-Harris, anti-Beto stuff ppl speculate whether it's "real" or bot-crap. Dems are trying to prepare in advance for a process that automatically separates ppl into opposing camps but who then have to come together when a winner is chosen. And ppl do NOT want disinformation to go unnoticed, unchecked.

There is also a heightened awareness of the need to vet candidates - tax returns will be required, etc.

""Equal economic benefits to all" can only be achieved by the confiscation of production and the RE-distribion of it, which runs the risk of reduction/elimination of the incentive to produce. Why should I produce more than my neighbors if my extra output all goes to them??"

What you fail to acknowledge, my friend, is the other side of the coin to that question. Once you have reasonably satisfied all of your needs, what is the point or incentive to mindless accumulation of more useless stuff? You can only live in one house at a time. So why does Barbara Streisand, for instance, need 4 compounds of houses each filled with a different style of furniture. Why doesn't one primary house and one vacation home suffice? Why does Jay Leno need with a garage filled with 20 different types of automobiles? You can only drive one at a time and need one as a spare.

When your neighbors are dying in the streets due to hunger and disease, at what point do your own personal thoughts turn from your own full belly to more altruistic existential human concerns and compassion? When do you start filling the hole in your own soul instead of mindlessly accumulating useless material goods? If hoarders should teach you anything, it is that once past a certain point, money does not buy happiness.

The greatest economic boom in recent American history from the 1950's through the 1960's happened when we taxed the wealthy at 70 percent. It didn't seem like that much of a disincentive then.

That phrase epitomizes the inability of Dems/Libs to understand how our economic system works. It's all encompassed in the fundamental misconception that goods and services are 'distributed', like manna from heaven!

Once a person comprehends that wealth isn't actually DISTRIBUTED at all, but first must be PRODUCED, by the sweat of somebody's brow, to put it in archaic biblical terminology, the system becomes understandable. And inasmuch as humans are not equally endowed with the talents and skills to produce goods and services, it should come as no great surprise that such production can't POSSIBLY "deliver equal economic benefits to all"!

"Equal economic benefits to all" can only be achieved by the confiscation of production and the RE-distribion of it, which runs the risk of reduction/elimination of the incentive to produce. Why should I produce more than my neighbors if my extra output all goes to them??

"Psychic wounds" visualized:

https://static.politifact.com/politifact/photos/GS.41FACT107.jpg