Deroy Murdock at the NRO is really peeved, you guys, because he’s somehow accidentally managed to hear about things like “income inequality” and “fairness.” He’s TRIED to cover his ears and go la la la la la la and never ever watch anything other than Fox News, but that doesn’t drown out the screams of the class warriors coming for him with their pitchforks, so he’s trying a new strategy: avoiding the issue altogether by discussing income taxes and Margaret Thatcher, who made England such a free market paradise not at all filled with junkies and punks and Sid Vicious. And to be fair, he’s doing a pretty good job of it, managing to avoid touching on any of the substantive issues regarding income inequality and what it portends for the dystopian post-capitalist nightmare towards which we careen ever closer on a daily basis! Good job, Deroy Murdock!
That means you won&#039;t have to read garbage like that any more. <a href="http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=8EI7p2p1QJI" target="_blank">You lucky bastard!</a>
<i>&quot;...allow personal Social Security retirement accounts...&quot;</i>
Repubicans sure love those old private retirement accounts. I say &quot;old&quot;, because that&#039;s what we had before the Great Depression. People had money in the bank, they owned stocks (the 401k plan of their time) and company pensions which, of course, are also private. It was paradise.
Until October 1929. Then the financial system collapsed. Stocks plummeted erasing personal investments. Banks failed wiping out people&#039;s life savings. Companies went bankrupt taking those pensions with them.
Retirees were suddenly destitute, looking for work in desperate times, amplifying the unemployment rate, competing with younger, equally desperate men and women with children to feed. Social Security was created so those seniors would get out of the job market.
When the economy turns down, the last thing you want is for older workers to stay on the job until their private retirement account recovers. You want those older workers to exit gracefully leaving their job for a younger man or woman.
Thinking about the hypothetical bosses from Deroy&#039;s article, it seems to me highly unlikely that the same person would be offered jobs paying $50,000 and $500,000 within a short period of time. Suppose that I am currently unemployed, and that my previous job payed $60,000, I receive two job offers on the same day, with both jobs paying $50,000. In the one case my immediate supervisor would be making $55,000, in the other my immediate supervisor would be making $1,000,000. In one case it is obvious that the company is offering way below what they could afford. In the other case the boss is either doing his best for his employees, or is being dishonest about what he, and/or his immediate family, is taking out of the business, and therefore likely to be underhanded about other things. If neither company is prepared to negotiate salary, I would check, as well as I was able, into the affairs of the second business, and, if they appear to be honest, sign with them. What do you think Deroy?
The GOP are masters of doublespeak. &quot;Right-to-work&quot; is code for union-busting, i.e. your right to work for the absolute minimum that your plutocrat boss can get away with paying. Which would be 50 cents a day, if these jackasses get their way, because minimum wage laws are equally evil. If that&#039;s not enough, you&#039;re &quot;free&quot; to take a job with some other boss, who might be paying 51 cents. It that&#039;s not enough, you should just go off and die of starvation, because obviously there&#039;s a surplus of labor.
<i>&quot;Who cares about the gap, provided that those on the bottom advance in absolute terms?&quot;</i> Ah yes, one of the GOPtards&#039; favorite bogus arguments. &quot;Why do you care if I make a million, so long as I let you make a thousand?&quot;
Robert Reich <a href="http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=QCu-XnVxhfk" target="_blank">explains exactly why</a> you should care, dickhead. So does common sense: the gap cant go on increasing forever.
Other problem being that it takes two entire sentences to explain. Way too much for teabaggers to process. If you can&#039;t get it on a bumper sticker (leaving room for an American flag), you can fuhgeddaboudit.
Actually, I&#039;m perfectly willing to subscribe to this fellow&#039;s theories. Provided, of course, that employers be required to pay employees half of what they make, so that the theory will work as advertised.
You know the GOP is morally and politically bankrupt when their mud machine has to dredge up stuff said by somebody&#039;s college girlfriend 30 years ago ... and then attach it to a third person. NR used to have actual editors. When did the current imbeciles take over the ship?
Supply and demand are people too, my friend. Those two employees are perfectly fungible. If enough of them die to affect the bottom line, the free market will then install safety equipment. Simple!
Since at least half the corporations in America pay no Federal income tax at all, this idiot quoting the maximum rate doesn&#039;t prove much, now does it?
How about the ever-increasing percentage of Federal revenue from individuals rather than corporations?
Nuh-uh. Pre-existing condition, hahahah! And here&#039;s your raised premium, because we can.
That means you won&#039;t have to read garbage like that any more. <a href="http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=8EI7p2p1QJI" target="_blank">You lucky bastard!</a>
<i>&quot;...allow personal Social Security retirement accounts...&quot;</i>
Repubicans sure love those old private retirement accounts. I say &quot;old&quot;, because that&#039;s what we had before the Great Depression. People had money in the bank, they owned stocks (the 401k plan of their time) and company pensions which, of course, are also private. It was paradise.
Until October 1929. Then the financial system collapsed. Stocks plummeted erasing personal investments. Banks failed wiping out people&#039;s life savings. Companies went bankrupt taking those pensions with them.
Retirees were suddenly destitute, looking for work in desperate times, amplifying the unemployment rate, competing with younger, equally desperate men and women with children to feed. Social Security was created so those seniors would get out of the job market.
When the economy turns down, the last thing you want is for older workers to stay on the job until their private retirement account recovers. You want those older workers to exit gracefully leaving their job for a younger man or woman.
Thinking about the hypothetical bosses from Deroy&#039;s article, it seems to me highly unlikely that the same person would be offered jobs paying $50,000 and $500,000 within a short period of time. Suppose that I am currently unemployed, and that my previous job payed $60,000, I receive two job offers on the same day, with both jobs paying $50,000. In the one case my immediate supervisor would be making $55,000, in the other my immediate supervisor would be making $1,000,000. In one case it is obvious that the company is offering way below what they could afford. In the other case the boss is either doing his best for his employees, or is being dishonest about what he, and/or his immediate family, is taking out of the business, and therefore likely to be underhanded about other things. If neither company is prepared to negotiate salary, I would check, as well as I was able, into the affairs of the second business, and, if they appear to be honest, sign with them. What do you think Deroy?
What is the 3% on mortgages, interest rate or tax deduction on interest paid?
The GOP are masters of doublespeak. &quot;Right-to-work&quot; is code for union-busting, i.e. your right to work for the absolute minimum that your plutocrat boss can get away with paying. Which would be 50 cents a day, if these jackasses get their way, because minimum wage laws are equally evil. If that&#039;s not enough, you&#039;re &quot;free&quot; to take a job with some other boss, who might be paying 51 cents. It that&#039;s not enough, you should just go off and die of starvation, because obviously there&#039;s a surplus of labor.
<i>&quot;Who cares about the gap, provided that those on the bottom advance in absolute terms?&quot;</i> Ah yes, one of the GOPtards&#039; favorite bogus arguments. &quot;Why do you care if I make a million, so long as I let you make a thousand?&quot;
Robert Reich <a href="http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=QCu-XnVxhfk" target="_blank">explains exactly why</a> you should care, dickhead. So does common sense: the gap cant go on increasing forever.
Other problem being that it takes two entire sentences to explain. Way too much for teabaggers to process. If you can&#039;t get it on a bumper sticker (leaving room for an American flag), you can fuhgeddaboudit.
Actually, I&#039;m perfectly willing to subscribe to this fellow&#039;s theories. Provided, of course, that employers be required to pay employees half of what they make, so that the theory will work as advertised.
You know the GOP is morally and politically bankrupt when their mud machine has to dredge up stuff said by somebody&#039;s college girlfriend 30 years ago ... and then attach it to a third person. NR used to have actual editors. When did the current imbeciles take over the ship?
Supply and demand are people too, my friend. Those two employees are perfectly fungible. If enough of them die to affect the bottom line, the free market will then install safety equipment. Simple!
Wait -- you want the employees to be able to buy stuff? Socialist!!
member when loki said something like that to hulk?
that was awesome.
And treadmills. Don&#039;t forget the treadmills.
i can&#039;t even get passed &#039;&#039;Deroy Murdock&#039;.
Since at least half the corporations in America pay no Federal income tax at all, this idiot quoting the maximum rate doesn&#039;t prove much, now does it?
How about the ever-increasing percentage of Federal revenue from individuals rather than corporations?