See what I mean?
By the way, you clearly have no understanding of the word plagiarize.
See what I mean?
By the way, you clearly have no understanding of the word plagiarize.
Protect and Serve wrote:
Please Explain wrote:Could you explain what is insane about that post? It wouldn't make any sense for an individual to keep millions of dollars in liquid savings.
God help us. Saying someone has $3 million in savings says nothing about how it is invested; it merely says that someone has $3 million in liquid assets. It seems you are also confused about the meaning of liquid assets. Stocks are liquid, as are bonds, mutual funds, CDs, savings accounts, checking accounts, cash, etc.
I am really shocked by the preponderance of ignorance on this site.
I'm with you on that one. Remember that thread a while back (can't remember its name) where someone was calling for a big market drop last August from 15,000 and telling everyone that that was the time to get out? The ignorance displayed on this site knows no bounds.
Protect and Serve wrote:
See what I mean?
By the way, you clearly have no understanding of the word plagiarize.
plagiarize
: to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas
When you post something without acknowledging it has been taken from someone else, you are plagiarizing. This is undeniable.
Shawn H wrote:
Liberal guy wrote:The rational thinker would be able to see both sides, which liberals like you and the person who posted this thread can not. Capitalism is the best social system in the world. Always has been. The "American Dream" is centered around the idea that hard work, ingenuity and intelligence are rewarded, while laziness, lack of imagination, and stupidity are not. Put yourself in the place of someone who invents something everyone wants, or who works his or her ass off for years while being financially wise, or who carefully invests money while others waste theirs. Why should such people have to reach a plateau where they owe anything to you? I'm not rich, but I don't begrudge the rich what they've earned. Almost every job I ever had was provided by someone, or a group of someones, who worked hard, risked much, and made it big. Now, do I think that very rich people should be charitable and care about others? Of course. But should their earnings be stolen by politicians who give it to those whose votes they can buy? Hell no.
This was very, very well written. Props, Shawn H. !!
Why did you erase what "Liberal man" wrote?
Protect and Serve wrote:
Please Explain wrote:Could you explain what is insane about that post? It wouldn't make any sense for an individual to keep millions of dollars in liquid savings.
God help us. Saying someone has $3 million in savings says nothing about how it is invested; it merely says that someone has $3 million in liquid assets. It seems you are also confused about the meaning of liquid assets. Stocks are liquid, as are bonds, mutual funds, CDs, savings accounts, checking accounts, cash, etc.
I am really shocked by the preponderance of ignorance on this site.
Stocks are investment, not savings.
Please Explain wrote:
Protect and Serve wrote:God help us. Saying someone has $3 million in savings says nothing about how it is invested; it merely says that someone has $3 million in liquid assets. It seems you are also confused about the meaning of liquid assets. Stocks are liquid, as are bonds, mutual funds, CDs, savings accounts, checking accounts, cash, etc.
I am really shocked by the preponderance of ignorance on this site.
Stocks are investment, not savings.
You sir are officially a moron. Savings and investment are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, virtually all savings are invested and are hence investments.
Now I would think that you are merely a retarded earthworm but I have been advised by the Society for the Prevention of the Defaming of Retarded Earthworms that this may trigger legal action. So, let's just leave it that this world would be better off if you were to die and donote your protoplasm to a more worthy cause (earthworms for instance).
Protect and Serve wrote:
See what I mean?
No.
Recognizer of Morons wrote:
Please Explain wrote:Stocks are investment, not savings.
You sir are officially a moron. Savings and investment are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, virtually all savings are invested and are hence investments.
Now I would think that you are merely a retarded earthworm but I have been advised by the Society for the Prevention of the Defaming of Retarded Earthworms that this may trigger legal action. So, let's just leave it that this world would be better off if you were to die and donote your protoplasm to a more worthy cause (earthworms for instance).
Investment and savings are necessarily mutually exclusive because they are separate terms within the aggregate expenditure model. If you consider a given dollar to be both saved and invested, it is essentially spent twice in one transaction.
Oh dear.
Please Explain wrote:
Recognizer of Morons wrote:You sir are officially a moron. Savings and investment are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, virtually all savings are invested and are hence investments.
Now I would think that you are merely a retarded earthworm but I have been advised by the Society for the Prevention of the Defaming of Retarded Earthworms that this may trigger legal action. So, let's just leave it that this world would be better off if you were to die and donote your protoplasm to a more worthy cause (earthworms for instance).
Investment and savings are necessarily mutually exclusive because they are separate terms within the aggregate expenditure model. If you consider a given dollar to be both saved and invested, it is essentially spent twice in one transaction.
I take it back. You are FAR beyond moronic. Indeed, you are without peer. You belong in your own very special category.
conservatard wrote:
While your thought is nice you are purposefully ignoring 'demand'. Athletes and rappers make millions because there is high demand for their talent. I would also argue that teachers work harder than professional athletes. They made a better financial decision than the teacher. Of course the risk is MUCH MUCH higher trying to be a professional athlete or rapper but then the reward is much higher.
It doesn't surprise me that a liberal doesn't know the concepts of supply and demand. They simply think all demand should be met regardless of price or available resources.
I was addressing the poster's POINTS, not something I guess I was supposed to imagine that he was arguing. Nowhere did HE bring up "supply and demand", but nice try.
It doesn't surprise *me* that someone named "conservatard" would make this error.
jman1 wrote:
Shawn H wrote:The rational thinker would be able to see both sides, which liberals like you and the person who posted this thread can not. Capitalism is the best social system in the world. Always has been. The "American Dream" is centered around the idea that hard work, ingenuity and intelligence are rewarded, while laziness, lack of imagination, and stupidity are not. Put yourself in the place of someone who invents something everyone wants, or who works his or her ass off for years while being financially wise, or who carefully invests money while others waste theirs. Why should such people have to reach a plateau where they owe anything to you? I'm not rich, but I don't begrudge the rich what they've earned. Almost every job I ever had was provided by someone, or a group of someones, who worked hard, risked much, and made it big. Now, do I think that very rich people should be charitable and care about others? Of course. But should their earnings be stolen by politicians who give it to those whose votes they can buy? Hell no.
This was very, very well written. Props, Shawn H. !!
Thanks, jman1. I read many of the posts after this one, including my own, and it's obvious that the libs just don't get it no matter how logical. They've had it drilled into their heads that those who work hard are just lucky, while those who do not deserve the fruits of other people's labor. But believe me, when people start making a decent living and see how much of what they earned is stolen from them to give to morons like the liberals on this forum, most of them begin to see the light.
Oh, and to the guy who implied that society should be like golf, where "handicaps" are given, the players in those kinds of games all agree on those rules, whereas Americans who make a decent living have NOT agreed that the sweat of their brow and the fruits of their hard-earned labors should be stolen by politicians as a "handicap" for lazy, unintelligent, unmotivated asses.
Cool, Shawn H. One question...why haven't you replied to the question 'Liberal Guy' asked you?
TRex likely does understand the concept of supply and demand. It appears he simply poked holes in Shawn's "american dream" theory/statement and did so effectively by pointing out clear examples of where that theory/statement was violated. And he's right - typically salaries do reward those with sought-after skills but let's not insist that these salaries are so correlated with work ethic, or in some industries with intelligence. There is some correlation sure but not enough to support this American Dream statement as TRex quite adeptly pointed out.
conservatard wrote:
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:Shawn H wrote:
" Captialism is the best....The "American Dream" is centered around the idea that hard work, ingenuity and intelligence are rewarded, while laziness, lack of imagination, and stupidity are not. "
Is this why some not very hard working, not very intelligent athletes, who are just supremely talented make $20 million a year while some guy who works 3 jobs makes $30k ??? Or why gangster rappers make zillions singing about raping women and killing cops and a very caring, very intelligent, hard-working teacher makes $40k or less in many areas ?? Or why Justin Beiber will never have to work another day in his life (or Brittany Spears for that matter) but most seniors, if there were no SS, would need to keep working until the day they die?? BECAUSE......as you say Capitalism and America "reward hard work and intelligence" and don't reward "laziness and stupidity" ??
And of course we have families like the Bushes and Kennedy's (one for each party to hate on). George W. became the most powerful man in the world, and supremely rich, ALL because of his "hard work", "intelligence" and "talent", right?? Can I get a LOL X 10000000000 ??? It was allllll because of his family name. He was a lazy, moderately intelligent at best, drunk failure most of his life. In your America, it didn't matter a bit, he was rewarded supremely.
And hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh are insanely rich because.....they make millions off hate and dividing the country??
Your America of "it's all about hard work and intelligence" is a fantasy. Luck and what family/neighborhood matter more than anything as far as predicting your future success. Sure, many do overcome hard odds. But people need opportunities. And the polices YOU support want to strip opportunities from the poor and unlucky, and instead cut taxes on the people who don't need a break: the already successful, the very lucky, and set-for-life crowd. Oh, but you DO want to give the poor a nice pep talk. How generous of you, you condescending a$$.
While your thought is nice you are purposefully ignoring 'demand'. Athletes and rappers make millions because there is high demand for their talent. I would also argue that teachers work harder than professional athletes. They made a better financial decision than the teacher. Of course the risk is MUCH MUCH higher trying to be a professional athlete or rapper but then the reward is much higher.
It doesn't surprise me that a liberal doesn't know the concepts of supply and demand. They simply think all demand should be met regardless of price or available resources.
clearly a troll. I'm liberal. Don't know anyone in my circles who would advocate such a ridiculous concept, although FDR had some similar rationale (1M was his cutoff, probably more like 20M+ today).
Shawn H wrote:
Oh, and to the guy who implied that society should be like golf, where "handicaps" are given, the players in those kinds of games all agree on those rules, whereas Americans who make a decent living have NOT agreed that the sweat of their brow and the fruits of their hard-earned labors should be stolen by politicians as a "handicap" for lazy, unintelligent, unmotivated asses.
That was me. Does not running also have rules?
K5 detector wrote:
Protect and Serve wrote:See what I mean?
By the way, you clearly have no understanding of the word plagiarize.
plagiarize
: to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas
When you post something without acknowledging it has been taken from someone else, you are plagiarizing. This is undeniable.
You don't understand a simple definition. If I were claiming those words as my own, that would be plagiarizing. Those of normal intelligence know that the posts you refer to are quotes from others (I even include the " marks) and that I am not attempting to pretend they are mine; you either don't understand that or you are lying.
It is hard to say if you are really dishonest or just exceedingly dumb. Which is it?
That's not much of a tax rate, in fact. Currently, however, such people are likely facing just about 12.5% in taxes on that money. We need a much higher, much more progressive tax rate, so that in a time where workers have near zero bargaining power with the loss of most union strength and the unending greed of those making the money decisions, something has to be done about inequality in the country, as well as public spending. Our infrastructure is crumbling because the rich and corporations have been able to get out of paying most of their taxes. Much of our infrastructure is over fifty years old, a lot more like 80.
You're pretty liberal with the money of others.
You must be a trust fund baby.