Comments on: Defining fascism–a little light reading

By: bowser

bowser — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 04:59:32 +0000

Can’t argue the facts, can you. Remember the pledge they had to sign?

By: RobVG

RobVG — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 06:21:07 +0000

Tom routinely includes more than one source and tries to find ones that won’t make liberals gack.

I know because I have to do the same thing, find the source that won’t be attacked by yous guys, for presenting the same information.

By: RobVG

RobVG — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 06:12:32 +0000

Who’s up for a Mobius award? n/t

By: TB

TB — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 04:31:21 +0000

Hey, Bowser, grab some popcorn!

This may be the last right-border-squished thread for a while.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 04:29:08 +0000

Dude, I quoted the paper you handed me.

You’re flailing, and heading into the all-caps zone.

By: bowser

bowser — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 04:20:31 +0000

A superb description of the Republican Party with their goosestep members of Congress.

By: RL

RL — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 03:58:12 +0000

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-biggest-driver-of-income-inequality-capital-gains/2012/01/02/gIQA181EWP_blog.html

Capital gains are the largest driver in income inequality.

All your attempts to obfuscate do nothing to change the established fact that income inequality is 1) real 2) getting worse, and 3) creating a real problem.

You don’t believe your own bullshit, you just believe that it’s important to try and sell your bullshit to others.

WE ARE NOT BUYING IT.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 03:48:40 +0000

That’s tech, too.

It counts. Not to put too fine a point on it, but most of us are here in the first place because we’re space nuts, not because we’re modern art majors.

There’s probably plenty of engineers and tech types here. Not so much in the social science field out there. And God knows we could use more in politics.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 03:46:05 +0000

Lasers definitely count!

Especially on sharks.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 03:37:53 +0000

I don't think that changes it being flat.

Capital gains changes the height of the curve, but not the fundamental shape. See Figure 5. Curve will still be flat for individuals, and not households. Besides, capital gains only affects income when you sell something, which is probably why Census doesn't measure it. It's like measuring middle class income based on them selling their house. Best I can see, that CBO paper addresses only households. Look up "individual GINI index" or an index for "all people." P.S. Wikipedia is a perfectly good source for finding better sources.