Quote
Wealthy people don't create jobs in the U.S. anymore, they ship them off and downsize to make bigger profits. This discussion is not prudent to this topic, but you brought it up and I wanted to show how well this particular branding had done amongst the echo-chamber. No intelligent person buys supply-side economis which is all that this is, but if they can re-brand it as something else.... who knows?
I was actually trying to be a bit generous. If I was "wealthy" I'd have no problem be taxed to high-heaven. 90% for those who make so much they no longer know what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck. My mind wouldn't change you see because I feel some sort of compulsion to help and support my fellow man. "Wealth changes people": maybe, but if it changes them into those sort of people that forget how it was to be middle-class or worse then they were probably shits to begin with forget them. If they were wealthy to begin with, then they haven't changed at all and shouldn't know any differently. Which is why I understand how 5% or so of the richest people vote.
lol, Republican branding. Its politic's amigo, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Independent, the list goes on, and yet branding things to sway public opinion belongs to all of them. Regardless of a viewpoint, its all about selling to the public to maximize your target. Much like NASA, too many people weren't sold that it was a valuable asset, thus its funding was cut. You mentioned outsourcing as well, but the current government plan (which was Democrat controlled in senate, house, and oval office when the decision was made) is to send our Astronauts to Russia for (last I saw) $64 million a seat to get to the ISS. So outsourcing is a problem, and I couldn't agree more. However outsourcing is being done by the need for companies to maintain profits, in a climate that makes it far to expensive for them to operate in the U.S. they don't have to pay as much in taxes overseas as they do here.
As mentioned above in my original post, Economics is a very very tricky thing. To get the firmest understanding of it, you cant target an individual aspect of it, like this has been doing. This board is definitely not the placement for a full on economic debate, though I could go on with one.
If your one of the .00000000001% of the population that could win a $250 million lottery, and give it all away to an unknown and uncontrollable purpose, or to a charity, or non-profit organization of whatever choosing. Then I hands down truly (I know you cant tell from text as its not the best medium for conveying truthfulness) truly applaud you. The grand majority of people find it easy to make this claim, but about the time they found themselves in some money, would decide to use it for "this, and this, and this first, and oh wait I might as well get this while I'm at it and... oh hell I'll just give away whats left when I'm done making my life better" Since I just watched "The Core" the other day, a line from that movie is a good analogy. The weapons specialist makes comment about his family "I'm not trying to save the whole world, just 3 of them" which is exactly how most people are, they just want to take care of the people they are close to. So I applaud you if your the person that's trying to save the whole world, its a very selfless and noble task.
With that, and other than your implication that people of my views are ignorant (though I've not been negative to your views, only trying to understand them) I conclude this posting of mine, though I'll still be watching the topic.
just my two cents...