There was no tax on bread X, you lying Jew.

Yep. I wonder what the reaction would be to expand that trade school clause to cover all universities.

that would be pretty good. student debt terms have that clause as well

Valid points. However, I plan on living in the US for at least another 10 years, and any shift to the far radical fringes on either side has historically resulted in persecution of the people on the other side of the political spectrum starting from the radicals, which some people would place me part of them(Fascists in Italy, Nazis in Germany, The terror in France, Communists in the USSR, etc.). While I expect the middle to generally hold in the US due to it being a democratic republic that has historically done so, there have been cases where it has not held in other countries(Obvious example: Spanish civil war). I would probably move if gov't became too radical in a way that is a threat to me, but I also generally don't like having a gov't enact policies I entirely disagree with, and due to my position on the political spectrum makes it basically impossible if the right takes over, for the most part.

The Federal Reserve is a Jewish trick and its the reason we're in such dire financial times

Japan you're a communist Jew liar leave the country asap.

u need to shut up

anyway stop demonizing da rich and let work on proper POLICY to make poor ppl less poorer

Stay mad Jew

However, I plan on living in the US for at least another 10 years, and any shift to the far radical fringes on either side

It's not what side they're on, just how authoritarian there are. There's little economically differing Singapore from Hongkong, but one of them is ruled by a way more oppressive government than the other. Although Hongkong is a special setting, same deal with America. Same with Sweden and Belarus.

At any rate, I really truly doubt that war will come to America, and I doubt picking one of the most economically extremist mainstream candidates would do much for keeping it middle in America.

I also generally don't like having a gov't enact policies I entirely disagree with

In my thought, it's truly terrible how folk make their picks on candidate. Charisma, yes, but the problem doesn't stop there. They weigh what happens there like what happens here, and there, they don't get to vote. What this means: vote for the candidate that would have the lowest death count. Sanders is probably the mainstream candidate with the lowest death candidate, but Libertarians all the way, for they're way lower - imagine ending all wars America's in.

Anyhow, just don't be selfish. It's awful that 325 million folk pick policies not just for themselves, but for 7k million other folk, who don't have a vote and usually suffer graver consequences then, say, gays having to be paying higher taxes or Muslims and Jews not being allowed to be presidents (both bad things, but as bad as one death? NO.).

Alright, let's go through this karl:
1. I'm atheist not Jewish
2. I'm not communist, I'm a believer in Keynesian economics, Utilitarianism, and Democratic Socialism(There are some disagreements between the 3 groups, if you want my specific stances on those disagreements, just ask about them), which is not communist.
3. I'm not a liar. you can't be a liar when there happen to be opinions floating around. You can lie about the facts backing your statements, or your sources, but in this sort of environment, we tend to try to avoid both those cases, and generally acknowledge when me made a mistake or were misinformed.

nice try JIDF, ik you're Jewish racially. You're lying about the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. You're too Jewish to acknowledge it but deep down you know you're a lying Jew.

Edited 5/15/2016 02:30:05

It's not what side they're on, just how authoritarian there are. There's little economically differing Singapore from Hongkong, but one of them is ruled by a way more oppressive government than the other. Although Hongkong is a special setting, same deal with America. Same with Sweden and Belarus.

At any rate, I really truly doubt that war will come to America, and I doubt picking one of the most economically extremist mainstream candidates would do much for keeping it middle in America. valid point, I would still say that the rise of a radical fringe on the political spectrum does generally bring authoritarianism, but at this point its pretty much nit-picking

In my thought, it's truly terrible how folk make their picks on candidate. Charisma, yes, but the problem doesn't stop there. They weigh what happens there like what happens here, and there, they don't get to vote. What this means: vote for the candidate that would have the lowest death count. Sanders is probably the mainstream candidate with the lowest death candidate, but Libertarians all the way, for they're way lower - imagine ending all wars America's in. I'm not quite getting what you happen to be saying here

Anyhow, just don't be selfish. It's awful that 325 million folk pick policies not just for themselves, but for 7k million other folk, who don't have a vote and usually suffer graver consequences then, say, gays having to be paying higher taxes or Muslims and Jews not being allowed to be presidents (both bad things, but as bad as one death? NO.). Valid point, and I don't plan on being very selfish.

You're lying about the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor.
Alright Karl, go read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/03/its-not-just-you-americans-are-actually-still-getting-poorer/

or this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/why-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-get-poorer-1.2580263

Edited 5/15/2016 02:34:45

Jew!

Kike!

...but he's a person too.

No he's not! Jew!

Read Economic Facts and Fallacies. Get rekt Jew. You didn't even post reputable sources. I laugh at your incompetence.

Edited 5/15/2016 02:41:54

I mean they aren't the best in terms of analysis, but the sources they happen to be drawing on is in fact the Bureau of Labor statistics for the first one, and the second is borrowing analysis from James Myles, a senior research fellow at the University of Toronto's school of public policy and governance, which is not nearly as good of a source, but much better than your defenses for the argument that I happen to be a jew.

So you ADMIT YOU'RE A JEW! HA I'VE GOT YOU! Also they're studying categories not individual people. Most people will change income brackets within their lifetimes. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/04/mobility-in-and-out-of-the-top-one-percent.html

''It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.''

Get rekt kike.

How silly. He's trying to have a rational debate with me!

japan must never have met me.

Edited 5/15/2016 02:59:28

shill

well, we're not even talking the same stuff anymore, I'm pointing at income inequality to explain why the wealth inequality begins growing, your just talking about income inequality, which I don't inherently disagree with, however there are still going to be immobile people, who don't move out of their groups, and most movements into the upper tier is very, very temporary.

Lastly, when did I admit I'm a jew? I'm claiming that my evidence is better support than your evidence for me being a jew, which is not even remotely true.

You're just playing dumb now. I have already shown mobility isn't uncommon nor is it very temporary. People are just stupid. If you want to cry about ''muh income inequality'' ''muh wealth ineuality'' go for it. Be a cry baby. But people to day live like kings compared to people from 100 yrs ago.