Dow. Closes. Above. *15,000* First. Time. Under Anticapitalist Obama

[RichTravsky]

Whoops, make that CAPITALIST Obama...

[MattB .]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:01:18 -0600, RichTravsky
<traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Whoops, make that CAPITALIST Obama...

Seems the cut in Federal programs has had a positive effect. It has
also harmed people.

[Dänk 42Ø]

Remember that the "15,000" Dow figure is denominated in dollars, and if
the number of dollars in circulation increases because the government
keeps printing new currency, stock and all other prices will rise. This
does NOT reflect an increase in wealth (which the Dow is being presented
as).

I'm not sure how much oil company stock is in the Dow average. Oil is
sold in dollars, so a devaluing U.S. dollar will cause oil prices and the
prices of oil stocks to rise. I'm not saying that this is what it
happening here, but it is possible.

[RichTravsky]

Bzzt. You dork it AGAIN.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/12/opinion/091212krugman2/091212krugman2-blog480.jpg

[Bert]

In news:518DD315...@hotmail.com RichTravsky

Citing former Enron advisor Krugman does not enhance your credibility.

Citing the DJIA as representative of the economy shows that you're
really silly.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[RichTravsky]

Bert wrote:
>
> In news:518DD315...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "MattB ." wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:01:18 -0600, RichTravsky
> >> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Whoops, make that CAPITALIST Obama...
> >>
> >> Seems the cut in Federal programs has had a positive effect. It has
> >> also harmed people.
> >
> > Bzzt. You dork it AGAIN.
> >
> > http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/12/opinion/091212krugman2/0
> > 91212krugman2-blog480.jpg
>
> Citing former Enron advisor Krugman does not enhance your credibility.

Idiot. That's just a graph he posted.

See

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA

esp the part where it says "source".

> Citing the DJIA as representative of the economy shows that you're
> really silly.

That's capitalism, baby.

[NoBody]

Of course you ignore his point all together. The Dow performance has
very little to do with the economy in general and is more reflective
of corporate profits. Of course you know where those profits are
coming from - laying people off.

[jane]

On May 13, 12:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bert wrote:
>
> > Innews:518DD315...@hotmail.comRichTravsky

> > <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "MattB ." wrote:
>
> > >> On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:01:18 -0600, RichTravsky
> > >> <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >Whoops, make that CAPITALIST Obama...
>
> > >> Seems the cut in Federal programs has had a positive effect.  It has
> > >> also harmed people.
>
> > > Bzzt. You dork it AGAIN.
>
> > >http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/12/opinion/091212krugman2/0
> > > 91212krugman2-blog480.jpg
>
> > Citing former Enron advisor Krugman does not enhance your credibility.
>
> Idiot. That's just a graph he posted.
>
> See
>
>  http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
>
> esp the part where it says "source".
>
> > Citing the DJIA as representative of the economy shows that you're
> > really silly.
>
> That's capitalism, baby.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --

> > b...@iphouse.com        St. Paul, MN


“The Federal Reserve has done a good job stimulating financial
conditions and lifting the market,” he said. “It’s been less
successful in stimulating job growth.”

"“Right now, C.E.O.’s are saying, ‘I don’t really need to hire because
of the productivity gains of the last few years,’ ” said Robert E.
Moritz, chairman of the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers. ...
At 218,300 employees, United Technologies’ work force is virtually
unchanged from seven years ago,"

"...stock markets are thriving even as the economy is barely growing
and unemployment remains stubbornly high.

With millions still out of work, companies face little pressure to
raise salaries, while productivity gains allow them to increase sales
without adding workers."


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[wy]

> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-...

Which is called complacency on the part of Corporate America. The way
to get rid of that complacency is to start taxing them more, exactly
what Reagan and Clinton did, because by taxing them more, they'll see
their profits be chipped away and in order to maintain the same level
of profit growth they would have to adopt a more aggressive and
competitive approach to maintain their position, and this would
include investing, hiring and expanding - with the $2 trillion+ in
unspent cash they're sitting on. Besides, Corporate America is
grossly undertaxed as it is with only $80 billion annually now being
reaped from them collectively. That's peanuts.

[Salty Stan]

So, wy, you're saying the way to increase productivity in the private
sector is to tax them more?

[jane]

On May 13, 9:45 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:

WRONG, making profits is not complacency. Corporations are doing what
they are supposed to do, make a profit for the owners.

> to get rid of that complacency is to start taxing them more, exactly

Sounds goods to me. GE pays ZERO US corporate taxes. I know from
past performance that you have a problem with arithmetic. Double GE's
tax rate and ZERO times 2 is still ZERO.

One of the reasons why this is the case is becuase the US has the
highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Make that tax
rate higher and other corporations will work harder at moving more of
their profits over seas.

> what Reagan and Clinton did, because by taxing them more, they'll see

Once again, you are giving yoorg a run for his money in the Bull Shit
and making up lies department.

When Reagan took office, the highest corp marginal rate was 46%
Reagan lowered the rate to 40%
He then lowered the amount Over $335,000 to 345%

> their profits be chipped away and in order to maintain the same level
> of profit growth they would have to adopt a more aggressive and
> competitive approach to maintain their position, and this would

Such as shifting profits overseas.

> include investing, hiring and expanding - with the $2 trillion+ in
> unspent cash they're sitting on.  Besides, Corporate America is
> grossly undertaxed as it is with only $80 billion annually now being
> reaped from them collectively.  That's peanuts.

Japan lowered their corporate rate to increase corporate tax revenue.

[wy]

Two words which you keep having a mental block against: Reagan,
Clinton.

[wy]

I didn't say making profits was complacency. You and your control
freakness.

>
> > to get rid of that complacency is to start taxing them more, exactly
>
> Sounds goods to me.  GE pays ZERO US corporate taxes.  I know from
> past performance that you have a problem with arithmetic.  Double GE's
> tax rate and ZERO times 2 is still ZERO.

Well, if you insist on using your right wingnut math, then yeah. But
I use real world math whereby a mandatory minimum tax is applied - no
ZEROES allowed.

>
> One of the reasons why this is the case is becuase the US has the
> highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.  Make that tax
> rate higher and other corporations will work harder at moving more of
> their profits over seas.

And you so blindly buy into that fallacy like the good right wingnut
you are.

>
> > what Reagan and Clinton did, because by taxing them more, they'll see
>
> Once again, you are giving yoorg a run for his money in the Bull Shit
> and making up lies department.
>
> When Reagan took office, the highest corp marginal rate was 46%
> Reagan lowered the rate to 40%
> He then lowered the amount Over $335,000 to 345%

Corporate taxes went down from 1977 to 1983, when Reagan decided to
uplift them steadily throughout the next 5 years he was in office.
Clinton gave them a bump upwards as well. The rise didn't have to be
much to produce the desired result of emerging from a recession and
increasing employment, as you can see by the pretty picture:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/PayrollIncomeCorporateTaxes488.gif

>
> > their profits be chipped away and in order to maintain the same level
> > of profit growth they would have to adopt a more aggressive and
> > competitive approach to maintain their position, and this would
>
> Such as shifting profits overseas.

Penalize the process, don't just let it happen.

>
> > include investing, hiring and expanding - with the $2 trillion+ in
> > unspent cash they're sitting on.  Besides, Corporate America is
> > grossly undertaxed as it is with only $80 billion annually now being
> > reaped from them collectively.  That's peanuts.
>
> Japan lowered their corporate rate to increase corporate tax revenue.

If Japan is such a tax haven for Corporate America, then all of
Corporate America would be there? But they're not. Why not?

[jane]

You are a financial idiot. Your citations shows tax REVENUE, not tax
RATES.

Reagan lowered the corp tax rate for small corporations in 1982 and
then lowered them some more in 1983; the rate for the largest
corporations remained at 46%.
When Reagan took office, the tax rate for the largest corporations was
46%
For 1987 the tax rate for large corporations was lowered to 40%;
it was lowered to 34% for 1988

PLONK!

>
> > > their profits be chipped away and in order to maintain the same level
> > > of profit growth they would have to adopt a more aggressive and
> > > competitive approach to maintain their position, and this would
>
> > Such as shifting profits overseas.
>
> Penalize the process, don't just let it happen.
>
>
>
> > > include investing, hiring and expanding - with the $2 trillion+ in
> > > unspent cash they're sitting on.  Besides, Corporate America is
> > > grossly undertaxed as it is with only $80 billion annually now being
> > > reaped from them collectively.  That's peanuts.
>
> > Japan lowered their corporate rate to increase corporate tax revenue.
>
> If Japan is such a tax haven for Corporate America, then all of
> Corporate America would be there?  But they're not.  Why not?

Because, until just recently, Japan's rate was higher than the US corp
tax rate. ALSO because, while Japans rate was higher than ours, the
corporations had already established a presence in other countries
(with even lower tax rates).

You really don't have the intelligence for this conversation.

PLONK!

[wy]

And how do you think they increased, just as the payroll tax revenue
increased as shown in the pretty picture? Increase in taxes. What
decreased was income taxes. So under the guise of lowering people's
taxes, he actually increased them through their payroll taxes and
increased corporate taxes too. Boy, you're stupid.

>
> Reagan lowered the corp tax rate for small corporations in 1982 and
> then lowered them some more in 1983; the rate for the largest
> corporations remained at 46%.
> When Reagan took office, the tax rate for the largest corporations was
> 46%
> For 1987 the tax rate for large corporations was lowered  to 40%;
> it was lowered to 34% for 1988
>
> PLONK!

http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-taxes-deficits-and-labor-vs-capital-during-reagans-first-term-2012-7

Boy, are you stupid.

> > > > their profits be chipped away and in order to maintain the same level
> > > > of profit growth they would have to adopt a more aggressive and
> > > > competitive approach to maintain their position, and this would
>
> > > Such as shifting profits overseas.
>
> > Penalize the process, don't just let it happen.
>
> > > > include investing, hiring and expanding - with the $2 trillion+ in
> > > > unspent cash they're sitting on.  Besides, Corporate America is
> > > > grossly undertaxed as it is with only $80 billion annually now being
> > > > reaped from them collectively.  That's peanuts.
>
> > > Japan lowered their corporate rate to increase corporate tax revenue.
>
> > If Japan is such a tax haven for Corporate America, then all of
> > Corporate America would be there?  But they're not.  Why not?
>
> Because, until just recently, Japan's rate was higher than the US corp
> tax rate. ALSO because, while Japans rate was higher than ours, the
> corporations had already established a presence  in other countries
> (with even lower tax rates).

Then why even bother bringing up Japan in the first place? Boy,
you're stupid.

[NoBody]

<crickets.wav>

[RichTravsky]

jane wrote:
>
> On May 13, 12:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Bert wrote:
> >
> > > Innews:518DD315...@hotmail.comRichTravsky
> > > <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "MattB ." wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:01:18 -0600, RichTravsky
> > > >> <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >Whoops, make that CAPITALIST Obama...
> >
> > > >> Seems the cut in Federal programs has had a positive effect. It has
> > > >> also harmed people.
> >
> > > > Bzzt. You dork it AGAIN.
> >
> > > >http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/12/opinion/091212krugman2/0
> > > > 91212krugman2-blog480.jpg
> >
> > > Citing former Enron advisor Krugman does not enhance your credibility.
> >
> > Idiot. That's just a graph he posted.
> >
> > See
> >
> > http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
> >
> > esp the part where it says "source".
> >
> > > Citing the DJIA as representative of the economy shows that you're
> > > really silly.
> >
> > That's capitalism, baby.
>

> “The Federal Reserve has done a good job stimulating financial
> conditions and lifting the market,” he said. “It’s been less
> successful in stimulating job growth.”
>
> "“Right now, C.E.O.’s are saying, ‘I don’t really need to hire because
> of the productivity gains of the last few years,’ ” said Robert E.
> Moritz, chairman of the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers. ...
> At 218,300 employees, United Technologies’ work force is virtually
> unchanged from seven years ago,"
>
> "...stock markets are thriving even as the economy is barely growing
> and unemployment remains stubbornly high.
>
> With millions still out of work, companies face little pressure to
> raise salaries, while productivity gains allow them to increase sales
> without adding workers."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That's capitalism, baby.

For the con's next trick, they'll claimObama is a socialist (loved
by Wall Street's capitalists, a contradiction they'll blow a fuse
trying to reconcile)

[RichTravsky]

He had no point other than making a fool of himself by not noting
the source of the data on the graph.

[RichTravsky]

crickets.

[RichTravsky]

more crickets.

[RichTravsky]

even more crickets.

[NoBody]

And you've ducked again...typical lib.

[NoBody]

You seriously post that after your previous reply was posted an hour
earlier while you evaded what was said. Typical lib...

[NoBody]

It's clear you a delusional lib...

[mpautz]

> >http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-...
>
> That's capitalism, baby.

I agree, BUT, you implied that the DOW closing above 15000 was some
indicator that Obama was a capitalist.

The reason why the DOW crossed 15000 is because profits are high.
The reason why profits are high is because "With millions still out of

work, companies face little pressure to raise salaries, while
productivity gains allow them to increase sales without adding
workers."

SO, are you saying that Capitalist Obama is deliberately keeping
millions of people out of work?

[NoBody]

Oh and...crickets....

[RichTravsky]

And you've dorked it again...just like Matt ...typical cons.

[RichTravsky]

The market would not be soaring under an ANTIcapitalist.

> The reason why the DOW crossed 15000 is because profits are high.
> The reason why profits are high is because "With millions still out of
> work, companies face little pressure to raise salaries, while
> productivity gains allow them to increase sales without adding
> workers."
>
> SO, are you saying that Capitalist Obama is deliberately keeping
> millions of people out of work?

Tell it to the capitalists in the market.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:18:38 -0600, RichTravsky

Would you care to address the address the topic of where coporate
profits are coming from or would you like to continue to hide? I'm
guessing you will continue to hide and then post days later hoping
that no one will see it.

[NoBody]

<crickets.wav>

[RichTravsky]

Would you care to address the fact that capitalism is soaring
under Obama?

[NoBody]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:01:39 -0600, RichTravsky

Depends on what you define as "capitialism". Are companies doing
better? Yes they are because they are cutting workers. Is the
economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
someplace.

[MattB .]

"just like Matt" RichTravsky must not be able to prove his point so
attacks people not even responding to him.

Well I see the sequester cuts. Show government cuts might be part of
the answer.

They should thank Obama for giving them.

[NoBody]

Twitski's favorite tactic is to respond to a topic days later and then
complain when he's not responded to immediately.

[RichTravsky]

Capitalism, baby. Make a profit.

> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
> someplace.

Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
greedy companies.

The irony...

[RichTravsky]

crickets.wav

[NoBody]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:46:38 -0600, RichTravsky

Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
America right now.

>
>> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
>> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
>> someplace.
>
>Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
>greedy companies.

I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
immoral and unsustainable.

[NoBody]

I'm sorry, I'm not up at midnight..idiot...

[NoBody]

<crickets.wav>

[BIG BIRD]

"NoBody" <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:69trp8lc8mhg3d5ag...@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:19:56 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
:
: >
: >I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do

: >something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
: >this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
: >immoral and unsustainable.
:
: <crickets.wav>

STFU and get back on them knees suckin that dirty rich dick white boy


suck it good

[NoBody]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:23:17 -0400, "BIG BIRD" <Sno...@Teranews.com>
wrote:

Wow I can honestly say I never seen a lower intellectual level on
Usenet than yours. Congrats!

[RichTravsky]

This is a profit driven economy, you socialist.

> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
> >> someplace.
> >
> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
> >greedy companies.
>
> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
> immoral and unsustainable.

But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.

[RichTravsky]

crickets.wav

[NoBody]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:01 -0600, RichTravsky

Did I say it wasn't? If you're going to call me a socialist, it would
behoove you to support your position lest you look like a fool.

>
>> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
>> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
>> >> someplace.
>> >
>> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
>> >greedy companies.
>>
>> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
>> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
>> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
>> immoral and unsustainable.
>
>But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.

Where did I do this? Please cite. I know...<crickets.wav>

[NoBody]

Because I didn't respond in 30 seconds? You *are* an idiot.

[NoBody]

And indeed Twitski crickets are all that remain.

[RichTravsky]

http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline

> >> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
> >> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
> >> >> someplace.
> >> >
> >> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
> >> >greedy companies.
> >>
> >> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
> >> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
> >> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
> >> immoral and unsustainable.
> >
> >But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.
>
> Where did I do this? Please cite. I know...<crickets.wav>

By complaining about corporate profits.

[RichTravsky]

silence.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:37:34 -0600, RichTravsky

And this would prove that I'm a socialist how? You are dodging as per
your usual practice.

>> >> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
>> >> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
>> >> >> someplace.
>> >> >
>> >> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
>> >> >greedy companies.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
>> >> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
>> >> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
>> >> immoral and unsustainable.
>> >
>> >But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.
>>
>> Where did I do this? Please cite. I know...<crickets.wav>
>
>By complaining about corporate profits.

If I called for the government to do something about it, then you
would be correct. I have not do so and you are incorrect. Simply
stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
It is stating a fact.

I guess these guys are all socialist too:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html

Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...

[NoBody]

And the idiot posts this immediately after he posts his previous
response...

[RichTravsky]

You're the one stupidly whining about what "capitalism" means.

> >> >> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
> >> >> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
> >> >> >> someplace.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
> >> >> >greedy companies.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
> >> >> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
> >> >> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
> >> >> immoral and unsustainable.
> >> >
> >> >But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.
> >>
> >> Where did I do this? Please cite. I know...<crickets.wav>
> >
> >By complaining about corporate profits.
>
> If I called for the government to do something about it, then you
> would be correct. I have not do so and you are incorrect. Simply

Complaining about corporate profits and average people - something
that *only government* could fix.

> stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
> corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
> It is stating a fact.
>
> I guess these guys are all socialist too:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
> http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html
>
> Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...

Having just snout smacked you again? heh

[RichTravsky]

crickets.wav

[RichTravsky]

Silence...

[NoBody]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:54:00 -0600, RichTravsky

Actually you're confused. YOU are one trying to define the two terms.
I notice you failed to answer my question.

>
>> >> >> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
>> >> >> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
>> >> >> >> someplace.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
>> >> >> >greedy companies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
>> >> >> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
>> >> >> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
>> >> >> immoral and unsustainable.
>> >> >
>> >> >But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.
>> >>
>> >> Where did I do this? Please cite. I know...<crickets.wav>
>> >
>> >By complaining about corporate profits.
>>
>> If I called for the government to do something about it, then you
>> would be correct. I have not do so and you are incorrect. Simply
>
>Complaining about corporate profits and average people - something
>that *only government* could fix.

Nonsense and your response shows both your dishonesty and
short-sightedness. Your inability to show that I have called for the
government to do something (as you had claimed) is so noted. Do you
have *any* facts to present?

>
>> stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
>> corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
>> It is stating a fact.
>>
>> I guess these guys are all socialist too:
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
>> http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
>> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html
>>
>> Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...
>
>Having just snout smacked you again? heh

Love it when a lib declares victory when faced with their lies and
stupidity.

[NoBody]

And the idiot Twitski posts this 6 minutes after his previous
post....

[NoBody]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:09:09 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Wed, 29 May 2013 06:53:31 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You're the one stupidly whining about what "capitalism" means.
>>
>>Actually you're confused. YOU are one trying to define the two terms.
>>I notice you failed to answer my question.
>

>As you have mine, NOWUSSY
>

I answered your question, liar. Now answer mine.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 06:53:31 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

And Twitski has fled.

[NoBody]

But sees now problem with his own failure to respond to my response...

[NoBody]

And the lying lib coward has fled again.

[RichTravsky]

You're the one dodging by pretending not to understand capitalism...

> >> >> >> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
> >> >> >> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
> >> >> >> >> someplace.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
> >> >> >> >greedy companies.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
> >> >> >> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
> >> >> >> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
> >> >> >> immoral and unsustainable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did I do this? Please cite. I know...<crickets.wav>
> >> >
> >> >By complaining about corporate profits.
> >>
> >> If I called for the government to do something about it, then you
> >> would be correct. I have not do so and you are incorrect. Simply
> >
> >Complaining about corporate profits and average people - something
> >that *only government* could fix.
>
> Nonsense and your response shows both your dishonesty and
> short-sightedness. Your inability to show that I have called for the
> government to do something (as you had claimed) is so noted. Do you
> have *any* facts to present?

Your words up above. LOL How else are you going to change the situation
except by government intervention?

> >> stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
> >> corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
> >> It is stating a fact.
> >>
> >> I guess these guys are all socialist too:
> >>
> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
> >> http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
> >> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html
> >>
> >> Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...
> >
> >Having just snout smacked you again? heh
>
> Love it when a lib declares victory when faced with their lies and
> stupidity.

Love it when a con declares victory when they're too stupid to understand.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:46:35 -0600, RichTravsky

You've accused me of being a socialist. You've not been able to
support your nonsense. You lied. It's that simple. Keep twisting
though - you've provided me a great deal of entertainment.

>> >> >> >> >> economy that most people experience (income, taxes, cost of living)?
>> >> >> >> >> Absolutely not. Perhaps you'd like to find a point to make here
>> >> >> >> >> someplace.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Seems you're turning into a socialist. Ranting about the heartless
>> >> >> >> >greedy companies.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'd be a socialist if I was calling for government to step in and do
>> >> >> >> something about it. If you can find anything that I've posted stating
>> >> >> >> this feel free to provide it. What companies are doing now is simply
>> >> >> >> immoral and unsustainable.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >But you ARE calling for the government to do something about it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where did I do this? Please cite. I know...<crickets.wav>
>> >> >
>> >> >By complaining about corporate profits.
>> >>
>> >> If I called for the government to do something about it, then you
>> >> would be correct. I have not do so and you are incorrect. Simply
>> >
>> >Complaining about corporate profits and average people - something
>> >that *only government* could fix.
>>
>> Nonsense and your response shows both your dishonesty and
>> short-sightedness. Your inability to show that I have called for the
>> government to do something (as you had claimed) is so noted. Do you
>> have *any* facts to present?
>
>Your words up above. LOL How else are you going to change the situation
>except by government intervention?

Interesting how you assume government is the only solution and
automatically assume that is what I've said (despite that I clearly
have stated the government should not be involved). Use your
imagination a bit and get back to me.

>
>> >> stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
>> >> corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
>> >> It is stating a fact.
>> >>
>> >> I guess these guys are all socialist too:
>> >>
>> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
>> >> http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
>> >> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html
>> >>
>> >> Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...
>> >
>> >Having just snout smacked you again? heh
>>
>> Love it when a lib declares victory when faced with their lies and
>> stupidity.
>
>Love it when a con declares victory when they're too stupid to understand.

So let's see (in summary): YOU have used false statements and
premises in your postings and draw false conclusions. Standard lib
behavior...

[NoBody]

And Twitski has vanished.

[RichTravsky]

You're whining about companies making huge profits while screwing workers.
You got caught. Man up.

Interesting how you're pretending not to know what capitalism is. And
agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.

http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline

Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.

> >> >> stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
> >> >> corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
> >> >> It is stating a fact.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess these guys are all socialist too:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> >> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
> >> >> http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
> >> >> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...
> >> >
> >> >Having just snout smacked you again? heh
> >>
> >> Love it when a lib declares victory when faced with their lies and
> >> stupidity.
> >
> >Love it when a con declares victory when they're too stupid to understand.
>
> So let's see (in summary): YOU have used false statements and
> premises in your postings and draw false conclusions. Standard lib
> behavior...

So let's see (in summary): By your own words we find you lament
poor wages while profits soar... hmmm, the only agencies capable
of dealing with this are... government.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA

heh heh

[NoBody]

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 22:56:58 -0600, RichTravsky

How is this socialism? This is about morality. Libs rarely
understand the difference. OBTW, you still can't show that I called
the government to do something about the situation which makes you the
typical dishonest lib.

Where have I done this? Be specific and cite.

And
>agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
>
>http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
>
>Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.

So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
further.

>
>> >> >> stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
>> >> >> corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
>> >> >> It is stating a fact.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess these guys are all socialist too:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>> >> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
>> >> >> http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
>> >> >> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...
>> >> >
>> >> >Having just snout smacked you again? heh
>> >>
>> >> Love it when a lib declares victory when faced with their lies and
>> >> stupidity.
>> >
>> >Love it when a con declares victory when they're too stupid to understand.
>>
>> So let's see (in summary): YOU have used false statements and
>> premises in your postings and draw false conclusions. Standard lib
>> behavior...
>
>So let's see (in summary): By your own words we find you lament
>poor wages while profits soar... hmmm, the only agencies capable
>of dealing with this are... government.

"Agencies" aren't the answer fool. People are. The only type of
person who thinks agencies are the answer to everything are
socialists. You just proved yourself one.

>
>http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
>
>heh heh

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself....

[RichTravsky]

So, how do "people" make the corporations do what you want???

> >http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
> >
> >heh heh
>
> I'm glad you can laugh at yourself....

I laugh at ... nobody

heh heh

[RichTravsky]

crickets.wav

[NoBody]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:20:35 -0600, RichTravsky

<crickets.wav>

<crickets.wav>

>> And
>> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
>> >
>> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
>> >
>> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
>>
>> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
>> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
>> further.
>>

<crickets.wav>

>> >
>> >> >> >> stating the fact that corporate profits have increased due to
>> >> >> >> corporations cutting the workforce and wages is not being a socialist.
>> >> >> >> It is stating a fact.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I guess these guys are all socialist too:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>> >> >> >> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43860044/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/boom-corporate-profits-bust-jobs-wages/
>> >> >> >> http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/tech-great-corporate-profits-dismal-job-market
>> >> >> >> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/10/prof-o06.html
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Are you feeling foolish yet? You sure look foolish...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Having just snout smacked you again? heh
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Love it when a lib declares victory when faced with their lies and
>> >> >> stupidity.
>> >> >
>> >> >Love it when a con declares victory when they're too stupid to understand.
>> >>
>> >> So let's see (in summary): YOU have used false statements and
>> >> premises in your postings and draw false conclusions. Standard lib
>> >> behavior...
>> >
>> >So let's see (in summary): By your own words we find you lament
>> >poor wages while profits soar... hmmm, the only agencies capable
>> >of dealing with this are... government.
>>
>> "Agencies" aren't the answer fool. People are. The only type of
>> person who thinks agencies are the answer to everything are
>> socialists. You just proved yourself one.
>
>So, how do "people" make the corporations do what you want???

Seriously? The answer is so obvious that I'm going to let you think
about it some more.

>
>> >http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
>> >
>> >heh heh
>>
>> I'm glad you can laugh at yourself....
>
>I laugh at ... nobody

Based on your complete inability to respond to anything I've stated or
asked, that would make you look very foolish.

[NoBody]

And the idiot expects that I will respond moments after he posts...

[DKW]

On 6/4/2013 10:20 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> So, how do "people" make the corporations do what you want???

Generally through shareholder activism, it happens all the time, you
uneducated wastrel.

[NoBody]

Twitski is a leftie fool who thinks unless government does it, it
can't happen.

[NoBody]

And Twitski has vanished.

[DKW]

Travesty should be run through a recycling shredder and put to some good
use.

[RichTravsky]

And the idiot is too stupid to know he's being mocked...

[RichTravsky]

Just read what's here.

Just read what's here.

> >> And
> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
> >> >
> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
> >> >
> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
> >>
> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
> >> further.
> >>
>
> <crickets.wav>

Just read what's here.

So that means you'll have no problem showing it... plus why they
aren't doing it...

> >> >http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
> >> >
> >> >heh heh
> >>
> >> I'm glad you can laugh at yourself....
> >
> >I laugh at ... nobody
>
> Based on your complete inability to respond to anything I've stated or
> asked, that would make you look very foolish.

The pun went over your head I see...

[RichTravsky]

<crickets.wav>

<crickets.wav>

<crickets.wav>

> > >> >http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
> > >> >
> > >> >heh heh
> > >>
> > >> I'm glad you can laugh at yourself....
> > >
> > >I laugh at ... nobody
> >
> > Based on your complete inability to respond to anything I've stated or
> > asked, that would make you look very foolish.
>
> The pun went over your head I see...

<crickets.wav>

[RichTravsky]

[NoBody]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:26:34 -0600, RichTravsky

Nice dodge. Just show where I called for the government to do
something about it. You can't which makes you a typical lib liar.

Be specific, cite and quote, lib.

>> >> And
>> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
>> >> >
>> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
>> >>
>> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
>> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
>> >> further.
>> >>
>>
>> <crickets.wav>
>
>Just read what's here.

Duck, duck DODGE goes the leftie.

Quite frankly I'm having too much fun watching you flail about to tell
you the obvious answer. Put some more thought into how these actions
could be changed without government intervention.

>> >> >http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
>> >> >
>> >> >heh heh
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you can laugh at yourself....
>> >
>> >I laugh at ... nobody
>>
>> Based on your complete inability to respond to anything I've stated or
>> asked, that would make you look very foolish.
>
>The pun went over your head I see...

As it is *you* who continues to look foolish....

[NoBody]

And Twitski has fled again.

[Tyrone]

Somebody here going to figure out that tax rate is not the same as collected revenues? What matters is the effective tax rate not the "US has has the highest corporate tax rate in the world" spouted by rwingers ad nauseum.

On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:58:08 AM UTC-5, jane wrote:
> On May 13, 11:23 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13 May, 10:54, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On May 13, 9:45 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On 13 May, 09:25, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On May 13, 12:19 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Bert wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > Innews:518DD315...@hotmail.comRichTravsky

>
> > > > > > > <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > > "MattB ." wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:01:18 -0600, RichTravsky
>

> > > > > > > >> <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > >> >Whoops, make that CAPITALIST Obama...
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > >> Seems the cut in Federal programs has had a positive effect.  It has
>
> > > > > > > >> also harmed people.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > > Bzzt. You dork it AGAIN.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > >http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/12/opinion/091212krugman2/0
>
> > > > > > > > 91212krugman2-blog480.jpg
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > Citing former Enron advisor Krugman does not enhance your credibility.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Idiot. That's just a graph he posted.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > See
>
> >
>
> > > > > >  http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DJIA
>
> >
>
> > > > > > esp the part where it says "source".
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > Citing the DJIA as representative of the economy shows that you're
>
> > > > > > > really silly.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > That's capitalism, baby.
>
> >
>

> > > > > > > --
>
> > > > > > > b...@iphouse.com        St. Paul, MN
>
> >
>
> > > > > “The Federal Reserve has done a good job stimulating financial
>
> > > > > conditions and lifting the market,” he said. “It’s been less
>
> > > > > successful in stimulating job growth.”
>
> >
>
> > > > > "“Right now, C.E.O.’s are saying, ‘I don’t really need to hire because
>
> > > > > of the productivity gains of the last few years,’ ” said Robert E.
>
> > > > > Moritz, chairman of the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers.  ...
>
> > > > > At 218,300 employees, United Technologies’ work force is virtually
>
> > > > > unchanged from seven years ago,"
>
> >
>
> > > > > "...stock markets are thriving even as the economy is barely growing
>
> > > > > and unemployment remains stubbornly high.
>
> >
>
> > > > > With millions still out of work, companies face little pressure to
>
> > > > > raise salaries, while productivity gains allow them to increase sales
>
> > > > > without adding workers."
>
> >
>
> > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-...
>
> >
>
> > > > Which is called complacency on the part of Corporate America.  The way
>
> >
>
> > > WRONG, making profits is not complacency.  Corporations are doing what
>
> > > they are supposed to do, make a profit for the owners.
>
> >
>
> > I didn't say making profits was complacency.  You and your control
>
> > freakness.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > to get rid of that complacency is to start taxing them more, exactly
>
> >
>
> > > Sounds goods to me.  GE pays ZERO US corporate taxes.  I know from
>
> > > past performance that you have a problem with arithmetic.  Double GE's
>
> > > tax rate and ZERO times 2 is still ZERO.
>
> >
>
> > Well, if you insist on using your right wingnut math, then yeah.  But
>
> > I use real world math whereby a mandatory minimum tax is applied - no
>
> > ZEROES allowed.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > One of the reasons why this is the case is becuase the US has the
>
> > > highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.  Make that tax
>
> > > rate higher and other corporations will work harder at moving more of
>
> > > their profits over seas.
>
> >
>
> > And you so blindly buy into that fallacy like the good right wingnut
>
> > you are.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > what Reagan and Clinton did, because by taxing them more, they'll see
>
> >
>
> > > Once again, you are giving yoorg a run for his money in the Bull Shit
>
> > > and making up lies department.
>
> >
>
> > > When Reagan took office, the highest corp marginal rate was 46%
>
> > > Reagan lowered the rate to 40%
>
> > > He then lowered the amount Over $335,000 to 345%
>
> >
>
> > Corporate taxes went down from 1977 to 1983, when Reagan decided to
>
> > uplift them steadily throughout the next 5 years he was in office.
>
> > Clinton gave them a bump upwards as well.  The rise didn't have to be
>
> > much to produce the desired result of emerging from a recession and
>
> > increasing employment, as you can see by the pretty picture:
>
> >
>
> > http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/PayrollIncomeCorporateTaxes488.gif
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> You are a financial idiot. Your citations shows tax REVENUE, not tax
>
> RATES.
>
>
>
> Reagan lowered the corp tax rate for small corporations in 1982 and
>
> then lowered them some more in 1983; the rate for the largest
>
> corporations remained at 46%.
>
> When Reagan took office, the tax rate for the largest corporations was
>
> 46%
>
> For 1987 the tax rate for large corporations was lowered to 40%;
>
> it was lowered to 34% for 1988
>
>
>
> PLONK!
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > their profits be chipped away and in order to maintain the same level
>
> > > > of profit growth they would have to adopt a more aggressive and
>
> > > > competitive approach to maintain their position, and this would
>
> >
>
> > > Such as shifting profits overseas.
>
> >
>
> > Penalize the process, don't just let it happen.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > include investing, hiring and expanding - with the $2 trillion+ in
>
> > > > unspent cash they're sitting on.  Besides, Corporate America is
>
> > > > grossly undertaxed as it is with only $80 billion annually now being
>
> > > > reaped from them collectively.  That's peanuts.
>
> >
>
> > > Japan lowered their corporate rate to increase corporate tax revenue.
>
> >
>
> > If Japan is such a tax haven for Corporate America, then all of
>
> > Corporate America would be there?  But they're not.  Why not?
>
>
>
> Because, until just recently, Japan's rate was higher than the US corp
>
> tax rate. ALSO because, while Japans rate was higher than ours, the
>
> corporations had already established a presence in other countries
>
> (with even lower tax rates).
>
>
>
> You really don't have the intelligence for this conversation.
>
>
>
> PLONK!

[RichTravsky]

Nice dodge from your own words.

Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
America right now.

A typical socialist rant.

Again?

Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
America right now.

> >> >> And
> >> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
> >> >>
> >> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
> >> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
> >> >> further.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> <crickets.wav>
> >
> >Just read what's here.
>
> Duck, duck DODGE goes the leftie.

Duck, dodge, dive, dip, and DODGE goes the rightard.

Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
America right now.

Quite frankly it's too much fun watching you dodge...

[NoBody]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:17:20 -0600, RichTravsky

Um, no. What I stated is FACT and not socialist in any manner. I've
already cited proof of what I said from credible sources. Be
specific: how is stating the facts I stated above socialist? Keep
running and squirming. I find it all very amusing...

Again explain how stating fact (cited fact) is "socialist"? Where
have I called for government to take over and fix it? THAT would be
socialist.

>
>> >> >> And
>> >> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
>> >> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
>> >> >> further.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> <crickets.wav>
>> >
>> >Just read what's here.
>>
>> Duck, duck DODGE goes the leftie.
>
>Duck, dodge, dive, dip, and DODGE goes the rightard.

I've addressed everything you said directly and promptly. You
obscure, delay, squirm and redirect. Which of us is dodging here
again?

>
> Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
> corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
> America right now.

FACT! Deal with that. While you're dealing, explain why that is
socialist.

[NoBody]

And Twitski has vanished.

[RichTravsky]

Um, you are compaining about the situation, and at a minimum you
are anti capitalist.

Then what's left to address the situation, eh?

> >> >> >> And
> >> >> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
> >> >> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
> >> >> >> further.
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> <crickets.wav>
> >> >
> >> >Just read what's here.
> >>
> >> Duck, duck DODGE goes the leftie.
> >
> >Duck, dodge, dive, dip, and DODGE goes the rightard.
>
> I've addressed everything you said directly and promptly. You
> obscure, delay, squirm and redirect. Which of us is dodging here
> again?

You've dodged the inescapable conclustion of your ranting - what's
the option for changing the situation?

[RichTravsky]

Silence. crickets.wav

[NoBody]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:36:47 -0600, RichTravsky

So now telling the truth about the state of the average American is
aniti-capitalist? You really are clueless aren't you?

The fact that you can't see past government to the obvious speaks
volumes about your thought processes.

>> >> >> >> And
>> >> >> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
>> >> >> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
>> >> >> >> further.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <crickets.wav>
>> >> >
>> >> >Just read what's here.
>> >>
>> >> Duck, duck DODGE goes the leftie.
>> >
>> >Duck, dodge, dive, dip, and DODGE goes the rightard.
>>
>> I've addressed everything you said directly and promptly. You
>> obscure, delay, squirm and redirect. Which of us is dodging here
>> again?
>
>You've dodged the inescapable conclustion of your ranting - what's
>the option for changing the situation?

I'm simply not going to make the obvious answer easy for you. I
expect you to be able to think. Apparently you can't think past
government.

>
>> > Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
>> > corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
>> > America right now.
>>
>> FACT! Deal with that. While you're dealing, explain why that is
>> socialist.

<crickets>

[NoBody]

And Twitski has vanished again.

[RichTravsky]

There you go again with the socialist rant.

Dodge noted.

> >> >> >> >> And
> >> >> >> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
> >> >> >> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
> >> >> >> >> further.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <crickets.wav>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Just read what's here.
> >> >>
> >> >> Duck, duck DODGE goes the leftie.
> >> >
> >> >Duck, dodge, dive, dip, and DODGE goes the rightard.
> >>
> >> I've addressed everything you said directly and promptly. You
> >> obscure, delay, squirm and redirect. Which of us is dodging here
> >> again?
> >
> >You've dodged the inescapable conclustion of your ranting - what's
> >the option for changing the situation?
>
> I'm simply not going to make the obvious answer easy for you. I
> expect you to be able to think. Apparently you can't think past
> government.

Dodge noted. If you can't answer it, just say so.

> >> > Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
> >> > corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
> >> > America right now.
> >>
> >> FACT! Deal with that. While you're dealing, explain why that is
> >> socialist.
>
> <crickets>

You've dodged the inescapable conclustion of your ranting - what's
the option for changing the situation?

<crickets>

[NoBody]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:42:09 -0600, RichTravsky

There you go again lying. Stating simple (credibly cited) facts is
not "socialist".

If you can't figure out the obvious then I will continue to play with
you some more as you provide (a tiny bit of) entertainment. Only a
fool thinks the only way to change business practices is by government
force. Only a fool would use the term "socialist" when there's been
no mention of goverment intervention. Are you a fool?

>
>> >> >> >> >> And
>> >> >> >> >> >agreeing that wages are not soaring with corporate profits.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >http://tcf.org/blog/detail/graph-corporate-profits-rise-to-new-heights-as-wages-decline
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Now, who else would whine about this inequity? Yup, a socialist.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> So now *you're* a socialist by mentioning the same fact I did? I
>> >> >> >> >> think you should consider your illogical nature before posting
>> >> >> >> >> further.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> <crickets.wav>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Just read what's here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Duck, duck DODGE goes the leftie.
>> >> >
>> >> >Duck, dodge, dive, dip, and DODGE goes the rightard.
>> >>
>> >> I've addressed everything you said directly and promptly. You
>> >> obscure, delay, squirm and redirect. Which of us is dodging here
>> >> again?
>> >
>> >You've dodged the inescapable conclustion of your ranting - what's
>> >the option for changing the situation?
>>
>> I'm simply not going to make the obvious answer easy for you. I
>> expect you to be able to think. Apparently you can't think past
>> government.
>
>Dodge noted. If you can't answer it, just say so.
>

THINK! How might an individual influence the behavior of a company?

>> >> > Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
>> >> > corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
>> >> > America right now.
>> >>
>> >> FACT! Deal with that. While you're dealing, explain why that is
>> >> socialist.
>>
>> <crickets>
>
>You've dodged the inescapable conclustion of your ranting - what's
>the option for changing the situation?

Start thinking and get your mind out of government intervention. You'd
be amazed at the possiblilities.

[NoBody]

And Twitski has vanished (and has failed to note that the market is
now below 15,000.

[RichTravsky]

THINK! Why hasn't it been done yet?????

> >> >> > Which is all well and good but the real economy is not soaring with
> >> >> > corporate profits. Things are not good for the average person in
> >> >> > America right now.
> >> >>
> >> >> FACT! Deal with that. While you're dealing, explain why that is
> >> >> socialist.
> >>
> >> <crickets>
> >
> >You've dodged the inescapable conclustion of your ranting - what's
> >the option for changing the situation?
>
> Start thinking and get your mind out of government intervention. You'd
> be amazed at the possiblilities.

Start explaining why individuals haven't yet influenced "the behavior of a
company" .....