All people receive benefits from the government; one of the problems is that some people are too stupid to know that they do to. Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society... it's not money "confiscated," although there's a bunch of fucking idiots who like to term it that way. These are the same fucking idiots that don't understand that the air they breath, the water they drink, the food they eat, the products they use daily, the protections they gain from police and firefighters, and a myriad of other government functions, keep them safer and better off than if the government didn't exist. When government is compromised by fucking assholes who's sole goal is to destroy that government, then yes, government ceases to work as well as it should.
The beneficiaries of government is everyone... the problem is when it benefits some far more than it benefits others.
Either they're just going about their business without giving a crap about anyone else.... meaning their communications may or may not be encrypted because they basically don't care if we see it, or bother to consider it an option that we see it..... or......
They're trying to communicate with us, in which case i doubt they'd be so stupid as to encrypt unless they're sharing information, instead of simply saying "hello, we're here," that they deem should be reserved for a "sufficiently advanced" society (their opinion on what that may be).
Back in college, one of my friends started learning to speak Russian... more because he thought it would make him "cool" instead of it actually being useful. He was always pretty much an ass, with an ego that seemed to never be contained by the room he was in, but i remember his conversation one day with his brother and another mutual friend where he attempted to play the "i'm superior to you" card by switching into talking Russian. His brother, by far the best of our little group in temperament and patience for the ego, simply said: "language is a tool to communicate with others. What the fuck are you trying to do?" IF the LGM's out there are trying to communicate with us, they're not going to encrypt.
Of course not seeing them doesn't imply that they are there; i'm sorry your reading comprehension inferred that from what i wrote. I'm also sorry you seem to think that i "need" to "believe" in little green men.... i don't. HOWEVER, as some other people have said, and i understand, space is really, really, fucking big. Sheer probability argues that there are a vast number of intelligent, advanced species out there...and that's ignoring the probably inconceivable large number of planets with simple life forms out there.
This article is basically saying "we didn't find any civilizations that could control their entire galaxy, therefore we're alone in the universe." That's a pretty stupid conclusion, one I'd expect from a sociologist, not from a scientist. By moving the bar of "advanced" up a notch (to level III), your basically saying that any given galaxy (of between 100-500 BILLION stars or more) can only have ONE advanced species. That's kind of bullshit to start with.
It's unfortunate that most people can't grasp the vastly huge incredibly big fucking numbers that come about when talking about THE UNIVERSE, just as it's a sad testament to their ego and arrogance to make the argument that WE must be the only planet in the entire fuckingly huge UNIVERSE that has life. That's what i don't get, how someone can be so self centered and arrogant to take such a ludicrous position.
But honestly, little green men would be cool i guess; the large green motherfuckers on the other hand could give us trouble.
Exactly. Because we haven't seen them up to now, with our rather primitive, blind searching doesn't mean they're not there, just that we haven't seen them. Takes a great deal of arrogance to think we've seen all, done all, and nothing new will ever be. 35 years ago (when i was in college... how depressing) we were still trying to figure out if quasars were in our galaxy with an unknown reason for their massive redshift, or outside our galaxy with an unknown reason for their massive energy output.
Whether life (intelligent, technologically advanced civilizations) is common or rare, the simple fact is we're not going to have a definitive search done for them in a just few decades, and the fact we haven't seen them really means nothing at all.
Your incapacity to understand the nuances of reality only further support my assessment that you need a basic education. I "got out" of college with a BS almost 30 years ago, but i still remember a lot of i learned in college, and high school, and even grade school. Growing up with parents who were actually around during WWII, having uncles who fought in the European theater, and the Pacific theater, gave me quite a decent, knowledgeable perspective of the history you, and people like you, have been trying to rewrite for decades.
Economics and politics ARE NOT the same thing (just as physics and mathematics are not the same thing); only a blind fucking moron would say that they are. If you can't understand THE BASICS of either, you're in no position to have a worthwhile opinion of either. You regurgitate crap that the birchers have been saying for 60-70 years, and the right wing fringe has been really pushing for the past 30-35. You want to distance yourself from everything "bad" that right wing groups have done, and try to make everyone think your shit don't stink. Back in the old days, we had a term for that: liar. Now, i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... you could simply be completely ignorant, and not have the personal fortitude to actually learn.... or, you could be too mentally challenged to learn at all; so it might not be that you're an outright liar. But the effect is the same, what you say is factually wrong, and because you continue to say it, you are lying to people.
Same stupid fucked up argument as always. People in every other country understand the differences between fascism and socialism, except for the brain dead right wingers here in the US who have been trying to change the meaning of fascism for the last 35 years. When you wonder why other countries thing the US is filled with stupid people.. look in the mirror.
Fascism is a POLITICAL ideology, not an ECONOMIC one...whereas capitalism is an ECONOMIC ideology, not a political one. Comparing the two takes complete ignorance, or intentional deceitfulness.... so are you stupid, or are you a liar?
Communism is an extreme form of socialism, typically requiring the violent overthrow of the predecessor government. It feeds off that. It is socialism politicized, which warps the economics of socialism once "power" has been achieved.
Look, i'm sorry you don't have basic political science education, but your asinine regurgitation of bullshit lies a small, vocal, radical, right wing fringe group has been peddling for the last some odd decades really just makes the case that you should have studied in 10th grade more. Communism and fascism are POLITICAL... capitalism is ECONOMIC (as is socialism); i can't really make it much more simple than that... so if you can't understand that, well, go back to school and try to pay attention this time.
His appeal was the same thing we see in the US today in the political arena... blaming someone else for all the bad (immigrants, gays, blacks, whomever is "different") while longing for the "good old days" that most people don't remember were actually pretty shitty. It wasn't a return to a "more natural idyllic Germany," it was a return to the white skinned, blonde hair, blue eyed Aryan race myth of superiority.... which has always made me wonder how Hitler pulled it off, looking like a rabid little rodent; then i remember that humans are basically stupider than shit, and it kind of falls into place.
Actually he didn't. What you're trying to do is say that because something is labeled as something, it absolutely must be that.... which is just plain stupid, and takes someone either intentionally ignorant, or intentionally deceitful, to repeat. Perhaps you simply need to buy a dictionary, or better an encyclopedia and do a little reading.
The USSR was hard left communist, which is an offshoot, and has some of the characteristics, of socialism. In it's origins, it may have held those socialist promises, but being ruled by a sociopathic dictator can screw up pretty much anything.
The NAZI's, on the other hand, were a hard right, nationalistic fascists. Again, being ruled by a sociopathic dictator is definitely a minus.
But more to the point, you conflate the activities of POLITICAL ideologies with ECONOMIC ideologies to arrive at really stupid fucking talking points.
Slight correction though, when they state GDP (as in, the 2nd quarter GDP is....) they're referring to the annual rate, not actually divided into the realized GDP for a specific quarter..... so that 17.9t GDP is the projection for the year. Just an FYI. 17.9t second quarter GDP means 17.9t for the year (projection).
Christianity/Catholicism is based not only on Judaism (the entire old testament), but also on the resurrection myths from Egypt, the "eating of the dead" rituals from early Egypt (as well as numerous other civilization/religions/belief systems) which is ultimately the basis for the schism with Judaism. In addition, it scavenged all sorts of localized myths from everywhere it went in Europe, adopting aspects so as to be able to integrate other cultures easier.
Judaism, of course, is based on earlier religions from Akkadians, Sumerians, and most likely the Indus valley (as well as some we don't even know about, lost to time). Those religions most likely had many aspects based on what came before them. A new religion, untethered to the past would be a rare oddity.
Nicaea was, for all intentional purposes, the creation of the Jesus myth.... as well as the murder of anyone who disagreed with going along with it. Martin Luther did change the the religion (although given recent events, i'd say the change was temporary) as he was at odds with the Pope/church being the only source of divinity, and thought God should be held as that. He also, in opposition to what a lot of US "christians" seem to think now, you couldn't use money to buy your way into heaven. Be that as it may, his actions were to shift focus from the pope/church back onto God. Nicaea, on the other hand, created THE myth of Jesus that was to be the foundation for the whole religion, then murdered anyone that didn't toe the line.
You have epitomized the problem with (a lot of) religious people... your blind faith to your dogma blinds you to reality of what has happened in history, and what is happening now. You know what your preacher tells you, but you don't know about your churches history, and typically you don't even bother knowing what's in your "holy books;" you rely on your preacher to tell you what to believe.
Yeh...that's never happened in other religions, right Noah...er, i mean Ziusudra.
Most all religions are adapted from the beliefs that came before them, some more so than others. Christianity took parts of pretty much every religion around and cobbled itself together... then voted on which dogma it should use as a public face; its no real surprise that Islam did as well.
Admittedly it's been decades since i did any research (chemistry, IR specs of solids), however, you make my point for me.
The truth of that science (psychology) needs to be taken with a large grain of salt because we are talking about summarizing a very wide set of behaviors, outcomes, and causes with a relatively small amount of words.
What you're saying is, even in the best circumstances, you arrive at nothing more than generalizations and conjecture. That's fine for a social science i suppose, but not science.
What i have seen from many papers i've read (since the 1980s) is that confirmation bias is pretty common, typically in very obvious if not glaring ways. Some of the conclusions in papers i've seen are so far removed from what data was actually taken you have to wonder whether the research even looked at it, so it's either a massively flawed experiment design, or people too incompetent to read or use basic logic.... and this is the stuff that actually passes through peer review.
Also to point out something else:
I can tell you that experiments in the social sciences (when done correctly) are far more controlled (relatively speaking) and reviewed before they are conducted than experiments in "hard" fields.
Psychology Research.... the field of people who don't know how to set up an actual experiment, and who are incapable of correctly interpreting any data they actually stumble onto, in any meaningful way other than to show they really don't have a clue what they're doing.... who for some reason seem to think that you're more "correct" if that horrendously bad idea you've had has been brought up by some other numbskull prior to you.
You do realize that flying in the late 80's would have people having to turn over small (1 1/2 inch) blade pocket knives. I'm sure you're also away that: http://www.dailykos.com/story/... weak gun laws = more guns = more gun deaths. Trying to compare major metropolitan area like Chicago to some podunk backwater burg of 1000 people and saying "see how much gun violence Chicago has" is a fairly stupid, and dishonest way to go about things.
I've worked three jobs where it was required that i carry a firearm. I'm not anti-gun, what i am is anti-stupid-fucking-idiot-with-a-gun. I have seen so many of these good 'ol boy types who treat guns as toys, instead of the tools they are. They think that going out and drinking beer on a weekend while wearing camo is somehow a service to this country in the same vein as our military personnel fighting in a combat zone. They wouldn't know service to this country if it came up and kicked them in the nuts. I hate to say it, but the NRA panders to that type of wasted flesh, and ever since they have, i've no use for them or their kneepad wearing mooks.
Everyone should not be armed, because quite frankly, most people are more a danger with a weapon than an asset. Especially gung-ho idiots with IQ's smaller than their shoe size, whether by nature or by alcohol. And yes, i am aware of what happens when you shove 2.7 million people into a little over 200 square miles.... i am also aware that the violent crime rate in Illinois is far lower than in Alaska and a whole bunch of other states with weaker gun laws.
You're projecting again, troll.Either that, or you truly are too stupid to pay attention to what conservatives here in the US do pretty much every time they open their mouths. I get it, though... many conservatives simply can't be bothered to learn the meaning of words before using them, or they're too stupid to read a dictionary once in a while. Conservatives are pretty much dedicated to divisiveness and blaming everyone else for their ignorance... it'd be sad if it was so moronically ridiculous, especially when some tool comes out and tries to project his own inadequacies onto others.
But more on subject... not jumping to conclusions without having the information to do so just seems like pretty fucking good common sense, which i suppose is your problem with it, it's the intelligent way to see things... instead of the hyperbolic head-full-of-bullshit way some idiots in this country always go for.
Considering the growth we had during the late 40's and 50's, that 90% top marginal tax rate certainly didn't hurt then, and in fact, helped to pay down a lot of debt we had from WWII.
What is fiscally irresponsible is bottoming out taxes while exploding the national debt, like Reagan and Bush II did. People like to bring up the whole "balanced budget" thing on occasion, and in a sense i agree with it... but those people that do are being disingenuous at best. We could balance the budget in two years with a simple constitutional amendment that says "we WILL bring in the revenue to pay for ALL of governments expenses, or the rates will automatically be adjusted to do that. Period, no exceptions." The problem we have is a whole generation who are selfish, greedy, anti-American piss-ants who prefer to act like petulant children instead of living up to the social contract of continuing to invest in future generations, and those people have been leeching everything ever generation before them invested since the 1980's.
Then again, by the way you wrote that... leaving out the "top marginal rate" part... i have to assume you either do not understand history, or what Sanders said.... or that you're just being deceptive to get people to agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
You have the lobes of a hew-man.
All people receive benefits from the government; one of the problems is that some people are too stupid to know that they do to. Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society... it's not money "confiscated," although there's a bunch of fucking idiots who like to term it that way. These are the same fucking idiots that don't understand that the air they breath, the water they drink, the food they eat, the products they use daily, the protections they gain from police and firefighters, and a myriad of other government functions, keep them safer and better off than if the government didn't exist. When government is compromised by fucking assholes who's sole goal is to destroy that government, then yes, government ceases to work as well as it should.
The beneficiaries of government is everyone... the problem is when it benefits some far more than it benefits others.
Either they're just going about their business without giving a crap about anyone else.... meaning their communications may or may not be encrypted because they basically don't care if we see it, or bother to consider it an option that we see it..... or......
They're trying to communicate with us, in which case i doubt they'd be so stupid as to encrypt unless they're sharing information, instead of simply saying "hello, we're here," that they deem should be reserved for a "sufficiently advanced" society (their opinion on what that may be).
Back in college, one of my friends started learning to speak Russian... more because he thought it would make him "cool" instead of it actually being useful. He was always pretty much an ass, with an ego that seemed to never be contained by the room he was in, but i remember his conversation one day with his brother and another mutual friend where he attempted to play the "i'm superior to you" card by switching into talking Russian. His brother, by far the best of our little group in temperament and patience for the ego, simply said: "language is a tool to communicate with others. What the fuck are you trying to do?" IF the LGM's out there are trying to communicate with us, they're not going to encrypt.
I understand., now... blinking lights scare stupid people.
And people wonder how "open the pod bay door" got turned into "please jettison me into space to eat hard vacuum." HAL obviously was a microsoft baby.
Of course not seeing them doesn't imply that they are there; i'm sorry your reading comprehension inferred that from what i wrote. I'm also sorry you seem to think that i "need" to "believe" in little green men.... i don't. HOWEVER, as some other people have said, and i understand, space is really, really, fucking big. Sheer probability argues that there are a vast number of intelligent, advanced species out there...and that's ignoring the probably inconceivable large number of planets with simple life forms out there.
This article is basically saying "we didn't find any civilizations that could control their entire galaxy, therefore we're alone in the universe." That's a pretty stupid conclusion, one I'd expect from a sociologist, not from a scientist. By moving the bar of "advanced" up a notch (to level III), your basically saying that any given galaxy (of between 100-500 BILLION stars or more) can only have ONE advanced species. That's kind of bullshit to start with.
It's unfortunate that most people can't grasp the vastly huge incredibly big fucking numbers that come about when talking about THE UNIVERSE, just as it's a sad testament to their ego and arrogance to make the argument that WE must be the only planet in the entire fuckingly huge UNIVERSE that has life. That's what i don't get, how someone can be so self centered and arrogant to take such a ludicrous position.
But honestly, little green men would be cool i guess; the large green motherfuckers on the other hand could give us trouble.
Perhaps, but anyone that's been married already knows about that.
We already knew we had never seen any evidence of Aliens.
Next you'll be saying that about the R.O.U.S.'s. But more on point, Hudson would definitely disagree with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you base it on how civilized hoomans are, the universe is VSF.... very severely fucked.
Exactly. Because we haven't seen them up to now, with our rather primitive, blind searching doesn't mean they're not there, just that we haven't seen them. Takes a great deal of arrogance to think we've seen all, done all, and nothing new will ever be. 35 years ago (when i was in college... how depressing) we were still trying to figure out if quasars were in our galaxy with an unknown reason for their massive redshift, or outside our galaxy with an unknown reason for their massive energy output.
Whether life (intelligent, technologically advanced civilizations) is common or rare, the simple fact is we're not going to have a definitive search done for them in a just few decades, and the fact we haven't seen them really means nothing at all.
You're just yanking my entanglement.... or, are you....
Wait, gravity is only a theory? Boy that sucks.
**editors note: Heisenberg may have been here
Your incapacity to understand the nuances of reality only further support my assessment that you need a basic education. I "got out" of college with a BS almost 30 years ago, but i still remember a lot of i learned in college, and high school, and even grade school. Growing up with parents who were actually around during WWII, having uncles who fought in the European theater, and the Pacific theater, gave me quite a decent, knowledgeable perspective of the history you, and people like you, have been trying to rewrite for decades.
Economics and politics ARE NOT the same thing (just as physics and mathematics are not the same thing); only a blind fucking moron would say that they are. If you can't understand THE BASICS of either, you're in no position to have a worthwhile opinion of either. You regurgitate crap that the birchers have been saying for 60-70 years, and the right wing fringe has been really pushing for the past 30-35. You want to distance yourself from everything "bad" that right wing groups have done, and try to make everyone think your shit don't stink. Back in the old days, we had a term for that: liar. Now, i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... you could simply be completely ignorant, and not have the personal fortitude to actually learn.... or, you could be too mentally challenged to learn at all; so it might not be that you're an outright liar. But the effect is the same, what you say is factually wrong, and because you continue to say it, you are lying to people.
http://www.economicshelp.org/b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Same stupid fucked up argument as always. People in every other country understand the differences between fascism and socialism, except for the brain dead right wingers here in the US who have been trying to change the meaning of fascism for the last 35 years. When you wonder why other countries thing the US is filled with stupid people.. look in the mirror.
Fascism is a POLITICAL ideology, not an ECONOMIC one...whereas capitalism is an ECONOMIC ideology, not a political one. Comparing the two takes complete ignorance, or intentional deceitfulness.... so are you stupid, or are you a liar?
Communism is an extreme form of socialism, typically requiring the violent overthrow of the predecessor government. It feeds off that. It is socialism politicized, which warps the economics of socialism once "power" has been achieved.
Look, i'm sorry you don't have basic political science education, but your asinine regurgitation of bullshit lies a small, vocal, radical, right wing fringe group has been peddling for the last some odd decades really just makes the case that you should have studied in 10th grade more. Communism and fascism are POLITICAL... capitalism is ECONOMIC (as is socialism); i can't really make it much more simple than that... so if you can't understand that, well, go back to school and try to pay attention this time.
His appeal was the same thing we see in the US today in the political arena... blaming someone else for all the bad (immigrants, gays, blacks, whomever is "different") while longing for the "good old days" that most people don't remember were actually pretty shitty. It wasn't a return to a "more natural idyllic Germany," it was a return to the white skinned, blonde hair, blue eyed Aryan race myth of superiority.... which has always made me wonder how Hitler pulled it off, looking like a rabid little rodent; then i remember that humans are basically stupider than shit, and it kind of falls into place.
Actually he didn't. What you're trying to do is say that because something is labeled as something, it absolutely must be that.... which is just plain stupid, and takes someone either intentionally ignorant, or intentionally deceitful, to repeat. Perhaps you simply need to buy a dictionary, or better an encyclopedia and do a little reading.
The USSR was hard left communist, which is an offshoot, and has some of the characteristics, of socialism. In it's origins, it may have held those socialist promises, but being ruled by a sociopathic dictator can screw up pretty much anything.
The NAZI's, on the other hand, were a hard right, nationalistic fascists. Again, being ruled by a sociopathic dictator is definitely a minus.
But more to the point, you conflate the activities of POLITICAL ideologies with ECONOMIC ideologies to arrive at really stupid fucking talking points.
Slight correction though, when they state GDP (as in, the 2nd quarter GDP is....) they're referring to the annual rate, not actually divided into the realized GDP for a specific quarter..... so that 17.9t GDP is the projection for the year. Just an FYI. 17.9t second quarter GDP means 17.9t for the year (projection).
Spoken like someone truly brainwashed by dogma.
Christianity/Catholicism is based not only on Judaism (the entire old testament), but also on the resurrection myths from Egypt, the "eating of the dead" rituals from early Egypt (as well as numerous other civilization/religions/belief systems) which is ultimately the basis for the schism with Judaism. In addition, it scavenged all sorts of localized myths from everywhere it went in Europe, adopting aspects so as to be able to integrate other cultures easier.
Judaism, of course, is based on earlier religions from Akkadians, Sumerians, and most likely the Indus valley (as well as some we don't even know about, lost to time). Those religions most likely had many aspects based on what came before them. A new religion, untethered to the past would be a rare oddity.
Nicaea was, for all intentional purposes, the creation of the Jesus myth.... as well as the murder of anyone who disagreed with going along with it. Martin Luther did change the the religion (although given recent events, i'd say the change was temporary) as he was at odds with the Pope/church being the only source of divinity, and thought God should be held as that. He also, in opposition to what a lot of US "christians" seem to think now, you couldn't use money to buy your way into heaven. Be that as it may, his actions were to shift focus from the pope/church back onto God. Nicaea, on the other hand, created THE myth of Jesus that was to be the foundation for the whole religion, then murdered anyone that didn't toe the line.
You have epitomized the problem with (a lot of) religious people... your blind faith to your dogma blinds you to reality of what has happened in history, and what is happening now. You know what your preacher tells you, but you don't know about your churches history, and typically you don't even bother knowing what's in your "holy books;" you rely on your preacher to tell you what to believe.
Yeh...that's never happened in other religions, right Noah...er, i mean Ziusudra.
Most all religions are adapted from the beliefs that came before them, some more so than others. Christianity took parts of pretty much every religion around and cobbled itself together... then voted on which dogma it should use as a public face; its no real surprise that Islam did as well.
The truth of that science (psychology) needs to be taken with a large grain of salt because we are talking about summarizing a very wide set of behaviors, outcomes, and causes with a relatively small amount of words.
What you're saying is, even in the best circumstances, you arrive at nothing more than generalizations and conjecture. That's fine for a social science i suppose, but not science.
What i have seen from many papers i've read (since the 1980s) is that confirmation bias is pretty common, typically in very obvious if not glaring ways. Some of the conclusions in papers i've seen are so far removed from what data was actually taken you have to wonder whether the research even looked at it, so it's either a massively flawed experiment design, or people too incompetent to read or use basic logic.... and this is the stuff that actually passes through peer review.
Also to point out something else:
I can tell you that experiments in the social sciences (when done correctly) are far more controlled (relatively speaking) and reviewed before they are conducted than experiments in "hard" fields.
Here you are simply wrong.
Psychology Research.... the field of people who don't know how to set up an actual experiment, and who are incapable of correctly interpreting any data they actually stumble onto, in any meaningful way other than to show they really don't have a clue what they're doing.... who for some reason seem to think that you're more "correct" if that horrendously bad idea you've had has been brought up by some other numbskull prior to you.
You know why there isn't a Bruce Lee meme like the Chuck Norris meme? Bruce Lee wasn't a joke.
You do realize that flying in the late 80's would have people having to turn over small (1 1/2 inch) blade pocket knives. I'm sure you're also away that: http://www.dailykos.com/story/... weak gun laws = more guns = more gun deaths. Trying to compare major metropolitan area like Chicago to some podunk backwater burg of 1000 people and saying "see how much gun violence Chicago has" is a fairly stupid, and dishonest way to go about things.
I've worked three jobs where it was required that i carry a firearm. I'm not anti-gun, what i am is anti-stupid-fucking-idiot-with-a-gun. I have seen so many of these good 'ol boy types who treat guns as toys, instead of the tools they are. They think that going out and drinking beer on a weekend while wearing camo is somehow a service to this country in the same vein as our military personnel fighting in a combat zone. They wouldn't know service to this country if it came up and kicked them in the nuts. I hate to say it, but the NRA panders to that type of wasted flesh, and ever since they have, i've no use for them or their kneepad wearing mooks.
Everyone should not be armed, because quite frankly, most people are more a danger with a weapon than an asset. Especially gung-ho idiots with IQ's smaller than their shoe size, whether by nature or by alcohol. And yes, i am aware of what happens when you shove 2.7 million people into a little over 200 square miles.... i am also aware that the violent crime rate in Illinois is far lower than in Alaska and a whole bunch of other states with weaker gun laws.
You're projecting again, troll.Either that, or you truly are too stupid to pay attention to what conservatives here in the US do pretty much every time they open their mouths. I get it, though... many conservatives simply can't be bothered to learn the meaning of words before using them, or they're too stupid to read a dictionary once in a while. Conservatives are pretty much dedicated to divisiveness and blaming everyone else for their ignorance... it'd be sad if it was so moronically ridiculous, especially when some tool comes out and tries to project his own inadequacies onto others.
But more on subject... not jumping to conclusions without having the information to do so just seems like pretty fucking good common sense, which i suppose is your problem with it, it's the intelligent way to see things... instead of the hyperbolic head-full-of-bullshit way some idiots in this country always go for.
http://mic.com/articles/119630...
Considering the growth we had during the late 40's and 50's, that 90% top marginal tax rate certainly didn't hurt then, and in fact, helped to pay down a lot of debt we had from WWII.
What is fiscally irresponsible is bottoming out taxes while exploding the national debt, like Reagan and Bush II did. People like to bring up the whole "balanced budget" thing on occasion, and in a sense i agree with it... but those people that do are being disingenuous at best. We could balance the budget in two years with a simple constitutional amendment that says "we WILL bring in the revenue to pay for ALL of governments expenses, or the rates will automatically be adjusted to do that. Period, no exceptions." The problem we have is a whole generation who are selfish, greedy, anti-American piss-ants who prefer to act like petulant children instead of living up to the social contract of continuing to invest in future generations, and those people have been leeching everything ever generation before them invested since the 1980's.
Then again, by the way you wrote that... leaving out the "top marginal rate" part... i have to assume you either do not understand history, or what Sanders said.... or that you're just being deceptive to get people to agree with you.