Income Inequality

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
...I do believe liberalism is a mental disorder...
Well here it is 2016 and the only reason you have your roof over your head is Social Security. .
He said he owns his trailer and works two jobs. How the fuck do you claim to know he's collecting Social Security and demand to be 'thanked' on behalf of all liberals.
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: ecomstoc
Forkie likes Forbes? Well here's a great article about attaining wealth and calling yourself a "public servant"!

https://fortune.com/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-net-worth-finances/

And to think, . . . the entire Clinton fortune began with a simple investment in cattle futures.

Ref: The Fiscal Times


Never saw that one. Pretty nice return for someone who knew nothing about commidities, turned a grand into a 100K? Very nice.

Didn't Martha go to "jail" for something similar to this? Wait a minute, didn't other people go to jail associted with this and other Clinton deals?

Hmm..interesting, I just googled Clinton Foundation and there is not a single,solitary positive thing about it. None. Nada. Zip. Pretty funny, I've been having a little discussion with the neighborhood liberal online and he actually compared the CF and what saints they are to Jimmy Carter. That was absolute sacrilege in my mind. Ever see Bill swing anything other than his d**k, let alone a hammer.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
...I do believe liberalism is a mental disorder...
Hey Bob, so how long have you been claiming that Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, and that the money was going to run out? Forty years? Thirty at least, right? Well here it is 2016 and the only reason you have your roof over your head is Social Security. And without Medicare, you might be dead sooner rather than later. Of course those programs don't even exist without liberals, so as a liberal, I'd like to say, "You're welcome." But the least you could do is say "Thank you," you fucking ingrate.

And the recession that screwed up your life royally? It was largely caused by criminal bankers who funded over-appraised liar loan mortgages from criminal brokers, packaged them, and got criminal rating agencies to rate them AAA. And yet you and the politicians you support rail against the kind of government laws and regulations - and government workers - who could have mitigated that.

And you complain about frivolous lawsuits, yet your candidate is the guy who sued over being called an orangutan. Bob, an amoeba has more self-awareness than you do.


I really didn't hink you'd go any lower, I really didn't. Unbelievable. Oh well, I was wrong, good job. A new low.
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
...I do believe liberalism is a mental disorder...
Well here it is 2016 and the only reason you have your roof over your head is Social Security. .
He said he owns his trailer and works two jobs. How the fuck do you claim to know he's collecting Social Security and demand to be 'thanked' on behalf of all liberals.
Because Bob said so on this forum. Go ahead, ask jatki.

And it's funny that you never asked Bob to prove his statement about liberals having a mental disorder. I guess that's because you're such a centrist.

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: ecomstoc
Forkie likes Forbes? Well here's a great article about attaining wealth and calling yourself a "public servant"!

https://fortune.com/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-net-worth-finances/

And to think, . . . the entire Clinton fortune began with a simple investment in cattle futures.

Ref: The Fiscal Times


Never saw that one. Pretty nice return for someone who knew nothing about commidities, turned a grand into a 100K? Very nice.

Didn't Martha go to "jail" for something similar to this?...
No.

This has been another episode of short answers to stupid questions.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV...depending upon your fantasy life imagination.

Since 1988 ...blah, blah, blah
It's your fantasy life imagination that Trumps business life began in 1988...
Oh I completely admit Trump was successful prior to 1988. Since 1988 - a loser businessman.
So your fantasy world begins in 1988. Why not 1998? Or 2008? Or 1978?...
I wish I could take credit for starting at 1988, obviously the best starting point to measure Trump's lame record vs below average S&P 500 investors. I can't take credit for that choice however. I just followed what AP and Fortune Magazine journalist selected - and they couldn't have done better.

Why 1988? Because that is apparently the first year there was ever any credible estimates of Trump's wealth. And The Law of Large Numbers tells us that the more data points you have, the more accurate you become. When it comes to a timeline, that would be the longest timeline available, which AP and Fortune chose.

Some might prefer to use The Law of Little Weasels* in which they use a shorter timeline that fits with their narrative. Like chopping off twelve years and just measuring 2000 to present. Like you alanleroy. I think the Associate Press and Fortune Magazine chose more wisely.


*I came up with that designation. I was going to say The Law of Little "Centrist" Weasels, but it didn't have the same flow. What do you think?
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Half of Americans pay zero federal income taxes...
Ha, you know you used to say "taxes." Then you got slightly more honest and began to say "income taxes." And now you've gone full-blown honest with "federal income taxes." I'll take that as a small win.

But federal income taxes aren't the only taxes, are they? In many states, the middle class pays a local and state tax rate four times that of the top 1%. And middle class Americans pay a significant part of their income on federal payroll taxes. Meanwhile the majority of federal tax expenditures like retirement and college funds, and mortgage interest deductions go to those making over $100,000. That's some serious "free stuff" right there.

But don't worry, because it will all trickle down, right? Right?


Forkie forgets the 70,000+ pages of the tax code which has all kinds of deductions. A flat tax would raise more money as all those lovely loopholes would be kaput.

Except Forkie would be all in arms about the poor folks paying too much.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV...depending upon your fantasy life imagination.

Since 1988 ...blah, blah, blah
It's your fantasy life imagination that Trumps business life began in 1988...
Oh I completely admit Trump was successful prior to 1988. Since 1988 - a loser businessman.
So your fantasy world begins in 1988. Why not 1998? Or 2008? Or 1978?...

Why 1988? Because that is apparently the first year there was ever any credible estimates of Trump's wealth. And The Law of Large Numbers tells us that the more data points you have, the more accurate you become. When it comes to a timeline, that would be the longest timeline available, which AP and Fortune chose.

Some might prefer to use The Law of Little Weasels* in which they use a shorter timeline that fits with their narrative. Like chopping off twelve years and just measuring 2000 to present. Like you alanleroy. I think the Associate Press and Fortune Magazine chose more wisely.

Oh goody. Another Forkush statement that is blatantly false. You have no clue how Trump's wealth was measured for this 'analysis'. You don't know what was included. You don't know how it was valued. Can you even provide a link to the detail in this study....You know...Stuff that includes who performed this evaluation? What sources and valuation techniques were used? Where is the documentation on how the numbers were derived? What role did Fortune play in this anyway? I seriously doubt you know any of this....because you don't care if it is accurate...as long is it's anti-Trump. My guess is some AP reporter spent less than an hour on this and cherry picked the numbers to be the worst possible. Then it was picked up by Fortune and then the entire anti-trump media...and published as fact with little to no scrutiny whatsoever...Except by me...Oh and the Bloomberg writer...who basically came up with an identical critique as I.

Yet somehow....someway forkush seems to know that '1988 was the first year there was ever any credible estimates of Trump's wealth'. Did you use your power of mental telepathy to divine that? Or is this just another little something you made up? Forbes has wealth estimates for Trump going back to 1982....imagine that. Your accepted go to source has wealth estimates for Trump 6 years "before there was any credible estimates of Trump's wealth'. Other sources date back to the 70's. So your new 'Law of little weasels' actually applies to your own analysis. That's no surprise, now is it?

Of course my example was designed to point out the folly of cherry picking your data...which the AP story obviously did. But then again if we use the 2000 Forbes Wealth Data (After a very bad year for Trump), his wealth accumulation rate in the last 16 years rivals that of Bill Gates himself. Is it reasonable to just use information from the current century to evaluate Trump's recent business success? Just as reasonable as a 'little weasel' arbitrarily picking 1988.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
...I do believe liberalism is a mental disorder...
Well here it is 2016 and the only reason you have your roof over your head is Social Security. .
He said he owns his trailer and works two jobs. How the fuck do you claim to know he's collecting Social Security and demand to be 'thanked' on behalf of all liberals.


One of the occasional negative results of using your real name and sharing personal information in internet forums is opening yourself to personal assaults by hypocrites like Bruce Forkush. He claimed I was stalking him, but it sure looks like the opposite is/has been happening.

While attempting (and failing) to cure the mortgages on my townhouse, I did save enough money to pay cash for my trailer. That was 6 years ago next month.

Both of my jobs are self employment. One is a sole propriety ownership and the other is contract labor. Prior to 2008, I could easily charge $30/hour plus parts for my work. I had a retail store, and the last year it was open, it had a net loss of $3,000. It really sucks to work everyday for everyone but yourself! Now, working from home, I have to bid the jobs at $10/hour or less just to get the work. The contract job involves travel. I was flying and/or driving to locations all over the USA and Canada on average 25 times a year. That work got progressively cut due to the recession, and is now down to 4 trips in 2016. My net income from both jobs in 2014 was $6,000...for the year! 2015 net was about $44.00 more.

I did file for Social Security last year, and started receiving it in December. Being self employed for most of my adult life, I paid 15+% of my income into the Social Security Ponzi scheme. I, and the government, know how much actual cash I put into this retirement supplemental savings account. I'm getting some of my money back. One part of the liberal mental disorder is, I should thank them for taking my money on the pretense of it being in a lockbox account, giving some of it back, while pointing at me as being a welfare recipient.
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrmeOne part of the liberal mental disorder is, I should thank them for taking my money on the pretense of it being in a lockbox account, giving some of it back, while pointing at me as being a welfare recipient.

You know...if you had invested all of your Social Security contributions into a an S&P indexed fund in 1987 you'd probably be a millionaire. Because loser Government..

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now