They finally obtained a Trump Tax Return!

PCXV said:

You're right, but only if you incluce both sides and exclude many members that disagree with the strategy and rhetoric of division.

Click to expand...

Agree on including both sides, idiocy doesnt discriminate. My view on the whole thing, which I find frustrating, is the majority of the country, as a population, is ignored.

Most things in life can be graphed into a bell curve. Political spectrum of the population would certainly be one.

The folks getting the attention are the folks at the far ends of the bell curve (small population) and the rest is ignored. Yet, they are the lionshare and reap the most benefit and feel the most pain.

This is what irritates me most about the lack of political discussion in most news media. And even folks like us here.

PCXV said:

Not nearly 100% is required. Remember, the issue is common goods. That doesn't require a perfect world, just a system that ensures those that use common goods are contributing in correlation to their ability to do so.

Click to expand...

Keep going with this idea please. I want to hear more. Give me an example country, make it up. Who will "ensures those that use common goods are contributing in correlation to their ability to do so"?

twostrokenut said:

You sign a contract every year to fund his contract. False?

Click to expand...

Of course, and I would be even happier to do it at $300 billion rather than $652 billion. Those posts were satirical towards nonsensical forms of libertarianism.

visajoe1 said:

Keep going with this idea please. I want to hear more. Give me an example country, make it up. Who will "ensures those that use common goods are contributing in correlation to their ability to do so"?

Click to expand...

How about a progressive tax system like the US? The idea of public goods is simple. What don't you get? The people who benefit the most from public goods pay a little more to mitigate the economic imbalance and alleviate the woes of the inherent "losers" in a capitalist system.

visajoe1 said:

Agree on including both sides, idiocy doesnt discriminate. My view on the whole thing, which I find frustrating, is the majority of the country, as a population, is ignored.

Click to expand...

We are compressing so many competing views into a two-party system.

visajoe1 said:

Agree on including both sides, idiocy doesnt discriminate. My view on the whole thing, which I find frustrating, is the majority of the country, as a population, is ignored.

Most things in life can be graphed into a bell curve. Political spectrum of the population would certainly be one.

The folks getting the attention are the folks at the far ends of the bell curve (small population) and the rest is ignored. Yet, they are the lionshare and reap the most benefit and feel the most pain.

This is what irritates me most about the lack of political discussion in most news media. And even folks like us here.

Click to expand...

Umm, no. The wealth or income distributions in this country are shaped nothing like a bell curve.

Also, political spectrum -- what does that mean? The two-D plots of social values (collective vs individual, so to speak) and degree of central control (more authority rule vs little or no authority rule)?

The conservative movement fit that kind of universe but the tea party reactionary right are a composite of state socialist and fascist polical values. Like a platypus, they don't fit classification schemes.

It's not correct to say Democrats all fit one classification either.

In any case, aside from the simple and wrong theories you have about society, your concept of the corners of the distribution getting the most attention when the middle of the curve is ignored is pretty funny. Social Security and Medicare most certainly apply to the middle and working classes. Those two programs have cut poverty in elderly populations. About 1/3 of today's elderly are lifted out of poverty by Social security. From a personal perspective, I can certainly say that is the case for my mother.

Corporations and the Wealthy that control them are the big beneficiaries of government hand outs.


The poor don't get a disproportionate level of attention over any other group. Quite the opposite. To say otherwise screams out "entitled white man".

I dont know if competing is the right word. But a wide variation, absolutely

Fogdog said:

Umm, no. The wealth or income distributions in this country are shaped nothing like a bell curve.

Also, political spectrum -- what does that mean? The two-D plots of social values (collective vs individual, so to speak) and degree of central control (more authority rule vs little or no authority rule)?

The conservative movement fit that kind of universe but the tea party reactionary right are a composite of state socialist and fascist polical values. Like a platypus, they don't fit classification schemes.

It's not correct to say Democrats all fit one classification either.

In any case, aside from the simple and wrong theories you have about society, your concept of the corners of the distribution getting the most attention when the middle of the curve is ignored is pretty funny. Social Security and Medicare most certainly apply to the middle and working classes. Those two programs have cut poverty in elderly populations. About 1/3 of today's elderly are lifted out of poverty by Social security. It certainly was the case for my mother.

Corporations and the Wealthy that control them are the big beneficiaries of government hand outs.
View attachment 3908832

The poor don't get a disproportionate level of attention over any other group. Quite the opposite. To say otherwise screams out "entitled white man".

Click to expand...

its tough to take most of what you post seriously since its just recycled talking points and emotion. but ill play along. you're right, ss and medicare do affect a large portion of the population. but, can you tell me what gets more media coverage/discussion and/or happens more often, social security and medicare or protests that turn violent? THIS is my point.

I also never said wealth and income was shaped liked a bell cure. I said most things in life.

visajoe1 said:

its tough to take most of what you post seriously since its just recycled talking points and emotion.

Click to expand...

stupid people are funny because they have no idea how stupid they sound when they are being stupid.

UncleBuck said:

stupid people are funny because they have no idea how stupid they sound when they are being stupid.

Click to expand...

It would make them depressed.

visajoe1 said:

its tough to take most of what you post seriously since its just recycled talking points and emotion. but ill play along. you're right, ss and medicare do affect a large portion of the population. but, can you tell me what gets more media coverage/discussion and/or happens more often, social security and medicare or protests that turn violent? THIS is my point.

I also never said wealth and income was shaped liked a bell cure. I said most things in life.

Click to expand...

The emotion you get from my message was your own. You are the one who said:

"The folks getting the attention are the folks at the far ends of the bell curve (small population) and the rest is ignored. Yet, they are the lionshare and reap the most benefit and feel the most pain."

So, "reap the most benefit" isn't an economic benefit? The middle of "the bell curve" is not middle wealth or income? What is it then? Because as explained in my earlier message, I don't see the group of middle income Americans getting the least attention. Did my disagreement with the idea that "the masses are ignored" while a vocal minority reaped the "lion's share" of benefits, puncture a sensitive white man's sense of entitlement?

PCXV said:

Of course, and I would be even happier to do it at $300 billion rather than $652 billion. Those posts were satirical towards nonsensical forms of libertarianism.

Click to expand...

You realize you sound like the libertarian candidate of 2012 in this post.

visajoe1 said:

Agree on including both sides, idiocy doesnt discriminate. My view on the whole thing, which I find frustrating, is the majority of the country, as a population, is ignored.

Most things in life can be graphed into a bell curve. Political spectrum of the population would certainly be one.

The folks getting the attention are the folks at the far ends of the bell curve (small population) and the rest is ignored. Yet, they are the lionshare and reap the most benefit and feel the most pain.

This is what irritates me most about the lack of political discussion in most news media. And even folks like us here.

Click to expand...

Bullshit. Thanks to misinformation and a stupid populace, The so-called curve (with regards to political representation) has shifted so far to the right since the 80's that it encompasses only the center-right through the extreme right. It's time for a major realignment.

dagwood45431 said:

Bullshit. Thanks to misinformation and a stupid populace, The so-called curve (with regards to political representation) has shifted so far to the right since the 80's that it encompasses only the center-right through the extreme right. It's time for a major realignment.

Click to expand...

how has it "shifted" so far to the right with 8 year terms of bill clinton and obama? even last year, both major candidates received less than 50% of the popular vote. this "shift" doesnt seem to reflect in presidential elections. however, during obama's term, over 1000 elected positions swung from Dem to Repub. Is this what you are talking about? Thats fine to have the position that things have shifted, but can you tell me how you arrived there? like in high school algebra, can you show your work please. just trying to understand what you're saying

Fogdog said:

The emotion you get from my message was your own. You are the one who said:

"The folks getting the attention are the folks at the far ends of the bell curve (small population) and the rest is ignored. Yet, they are the lionshare and reap the most benefit and feel the most pain."

So, "reap the most benefit" isn't an economic benefit? The middle of "the bell curve" is not middle wealth or income? What is it then? Because as explained in my earlier message, I don't see the group of middle income Americans getting the least attention. Did my disagreement with the idea that "the masses are ignored" while a vocal minority reaped the "lion's share" of benefits, puncture a sensitive white man's sense of entitlement?

Click to expand...

I think we're misunderstanding eachother, slightly. Yes, reap the most benefit would include economic benefits (which is why I believe the middle deserves most attention; wider impact). Yes, the middle of a bell curve is middle or average wealth and income. We do disagree on the attention middle Americans get, it seems, which could be a great topic to discuss. Perhaps 80% of us here would be considered average, or in the middle so to speak. I dont believe the vocal minority reap the lions share of benefits, I see my original statement wasnt clear enough. I said they get the most attention (i.e. news coverage and general discussion). Which is why I ask: why do we all (us and media) spend more time discussing the nonsense on the far ends when we could be focusing on the majority (the middle) who is the largest group with considerable economic and social power?

i should also say that it is important to include discussion and concern for the entire political spectrum, but it might make more sense if the balance of this more closely reflected the range in population, and not the far left and right only.

the power is in the middle

visajoe1 said:

I think we're misunderstanding eachother, slightly. Yes, reap the most benefit would include economic benefits (which is why I believe the middle deserves most attention; wider impact). Yes, the middle of a bell curve is middle or average wealth and income. We do disagree on the attention middle Americans get, it seems, which could be a great topic to discuss. Perhaps 80% of us here would be considered average, or in the middle so to speak. I dont believe the vocal minority reap the lions share of benefits, I see my original statement wasnt clear enough. I said they get the most attention (i.e. news coverage and general discussion). Which is why I ask: why do we all (us and media) spend more time discussing the nonsense on the far ends when we could be focusing on the majority (the middle) who is the largest group with considerable economic and social power?

i should also say that it is important to include discussion and concern for the entire political spectrum, but it might make more sense if the balance of this more closely reflected the range in population, and not the far left and right only.

the power is in the middle

Click to expand...

The power should be in the people and not concentrated in the top 1%, I'll agree with that, if it's what you are saying. Of course, If you look at our White House and how it's staffed, this is clearly not the case.

It's interesting that you would silence the poor who should have as much voice in how this country is run as anybody. Is there any objective evidence that the poor get more attention than the rest of us? Not one-off stories but something more convincing. Because, I simply don't see that. Or is it Black Lives Matter movement that bothers you?

twostrokenut said:

You realize you sound like the libertarian candidate of 2012 in this post.

Click to expand...

Didn't pay much attention to him in 2012. Isn't any military spending via representative democracy against libertarian values?

Fogdog said:

The power should be in the people and not concentrated in the top 1%, I'll agree with that, if it's what you are saying. Of course, If you look at our White House and how it's staffed, this is clearly not the case.

It's interesting that you would silence the poor who should have as much voice in how this country is run as anybody. Is there any objective evidence that the poor get more attention than the rest of us? Not one-off stories but something more convincing. Because, I simply don't see that. Or is it Black Lives Matter movement that bothers you?

Click to expand...

I think many people identify with the middle class but are actually lower-middle or lower class and would benefit from policy aimed to help those groups.

In VJ's original bell-curve post I thought he was criticizing how the media focuses too much on the political extremes and the sensational.

PCXV said:

I think many people identify with the middle class but are actually lower-middle or lower class and would benefit from policy aimed to help those groups.

In VJ's original bell-curve post I thought he was criticizing how the media focuses too much on the political extremes and the sensational.

Click to expand...

A lot of media these days are sensationalism and stories to draw viewers. Good media outlets publish factual stories meaning not Fox or Breitbart but even then, the sensational gets the play time. Agree on this. I don't think its an accident that national public broadcasting, which is about as even handed, factual and pertinent in its coverage as any outlet is under the axe in the recent budget proposal. I know people who only listen to NPR and others who can't stand it. Many nowadays get their news from social media channels which guides news selections according to previously viewed stories, which to me seems counter to the need for broad exposure to current events. A lot of middle America is awash in right wing radio, which I can't abide because its a lie a minute festival when people like Rush get going.

There are a lot of sources and wide range of choice available. People have their own means of selecting from these sources. When I hear somebody complain about "the media" what I think is they would restrict other people's choices in the news. For myself, I want to hear about the goings on in the nation and locally, even if some of that contains coverage of issues I dislike, such as the Pro-Trump rallies that were a big part of last year's media circus. It turned out that those rallies were significant and the people attending them were a revelation of his base.

I don't see poor people as being over-represented in media, is @visajoe1 's concern the protest marches in Ferguson or Houston after police shot and killed unarmed black men? If that's what he means by "the nonsense on the far ends when we could be focusing on the majority", I think he's missing the point of the news and reporting current events. He can turn to the recipes on page five and not read those stories if he wants but they are pertinent and important events that I would think "the majority" would want to know about.

visajoe1 said:

how has it "shifted" so far to the right with 8 year terms of bill clinton and obama? even last year, both major candidates received less than 50% of the popular vote. this "shift" doesnt seem to reflect in presidential elections. however, during obama's term, over 1000 elected positions swung from Dem to Repub. Is this what you are talking about? Thats fine to have the position that things have shifted, but can you tell me how you arrived there? like in high school algebra, can you show your work please. just trying to understand what you're saying

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, counter to what fake news said, we're both centrists. That you BELIEVE they were liberals completely validates my point, dumdum. Thanks for helping me out, you unwitting dicksplat!