Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

The best diversity training you can ever engage in is called capitalism. You are forced to hire the best and brightest or your competition eats you alive.

You've said an awful lot of stupid things, Peter, but this one has to rank pretty high on the list.
Capatilism has ruled the land from pretty much day one, no? Why any discussion about diversity in 2020 then?

Capitalism to the extent that it tenuously exists has only existed for maybe 100 years.

There are 18,000,000 millionaires in America. 8% of all millionaires in America are black. There are at least 6 black billionaires. That means that 1,400,000 black people in America are millionaires.

Could you tell the board which system is better for blacks? Do you prefer the agrarian economies of sub-Saharan Africa?

^^^^ This is what they teach in a Florida University???

… capitalism has existed, fully formed since the 17th century - ie., about 1650. Its roots go back two hundred years before that. BLACKS WERE TRADED COMMODITIES UNDER CAPITALISM. Capitalism is not an American invention.

Wait. One one hand you keep telling us we are already a socialist paradise and a little more socialism wouldn't be felt, on the other you say we are a greedy capitalist thunderdome. Which is it?

… "we" aren't a paradise, socialist or any other kind. meanwhile before you tried to move the goalpost - lets explore why you think capitalism has only existed for 100 years or so, while everyone with anything between their ears, but air, knows this is total bullsh!t.

I'd like to explore two things first:

what should the maximum gross (federal, stae, and local) income tax rate be for any one human being, regardless of income?

do you think a political party that attracts grown men in pink tutus who scream incoherently at police is a party that we should respect?

Answer one or the other, but preferably both...I always prefer to know ahead of time the substance of anyone I debate.

... I know your substance, it is obvious and no question is needed to ascertain it.

Your non-answer is all I needed. Thanks.

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

You have delayed, moved the goal post and obfuscated, and it hasn't worked.

Your quality, your substance is clear for everyone to see. You have none!

I will admit however, I am dying to know what on earth possesses you to think you can peddle your bullsh!t here and think you won't be called on it.

[a fan]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

[Peter Brown]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

You don’t cut costs?

[6ftstick]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

All of it.

[a fan]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

You don’t cut costs?

Look who woke up! Now that Pete thinks he's going to get hit with a massive tax bill to cover all the cr*p he gets, he's worried.

For me? I frankly don't care. So long as the budget is balanced, suddenly guys like you get a change in priorities. Why? Because you actually have to pay for what you're getting. U of Florida is no longer a free ride. Wars in the Middle East are no longer free. Handouts to seniors and farmers and everyone else who arrives in DC with a lobbyist are no longer free. Handouts to Kentucky and other flyover States are no longer free.

So my only concern is a balanced budget.

That said, it's your turn to answer a question: expressed as a percentage of GDP, what should we spend on government? This should be an interesting answer, if you bother to answer the question.

[a fan]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

All of it.

Are you serious? You've gone full lefty-commie on us, have ya, six?

[Peter Brown]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

You don’t cut costs?

Look who woke up! Now that Pete thinks he's going to get hit with a massive tax bill to cover all the cr*p he gets, he's worried.

For me? I frankly don't care. So long as the budget is balanced, suddenly guys like you get a change in priorities. Why? Because you actually have to pay for what you're getting. U of Florida is no longer a free ride. Wars in the Middle East are no longer free. Handouts to seniors and farmers and everyone else who arrives in DC with a lobbyist are no longer free. Handouts to Kentucky and other flyover States are no longer free.

So my only concern is a balanced budget.

That said, it's your turn to answer a question: expressed as a percentage of GDP, what should we spend on government? This should be an interesting answer, if you bother to answer the question.

10% tops.

[wgdsr]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

All of it.

Are you serious? You've gone full lefty-commie on us, have ya, six?

yeah... people in charge (politicians and businesses) aren't gonna like that idea. they're not gonna like 10 or 12% of the total. better try another.

[a fan]

10% tops.

Shocker. You think a 1st world country can operate on a 2nd world budget. The last time we paid that much----and that was ONLY at the Federal level, was the 1930's.

Did you take ANY economics classes at Florida, Pete? Because you understand that at that low of a rate, there wouldn't be a University of Florida, or public education of any kind, right?

Or paved Federal and State roads, for that matter.

[seacoaster]

10% tops.

Shocker. You think a 1st world country can operate on a 2nd world budget. The last time we paid that much----and that was ONLY at the Federal level, was the 1930's.

Did you take ANY economics classes at Florida, Pete? Because you understand that at that low of a rate, there wouldn't be a University of Florida, or public education of any kind, right?

Or paved Federal and State roads, for that matter.

Or firefighters or cops. Bucket brigades in Pete's neighborhood? What a maroon.

[Peter Brown]

10% tops.

Shocker. You think a 1st world country can operate on a 2nd world budget. The last time we paid that much----and that was ONLY at the Federal level, was the 1930's.

Did you take ANY economics classes at Florida, Pete? Because you understand that at that low of a rate, there wouldn't be a University of Florida, or public education of any kind, right?

Or paved Federal and State roads, for that matter.

Uhhhh, Hong Kong prior to 1997 averaged 7.5% Government Spending as a % of GDP.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Hong-K ... ment_size/

Since then, that number has creeped up above 10%.

I assume you've never been there? I'd be curious if you consider Hong Kong to have been "2nd World" prior to 1997?

[Peter Brown]

10% tops.

Shocker. You think a 1st world country can operate on a 2nd world budget. The last time we paid that much----and that was ONLY at the Federal level, was the 1930's.

Did you take ANY economics classes at Florida, Pete? Because you understand that at that low of a rate, there wouldn't be a University of Florida, or public education of any kind, right?

Or paved Federal and State roads, for that matter.

Or firefighters or cops. Bucket brigades in Pete's neighborhood? What a maroon.

Do you guys have any horizon beyond CNN? I'm serious.

As explained above, Hong Kong probably had the world's single best economy prior to its handover to the Chinese Mainland, and still does to some extent since China has kept its hands off the economy there for the most part.

I'm fairly certain, though I'm happy to have you Google me down on this, that Hong Kong had a robust fire and police brigade in those years where only 7.5% of their GDP was spent on government. Also roads. And plumbing.

Let me know if I am wrong...always willing to learn!

[a fan]

Uhhhh, Hong Kong prior to 1997 averaged 7.5% Government Spending as a % of GDP.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Hong-K ... ment_size/

Since then, that number has creeped up above 10%.

I assume you've never been there? I'd be curious if you consider Hong Kong to have been "2nd World" prior to 1997?

That stupid fake-libertarian canard? Pretending Hong Kong is some happy, sovereign, independent nation.

Who owns Hong Kong, Pete? Take your time.

[seacoaster]

10% tops.

Shocker. You think a 1st world country can operate on a 2nd world budget. The last time we paid that much----and that was ONLY at the Federal level, was the 1930's.

Did you take ANY economics classes at Florida, Pete? Because you understand that at that low of a rate, there wouldn't be a University of Florida, or public education of any kind, right?

Or paved Federal and State roads, for that matter.

Or firefighters or cops. Bucket brigades in Pete's neighborhood? What a maroon.

Do you guys have any horizon beyond CNN? I'm serious.

As explained above, Hong Kong probably had the world's single best economy prior to its handover to the Chinese Mainland, and still does to some extent since China has kept its hands off the economy there for the most part.

I'm fairly certain, though I'm happy to have you Google me down on this, that Hong Kong had a robust fire and police brigade in those years where only 7.5% of their GDP was spent on government. Also roads. And plumbing.

Let me know if I am wrong...always willing to learn!

I'm not sure what you refer to when you say "spent on government." But HK spending on public expenditures of the type we are talking about appears to be around 21% of GDP. With a population of 7.5 million and, I would guess, considerably less anticipated reliance on public institutions than this country.

https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publi ... 0412-e.pdf

And I don't watch CNN. I get most of my news in print.

[Peter Brown]

Uhhhh, Hong Kong prior to 1997 averaged 7.5% Government Spending as a % of GDP.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Hong-K ... ment_size/

Since then, that number has creeped up above 10%.

I assume you've never been there? I'd be curious if you consider Hong Kong to have been "2nd World" prior to 1997?

That stupid fake-libertarian canard? Pretending Hong Kong is some happy, sovereign, independent nation.

Who owns Hong Kong, Pete? Take your time.

Do you ever take the L after being roundly defeated? EVER!?!? My example is pre-1997.

You said it's "2nd world" to not spend 20%+ of GDP on Government. So, I point you to an example where a country spent considerably less (7.5%) and was quite economically successful at the same time.

You come back: that's not a real country! Also, who owns them today?!?!

Seriously man, it's not embarrassing to once in a blue moon accept defeat.

[Peter Brown]

10% tops.

Shocker. You think a 1st world country can operate on a 2nd world budget. The last time we paid that much----and that was ONLY at the Federal level, was the 1930's.

Did you take ANY economics classes at Florida, Pete? Because you understand that at that low of a rate, there wouldn't be a University of Florida, or public education of any kind, right?

Or paved Federal and State roads, for that matter.

Or firefighters or cops. Bucket brigades in Pete's neighborhood? What a maroon.

Do you guys have any horizon beyond CNN? I'm serious.

As explained above, Hong Kong probably had the world's single best economy prior to its handover to the Chinese Mainland, and still does to some extent since China has kept its hands off the economy there for the most part.

I'm fairly certain, though I'm happy to have you Google me down on this, that Hong Kong had a robust fire and police brigade in those years where only 7.5% of their GDP was spent on government. Also roads. And plumbing.

Let me know if I am wrong...always willing to learn!

I'm not sure what you refer to when you say "spent on government." But HK spending on public expenditures of the type we are talking about appears to be around 21% of GDP. With a population of 7.5 million and, I would guess, considerably less anticipated reliance on public institutions than this country.

https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publi ... 0412-e.pdf

And I don't watch CNN. I get most of my news in print.

My example is pre-1997, as I spelled out.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Hong-K ... ment_size/

[a fan]

Do you ever take the L after being roundly defeated? EVER!?!? My example is pre-1997.

You said it's "2nd world" to not spend 20%+ of GDP on Government. So, I point you to an example where a country spent considerably less (7.5%) and was quite economically successful at the same time.

You come back: that's not a real country! Also, who owns them today?!?!

Seriously man, it's not embarrassing to once in a blue moon accept defeat.

There isn't a single poster here who admits mistakes more than I. I make them all the time. Admitting that I'm wrong is the easiest thing in the world.


Pete, FFS sake man, who owned Hong Kong for over a hundred and fifty years BEFORE it was handed over to China.

You're pointing to a 154 year old British Colony and trying to sell me that it was an independent, sovereign nation.

Again: did you just sleep through your four years at U of Florida?

[Peter Brown]

Do you ever take the L after being roundly defeated? EVER!?!? My example is pre-1997.

You said it's "2nd world" to not spend 20%+ of GDP on Government. So, I point you to an example where a country spent considerably less (7.5%) and was quite economically successful at the same time.

You come back: that's not a real country! Also, who owns them today?!?!

Seriously man, it's not embarrassing to once in a blue moon accept defeat.

There isn't a single poster here who admits mistakes more than I. I make them all the time. Admitting that I'm wrong is the easiest thing in the world.


Pete, FFS sake man, who owned Hong Kong for over a hundred and fifty years BEFORE it was handed over to China.

You're pointing to a 154 year old British Colony and trying to sell me that it was an independent, sovereign nation.

Again: did you just sleep through your four years at U of Florida?

Also Switzerland spends 10% on average of its GDP on government. They owned by the UK too?

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/switze ... ment_size/

[6ftstick]

(by the way for anyone playing at home, the quickest way to ascertain the true intelligence of anyone from the Left you care to debate, simply ask the one fundamental question I did above which cuts through all of the extraneous noise: 'what's the maximum gross income tax rate (federal, state, and local) that any one taxpayer should be forced to pay?' Their answer is revealing of all else they hold dear to their hearts and mind; as you decipher their answer, what they're actually saying is they'd be content to take ___% from you)

Easy answer.

You raise those taxes until the budget is balanced, and every government service citizens get is covered and paid in full.

I have a question for you: what percentage of the government's budget should be covered by tax on businesses?

All of it.

Are you serious? You've gone full lefty-commie on us, have ya, six?

Your the one claiming we live in a socialist state.

Government controls all production.

[jhu72]

Do you ever take the L after being roundly defeated? EVER!?!? My example is pre-1997.

You said it's "2nd world" to not spend 20%+ of GDP on Government. So, I point you to an example where a country spent considerably less (7.5%) and was quite economically successful at the same time.

You come back: that's not a real country! Also, who owns them today?!?!

Seriously man, it's not embarrassing to once in a blue moon accept defeat.

There isn't a single poster here who admits mistakes more than I. I make them all the time. Admitting that I'm wrong is the easiest thing in the world.


Pete, FFS sake man, who owned Hong Kong for over a hundred and fifty years BEFORE it was handed over to China.

You're pointing to a 154 year old British Colony and trying to sell me that it was an independent, sovereign nation.

Again: did you just sleep through your four years at U of Florida?

Also Switzerland spends 10% on average of its GDP on government. They owned by the UK too?

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/switze ... ment_size/

… not true. The federal / confederation government spends a little more than 10%. The Cantons (states) spend 3 - 3.5 times what the federal government spends and then there is an additional expenditure by the municipalities. Total government spending is over 40% of GDP.