Over the last quarter-century, the vast majority (81.7 percent) of increases to wealth have gone to the wealthiest 5 percent, while those in the middle saw declines in their wealth.
You’re addicted to Internet arguing because you’re almost always arguing against either a very stupid person or a very smart person, and those are the two types of people most fun to argue with.
[…]
…[W]e can model Internet arguing as a simple two-person game. Evidence for this is limited, but let’s say a smart person can write circles around a dumb person, so in any smart-dumb pairing, the smart person takes all. However, the two more amusing scenarios are smart-smart and dumb-dumb. Let’s take our descriptions from above. A smart-smart pairing is masterful dance of the intellects, while a dumb-dumb pairing is a bottomless hole and a Sisyphean shit-slinger. The literati of the Internet walk away from every argument satisfied their minds have been used in an efficient and productive fashion regardless of outcome, while the dimwit knows their opponent was a real doodie-fart buttheaded toilet face.
The real ‘welfare queens’
An important point:
If someone who works is still eligible for food stamps and government assistance – it’s really the employer who is federally subsidized. These “job creators” are taking advantage of government programs so they won’t have to cut into their profit margins to pay living wages.
"A banking system is supposed to serve society, not the other way around."
— Economist Joseph Stiglitz, discussing a Great Depression reprisal. (via vanityfair)
(via theamericanprospect)
"The U.S. system of government has produced what is known as a dual-welfare system. Programs for the poor are termed relief, welfare, assistance, or charity. Programs for the rich, however, are called tax expenditures, subsidies, price supports, parity and the like.
The dual-welfare system is an integral part of the higher immorality, allowing the rich to become richer at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman have recently put the costs of the corporate welfare at $448 billion, “about 3.5 times as much as the $130 billion we spend yearly for the poor.” Such “wealthfare” includes subsidies, tax deductions, tax exemptions, tax-free investments, excessive government pensions, and $172 billion worth of fraud and waste in the Defense Department."
The dual-welfare system is an integral part of the higher immorality, allowing the rich to become richer at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman have recently put the costs of the corporate welfare at $448 billion, “about 3.5 times as much as the $130 billion we spend yearly for the poor.” Such “wealthfare” includes subsidies, tax deductions, tax exemptions, tax-free investments, excessive government pensions, and $172 billion worth of fraud and waste in the Defense Department."
— David Simon, Elite Deviance (via yesalltheposts)
(via nezua)
"
Oh, and let me give a special shout-out to “centrist” pundits who won’t admit that President Obama has already given them what they want. The dialogue seems to go like this. Pundit: “Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?” Mr. Obama: “I support a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.” Pundit: “Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?”
You see, admitting that one side is willing to make concessions, while the other isn’t, would tarnish one’s centrist credentials. And the result is that the G.O.P. pays no price for refusing to give an inch.
"— Paul Krugman on what counts as political ‘centrism’ these days
BUT THEN WE’LL HAVE TO INVEST IN SILLY THINGS LIKE PUBLIC EDUCATION EWWWW111!!!!!11!!
(Source: areyouafraidofdark, via karnythia)
…We’d be very squished.
