And a year or two later, the same people who haven't shit now wouldn't have shit then, and the people who are successful now would become successful.

That said, if your econ teacher didn't teach you that economics is NOT a zero sum thing, go tell them you want your money back, you got robbed.

Non sequitor argument. And entirely false.

What you guys keep missing is that, unless its some kind of fascist communist system like the USSR where the "rich" are the party, government, or "council" like mrigns calls it, who eat caviar, drink vodka, and smoke cuban cigars by the fireplace while the "workers" are outside in the cold waiting in line for hours to get "to each according to their need," unless you're talking about communism where the "rich" do live off the poor, the wealthy among us in capitalist systems do better the more everyone else has. This is because they earn money when the sell things or make investments in other people who sell things. To sell things, someone has to buy it.

Get that?

Go back and read it again so it sinks in.

Someone has to buy it for someone else to get rich selling it. Let that bounce around your melon a few minutes at least. Poor people can't buy things. (Ok, they can in the U.S.A. because the government takes money from the rich, wastes some of it, then gives what's left to the poor in the form of welfare, anyway....)

The more people there are who can buy things, the more productive everyone else can be. This silly shit you two have been babbling about is entirely 180 degrees from reality. It's laughable.

Another concept you missed....

Rush Limbaugh just for example. He's one of the wealthiest people out there. If the rubbish you people have been spouting has a grain of truth to any of it, you'll be able to tell me how poor people helped him go from a small town DJ to the most successful broadcaster in America. Oprah is another great example.

The fact is, the way he earns his money is because people buy things that are advertised on his radio show. This is a perfect example of someone generating wealth from nothing.

The more I think about it, the harder it is to believe anyone buys the nonsense you two seem to believe - not even a naive kid like veedo, much less a full grown man who's actually existed in the real world.

Boggling.

Rush is just a cult leader. Fortunately for him, half the population is below average intelligence.

Predictable attempt at changing the subject.

What's a matter? You don't like me talking bad about your cult leader? He doesn't create money ex nihilo. He gets it from people like you. His 400 million contract is a "stupid tax" on stupid people that don't like taxes.

LOL, you are the hijacker. This thread is about Obama and Rush Limbaugh (Sherri's thread, not yours). Sorry if I hijacked your hijacking. I'm just trying to keep on topic.

Fair enough. What would you like to discuss about Rush Limbaugh?

Do you have anything original or thought provoking?


Oh, and @ kevmartin: He's not really a tabloid type guy. Not if tabloid means the same thing to you as it does to me. It's a conservatively biased political talk show. He spends three hours a day criticizing liberals. That guy with the long hair who always interviews hookers, strippers, and porn stars is more along the lines of a tabloid radio show in my mind. Howard Stern.

IMO kevmartin's take is spot on.

Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a real journalist. A closer equivalent on the left would be Jon Stewart. There's no problem with that, except that Limbaugh (along with his hero Reagan) have probably cost the country more money than they've saved. I doubt the deficit would have been as bad under Gore.

Kinda makes you wonder what team they are really playing on ...

That is correct. Limbaugh has said that himself in nearly those exact words.

Air America has made an attempt at the format but from a liberal perspective. I can't remember any of their hosts off the top of my head, but Stewart's is a comedy television show - not really equivalent to what conservative radio does.

Wow, you are all over the place. All Limbaugh does is talk into a microphone. Look what he did with the Democrat primaries.


Now, Reagan... isn't that another thread?

In 1994 (moreso) and 2000 he affected the vote. Reagan even called him the leading voice of conservatism in America, back then.

In 2008, he's irrelevant. People see him more for the drug-addicted simple-minded hypocrite that he is.

For clarity, by tabloid, I mean spouting fiction and calling it news/fact, on the basis that people want to hear it. Manipulating the minds and the wallets of individuals who are susceptible to it, who just happen to tend to me those with more so-called conservative viewpoints.

Ummmm ... in a word no. I don't believe for a moment that there is unlimited potential wealth. You say all you need to do to make wealth happen is find a way to get people to buy stuff. That grasp of so-called reality is so feeble its pathetic - right up there with the idea of 'let's just print more money so everybody can be rich'.

Please do explain - where does all this spendable income come from that you claim is instantly generated because you offer people something they want to buy?

People can't spend what they don't have, and the wealth of a nation is directly related to its resources. Yes, that can also be grown and profited with to increase its size over time. But if you convince Joe Blow to spend his $100 on your product, as a step towards making yourself wealthy, that is $100 less he is spending on something else. You can complicate things a bit with factors like savings and credit, but that's the bottom line. Oprah's success has to have come at the expense of others, in some way, to some degree (I don't begrudge her that - it's a facet of the system we live under, and an unavoidable one, not to mention she does a lot of good with her profits too).

As I said, I freely admit I'm no economist, but I can see common sense.

Is he still drug addicted?

Do you believe he had no significant impact on the Democrat primaries?

When did Reagan say that about Limbaugh?

Aside from those two points, I don't think I have any dispute with the rest.

Rasczak you are claiming that in today's world everyone could be rich? I do not see how it is possible, and if it were, I would assume it would be implemented. Fact is to have rich people you have to have poor people. This has nothing to do with communism or anything else we're talking about the modern world (today not in the future) and under a capitalist economy. The problem is that there are not enough resources to spread around. So if someone has more, someone else necessarily has to have less.That wouldn't be entirely true, and either way it has no bearing on the cause of poverty, which is social. Now if everyone is reborn a blank-slate, put into exactly the same environment, and then given $6,000 you'd see something entirely different happening (no real statistical difference beyond things like disabilities).

Would you be willing to admit to at least a little bias in that statement?

Anyway, the dictionary definition of tabloid:

n. A newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material.

adj.
In summary form; condensed.
Lurid or sensational.

I don't think lurid or sensational are the best adjectives to describe conservative radio or Limbaugh's show specifically.

Politically biased? Definately. Lurid? Sensational? I don't see how. Please explain.

What do you mean by "manipulating the minds and wallets?" I am curious about that. Could you give an example of how Limbaugh does this? Do you mean all the money he has raised for charity? Is that manipulating people's wallets?

Ok. So how close are we to reaching the max at this point in global human history. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that human race was at 1% of potential wealth in the stone age. What percentage are we at now?


I know that people like Oprah Winfrey and Rush Limbaugh are selling something for hundreds of millions that didn't exist a couple decades ago.



That is Van Gogh's chair. How much did that sell for the last time it changed hands? My guess is more than the price of the chair that was painted and the actuall paints, canvas, frame, and brushes used to paint it.

I'll give you a rough summary. Early in human history one cave man may have traded some berries he'd picked that day for some meat from the animal the cave man next door killed while the first was picking berries.

After some time, we advanced and someone figured out how to make a basket out of twigs and a spear out of a branch and a sharpened stone. The twigs, stone, and branches were there all along. Humans just figured out how to use them. Now each of the cave men, armed with these tools, were able to collect their own berries and kill their own animal. All that was added to the equation was human ingenuity and creativity. That's where wealth ultimately comes from - the human will. Paper money is only a crude and unreliable measure of it.

I'm with you so far, so long as we agree human ingenuity and creativity and the like are among those resources. Now do you see why your notion is so ridiculous. Let me know when that clicks for you.

So? Let's say that thing he spends $100 on is a MP3 player. Is he less wealthy now that he has a MP3 player instead of a $100 in his bank account? I submit that he's no more or less wealthy at the time. If anything, he is more wealthy.

What happens when two people make a trade is they both get wealthier. This is because they both get something more valuable to them than what they traded for it.

Oprah sits on a couch in front of a camera and talks to people. This is what she is paid millions for doing. Yes, someone spends millions for the priveledge of pinning a little microphone to her blouse and pointing a camera at her while she talks. That's the expense. But it isn't poor people who are paying her - these are very wealthy people - very successful people who know what they are doing. So much so, that other people invest in them.

Well, you haven't demonstrated any in this particular discussion. You said yourself that poor people can't spend money, but continue to insist that people like Oprah are earning their millions off of those poor people.

Instead of just admitting you aren't an economist, why don't you admit you were wrong on this particular position - or that you at least think it deserves more thought on your part. Have you ever been wrong about anything before? Why don't you admit to at least the possibility that this is another one of those times?

No.

What I'm saying is that no individual has to be poor.

Instead of trying to think of something that you believe will sound clever, spend some time thinking about my answer. Give it about five minutes of careful thought.

This is what I was discussing:Am I missing something here?

I realize there are entire other conversations going on but I brought this up back on page two when you told kevmartin, in response to the above quote, "That's a perfectly assinine idea." So you're telling me that, despite actually agreeing with what kevmartin said (see post 57 where you say "No") you still disagreed with him in post 36?

I assume I'm just lost, and I do not blame you for it. I'm a perfectly reasonable person; you don't have to be overly defensive or condescending.

Well, I didn't expect you'd follow my instructions.

Anyway, no, I have not agreed with kevmartin. Work on your critical thinking skills and reading comprehension.