No, it doesnt skyrocket.
Look at the onyl people to be infected in this country: two of the nurses who were in close contact with an infected man after he was sick. None of the people who were on the plane with him.

the chances to be infected are so low because the transmissibilty of Ebola is on the very low end of diseases. First, the person has to be showing symptons. People not showing symptoms are not contagious. Preventing its spread really is as simple as good hygeine, not coughing on people or getting coughed on, isolating patients, santizing equipment and room. The transmissibility of ebola is NOTHING like that of hte cold, the flu, or measles.

Our culture, our sanitary habits, our medical system and our faith in it, are far different from that in Africa. Differences that have contributed to its spread over there. We have top notch medical in this country that we dont fear (death squads masquarading as "medical teams" arent a thing over here), we nearly all of us practice obsessive hygiene and sanitation, we dont keep living in the same 1 room home with a patient who is infected after they become infected, and we dont leave dead infected bodies rotting in the open cause we're afraid to bury it.

If a whopping 2 people getting infected scares you, think on this: last year there were over 60,000 motor vehicle deaths, 40,000 gun deaths, and 36,000 deaths to the flu.
I say it again: Ebola is a non threat, regardless of your ignorance or that of whatever news/panic-machine youve been watching.

And 99 ("the 99%") people buying a car at 20k spend 1,980,000 in the economy.
The rich do NOT pump more into the economy than the middle and lower classes.

The middle and lower classes are what drive the economy. They (we) spend the most in the economy, both relative to income and in total dollars. The majority of economic activity in this country is driven by the consumption and spending of the middle and lower classes. The economy is not driven by rich folks buyibng 50million dollar homes.

To be clear, yes they absolutely do consume more, they consume far more, both relative to income and in total dollars.
you are saying that hte rich spend more in the ecnomy than the middle and lower class and that is patently false.
the rich DO NOT make the economy work, they do not consume more, and they dont spend more as a group in the economy.

your chances of being infected with the flu are >95%
your chances of being infected with the ebola are almost nonexistant.

a plane crash is nearly always fatal for most of hte folks on baord.
but your chances of actually crashing are slim to none.
perspective matters.

The flu is far more dangerous on the whole than ebola. Worldwide wide it kills in the undreds of thousands every year. Ebola isnt even in the quintple digits yet. the biggest difficulties in Africa that contribute to its spread are economic and cultural, rather than the disease itself. Because of the combination of its difficulty in transmission and high mortality rate, Ebola if left to its own devices is far more likely to burn itself out than become a truly threatening epidemic. Ebola in a country like the US is a non threat.

Ebola is not a smart disease. It's too hard to spread and kills too easily. Basic sanitation and seperation is generally all it takes to keep it contained and prevent it from spiraling out of control. the fact it's so deadly actually helps prevent its spread, as it can burn itself out.

In contrast the flu spreads extremely easily and is much hard to stop. And. That actually makes it more dangerous, allowing to infect and kill more people before its done. Every year it kills about 36000 people in the US alone. And that's a normal, minor flu year.

Truly bad flu epidemics, which we thankfully havent seeni n some time, can kill in the millions. The 1918 flu killed between 50 and 100 MILLION people, 675,000 of them in the US. It was the single deadliest event or chain events of the entire 20th Century.

So yes, you're right.
We should stop comparing it to the flu.
The flu is far more dangerous.

it wont work, so lets do it anyway!

Still wont solve the problem.

A tax on consumption hits those hardest who consume the most: the middle and lower classes.
And it does nothing to stop or slow the growth of wealth accumulation.
Consumption taxes only feed wealth accumulation.

Whereas on a tax on capital, on wealth, does precisely that: it targets wealth inequality directly, reducing the top heaviness of the system.
You may not be able to run a country off it (which is why income or consumption taxes across the majority of society will still be important), but thats not its purpose.
It's purpose is to keep the system stable so it doesnt run off the tracks. It's one of those necessary restraints on capitalism to it from its own self destructive tendencies.

You know how I know you're an idiot?

Cause you can't even remember what Bush said, and rather than going to look, you're just believing Fox's new spin on old news.

No, he wasnt.
Bush sold the war on the ideas that Iraq was actively pursuing, creating and obtaining WMDs, and that he was actively supporting Al Queda and would give them those WMDs.

All of these are weapons from the 1980s, many of which we helped them obtain. We knew Iraq had old stockpiles of these, but they were unmaintained, and therefore unreliable, hazardous to use, and not a viable threat.

To be clear: Bush was not right. Iraq was not actively and currently developing WMDs, nor were they supporting or supplying Al Queda with them. Bush lied.

BINGO!
Give the man a cigar.

These are weapons from the 80s. Weapons we helped Iraq to obtain when they were one of the people we were supporting in opposition to Iran.
They do not in any way vindicate Bush, and that is the reason that Bush covered it up.

Yes...because that's all it takes to dismiss someone, not actually reading what was said, not checking out the source scientific paper, and just ignoring the guy's credentials. ya...cause thats the proper to evaluate statements: kneejerkage.

So yes, apparently that is all that passes for intellectual thought on your part. Namely, very little.

Since you're obviously too stupid or too lazy to check things out for yourself, here:

Basically a smaller scale Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

And here: here's the scientific paper in question: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Not that it matters, since you probably dismiss any scientist out of hand based on who they voted for last election.

So mods who apaprently never took a basic civics course modded it 0 flamebait.
I didnt think i'd have to break so Barney style, but here we go:

They fail to understand that perfect freedom is anarchy, and precludes living in groups as anything approaching free and equal members. The only way a group can experience perfect freedom is if only only person in the group, lets call him the Leader, enjoyrs perfect freedom, and everyone else enjoys less than that. Because perfect freedom is the freedom to do ANYTHING. including murder and theft or other impositions on others that involve them giving up their freedom. Example: if person A enjoys perfect freedom, and uses it to carry out murder on Person B (assuming he can without repercussions because he HAS perfect freedom), Person B obviously is not enjoying perfect freedom, having just lost his right to life to A's right to murder.

Thus in a free society we trade, via laws enacted and enforced by government, certain freedoms to enhance the freedoms of others. This way we achieve greater equality of freedom across society, with everyone enjoying a higher level of freedom. A few people, lets just The Powerful Minority, are forced to give up some level of their freedom, specifically what they would lord over everyone else and use to reduce everyone else's level of freedom, so that everyone else can enjoy a higher level of freedom.

Ergo: the very act of living in a civilized society involves the trading of absolute freedom, an ideal that cannot exist for everyone at the same time ina group, for the security and stability of having a higher and equal levle of freedom than they would otherwise have under the thumb of a Powerful few who did enjoy absolute freedom.