well, nice to know we can still throw around insults unjustifiably and misrepresent my views on things....

Now brother, you know I wasn't endorsing any 100% taxation policy, and yet you purposely tried to represent my comment in which I specifically said I wasn't endorsing said policy as supporting it.

I get a little touchy.

100% is ridiculous. As we've seen during the prosperous 1950s, 90% is a perfectly good top tax rate, and with the steadily falling deficit, we'll be OK as long as we don't elect Hillary Clinton or any of the Republicans. Because make no mistake, either of those alternatives will lead us back to war and recession before the cement is dry at the Obama library.

I didn't mean to make light of your insightful and informative comment about the telescope project and the effects of inequality on Hawaiians.

However, I bet Monsanto can give you lots of studies about why GMOs would be a miraculous boon for Hawaii and Dole can cite studies showing that a lower minimum wage in Hawaii would be terrific for poor Hawaiians.

That said, they did an economic study here on what would happen

So, the Army did a study saying that if the Army had to leave Hawaii it would be just awful for Hawaii.

I get it (^wink-)

I'm about to embark on a study which will show that if Scarlett Johansson doesn't sleep with me, it'll be a horrible outcome for Scarlett Johansson, possibly costing her $1.3 billion.

I thought this sounded like fun so I uploaded my photo to the Microsoft age-guessing app.

All it said was, "Shall we notify next of kin?"

I think it must be broken.

Sorry, but that is a highly anti-scientific approach.

Wait a minute. How is THIS an "anti-scientific approach"?

This is the entirety of my statement:

I would highly recommend people google "Trevor Loudon" and make their own decisions about him.

All I'm recommending is that people google "Trevor Loudon" and read his articles and watch his YouTube videos and decide about his evidence for themselves. What's wrong with that approach in your eyes? It's exactly what you recommended in your comment about him.

If you google "Trevor Loudon" you will find the first couple pages of results are entirely articles that praise Mr Loudon from important sources such as The Blaze, gulagbound.com and investigatingobama.blogspot.com. The very first search result is Trevor Loudon's own blog. Why would you be afraid of people finding that out?

You're a fucking nutbag, you are. You don't even want people to read Trevor Loudon's actual writings when you are here promoting him?

throwing 30 billion dollars at the auto industry... for them to go bankrupt ANYWAY

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you referring to the GM bailout?

THIS auto bailout?

http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.c...

and how do you plan to

Dumbshit, what part of, "I'm not endorsing that policy, only pointing out that blockquote you decided to put in bold face, was in fact, boldly untrue." do you not understand?

I'm not in favor of taxing millionaires at 100% any more than you're in favor of allowing felons to own guns or legalizing rape.

Oh wait...

Your response might've been meaningful, if the 100% tax on "the rich" would have covered your figure. And not even then

My response was only to point out that your assertion that taxing millionaires at 100% would only cover 1/3 of the deficit was untrue. That's all. Don't get yourself excited to refute some points I wasn't making.

In fact, my number for the current deficit of $750 billion was too high. It's closer to $550 billion, so taxing millionaires at 100% would in fact cover it and leave a hundred billion or so left over to pay for health care for everyone.

I'm not endorsing that policy, only pointing out that blockquote you decided to put in bold face, was in fact, boldly untrue.

Are we cool now?

I would. -- roman_mir

Well, there you go.

I would highly recommend people google "Trevor Loudon" and make their own decisions about him.

That's all I'll say on the matter.

What about actual markets in predominantly rural and agricultural economies?

There is still governance, even if it's purely a barter economy.

If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit.

This year's deficit is about $750 billion. I think you're emboldened quote is a little out of date.

we have been throwing trillions of dollars at it since FDR and we are no better off now then we were then. in fact some would say we are worse off

Who would say we're worse off today than in the 1930s?

a) they prefer the significantly less free market system of Scandinavia to our current economic system

You might want to check on that again. There are Scandinavian countries with more economic liberty than the US and higher levels of economic mobility despite having secure public welfare systems that actually work, unlike in the US.

I always enjoy posts like this. Please tell me one thing. If the Democrat party advocates national health care, pro-choice, pro-union, racial equality and justice, gay marriage, college tuition support, market regulation, and all their other policies (not that they all get implemented), what do they have to add to that list to get on the left side of the political divide?

Easy. Just be as liberal as Teddy Roosevelt when it comes to corporate power.