If you haven't spent much time in Europe, this is a pretty big deal. A lot of people in my area go to France to shop for groceries or grab lunch. Driving from one Schengen country to another is like driving from one state to another. There is just a sign notifying you that you've crossed over. The EU is also implementing legislation soon that would make it illegal for a non-Schengen resident (like a tourist) to travel from one country to another.

The infantry officer thing wasn't as an actor, either.

Helluva career.

From a black infantry officer/Ranger (in the early 1950s) to a B-52 Navigator, to Darth Vader.

Shooting notifications, stabbing notifications, kidnapping notifications...not to mention the pro-Palestinian rioters that took over part of the campus and were fighting with police.

Just got a minor one about an hour ago regarding robberies on campus. The kids don't have to do it. The school sends out a mass notification.

"The Palestinians are doing whatever we would be doing under the same circumstances."

We?

I wouldn't be raping and murdering civilians. You would?

"Without the Solidarity movement and a Polish poke, the collapse may not have happened or happened much, much later."

This.

Poland showed the eastern bloc that it was possible to shake off the Soviet yoke. And once they did it, every other Soviet client state followed suit. Including, eventually, the Soviet Union itself.

#125

Yeah...I don't really care. Provided that it is legal. I find it more immoral to tax inheritance than not, but It's not going to move the needle much. Statistically, the kids of the people you mentioned will not be rich past the third generation.

"Not in the equation. The equation says the rich got richer."

Y'mean the equation says high income earners get to keep more of their earnings than you would like them to.

"Greta Thunberg is always perpetually pissed, always angry about something"

I have a kid like that too. I just have the money to deport her to a place where someone else is going to have to listen to her incessant --------.

But to have money...

"That's your take, right?"

My take is that her parents happily fly her to all four corners of the globe, otherwise they would be stuck listening to her nonsense at home.

"Why don't you let the adults continue to have peaceful discussions without your interruptions."

I'm not peaceful?

Did I say something that you considered disrespectful or out of line?

"The point is NO ONE is served by the media asking insipid questions to Kamala as though they're trying to scoop Entertainment Tonight instead of actual questions related to voter concerns, not the meaningless tripe of Trump and the right wing media."

It's not really that insipid if it is being asked by her opponent. Not necessarily. Especially if she would have responded.

Which gets back to my point. KH has been able to stand on her own two feet without having some "insipid" columnists claim, "how dare you ask that of a strong black woman."

I get that you like this sort of insipidness-from the author-but you'd vote for a punchbowl turd if he/she had a (D) in front of their name. The rest of us may want to see how she responds to situations like this.

Trash journalism. The media has no issues talking with Oprah or Beyonce.

KH is running for president. The author seems to be suggesting that, since she is a "strong black woman," the press should treat her differently than if she were not.

"This young woman is braver than any of the keyboard warriors on this site that have nothing good to say about her."

Braver?

She is a rich kid who made up her mind about climate change at eight years old.

There is nothing brave about having your wealthy parents ferry you across the world to provide commentary on your favorite causes. It just happens to be that her favorite causes and your own align.

"I sense ClownHut is drawing from his stupid the "military is socialist" BS bag again."

He wouldn't know socialism if it bit him in the ass. Hell, he may be more of a capitalist than I am. More of a fascist, really.

"Relatively true, the problem is there would need to be ann incredibly large number of unskilled laborers that would need to "disappear" before it started to crumble."

Relatively true? How?

Most low-income workers simply enable higher income workers to trade money for time. They clean, do landscaping, work in restaurants. they basically do tasks we are all fully qualified to do. We just choose not to because the time we gain back buy paying someone to do the task for us is more valuable that the money we spend doing it.

"Somehow, dumbbomber thinks Minimum wage has been keeping up with inflation."

Think?

I know.

But don't trust me. Look it up yourself. I can do it if you really need me to.

Wages have gone up. What's gone up more is expectation. In the 1960s, one car, one TV, and a 1200 square foot house for a family of four was a reasonable expectation. Now it's multiple TVs, two cars, and a 2500 square foot house. Not to mention a degree in whatever...

"Do you actually believe the random, stupid nonsense you post?"

That's because believing would conflict with the narrative you subscribe to. Kinda like a fundamentalist Christian not believing science because science suggests the earth is more than 4,000 years old.

"So what are all those illegal immigrants climbing the fence for?"

Asylum. And the benefits that come with it.

"Buddy, even most skilled labor is paid less now than unskilled labor did in the 1970's!"

Nope. Not even close. In inflation Adjusted Dollars a manufacturing worker would earn just under $70k per year. Dentists start at ~$150k per year. Airline pilot make around $219k, but top out at greater than $500k.

And today, an unskilled laborer would make ~$35k per year. There just isn't the demand for it anymore.

Lets do this. I'm in contract purgatory for the next few days, so I'll be working from home. Maybe I can give you a crash course in economic theory. I think I even have a textbook or two somewhere.

You can even drink in class.

"Are you not even able to keep up with the things you are saying?"

I think you are attempting to have a discussion on economics without having ever set foot in an econ class.

On the other hand, my econ classes were my favorite. It's why I chose Economic Strategy as the focus for my MBA.

What did you study again, Syco? I don't think it was econ.

"2. When did the middle class grow? When the top was paying a fair share of their huge incomes."

No, the middle class grew in the post-war years because the US was the last remaining industrial power on earth, and it needed strong backs to drill oil, build ships and other heavy equipment. Equipment that would be sent to those countries devastated by war. So for about three decades, you had that paradigm. Then the globe began to get more competitive. Then technology and automation came along. And the middle class had much higher taxes back then too. But taxes on any of them didn't translate to the purchasing powers held by the workers at the time. In fact for a while, the government imposed income ceilings on workers. So employers started providing them with other benefits, like healthcare.

"When did it stop growing? When idiots changed that."

No. It was really a change towards skilled labor who could do more with less, and a globally integrated economy where a country could produce goods at far lower costs than the US could. Which is why a 19" TV cost $2,500 in 1979 (2024$), and now you would have a tough time finding a TV that costs that much. I bought a 70" for my daughter's dorm a few weeks ago. $498.

"1. This might be the dumbest argument ever made on the Drudge. As if the top 1% aren't already seeking to maximize their incomes."

As are all other income earners. What you need to realize is that, in order to you accomplish your progressive goals. You need them to keep doing exactly what they are doing, but give the money away. That's not likely to happen, and there isn't any real policy that could compel them to.

"How does skyrocketing top 1% incomes and stagnating middle class incomes not making sense to you?"

It makes perfect sense. You don't seem to grasp what dudes like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have done in transforming global marketplaces into systems that can provide low costs on almost anything you want to purchase. You can't tell me you see this as a surprise. It's like being surprised at all the models at the met gala, and lack of models at your own party. Or are the met gala partygoers holding you back by not sharing themselves with you?

"It's data based. If you look at the wealth gap over time, it's obvious who has been reaping all the economic benefits and therefore who needs to contribute more."

The ones who are reaping the benefits are the ones who enabling the creation of those benefits in the first place. Why should someone who doesn't work for Elon Musk benefit financially from something musk has created, even if they had no part in it's creation?