Larry David loves the Bush tax cuts

[Fesenk's Hoe]

Also, the rich benefit far more from taxes than do the poor

Makes sense if they're the ones paying for it. But could they get these benefits on their own, cheaper than what they pay in taxes?

 

[Gameface]

Anecdotal ******** FTL.

Also, the rich benefit far more from taxes than do the poor (does anyone really think the system is rigged in favor of the poor? Really?). It's extremely ignorant to consider costs while ignoring entirely benefits.

Anyway, I try not to get involved in these stupid General Discussion topics. I'm done with this one.

Are you kidding? A "poor" person who does not produce enough to sustain their own life can live because of the benefits they receive. A rich person who supports their own existence through the value they add to society. The rich one benefits more? Really?

Larry David has entertained how many people? There are 300 some odd million people in the U.S., I'm sure we're not all fans, but I'd guess that at least 10% of the U.S. population has gained at least 1 entertained hour of life in large part from the creative mind of Larry David. How much is an hour of entertainment worth to you? Now just because it takes Larry David just as much (or as little) effort to entertain one person as it does to entertain tens of millions doesn't mean that each and every person that he entertains doesn't gain just as much value from his creative mind. We're mad because the world is bigger and the people who produce something we all want get richer by a bigger scale? The value they provide (a Larry David or a Bill Gates) does not diminish for me because hundreds of millions of other people also benefited from their ability to produce and create. I'm willing to pay just as much if I'm the only one who benefits or not, but have no doubt that the consumers of Larry David's comedy and Bill Gate's Software all gain value by having consumed. This is not a victimization of the consumer. There are no victims at all. We all pay for services rendered voluntarily. In the case of commercial television we "pay" simply by paying attention. The money they receive they receive honestly. There is no fraud, coercion, deceit or force involved. Well, at least not until it's time to face the tax man, who takes by force and isn't asking permission. Why is it that Larry owes us 39% instead of what, 33% of what he gets in fair exchange? How is it that 33% is an unjust travesty and 39% is somehow what we own of Larry David's efforts?

How is it that Larry David or anyone else makes money? Is it just given to him for nothing? Or does he have to sacrifice a portion of his short life to devote his mind and body to creating what we all want of him? What we all are willing to pay for from him? So when he trades a portion of his life to produce what we demand does the product belong to him any less than any other part of his life or his body? He certainly has the option to produce nothing. Especially at this point when he doesn't "need" the money. Does he really continue to create because of greed? Does Alcoa produce aluminum because they're so damn greedy? We all use aluminum and benefit from it's production, but I'm sure it's existence is simply a method of victimizing me and making profits for fat cat board members at Alcoa. Because that's the relationship I hear about all the time, evil producers and victimized consumers. Only, the producers somehow get us to voluntarily consume their products, and even trick us into enjoying them, taking comfort in them, or even sustaining ourselves with them. Seems honest enough to me, but smarter, more educated people than myself keep telling me how I'm a victim of all this. How I'm falling for the lies corporate America is selling me.

I don't know about you but I like my house, my TV, my microwave. I eat high quality food at prices I'm more than willing to pay. I entertain myself with gizmos and gadgets that seem almost cheap for the things they allow me to do. i do all this why? Because I ****ing want to. Because I can. I'm no one's victim. I pay for what I want and get paid for what I'm willing to do. If that ain't fair you're really going to have to break it down for me in a way I can understand.

 

[DeliveryBoy]

I wish everyone that talked about "earners" and "producers" would realize what absolute pretentious douchebags they sound like. There are other writers that you can have do the thinking for you besides Ayn Rand, you ****ing nitwits.

I'm not even talking about a viewpoint, they're all just so annoying and smug.

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

Are you kidding? A "poor" person who does not produce enough to sustain their own life can live because of the benefits they receive. A rich person who supports their own existence through the value they add to society. The rich one benefits more? Really?

Larry David has entertained how many people? There are 300 some odd million people in the U.S., I'm sure we're not all fans, but I'd guess that at least 10% of the U.S. population has gained at least 1 entertained hour of life in large part from the creative mind of Larry David. How much is an hour of entertainment worth to you? Now just because it takes Larry David just as much (or as little) effort to entertain one person as it does to entertain tens of millions doesn't mean that each and every person that he entertains doesn't gain just as much value from his creative mind. We're mad because the world is bigger and the people who produce something we all want get richer by a bigger scale? The value they provide (a Larry David or a Bill Gates) does not diminish for me because hundreds of millions of other people also benefited from their ability to produce and create. I'm willing to pay just as much if I'm the only one who benefits or not, but have no doubt that the consumers of Larry David's comedy and Bill Gate's Software all gain value by having consumed. This is not a victimization of the consumer. There are no victims at all. We all pay for services rendered voluntarily. In the case of commercial television we "pay" simply by paying attention. The money they receive they receive honestly. There is no fraud, coercion, deceit or force involved. Well, at least not until it's time to face the tax man, who takes by force and isn't asking permission. Why is it that Larry owes us 39% instead of what, 33% of what he gets in fair exchange? How is it that 33% is an unjust travesty and 39% is somehow what we own of Larry David's efforts?

How is it that Larry David or anyone else makes money? Is it just given to him for nothing? Or does he have to sacrifice a portion of his short life to devote his mind and body to creating what we all want of him? What we all are willing to pay for from him? So when he trades a portion of his life to produce what we demand does the product belong to him any less than any other part of his life or his body? He certainly has the option to produce nothing. Especially at this point when he doesn't "need" the money. Does he really continue to create because of greed? Does Alcoa produce aluminum because they're so damn greedy? We all use aluminum and benefit from it's production, but I'm sure it's existence is simply a method of victimizing me and making profits for fat cat board members at Alcoa. Because that's the relationship I hear about all the time, evil producers and victimized consumers. Only, the producers somehow get us to voluntarily consume their products, and even trick us into enjoying them, taking comfort in them, or even sustaining ourselves with them. Seems honest enough to me, but smarter, more educated people than myself keep telling me how I'm a victim of all this. How I'm falling for the lies corporate America is selling me.

I don't know about you but I like my house, my TV, my microwave. I eat high quality food at prices I'm more than willing to pay. I entertain myself with gizmos and gadgets that seem almost cheap for the things they allow me to do. i do all this why? Because I ****ing want to. Because I can. I'm no one's victim. I pay for what I want and get paid for what I'm willing to do. If that ain't fair you're really going to have to break it down for me in a way I can understand.

What he said.

 

[Gameface]

I wish everyone that talked about "earners" and "producers" would realize what absolute pretentious douchebags they sound like. There are other writers that you can have do the thinking for you besides Ayn Rand, you ****ing nitwits.

I'm not even talking about a viewpoint, they're all just so annoying and smug.

But that's the root of this issue. I'd be happy to use whatever terms sound better to you as long as it still accurately describes what I'm talking about.

No one has done my thinking for me. I didn't read Ayn Rand and say "ah-ha! now I get it." I read Ayn Rand and thought "finally, someone who agrees with me." I don't consider myself an Objectivist or any other kind of follower of Ayn Rand. In no way am I bound to her ideology. I'm not afraid of being wrong and changing my opinion. If you, DeliveryBoy, can explain to me just how much of Larry David's existence belongs to society and just how that ownership is justified we'd have something to talk about and I'd be intrigued by this discussion.

You can call me smug all you like and, without addressing a single word I say, you can insult what I've said. I wish everybody (and by everybody in this case I really just men you, DeliveryBoy) who only brings insults and personal attacks to an argument realized what a douchbag they not only sound like, but truly are.

 

[franklin]

The issue left-leaners seem to have the most trouble with is their policies can cause more poverty than they cure. If you're so worried about the rise of feudalism (Craig) then why don't you push for policies that will counteract it rather than these stupid *** tax policies that will do nothing to cure it? What do you seriously think will happen when you tax the rich, make more poor dependent on subsidized living, and then watch them spend those subsidies right back into the pockets of the rich? You're not going to alleviate anything. The most likely outcome, and the one we're all too familiar with, is more debt in the system. The same applies to these moronic federally subsidized home loans that conservatives have been bitching about for decades. All you are doing is 1) increasing consumerism, which causes demand price pull, which makes housing less affordable, and 2) encouraging the poor to take out loans from the rich and spend the loan money to the rich. What the **** do you really think you are doing?

If you were really so damned worried about feudalism and taking care of the poor then you wouldn't push this never ending soak the rich mantra. We'd be more focused on things like highly progressive death taxes (forget soaking the $20mm estates--you're only helping the billionaires when you hit them hard) and true social safety nets rather than this all encompassing, destined to fail social security bull ****.

While I'm ranting, if you think producing more of what society wants and needs comes with a greater obligation to society then you truly are a moron stuck in the stone age.

 

[One Brow]

Does it matter what percentage earns what amount if people earn what they argree to work for, which I assume they would insist is enough to live off of?

People would rather lie with malnutrition than die of starvation, sure. Does that mean we should not fight malnutrition?

50 years ago in China everyone made pretty much the same amount and there were massive food shortages and a lack of basic necessities. Today there is a growing income disparity, and the people in China are better off than ever.

Is a slight increase in the progressiveness of the tax structure the same as paying everyone the same amount? Were there no food shortages before the Communist Chinese party equalized wages, when China had severe ecomonic disparity? Are the countries with greater economic disparity than us typically those whose economies you think are healthy?

Here's a list.

We're number 42. Any countries (as opposed to cities) in the top 20, or 30, you think we should be more like?

 

[bordelais7]

Or would you guys rather the money go towards the study of monkeys on cocaine and how they interact with each other?

As long as we get the results of the study in video, I'd be glad to throw down a few bucks. Monkeys are funny.

 

[One Brow]

The issue left-leaners seem to have the most trouble with is their policies can cause more poverty than they cure.

My only problem is that your statement is empty propaganda. Whatever you think of the European/Candian social systems, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Scandanavian countries, etc. all have less poverty than we do, not more. The UK is slightly higher than us, and Denmark is about even. So, all these left-leaning policies have not created poverty there.

 

[bordelais7]

People would rather lie with malnutrition than die of starvation, sure. Does that mean we should not fight malnutrition?



Is a slight increase in the progressiveness of the tax structure the same as paying everyone the same amount? Were there no food shortages before the Communist Chinese party equalized wages, when China had severe ecomonic disparity? Are the countries with greater economic disparity than us typically those whose economies you think are healthy?

Here's a list.

We're number 42. Any countries (as opposed to cities) in the top 20, or 30, you think we should be more like?

Everyone who'd rather live in Ethiopia, raise your hand!

 

[bordelais7]

My only problem is that your statement is empty propaganda. Whatever you think of the European/Candian social systems, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Scandanavian countries, etc. all have less poverty than we do, not more. The UK is slightly higher than us, and Denmark is about even. So, all these left-leaning policies have not created poverty there.

Very curious as to how you are calculating and defining poverty levels. Each country has a (sometimes drastically) different methodology. Is there a source out there that you've found that does a good job of normalizing all the data?

For example, France generally uses 50% of the median income as their poverty threshold. Which seems to me to be a better indicator of income parity than of poverty (France's median income is about 65% of that of the United States).

 

[franklin]

Very curious as to how you are calculating and defining poverty levels. Each country has a (sometimes drastically) different methodology. Is there a source out there that you've found that does a good job of normalizing all the data?

For example, France generally uses 50% of the median income as their poverty threshold. Which seems to me to be a better indicator of income parity than of poverty (France's median income is about 65% of that of the United States).

It's typical Big Fundamentalist, so really nothing to be curious about. Whatever statistic supports Big Fundy's ideology gets a bump. You'll notice he inadvertently cherry picked countries that don't have massive loan subsidies, or even 30 year fixed loans (Canada, might as well throw in Australia too), yet my post specifically pointed out this program. Big Fundy puts up self-contradicting logic yet again. The other countries cherry picked are either too small and specialized to be meaningful comparisons (Swiss banking where millionaire money flocks to, Scandinavian oil giant Norway is running out of that windfall), are in debt up to their eyeballs (UK), have mercantilist windfalls that are creating huge imbalances and high poverty in neighboring countries (Germany) have chronically high unemployment, especially amongst minorities (France), and all of them rely on the USA for protection. Not to mention, they nearly all still produce less GDP per capita, and have less overall.

Empty propaganda indeed.

 

[One Brow]

Very curious as to how you are calculating and defining poverty levels. Each country has a (sometimes drastically) different methodology. Is there a source out there that you've found that does a good job of normalizing all the data?

For example, France generally uses 50% of the median income as their poverty threshold. Which seems to me to be a better indicator of income parity than of poverty (France's median income is about 65% of that of the United States).

I was just using the CIA Factbook, which does rely on self-reporting. Since the US rate is not relative there (the relative rate would be higher), income disparity is not a factor. There are also a lot of ideas that the US reported rate is too high or too low, of course.

At any rate, even if you move every European country (and Canada) up a percentage point and us down one, we are still behind most, ahead of only Denmark and England. Either way, the notion that better social safety structure creates poverty does not apply.

 

[One Brow]

You'll notice he inadvertently cherry picked countries that don't have massive loan subsidies, or even 30 year fixed loans (Canada, might as well throw in Australia too), yet my post specifically pointed out this program.

I picked countries that have an economic base similar to ours and stronger social support. If I had been cherry-picking, I would not have included Denmark or the UK, but certainly would have included Ireland and Greenland.

Can you name the maximum term for a mortgage in Canada? France? Germany? Do you have any reason to claim 30-year mortgages don't exist there?

The other countries cherry picked are either too small and specialized to be meaningful comparisons (Swiss banking where millionaire money flocks to, Scandinavian oil giant Norway is running out of that windfall), are in debt up to their eyeballs (UK), have mercantilist windfalls that are creating huge imbalances and high poverty in neighboring countries (Germany) have chronically high unemployment, especially amongst minorities (France), and all of them rely on the USA for protection. Not to mention, they nearly all still produce less GDP per capita, and have less overall.

I don't think you understand what "cherry-picked" means.

Looking at your objections: Swiss banking laws are good for bankers, but how big a percentage fothe Swixx population are they? Do you really think that, even per capita, Norway is as resource-rich as the US? The UK is in debt, but not much worse than the US. What do you hold German monetary policies responsible for their poverty rate, in particular? More unemployment, less poverty sounds like a decent trade-off to me. Nor do I see how us spending money on our military increases our poverty level.

See, all that is cherry-picking. You simply tried to find one or two nuggets of data to attempt to show why these countries did not match your stated claim (missing a couple in the process) while making no link at all between your nugget and the poverty rate, and why they would have more poverty "except for A, B, and C".

Empty propaganda indeed.

So, go fill it. If you can.

Or, you can just proclaim what a "fundy" someone else is, and how they are so impossible to convince that you can't be bothered with coming up with real data. That will convince everyone, right?

 

[bordelais7]

I was just using the CIA Factbook, which does rely on self-reporting. Since the US rate is not relative there (the relative rate would be higher), income disparity is not a factor. There are also a lot of ideas that the US reported rate is too high or too low, of course.

I guess I'm not following. Why would income disparity not be a factor when we're dealing in percentages based on a median?

Country A could have a median income of $5/year, with 0% of the population earning less than $2.50, and therefore a poverty rate of 0%.
Country B has a median income of $100,000/year with 49% of the population earning less than $50,000 and a poverty rate of 49%.

Seems silly, doesn't it? Or am I missing something in the equation?

At any rate, even if you move every European country (and Canada) up a percentage point and us down one, we are still behind most, ahead of only Denmark and England.

Why would you arbitrarily adjust by 1% when it's clear that we're dealing in apples and oranges? Seems strange.

Either way, the notion that better social safety structure creates poverty does not apply.

I'm not comfortable drawing such a conclusion based on at-a-glance comparisons of countries as demographically and historically different as the USA and those in Europe. Seems like lazy math/science. Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare how poverty rates have changed over time in different countries? I'm not implying that you'll get different results -- in fact much of the data would probably support your argument.

I'm just really trying to get to the heart of how we're defining "poverty", as I guess I'm attempting to point out how it's often a very silly metric.

 

[One Brow]

Seems silly, doesn't it? Or am I missing something in the equation?

Since we are comparing Western industrialized countries, the extremes are not really at issue.

Why would you arbitrarily adjust by 1% when it's clear that we're dealing in apples and oranges? Seems strange.

Are we comparing apples and oranges, or just apples grown from a seed versus apples grown from a graft? While I don't pretend to have detailed knowledge thereof, so far my reading indicates that the actual level of poverty indicated by the different measures is roughly comparable.

I'm not comfortable drawing such a conclusion based on at-a-glance comparisons of countries as demographically and historically different as the USA and those in Europe. Seems like lazy math/science. Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare how poverty rates have changed over time in different countries? I'm not implying that you'll get different results -- in fact much of the data would probably support your argument.

I'm just really trying to get to the heart of how we're defining "poverty", as I guess I'm attempting to point out how it's often a very silly metric.

I agree with you here. It's a very shallow, at-a-glance comparison that would have no place in a major journal, even as an aside. It was merely being used to show that some stated maxim taken at face value was not being reflected by what we actually see.

 

[franklin]

What a sad response, even for you Big Fundy.

I picked countries that have an economic base similar to ours and stronger social support. If I had been cherry-picking, I would not have included Denmark or the UK, but certainly would have included Ireland and Greenland.

Can you name the maximum term for a mortgage in Canada? France? Germany? Do you have any reason to claim 30-year mortgages don't exist there?

Go find out for yourself.

https://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/mortgages/view_rates.html That 25 year rate is far from subsidized (The bank can actually hedge such a high rate). The next longest is 10 years.

https://www.bmo.com/home/personal/banking/mortgages-loans/mortgages# Ten year max.

https://scotiabank.com/cda/content/0,1608,CID13590_LIDen,00.html Ten year max.

Looking at your objections: Swiss banking laws are good for bankers, but how big a percentage fothe Swixx population are they?

If you cannot figure out the huge windfall that Swiss residents receive from the money pouring in for the safety offered then I'm not going to be much help to you. In fact, if you cannot figure this out then I doubt you understand anything economic. But I'm sure you can find a skewed study to support your fundamentalist ideology.

Do you really think that, even per capita, Norway is as resource-rich as the US?

Norway produced 2.35mm bbl/day in 2009. They have 4.8 million residents. Do the math.

The UK is in debt, but not much worse than the US.

I'll cede the point on Britain because I don't feel up to getting into it. However, you should realize the banking powerhouse was forced into austerity when the US wasn't. They have huge debt problems, and their health care comparables are much worse.

What do you hold German monetary policies responsible for their poverty rate, in particular? More unemployment, less poverty sounds like a decent trade-off to me. Nor do I see how us spending money on our military increases our poverty level.

Germany is in the EU. They don't have monetary policy. I have to point out that you clearly missed the point, again, yet argued against it anyway. Germany has mercantilist policies that hurt many of its EU partners (as well as other deficit nations). Sure they have low employment because of it, but it's causing huge imbalances across borders. Unsolved trade gaps have a way of ending very ugly (1929, Plaza Accord). Ask Greece and Spain (extremely high unemployment rate for a long time) how good Germany's policies are. This isn't much of a secret, but it obviously come as a huge surprise to you.

See, all that is cherry-picking. You simply tried to find one or two nuggets of data to attempt to show why these countries did not match your stated claim (missing a couple in the process) while making no link at all between your nugget and the poverty rate, and why they would have more poverty "except for A, B, and C".

No. What I see is a very confused fellow who has been badly misguided. You are obviously naive to the underlying issues that aren't the secret you think they are.

Or, you can just proclaim what a "fundy" someone else is, and how they are so impossible to convince that you can't be bothered with coming up with real data. That will convince everyone, right?

I'll get back to you after you've formed a respectable opinion with some actual insight. You're a fundamentalist ideologue. Your lack of insight is glaring as you attempt these terrible justifications for your radical views. I'll leave you with a song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNvnSLNrrAU

 

[One Brow]

Go find out for yourself.

So I'm supposed to believe a 25% unsubsidized rate is far superior to building wealth than a 30-year subsidized rate?

As for your trio, anecdotes are not data. Get some real information on mortgage length if you want to prove your claim.

If you cannot figure out the huge windfall that Swiss residents receive from the money pouring in for the safety offered then I'm not going to be much help to you.

This sort of cop-out is typical. You don't even have any evidence that the money stays in Switzerland, you just make vapid suggestions.

Norway produced 2.35mm bbl/day in 2009. They have 4.8 million residents. Do the math.

So, you haven't checked a comparison of overall natural resources per capita. Again, typical.

I'll cede the point on Britain ...

Not to mention France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, etc.

This isn't much of a secret, but it obviously come as a huge surprise to you.

I'm aware that many countries are unhappy with Germany. What I don't see is evidence that their social structure has interfered with their unemployment rate. Are you claiming they would have less unemployment otherwise?

No. What I see is a very confused fellow who has been badly misguided.

I can have very reasonable conversations with people who politics/sconomics I disagree with, but where I acknowledge their superior expertise (The Pearl, for example). If you had superior expertise, I would have no problem with that.

You are obviously naive to the underlying issues that aren't the secret you think they are.

I am beginning to wonder if you lack the capacity to see people other than as stereotypes.

 

[franklin]

You're a masochist, Big Fundy. I like it!

So I'm supposed to believe a 25% unsubsidized rate is far superior to building wealth than a 30-year subsidized rate?

As for your trio, anecdotes are not data. Get some real information on mortgage length if you want to prove your claim.

LOL. Building wealth... or a bubble, expensive housing, loading landfills, instability of trillion dollar bailouts, and crushing debt burdens that is prohibiting the once mobile Americans from moving to where the jobs are (like N. Dakota currently)? LMAO.

Again, it's no secret. Search around a little. Try a few highly respected periodicals.

This sort of cop-out is typical. You don't even have any evidence that the money stays in Switzerland, you just make vapid suggestions.

I cannot do everything for you. I cannot learn for you, either.

So, you haven't checked a comparison of overall natural resources per capita. Again, typical.

Fine, I'll do the simple math for you. Norway's government profit from oil revenue alone is equivalent to $900 billion per year if the US had an equivalent per capita benefit. NINE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. That's not a small chunk of change. I won't argue with you that the US has a large supply of natural resources--coal, timber, etc. The government doesn't get a huge windfall from this and these resources are not anywhere near the liquid gushers that Norway has. No, the US brand is much more labor intensive.

To Norway's credit, they're properly anticipating the end of the gushers and have built a nicely sized sovereign wealth fund. They're as smart as US conservatives and have invested it into productive assets alongside debt instruments. Unlike our social security system that purchases self-issued debt. But that's another topic.

Not to mention France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, etc.

Populations so small hardly supply any meaningful comparison. Separate Texas--a state larger than the three here with a good economy--and offer full military protection and then let's compare.

I'm aware that many countries are unhappy with Germany. What I don't see is evidence that their social structure has interfered with their unemployment rate. Are you claiming they would have less unemployment otherwise?

LOL. Are you seriously asking me if Germany's mercantilist policies affect their unemployment rate? What do you think they have them for? Just to bitch slap the neighbors? You make me chuckle on the inside.

I can have very reasonable conversations with people who politics/sconomics I disagree with, but where I acknowledge their superior expertise (The Pearl, for example). If you had superior expertise, I would have no problem with that.

I'd put that up for popular vote. I wasn't aware you could reason, let alone be reasonable. But whatever you think of yourself.

I am beginning to wonder if you lack the capacity to see people other than as stereotypes.

It's just you Big Fundy.

 

[One Brow]

Lot's of rhetoric, little fact. I'll leave most of the empty rhetoric unanswered.

Fine, I'll do the simple math for you. Norway's government profit from oil revenue alone is equivalent to $900 billion per year if the US had an equivalent per capita benefit. NINE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

We just put better than a third of that into the economy directly (40% of it via tax cuts) this past year. Are you saying that had a positive effect on poverty in the USA? How large of an effect?

If not, why would Norway's intake reduce poverty, unless directed across the whole population as opposed to concentrated in a few hands? Since your argument is that wealth distribution increases poverty, that would make Norway a counter-example to your point, unless you put a lot more behind it.

That's not a small chunk of change. I won't argue with you that the US has a large supply of natural resources--coal, timber, etc. The government doesn't get a huge windfall from this and these resources are not anywhere near the liquid gushers that Norway has. No, the US brand is much more labor intensive.

So, the fact that we need to pay more workers explains why more people are living in poverty?

Separate Texas--a state larger than the three here with a good economy--and offer full military protection and then let's compare.

Texas doesn't currently pay for full military coverage? Why does this impact the poverty rate? You're still throwing out random thoughts.

By the way, Texas has about 25 million people, France about 65 million.

I'd put that up for popular vote.

Up to you.

I wasn't aware you could reason, let alone be reasonable.

I am not responsible for your inability to read conversations I have with other posters, one even within this thread.