The best argument against Genetics vs Perseverance that I've seen is Randy Moss vs Jerry Rice. Moss is taller, faster, and just has greater natural gifts than Jerry Rice. Why don't we call Randy Moss the GOAT (Greatest of all Time)?

Perseverance. Rice had that over any natural athlete that came to every NFL camp he went to. Rice was there before everyone, weeks before, and left later. He'd win a superbowl, wait a week and then right back to training. He's the best there was because Genetics doesn't do everything, just watch GATTACA.

But why don't I shut up. Calvin Coolidge said it better than I can.

http://zenpencils.com/comic/40-calvin-coolidge-never-give-up/

@renatojj It's nonsense that lower taxes on the wealthy means they become more productive, that's simply a rumor spread by the rich. The problem with low/no corporate taxes (which is what RP wants) is that over time more and more wealth accumulates in the top bracket and less and less is available to the middle and lower classes, the wealthy then use this money to influence policy making and the problem becomes worse - which is exactly what is happening now. Yes, this is going to happen anyway, but poor tax policy exacerbates it.

If you don't believe me then just look at history: Coolidge became president in 1923 and signed into law the Revenue Act of 1924, the tax rate for the those earning above $10,000 (about $120,000 by today's standards) was only 6%, there was a surtax added to higher incomes but it only crept up very slowly. Guess what happened? 10 years of economic hell for America - otherwise known as the great depression. Guess what kick started the economy? In part higher taxes. For example the highest period of growth for America was when it had the highest tax rate for the upper bracket (91%) - which was during WWII. Once the tax rate's started coming down again, guess what happened to economic growth - right, it slowed.

If you look at one specific person that makes a lot of money, and you double there taxes, it's easy to make the assumption that you are harming them - but a countries economy is far more complex than that and works in ways most economists don't even understand. To assume that you know what is best for American tax policy is ridiculous unless you happen to know more than every other economist on the planet (and same goes for me). What is clear from history though is that lower tax rates on the wealthy do not help the economy grow, that is pure myth that has been perversely thrown out there to misdirect the general population while the wealthy accumulate more and more money.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

As far as the RP - Chile connection - RP's 'free market' approach to education is exactly what has already happened in Chile - this privatization of higher education has resulted in Chile's technical schools, colleges and universities having the "highest costs of higher education of any OECD country and the lowest public expenditure" (from the doco I link below). And the quality of the education? Very poor according to an October Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/node/21531468

Is that what you want to happen to American education?

More info about the issues and protests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Chilean_protests

And I've sifted a documentary on the issue if you want to watch:
http://videosift.com/video/Chile-Rising

And lastly, maldistribution is simply uneven distribution - e.g. according to the NY Times "The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent"

Please justify that to us.

You can't trust the two party system. Even when you think you have a winner, you really have more of the same.

Rubbish. There are very real and dramatic changes with each shift of power. Carter versus Reagan. Coolidge versus FDR. Over a trillion dollars in wealth---assets for investing and job creation---is waiting out these clueless obamateurs. Where you're correct about 'more of the same' is the bureaucracy, which never changes.

Sad to see you've joined the libmedia assassins scared sh;tless of Palin. While she hasn't done everything expected of someone seeking higher office, she's not hiding who she is or what she stands for. Then again, she doesn't have 80 million czars and a compliant Pro-Statist media to hide behind.

This time around, Republicans may not deserve to win, but taxocrats sure as hell deserve to lose, and lose big.

I replied in the original post and addressed the issue of the DMV.

...and I don't think the government needs to create jobs, but they need to NOT TAKE THEM AWAY.

Why have we been scaling back regulations that were set in place because of the Great Depression? Why is the government spending MY money on things I don't need?


In reply to this comment by Fjnbk:
I beg your forgiveness for the state of my channel's CSS file. I'm not very good at that stuff.

How on earth are public schools a monopoly when private schools exist? And even the most extreme libertarian agrees that the government should provide regulation and public goods. Arguing against the DMV borders on anarchy.

I'm actually missing the 1920s right now. Even Coolidge and the Republicans then understood that government regulation can increase wealth and prosperity.

In reply to you, deedub, not everything is about job creation and wealth. And everything eventually recovers in the long run, but people are forced to live in the short run.

I beg your forgiveness for the state of my channel's CSS file. I'm not very good at that stuff.

How on earth are public schools a monopoly when private schools exist? And even the most extreme libertarian agrees that the government should provide regulation and public goods. Arguing against the DMV borders on anarchy.

I'm actually missing the 1920s right now. Even Coolidge and the Republicans then understood that government regulation can increase wealth and prosperity.

In reply to you, deedub, not everything is about job creation and wealth. And everything eventually recovers in the long run, but people are forced to live in the short run.

I'm glad I got to experience that moment with my best friend and a few hundred other people :-)

In reply to this comment by alizarin:
Wiki summary:
As Obama and Chief Justice John G. Roberts recited the Oath of office, Obama interrupted Roberts as he administered the oath. Roberts then incorrectly recited the Oath of office, stating, "that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully" (rather than "that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"). Obama began to recite, and paused, whereby Roberts attempted to correct his mistake.[23] Several constitutional lawyers have said that Obama should retake the oath as soon as possible, as Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur did under similar circumstances.[24]

I'm sure he redid it already in private.

I watched the inauguration in a packed theater in my home town and it was an incredible experience for someone who's lost faith in his fellow Americans over the past 8 years.

Wiki summary:
As Obama and Chief Justice John G. Roberts recited the Oath of office, Obama interrupted Roberts as he administered the oath. Roberts then incorrectly recited the Oath of office, stating, "that I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully" (rather than "that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"). Obama began to recite, and paused, whereby Roberts attempted to correct his mistake.[23] Several constitutional lawyers have said that Obama should retake the oath as soon as possible, as Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur did under similar circumstances.[24]

I'm sure he redid it already in private.

I watched the inauguration in a packed theater in my home town and it was an incredible experience for someone who's lost faith in his fellow Americans over the past 8 years.

Choggie, you realize it's worse than that, don't you? The Bush family is knee deep in past Presidents. Most notably with Barbara's connection to Franklin Pierce, who was considered one of the worst Presidents, but (from Wikipedia):

Current President George W. Bush is related to other presidents as well as Pierce, who he is also related to on his father's side via Daniel Brewer. He is also a cousin of Fillmore (via Millards), Lincoln (via Gilmans), Grant (via Lathrops), Hayes (via Smiths, Footes, Parmelees, and Huckinses), Garfield (via Wheelers, Carpenters, Cookes, Warrens, Holbrooks and le Botelers), Cleveland (via Smiths and Stanleys), Benjamin Harrison (via Hortons), Theodore Roosevelt (via Schuylers), Taft (via Holbrooks, Thayers, Haywards, Cookes, Footes, Ravenses, and Waterses), Coolidge (via Phillipses, Hortons, Garnseys, Pulsiphers, Ravenses, Richardsons, Moores, Bulkeleys, and Morses), Hoover (via Brookses, Reades, Wheelers, and Richardsons), Franklin Roosevelt (via Beekmans, Hutchinsons, Popes, Jenneys, Richardses, Palgraves, Lathrops, and Howlands), Nixon (via Lippincotts, Footes, Traverses, Morses, and Howlands), and Ford (via Vanderburghs, Wheelers, Marvins, Gilmans, and Howlands).

Rita Coolidge and Kris Kristofferson were married for quite awhile. both appeared in the Peckinpah movie "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" with Bob Dylan. It's a quirky movie, worth a look-see.