PDA

View Full Version : are you part of the 155 million americans



wardd
03-06-2011, 09:14 PM
Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/america-is-not-broke_b_832006.html

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 09:17 PM
Well, that is because those 400 people just worked harder than the other 155 million right? The opportunities are equal for everyone in America.....

wardd
03-06-2011, 09:19 PM
they worked harder than 155 million?

i guess if you call gaming the system working

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 09:24 PM
I'm waiting for the right to chime in and tell us all about how the uber rich deserve their dollars, and provide employment and such. Up here in Canuckistan, anything over 150k (I think) is taxed at 53%. In Ontario, we have a 5% federal sales tax, and a 8% provincial sales tax on just about everything.

We also have universal health care, and substantively cheaper university tuitions, just to name two.

The Bigfella
03-06-2011, 09:25 PM
How did "equal" distribution of wealth work out for the commies?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 09:27 PM
Yep, those bad ole commies. Beware. Better red than dead.

bob winter
03-06-2011, 09:29 PM
Also, we don't have dynasty trusts. Furthermore, the high marginal tax rate in Ontario is only 40% plus a few points.

The Bigfella
03-06-2011, 09:31 PM
Some people accumulate wealth. Most spend money. The trust is that the accumulaters put it to good use. The bleaters seem to have the old Scrooge McDuck image of the wealthy... with it all locked up in a vault. Rubbish.... they accumulate it because they put it to work.

wardd
03-06-2011, 09:33 PM
i wonder about the thinking of someone that can believe that 400 people can accumulate more wealth than 155 million people by honest hard work

what do they think those 400 did that was worth so much

did any of them discover immortality, time travel, infinite pollution free energy or even a better mouse trap?

pefjr
03-06-2011, 09:33 PM
Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/america-is-not-broke_b_832006.htmlObscene? You live in a capitalistic society. You are using mathematics and select groups to attempt to offend the capitalistic morality. If any of these 400 have broken the law, wake me and I will help you bring them down. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z

wardd
03-06-2011, 09:35 PM
Some people accumulate wealth. Most spend money. The trust is that the accumulaters put it to good use. The bleaters seem to have the old Scrooge McDuck image of the wealthy... with it all locked up in a vault. Rubbish.... they accumulate it because they put it to work.

ok big, if they were putting it to good use , why is the economy in the toilet?

when the wealth of the nation is put to good use the people are working and buying things to keep the economy going

why isn't that happening?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 09:36 PM
I think the point is that wealthy people don't get it because they work harder.... usually they have an advantage in some area to start with. If you continue to support a system that rewards people with money more significant advantages then those without, then something called a class system develops. America was apparently founded on the idea that men are created equal. (We know that was just words). For a society to succeeed, in my opinion, equality needs to be established in a wide range of areas. America still continues to reward wealth above most things.

The Bigfella
03-06-2011, 09:37 PM
i wonder about the thinking of someone that can believe that 400 people can accumulate more wealth than 155 million people by honest hard work

what do they think those 400 did that was worth so much

did any of them discover immortality, time travel, infinite pollution free energy or even a better mouse trap?

Lessee... one of them brought you the operating system that you used to access this forum, another one or two probably made theirs building the hardware, another probably invented adult diapers.... and so it goes. If you got off your butt, you could become one of them too.

wardd
03-06-2011, 09:40 PM
Obscene? You live in a capitalistic society. You are using mathematics and select groups to attempt to offend the capitalistic morality. If any of these 400 have broken the law, wake me and I will help you bring them down. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z

the problem is that they buy and make the law

at one time it was called taxation without representation

call your elected Representative at the same time david koch is calling him and see who gets answered, even though koch couldn't vote for him

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 09:42 PM
If you got off your butt, you could become one of them too.


Here is where the dream separates from reality. That statement is patently false, and that is easily proved. Societies are far more complex than equating wealth to individual effort. A lot of really really smart hardworking people will never be wealthy. They still contribute, and together as a society we need to reward each other, as well as ourselves.

The Bigfella
03-06-2011, 09:43 PM
ok big, if they were putting it to good use , why is the economy in the toilet?

when the wealth of the nation is put to good use the people are working and buying things to keep the economy going

why isn't that happening?

Your economy is in the toilet for a number of reasons. First up, the invented enemy disappeared, so the warmongers have had to try and invent a few more. Its in the toilet because you've got the regulators you deserve, who wouldn't regulate an out of control banking sector, and its in the toilet because you haven't adapted to changing circumstances.... and so on.

The Bigfella
03-06-2011, 09:44 PM
Here is where the dream separates from reality. That statement is patently false, and that is easily proved. Societies are far more complex than equating wealth to individual effort. A lot of really really smart hardworking people will never be wealthy. They still contribute, and together as a society we need to reward each other, as well as ourselves.

I didn't say he/she WOULD become one of them. I said they could.... and on that note, I'll have to leave this discussion for a while. I've got to spend, I mean invest $62 million.

wardd
03-06-2011, 09:44 PM
i guess the social Darwinists will stick to their beliefs even while being eaten

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 09:47 PM
I didn't say he/she WOULD become one of them. I said they could.... and on that note, I'll have to leave this discussion for a while. I've got to spend, I mean invest $62 million.

Oh well, by all means. Sorry to have troubled you M'Lord :D

perldog007
03-06-2011, 09:49 PM
i guess the social Darwinists will stick to their beliefs even while being eaten\

arggghhh! more heated rhetoric from the right! er, um, I mean.... :D

wardd
03-06-2011, 09:49 PM
we have developed a winner take all mentality

David G
03-06-2011, 09:51 PM
Obscene? You live in a capitalistic society. You are using mathematics and select groups to attempt to offend the capitalistic morality. If any of these 400 have broken the law, wake me and I will help you bring them down. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z

Sorry, but that approach is overly simplistic to the point of simple-mindedness. No... make that idiocy. See #75

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?76079-Liberal-VS-Conservative-%28-defined-%29&p=1772742&highlight=great%20depression#post1772742

jbelow
03-06-2011, 09:54 PM
Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/america-is-not-broke_b_832006.html

What you want to do ? Lynch them and steal their money or just screw them over because your envious. Would that make you feel like a hero or a real macho man ?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 09:54 PM
America has defended her dream despite the fact that dreams alter, just as the global economy alters. A lot of countries have invested in the social aspects of government to provide stability to their citizens. I will agree that sometimes that invites apathy and contentment, but at the same time, it gives everyone a sense of belonging to the society they exist in. I believe in those systems: Old age pension, universal healthcare, subsidized post secondary education, a regulated banking system, welfare, etc etc. I pay higher taxes than the USA for those benefits. I'm quite happy to do that.

wardd
03-06-2011, 09:57 PM
What you want to do ? Lynch them and steal their money or just screw them over because your envious. Would that make you feel like a hero or a real macho man ?

do you not understand that from a simple economic stand point this is not desirable?

Waddie
03-06-2011, 10:00 PM
I looked at the list on Forbes.com. Most of those people made their own wealth thru working hard and smart. Some got their wealth thru inheritance--mostly the Walmart crowd. I don't be-grudge them their money, I just want them to pay the same tax rate on their income--of all types--- as I do. Right now with capital gains around 15% and other tax shelters they pay less than their fair share.

regards,
Waddie

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 10:00 PM
Now Ward, you know that Jblow will make you look like the torch holding pitchfork holding mob type. Those po' po' rich folk..... What's a po' rich man gwyne' to do?

David G
03-06-2011, 10:03 PM
What you want to do ? Lynch them and steal their money or just screw them over because your envious. Would that make you feel like a hero or a real macho man ?

You might also benefit from clicking on the link in my post above.

The fact is, the structure of our society and our economy tends to oscillate withing a certain range of conditions. More regulation of the market/less regulation, for instance. The fact is, we sometimes swing a good way away from the "perfect" laissez-faire capitalism that exists only in the minds of political philosophers. Not as far as Scandinavia (for instance), but further than we are now. The fact is, we sometimes swing a good way toward pure l-f capitalism. We have swung so far towards it recently, that some of capitalisms less desirable quirks have come into play. Bubbles. Instability. Boom/bust. The accumulation of too much capital and power in too few hands. It's now time to swing back away for a while. To do otherwise is undesirable. Inefficient. Even, possibly, dangerous.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 10:06 PM
Oh oh, Now David is making sense. That's liable to really rile up old JBlow.

wardd
03-06-2011, 10:07 PM
Now Ward, you know that Jblow will make you look like the torch holding pitchfork holding mob type. Those po' po' rich folk..... What's a po' rich man gwyne' to do?

i should learn more meekerry

the rich need more 17th century style serfs

Dutch
03-06-2011, 10:07 PM
do you really believe that rich folk need to live in america to be rich?

would you rather have them up and move themselves and their monies and corporations to checkoslavakia?

wardd
03-06-2011, 10:09 PM
You might also benefit from clicking on the link in my post above.

The fact is, the structure of our society and our economy tends to oscillate withing a certain range of conditions. More regulation of the market/less regulation, for instance. The fact is, we sometimes swing a good way away from the "perfect" laissez-faire capitalism that exists only in the minds of political philosophers. Not as far as Scandinavia (for instance), but further than we are now. The fact is, we sometimes swing a good way toward pure l-f capitalism. We have swung so far towards it recently, that some of capitalisms less desirable quirks have come into play. Bubbles. Instability. Boom/bust. The accumulation of too much capital and power in too few hands. It's now time to swing back away for a while. To do otherwise is undesirable. Inefficient. Even, possibly, dangerous.

ask mubarak

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 10:09 PM
Like the Waltons have moved all their buying to China?

Dutch, Dutch ,Dutch, you need to do what you do best ....(fart)

wardd
03-06-2011, 10:10 PM
do you really believe that rich folk need to live in america to be rich?

would you rather have them up and move themselves and their monies and corporations to checkoslavakia?

would they take their us currency with them?

do you not see the fallacy in that statement?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-06-2011, 10:22 PM
A cult always needs it's followers.

wardd
03-06-2011, 10:27 PM
as for me, i believe in what has and will work

when you point out that in the past progressive policies have advanced the country more than consertive policies they just don't want to see it, selective blindness

with them it's doctrine over practicality

the title "words that work" says it all

pefjr
03-06-2011, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=David G;2909689]Sorry, but that approach is overly simplistic to the point of simple-mindedness. No... make that idiocy. [QUOTE] No, make that jealousy.

pefjr
03-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Oh oh, Now David is making sense. That's liable to really rile up old JBlow.Now, resort to name calling and duck behind a peek list, that's the PMJ we all know so well.:D:rolleyes:

pefjr
03-06-2011, 10:35 PM
I'm going back to zzzzzzz now, wake me when the sane return. Oh, better stock up on those adult diapers David G.

The Bigfella
03-06-2011, 11:10 PM
I'm going back to zzzzzzz now, wake me when the sane return. Oh, better stock up on those adult diapers David G.

OK, I'm back. Wakey wakey, hands off snakey.

jbelow
03-06-2011, 11:23 PM
America has defended her dream despite the fact that dreams alter, just as the global economy alters. A lot of countries have invested in the social aspects of government to provide stability to their citizens. I will agree that sometimes that invites apathy and contentment, but at the same time, it gives everyone a sense of belonging to the society they exist in. I believe in those systems: Old age pension, universal healthcare, subsidized post secondary education, a regulated banking system, welfare, etc etc. I pay higher taxes than the USA for those benefits. I'm quite happy to do that.

Your not an American much less a Texan. You and your kind will never understand. That is your loss but what the hell , I can't help you. God blessed me more than you. I have much more than I need or deserve. I know my heritage , know were I've been and come from , know my purpose in life , and know were I am going when I leave this world. I am greatfull and thank my God for it. Sorry that you cannot say the same.

skipper68
03-06-2011, 11:31 PM
I learned everything I needed to know,when Keith sent me to Truth out.org"Welcome To Plutocracy." I REALLY think Bill Moyer's should run for POTUSA. Maybe Jon Stewart for VP??;) Besides that,there are 219,000 people here today,that wernt here yesterday. HOW can the earth keep up with food and water-in the least?

purri
03-06-2011, 11:33 PM
^ jbelow's a modest little bugger, isn't he?

S B
03-06-2011, 11:47 PM
Every one of those 400, will spend the rest of their lives, day and night, trying to keep their share out of the hands of the other 399.

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 12:03 AM
OK, I'm back. Wakey wakey, hands off snakey.

SSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!!
He said to wait for someone sane!

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 12:06 AM
^ jbelow's a modest little bugger, isn't he?

I've had that mean-spirited ratzinger on ignore for about a year, now, and I'm really disappointed that he's not still among the banned, but I'd venture that modesty is among the least of his problems...or assets!

skipper68
03-07-2011, 12:10 AM
IMHO,if they choose to keep all the marbles,the lower 80% can start the barter system. Other towns have made their "town' money to trade" for services local. Their money has no value,if you work a half hour for that can of soup.I see it as percentage. $10.00 for gas costs 200%(low figure) more for someone making $9.00 HR,compared to someone who makes $10,000 an hour.

perldog007
03-07-2011, 12:22 AM
IMHO,if they choose to keep all the marbles,the lower 80% can start the barter system. Other towns have made their "town' money to trade" for services local. Their money has no value,if you work a half hour for that can of soup.I see it as percentage. $10.00 for gas costs 200%(low figure) more for someone making $9.00 HR,compared to someone who makes $10,000 an hour.

Something like that was organized about seven years ago in the first town. It was more about keeping taxes down than not having marbles. Mostly well of folks in a professional exchange, but it seemed to work quite well. Haven't followed it in a few years.

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 12:36 AM
Sorry, but that approach is overly simplistic to the point of simple-mindedness. No... make that idiocy. See #75

...

Well, what did you expect from Peffles?

johnw
03-07-2011, 12:53 AM
Lessee... one of them brought you the operating system that you used to access this forum, another one or two probably made theirs building the hardware, another probably invented adult diapers.... and so it goes. If you got off your butt, you could become one of them too.
A lot of the current crop of rich did work hard and smart, but the structure of the society people belong to has something to do with it as well. In the U.S., your parents' income is the best predictor of what your income will be. We have more economic mobility than some countries, but less than others. Denmark, for example, has far more economic mobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility) than we do, and I'm not sure why.

Of course, prior to the income tax and inheritance tax, we had a rentier class, just like Europe, who did not labor but simply owned. And we have a political party that seems determined to make sure that we return to that gilded age. So although the question is phrased in the most contentious possible matter, it seems like it might actually be worth thinking about.

perldog007
03-07-2011, 01:01 AM
Lessee... one of them brought you the operating system that you used to access this forum, another one or two probably made theirs building the hardware, another probably invented adult diapers.... and so it goes. If you got off your butt, you could become one of them too.

Linus Torvalds is in the top 400? Sweet!!

The Bigfella
03-07-2011, 01:24 AM
Linus Torvalds is in the top 400? Sweet!!

If you reckon he got you here on his lonesome, yer dreamin'

purri
03-07-2011, 01:55 AM
Old Scandanavian curse: "May you be condemned in eternity to assemble Ikea".

Waddie
03-07-2011, 01:57 AM
I think this obsession with the rich is a distraction. How does it have anything to do with me creating my own wealth? I have made enough so that my retirement is pretty secure and I'm satisfied with that. However, if I wanted more it's out there for the risk-taking!! I certainly raised my own kids to look to themselves for their financial security, and to realize that decisions you make now will follow you for years. Knowing the difference between a need and a want is the best advice I gave them.

The rich may own a big slice of the pie, but that's the magic of capitalism. Your piece of the pie can get bigger!! The whole darn pie can get bigger!! :)

regards,
Waddie

Tom Montgomery
03-07-2011, 05:56 AM
Interesting to note that the opulence of the first Gilded Age occurred during a period of rapid economic expansion while the opulence of this second Gilded Age is occurring during a period of protracted economic contraction.

McMike
03-07-2011, 07:08 AM
Some people accumulate wealth. Most spend money. The trust is that the accumulaters put it to good use. The bleaters seem to have the old Scrooge McDuck image of the wealthy... with it all locked up in a vault. Rubbish.... they accumulate it because they put it to work.

Bullsh17, the current condition of the economy is proof they don't put it to work. I am a cabinet maker for the rich, they aren't buying, neither are the large companies. If they aren't spending the money then who will? Sell me another one cause this one is rotten.

McMike
03-07-2011, 07:12 AM
Obscene? You live in a capitalistic society. You are using mathematics and select groups to attempt to offend the capitalistic morality. If any of these 400 have broken the law, wake me and I will help you bring them down. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z

America was created with the notion of keeping the power out of the hands of the few and putting it with the many. With this originating idea alone the wealthy are in contempt of America and laws should be made to limit their ability to "accumulate" that power.

John Smith
03-07-2011, 07:29 AM
How did "equal" distribution of wealth work out for the commies?

Our system of wealth continuing to trickle up isn't working that well.

"Distribution" is a poor term. "Circulation" is better. Money to our society is like blood to our bodies, or water to life; it has to keep circulating. When either fails to circulate properly, we have problems.

This is exaserbated by those with the money buying the politicians so the budget problems are problems for the working class, not the wealthy: cut teacher pay and benefits, but don't tax the wealth. It's my understanding that a 5% tax increase on incomes over $500k would pretty much solve our budget problems.

Taking money from the working class, giving them less to spend, cuts demand, and only makes all our budget problems worse.

Jim Mahan
03-07-2011, 07:43 AM
It's also bad medically for all the blood to pool in one spot depriving the various other limbs and organs. We seem to be dying, to take the analogy further, from gangrene while the hemorrhoids are swollen and throbbing.

"... the wealthy are in contempt of America ..."
This is good. It should be a crime. It is certainly a shame.

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 08:29 AM
Interesting to note that the opulence of the first Gilded Age occurred during a period of rapid economic expansion while the opulence of this second Gilded Age is occurring during a period of protracted economic contraction.

Interesting? I'd call it scary as hell!

The melon farmers who pretend to run this country learned a LOT from the Great Depression, and this time they'll be ready.

wardd
03-07-2011, 08:41 AM
Your not an American much less a Texan. You and your kind will never understand. That is your loss but what the hell , I can't help you. God blessed me more than you. I have much more than I need or deserve. I know my heritage , know were I've been and come from , know my purpose in life , and know were I am going when I leave this world. I am greatfull and thank my God for it. Sorry that you cannot say the same.

you're right i can't say the same about you

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 09:04 AM
i wonder about the thinking of someone that can believe that 400 people can accumulate more wealth than 155 million people by honest hard work

what do they think those 400 did that was worth so much

did any of them discover immortality, time travel, infinite pollution free energy or even a better mouse trap?

Arn't there a few dems in congress among the mega rich here..I can think of one democrat who is quite wealthy but he doesn't donate enough to buy a gov. toilet seat. Butof course he married it not inherited it.
If you want something changed in the tax structure as is, write some members in congress and see how far it gets you.

wardd
03-07-2011, 09:23 AM
Arn't there a few dems in congress among the mega rich here..I can think of one democrat who is quite wealthy but he doesn't donate enough to buy a gov. toilet seat. Butof course he married it not inherited it.
If you want something changed in the tax structure as is, write some members in congress and see how far it gets you.

so it's ok if the other side does it?

fdr came from a wealthy family and was called a traitor to his class

the rich are a little more subtle now and wouldn't express it that way

i'm not against getting rich as long as it is done in a way that does not preclude others from having a share of the good life

and you can't say there is equalivancy between dems and reps any more than you can say killing one is the same as killing millions

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 09:27 AM
This reposte is as useless as your post..You and your ilk use that all the time. You want change, go where the money is in the congress..write them..Not that they will change but you can try. We have an old saying CYA.

Tom Montgomery
03-07-2011, 09:28 AM
.
Here you go: The 400 Richest Americans (http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400)

Including their photos, estimated net worth, age, residences, and industry.

pefjr
03-07-2011, 09:48 AM
i'm not against getting rich as long as it is done in a way that does not preclude others from having a share of the good life
interesting statement coming from the OP'er. Perhaps you can explain how you were impeded from a share of the good life?


killing one is the same as killing millions warddsuch a way with words with thieves in the dark.

Pugwash
03-07-2011, 09:49 AM
http://i.imgur.com/tlG0Y.jpg

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 09:56 AM
As there is no title etc. I have to think that this is nation wide and not by state..If you figure out the state costs vs. the cost of tax breaks say for WI let me know.

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 10:09 AM
This reposte is as useless as your post..You and your ilk use that all the time. You want change, go where the money is in the congress..write them..Not that they will change but you can try. We have an old saying CYA.

Yes! His riposte IS just as useless as his post, as far as you're concerned!

No amount of logic or reason could sway you from your narrow delusion.

hokiefan
03-07-2011, 10:19 AM
Every one of those 400, will spend the rest of their lives, day and night, trying to keep their share out of the hands of the other 399.

Not quite. A certain Mr. Buffett (#2 or 3 on the Forbes list) is giving his away. Leaving a few bucks to his family, but giving about 95% of his 40+ billion away. He has argued for a more sane tax structure, where he would pay more. Isn't welcome on most Board of Directors because he thinks CEO's are paid insanely. He didn't have a trustfund when he started.

There are others giving away huge chunks. The guy that wrote some software comes to mind. He started with little or nothing too.

Cheers,

Bobby

Pugwash
03-07-2011, 10:23 AM
As there is no title etc. I have to think that this is nation wide and not by state..If you figure out the state costs vs. the cost of tax breaks say for WI let me know.


Does this help?



http://i.imgur.com/fpmFw.jpg

McMike
03-07-2011, 10:28 AM
Not quite. A certain Mr. Buffett (#2 or 3 on the Forbes list) is giving his away. Leaving a few bucks to his family, but giving about 95% of his 40+ billion away. He has argued for a more sane tax structure, where he would pay more. Isn't welcome on most Board of Directors because he thinks CEO's are paid insanely. He didn't have a trustfund when he started.

There are others giving away huge chunks. The guy that wrote some software comes to mind. He started with little or nothing too.

Cheers,

Bobby


The software guy . . . he should have been paying the staff of Microsoft much more and not worked them quite as hard as he did by hiring more programmers . . . I knew a few programmers when I lived in Seattle in the 90's and they were paid very well but not in proportion to what the company and Gates was making in profits at the time and they were worked to the point of breaking.

It's not about the wealthy making gobs of money; it's about the wealthy making gobs of money on the backs of others without fairly acknowledging the little person's contribution to the generating of such great wealth. The Walton's are another great example of this problem, they have the potential to do great good at a relatively small cost to themselves yet they continue try to find ways to be cheap with their employees.

hokiefan
03-07-2011, 10:33 AM
The software guy . . . he should have been paying the staff of Microsoft much more and not worked them quite as hard as he did by hiring more programmers . . . I knew a few programmers when I lived in Seattle in the 90's and they were paid very well but not in proportion to what the company and Gates was making in profits at the time and they were worked to the point of breaking.

It's not about the wealthy making gobs of money; it's about the wealthy making gobs of money on the backs of others without fairly acknowledging the little person's contribution to the generating of such great wealth. The Walton's are another great example of this problem, they have the potential to do great good at a relatively small cost to themselves yet they continue try to find ways to be cheap with their employees.

Don't get me wrong. I won't defend Bill Gates' business tactics and ethics (or lack thereof). Just commenting that he is giving away big piles of money.

Cheers,

Bobby

wardd
03-07-2011, 10:41 AM
Don't get me wrong. I won't defend Bill Gates' business tactics and ethics (or lack thereof). Just commenting that he is giving away big piles of money.

Cheers,

Bobby

i'm against the need for wealthy individuals to give away money

hokiefan
03-07-2011, 10:51 AM
i'm against the need for wealthy individuals to give away money

Would be nice if the world was such that nobody was truly in need. But the fact is many have serious needs and issues. If someone with more than enough is willing to help someone without enough, thats a good thing right? Is in my world.

Cheers,

Bobby

wardd
03-07-2011, 11:00 AM
Would be nice if the world was such that nobody was truly in need. But the fact is many have serious needs and issues. If someone with more than enough is willing to help someone without enough, thats a good thing right? Is in my world.

Cheers,

Bobby


the point i was making was that those in need could get help from the government which would not discriminate as could private charities or individuals

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 11:06 AM
Waard true but at what point does a hand out turn into a generational snowball? How many generations Ggranny,granny,daughter,daughter,children, grandchildren are going to abuse the system? Throwing money never endingly ain't gonna solve the problem. In fact, it makes the problem worse

McMike
03-07-2011, 11:07 AM
Waard true but at what point does a hand out turn into a generational snowball? How many generations Ggranny,granny,daughter,daughter,children, grandchildren are going to abuse the system? Throwing money never endingly ain't gonna solve the problem. In fact, it makes the problem worse

Qualify your assertion that it makes the problem worse.

wardd
03-07-2011, 11:10 AM
Waard true but at what point does a hand out turn into a generational snowball? How many generations Ggranny,granny,daughter,daughter,children, grandchildren are going to abuse the system? Throwing money never endingly ain't gonna solve the problem. In fact, it makes the problem worse

if you're saying any system can be gamed, you're right

just look how a few have gamed the system for the last 30+ years

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 11:12 AM
Ggranny has five kids..each kid has five kids...etc..the kids learn the system..then the next generation does as well.
There is no desire by many to give up free aid and each generation seems to know the ins and outs of what and how they can benefit.

Obviously this does not hold for everyone..It's like lumping reps under one umbrella but

t is similar to " give the man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats everyday." paraphrased but you get the idea.
I'm not opposed to giving a helping hand but I'm opposed to giving and inch and being taken for a mile.

McMike
03-07-2011, 11:14 AM
Ggranny has five kids..each kid has five kids...etc..the kids learn the system..then the next generation does as well.
There is no desire by many to give up free aid and each generation seems to know the ins and outs of what and how they can benefit.

Obviously this does not hold for everyone..It's like lumping reps under one umbrella but

t is similar to " give the man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats everyday." paraphrased but you get the idea.
I'm not opposed to giving a helping hand but I'm opposed to giving and inch and being taken for a mile.


I didn't ask you to apply grandpa logic, I asked you to qualify your statement using facts and statistics.

wardd
03-07-2011, 11:15 AM
Ggranny has five kids..each kid has five kids...etc..the kids learn the system..then the next generation does as well.
There is no desire by many to give up free aid and each generation seems to know the ins and outs of what and how they can benefit.

Obviously this does not hold for everyone..It's like lumping reps under one umbrella but

t is similar to " give the man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats everyday." paraphrased but you get the idea.
I'm not opposed to giving a helping hand but I'm opposed to giving and inch and being taken for a mile.

i guess that is how the current generation of trust fund recipients learned how to game the system

hokiefan
03-07-2011, 11:19 AM
i guess that is how the current generation of trust fund recipients learned how to game the system

Look at the Forbes list linked above. At least the top 3 DID NOT start with trust funds.

Cheers,

Bobby

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 11:20 AM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/how-the-feminist-welfare-state-causes-generations-of-fatherlessness

L.W. Baxter
03-07-2011, 11:22 AM
I actually find that list reassuring. I went through the top 50 and note that the majority are "self-made", many of them coming right out of the middle class. There are the Walton and Mars families sitting on their piles but there is no shortage of new, productive money in that list. I also note that the biggest philanthropists in the world are near the top. I think those fortunes are in hands that do more good in the world than many national governments.

Anyway, the numbers are ridiculous but they are just numbers. All the zeroes in the world can't buy love or joy or immortality. I won't spend even 10 seconds of my time on earth worrying over the stacks of money held by the world's wealthiest.

I do spare a thought and lend a hand to the poorest every day, however.

McMike
03-07-2011, 11:22 AM
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/how-the-feminist-welfare-state-causes-generations-of-fatherlessness

How about a study for the USA and one that is from a non-biased source.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 11:32 AM
Hey others post similar ones and no one including you doubt it because what is posted is biased to your way of thinking and therefore okay. Mine is as good as your biased trash you put out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander or should be. Granted not here but....

L.W. Baxter
03-07-2011, 11:36 AM
Interesting to note that the opulence of the first Gilded Age occurred during a period of rapid economic expansion while the opulence of this second Gilded Age is occurring during a period of protracted economic contraction.

This is not even remotely accurate. Economic contraction? One supposes, by some measures, in some regions, in the last several years. But most of today's fortunes were built during the most prolonged, dramatic, and unbroken global economic expansions in human history. Let's keep it real.

McMike
03-07-2011, 11:41 AM
Hey I post similar ones and no one including you doubt it because what is posted is biased to your way of thinking and therefore okay. Mine is as good as your biased trash you put out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander or should be. Granted not here but....


You made a strong statement as to the ills of welfare yet you don't, not for one second, have any idea what you're talking about. Are there problems with welfare fraud and is there a generational persistence within the system? . . . You bet!

But please explain to me the 400% increase in the CPI over the past 35 years as compared to the 13% rise in median income over the same time period. Do me a favor and tell me how a family of three or four can subsist on $20,000 per year? That's a person working 40 hours per week at $10 per hour. Do you know what minimum wage is? $7.25 an hour. Ask yourself what happens when that family makes a few grand above the poverty level? Do some thinking, please.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 11:42 AM
How do you know I don't?
Have you taught or worked at a school for " underprivileged" kids...

McMike
03-07-2011, 11:43 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7VCdlb0ogAQ/SQCWJilw4VI/AAAAAAAAAwA/WkOc6KS4d-A/s1600/Income%2BDist.jpg

McMike
03-07-2011, 11:46 AM
How do you know I don't?

Don't what? Think? I think you do but without some facts your conclusions are completely disarmed.

McMike
03-07-2011, 11:54 AM
How do you know I don't?
Have you taught or worked at a school for " underprivileged" kids...

I used to be an underprivileged kid and I have seen and worked with and helped the most underprivileged kids in the country. That has NOTHING to do with the conversation except to give some insight as to your thoughts about welfare moms.

The question is; what do you think about the wealthy fleecing the middle class? Do you have an opinion about the statistics I posted in #91? '



explain to me the 400% increase in the CPI over the past 35 years as compared to the 13% rise in median income over the same time period. Do me a favor and tell me how a family of three or four can subsist on $20,000 per year? That's a person working 40 hours per week at $10 per hour. Do you know what minimum wage is? $7.25 an hour. Ask yourself what happens when that family makes a few grand above the poverty level?

Pugwash
03-07-2011, 11:54 AM
Hey I post similar ones and no one including you doubt it because what is posted is biased to your way of thinking and therefore okay. Mine is as good as your biased trash you put out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander or should be. Granted not here but....

What a load of old nonsense.

You are perpetually dismissing articles, studies & polls because you perceive them to be biased merely because they don't agree with your worldview and you are stubbornly unwilling to do your own research.

When asked to present some of your own evidence the best you can come up with is some right wing Libertarian/ Christian blog.

Rather than leading by example and showing us all how real facts should be presented you go with agenda driven crap and say "Well, you do it".

pefjr
03-07-2011, 12:00 PM
What a load of old nonsense.

You are right . Post #68 I ask for an explanation for wardd's BS. Do you see one? Put up evidence Airlie is wrong.

McMike
03-07-2011, 12:12 PM
You are right . Post #68 I ask for an explanation for wardd's BS. Do you see one? Put up evidence Airlie is wrong.

Airlie is responsible for backing up his claim with support. Wardd is Airlie's counterpart to a lesser degree.

wardd
03-07-2011, 12:15 PM
Airlie is responsible for backing up his claim with support. Wardd is Airlie's counterpart to a lesser degree.

i usually give links

but some is opinion which i am entitled too

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 12:17 PM
I gave an example..You called it biased because you would not accept it..I proved my case..case closed...Just because you did not like it because it goes against your perceptions, and is therefore biased to you, doesn't mean it was wrong..Refute what I wrote if you want...you have the right but at this time you haven't..Until then, regardless of the country, it stands.

McMike
03-07-2011, 12:21 PM
I gave an example..You called it biased because you would not accept it..I proved my case..case closed...Just because you did not like it because it goes against your perceptions, and is therefore biased to you, doesn't mean it was wrong..Refute what I wrote if you want...

The thing is, I don't doubt the article is right but it still doesn't explain the OP or the facts that I have presented. The fact that you refuse to tackle the subject of the OP without blaming welfare moms is ridiculous and malicious and way off-topic.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 12:35 PM
GOVERNMENT WELFARE HAS PROVEN TO BE INEFFECTIVE IN FIGHTING POVERTY
Government Welfare Emphasis the Need For Money But Does Not Provide a Sound System to Gain the Money.
Government welfare was once thought to be needed in order to reduce poverty, as it was expected the families would happily receive their welfare checks, stabilize, find work, and then get out of the poverty and become contributing members of society.

When that did not happen, the government did not choose to stop the program and look for other methods of helping the poor, but instead introduced reforms that have stopped the abuse by some, but have allowed others to get a free ride from the government.

No one likes poverty, and most people would like to see poverty come to an end, but the truth is, the welfare state the government has created does nothing to end poverty, and instead encourages poverty to become an issue that is passed down through the generations.


Government welfare has created an excuse for people to stay in poverty, because people have learned they do not have to be self sufficient in order to survive in the United States.

People do not have to have jobs and do not have to contribute to society in order to get food on their table, and when they have more children, they have more money.

This has created a system where accountability is lacking, and because there is no accountability, the people of the United States will never be able to move away from poverty and start to live comfortably.

At one time, it was the responsibility of the charities to take care of those who were living in poverty, and when that was the case, the people in poverty actually had a chance to get out of their situation.

They were able to learn important life skills and get help finding a job through the charities, and thus they were able to learn how to pick themselves up and move forward instead of sitting at home and waiting for the next check to arrive.

Poverty has become a virus that gets passed down from one generation to the next because government welfare has taken away the need for people to be motivated members of society, and it reward them for not doing anything to better themselves.

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 12:45 PM
Cite it or be a plagiarist, Jamie.

http://www.truth-it.net/government_welfare.html

Looks like a right-wing propaganda organ , to me.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 12:49 PM
Well that is as close as I can get regarding a subject you don't agree with and therefore consider biased...About what I expected..So shoot the messenger and don't bother refuting what I posted, here or earlier..Good for you...

I really am going to have to polish my black boots now.

there...happy now...http://www.truth-it.net/government_welfare.html

wardd
03-07-2011, 12:54 PM
as computers and automation advance there will come a time when there will not be enough work to keep everyone employed full time

most will have periods of unemployment or under employment

we will have to rethink what it means to be employed

and that time isn't all that far off

and then there's the question of who should own factories that require little labor to run and maintain

wardd
03-07-2011, 12:58 PM
Well that is as close as I can get regarding a subject you don't agree with and therefore consider biased...About what I expected..So shoot the messenger and don't bother refuting what I posted, here or earlier..Good for you...

I really am going to have to polish my black boots now.

there...happy now...http://www.truth-it.net/government_welfare.html

you seem to consider many factual statements biased

just because you dont agree with something doesn't mean it's biased

this smacks of the global climate change and evolution thing

it's a debate between scientists who have studied them and those with vested interests against the science and fellow Luddites

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 12:58 PM
Yup just like the merde 8% put out here and we are supposed to accept it.But what you and your friends post or C&P are alight. They have passed the sniff test. I think I need a uniform to go with the black boots.

Still no one has refuted what was written..I guess you had better have meeting as how to go about answering the attachments.
I added... Of course you might have a few who aren't working or looking for work so some will be home.

wardd
03-07-2011, 01:02 PM
Yup just like the merde 8% put out here and we are supposed to accept it.But what you and your friends post or C&P are alight. They have passed the sniff test. I think I need a uniform to go with the black boots.

Still no one has refuted what was written..I guess you had better have meeting as how to go about answering the attachments.
I added... Of course you might have a few who aren't working or looking for work so some will be home.

i have a problem understanding much of what you write

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 01:04 PM
When is the gathering, I'll be sure to iron the one I have ordered.You rarely post facts..look at the puppy waard who posts constant blatherings about republicans with no citations. or proof but they are okay..No questions nada from you or your ilk. What a taylor made hypocrite.

pefjr
03-07-2011, 01:08 PM
Apparently, you and Arlie are clinging with some desperation to the old Reagan "Welfare Queen" myth.

Is it like Chicken Soup for the Republican? I don't see the appeal myself.Maybe the reason so many cling to this is the welfare fraud. The accounting is even estimated. 300 Billion is estimated to be fraudulent. 300 billion. When caught they are slapped on the hand and sentence to 100hrs. of community service. Meanwhile they are teaching their kids the tricks. A myth? only for the libs that turn their heads.

wardd
03-07-2011, 01:10 PM
who has had their hands slapped for the banking fiasco?

how much was that again, trillions?

pefjr
03-07-2011, 01:15 PM
who has had their hands slapped for the banking fiasco?

how much was that again, trillions?starting a new thread wardd?, you haven't answered my question on this thread yet.

wardd
03-07-2011, 01:16 PM
starting a new thread wardd?, you haven't answered my question on this thread yet.

missed it, ask again

pefjr
03-07-2011, 01:17 PM
missed it, ask again#68

pefjr
03-07-2011, 01:25 PM
155,000,000 to 400. You boys can look at this as better odds than you beat when your pappy's sperm cell beat out millions of competitors and made it to the egg and became you. You won that one.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 01:28 PM
155,000,000 to 400. You boys can look at this as better odds than you beat when your pappy's sperm cell beat out millions of competitors and made it to the egg and became you. You won that one.

and all we got out of that union was a troll.

wardd
03-07-2011, 01:29 PM
me, not as much as some

but i was caught up in several economic downturns when the powers that be decided raising the unemployment level was needed to cool the economy down

wardd
03-07-2011, 01:30 PM
and all we got out of that union was a troll.

don't you mean sponges that soak up more than their share?

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 01:32 PM
I'm not a panhandler... But not a bad job for you..Oh right panhandling takes work.

pefjr
03-07-2011, 01:33 PM
and all we got out of that union was a troll.:D..wait a sec.... more:d:D

pefjr
03-07-2011, 01:38 PM
Not entirely dishonest, but close.

300 billion is total fraud. Half of which is estimated to be organised crime operations.




You really should get your facts right before you borrow Jamies jack-boots.turn your head around and look at the welfare fraud, it ain't pretty but it will not bite you.

pefjr
03-07-2011, 01:41 PM
me, not as much as some

but i was caught up in several economic downturns when the powers that be decided raising the unemployment level was needed to cool the economy downAnd this is your answer to, "i'm not against getting rich as long as it is done in a way that does not preclude others from having a share of the good life"

McMike
03-07-2011, 01:42 PM
Maybe the reason so many cling to this is the welfare fraud. The accounting is even estimated. 300 Billion is estimated to be fraudulent. 300 billion. When caught they are slapped on the hand and sentence to 100hrs. of community service. Meanwhile they are teaching their kids the tricks. A myth? only for the libs that turn their heads.

I'm looking for where you got that 300 billion number. Please site.

wardd
03-07-2011, 01:49 PM
And this is your answer to, "i'm not against getting rich as long as it is done in a way that does not preclude others from having a share of the good life"

here is my answer, i'm not against wealth per se

i'm against so much wealth in so few hands that it becomes a blockage to the economy

i'm against letting corporations get so big that they are too big to fail

John Smith
03-07-2011, 01:52 PM
Waard true but at what point does a hand out turn into a generational snowball? How many generations Ggranny,granny,daughter,daughter,children, grandchildren are going to abuse the system? Throwing money never endingly ain't gonna solve the problem. In fact, it makes the problem worse

Seems a closed minded point of view. There is throwing away money, spending money, and investing. They are distinctly different things. Building an obsolete weapon, or buying it from another country is questionable use of money.

Building a new tunnel, improving our transportation systems, etc. are investments. They not onl create immediate jobs, but create an infrastructure that will support private businesses in the future. If we invest in high speed rail, and we build everything here, over time, the money spent will come back.

Pulling money out of education, ridding us of unions will only guarantee that those upon whom we are leaving this debt will have lower paying jobs with which to pay it. Doesn't sound very good to me.

John Smith
03-07-2011, 01:53 PM
Ggranny has five kids..each kid has five kids...etc..the kids learn the system..then the next generation does as well.
There is no desire by many to give up free aid and each generation seems to know the ins and outs of what and how they can benefit.

Obviously this does not hold for everyone..It's like lumping reps under one umbrella but

t is similar to " give the man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats everyday." paraphrased but you get the idea.
I'm not opposed to giving a helping hand but I'm opposed to giving and inch and being taken for a mile.
Can you document this?

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 01:55 PM
Geez man earlier thread as an example ( one of the many union threads), libs wanted to throw more money into education..I wish people made up their minds.

johnw
03-07-2011, 01:55 PM
Interesting to note that the opulence of the first Gilded Age occurred during a period of rapid economic expansion while the opulence of this second Gilded Age is occurring during a period of protracted economic contraction.
Right after Twain gave the Gilded Age its name, they had the Long Depression.

John Smith
03-07-2011, 01:55 PM
You made a strong statement as to the ills of welfare yet you don't, not for one second, have any idea what you're talking about. Are there problems with welfare fraud and is there a generational persistence within the system? . . . You bet!

But please explain to me the 400% increase in the CPI over the past 35 years as compared to the 13% rise in median income over the same time period. Do me a favor and tell me how a family of three or four can subsist on $20,000 per year? That's a person working 40 hours per week at $10 per hour. Do you know what minimum wage is? $7.25 an hour. Ask yourself what happens when that family makes a few grand above the poverty level? Do some thinking, please.
Inflation is under control; we have no idea why prices keep rising.

McMike
03-07-2011, 02:00 PM
Inflation is under control; we have no idea why prices keep rising.

No clue? Really?

McMike
03-07-2011, 02:03 PM
Geez man earlier thread as an example ( one of the many union threads), libs wanted to throw more money into education..I wish people made up their minds.

Jamie, you need to stick to one thing at a time. First either refute or acknowledge that the CPI has gone up 400% and the median income has only risen 13% in the past 35 years and then explain to me why.

pefjr
03-07-2011, 02:05 PM
I'm looking for where you got that 300 billion number. Please site.Why is so easy for you to find figures you like and so hard to find those that you don't want to look at, Mike? Google 300 billion estimated welfare fraud and there will be multiple sources. read it and weep, or try to dilute it like Pug.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 02:07 PM
I first said that welfare is generational. I posted two sites.. If you want to refute that statement fine..I would be listening to how you do that. And unlike you, I'd be happy with a biased site...

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:11 PM
Seems a closed minded point of view. There is throwing away money, spending money, and investing. They are distinctly different things. Building an obsolete weapon, or buying it from another country is questionable use of money.

Building a new tunnel, improving our transportation systems, etc. are investments. They not onl create immediate jobs, but create an infrastructure that will support private businesses in the future. If we invest in high speed rail, and we build everything here, over time, the money spent will come back.

Pulling money out of education, ridding us of unions will only guarantee that those upon whom we are leaving this debt will have lower paying jobs with which to pay it. Doesn't sound very good to me.

now you're going to confuse him

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:14 PM
I first said that welfare is generational. I posted two sites.. If you want to refute that statement fine..I would be listening to how you do that. And unlike you, I'd be happy with a biased site...

and wealth is generational too

maybe we should tame both

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 02:17 PM
No it isn't often it is but if want a real example not one of your piddling responses..John Kerry..you know the senator.. the democrat who barely gives to charty more than the cost of the ink on his tax returns.

CWSmith
03-07-2011, 02:17 PM
Raising taxes on the rich is NOT unfair and not sour grapes. It is a recognition that they got rich on the efforts and hard work of the majority of citizens. You don't sell operating systems to people who don't work. Computers went from being expensive tools in the workplace to everyone's favorite toy because there was a middle class to buy them and it was the middle class that made Bill Gates wealthy (that, and the people he first bought the operating system from - remember, he didn't invent DOS, he only capitalized on it).

The game of Monopoly gets it right - left unchecked, capitalism results in a few very rich people and the rest have nothing. If this is what you want, under the misguided hope that you will be one of the rich, the go for it! Personally, I'd rather have a healthy, long-term viability of a middle class to fuel an economy that helps all.

McMike
03-07-2011, 02:17 PM
Why is so easy for you to find figures you like and so hard to find those that you don't want to look at, Mike? Google 300 billion estimated welfare fraud and there will be multiple sources. read it and weep, or try to dilute it like Pug.


I did google it and then I just googled 300 billion estimated welfare fraud (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIE_enUS368US369&q=Google+300+billion+estimated+welfare+fraud+#scli ent=psy&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIE_enUS368US369&source=hp&q=300+billion+estimated+welfare+fraud&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&fp=ee7ae51cefa9981c) and got:


Experts estimate as much as $300 billion a year is lost to health and welfare fraud in the United States - about half of it to organized crime. (http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses/14108062-1.html) This was the only article that addressed your claim directly. I was not surprised by the claim and I have stated on other threads that I believe that the system should be overhauled massively.

So, what does welfare fraud have to do with the wealthy stealing this country's wealth and the fact that America was created with the philosophy in mind that the power should rest with the people and not with a small group. This assuming that we both believe money to be the primary driving forces behind everything and therefore a manifestation of power.

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 02:23 PM
Raising taxes on the rich is NOT unfair and not sour grapes. It is a recognition that they got rich on the efforts and hard work of the majority of citizens. You don't sell operating systems to people who don't work. Computers went from being expensive tools in the workplace to everyone's favorite toy because there was a middle class to buy them and it was the middle class that made Bill Gates wealthy (that, and the people he first bought the operating system from - remember, he didn't invent DOS, he only capitalized on it).

The game of Monopoly gets it right - left unchecked, capitalism results in a few very rich people and the rest have nothing. If this is what you want, under the misguided hope that you will be one of the rich, the go for it! Personally, I'd rather have a healthy, long-term viability of a middle class to fuel an economy that helps all.

You're making too much sense, CW.

These conservative ideologues are not mentally equipped to deal with anything other than unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism.

If you suggest regulation or investment in the public good, they will screech and gnash their teeth. They will say you're a dirty communist and call for your head on a pike.

The whole while, they're being held over a barrel and raped by the system they support, but they'll blame that on the welfare queens and the dirty, tree-hugging peaceniks.

Good luck, man. You're gonna need it!

Oh, and welcome to The Bilge!

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:27 PM
what if it were a rule that when you bought stock on the exchange you had to hold it for a full hour?

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 02:28 PM
what if it were a rule that when you bought stock on the exchange you had to hold it for a full hour?

No. For a full year.

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:29 PM
No. For a full year.

commie

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 02:30 PM
Don't have to worry too much about that..you need to stal the money first and then play in the stock market

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:32 PM
Don't have to worry too much about that..you need to stal the money first and then play in the stock market

like the rich that you worship?

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 02:34 PM
Well not being rich..if you say so..unlike you with your bloody hand out..Which if given, you will waste because you would expect more and more and more.

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:35 PM
Well not being rich..if you say so..unlike you with your bloody hand out..Which if given, you will waste because you would expect more and more and more.

shakes head

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 02:37 PM
Yes I am part of the 155 Million, and No I don't have an issue with the 400 so long as they did not break the law to get what they have.

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:38 PM
Yes I am part of the 155 Million, and No I don't have an issue with the 400 so long as they did not break the law to get what they have.

lololol

of course they didn't break the laws they had enacted

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 02:39 PM
waard if you got 5 million in the lottery, i would be gone in 4 yrs. I'll bet...and then aback you would come with your hat in your hand saying..gimme..gimme..more.

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 02:51 PM
lololol

of course they didn't break the laws they had enacted

You're sounding like a cross between Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, and Charlie Sheen from real life.

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:51 PM
waard if you got 5 million in the lottery, i would be gone in 4 yrs. I'll bet...and then aback you would come with your hat in your hand saying..gimme..gimme..more.

you assume that you know me

wardd
03-07-2011, 02:52 PM
You're sounding like a cross between Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, and Charlie Sheen from real life.

sure, they give because they are generous

McMike
03-07-2011, 02:52 PM
You're sounding like a cross between Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, and Charlie Sheen from real life.

Between him and Jamie, they're manic and random about it.

Dutch
03-07-2011, 02:54 PM
i just shared my recipe for bacardi cheese cake over on a bernsteen thread, so to be fair I want to post it here - its killer- give it a try :)


1 1/4 c. graham cracker crumbs
1/4 c. sugar
6 T. butter or margarine, melted
1 envelope unflavored gelatin
1/2 c. sugar
1/2 c. Bacardi light rum
1 T. lime peel, grated
1/2 c. lime juice
4 eggs, separated
2 pkg. (8 oz. each) cream cheese, softened
1/2 c. sugar
1 c. heavy cream (1/2 pint)
Combine crumbs, 1/4 cup sugar and butter or margarine; reserve 3 tablespoons crumb mixture. Press remaining crumbs in bottom of 9-inch springform pan; chill. Meanwhile, combine gelatin and 1/2 cup sugar in medium saucepan; stir in rum, lime peel, and juice. Beat egg yolks and blend into rum mixture. Cook over medium heat, stirring constantly until slightly thickened, about 8 minutes; remove from heat. Beat in cream cheese until smooth. Beat egg whites until foamy; gradually beat in remaining 1/2 cup sugar; beat until stiff peaks form. Whip cream to soft peaks. Fold egg whites and whipped cream into rum mixture. Turn into crumb-lined pan; sprinkle with reserved crumbs. Cover and chill several hours, or until firm. Makes 12 servings.

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Between him and Jamie, they're manic and random about it.

Nothing random about it. Have you taken your Clozaril today?

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 02:56 PM
Nice Recipe Dutch. You got more?

McMike
03-07-2011, 02:57 PM
Yes I am part of the 155 Million, and No I don't have an issue with the 400 so long as they did not break the law to get what they have.

So you don't have a problem with the massive shift of wealth to the wealthy over the past 35 years? You don't agree that it's out of balance and that it is the antithesis of the originating philosophy of America which was to make sure that the power rested with all of the people and not with a small minority?

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 03:01 PM
So you don't have a problem with the massive shift of wealth to the wealthy over the past 35 years? You don't agree that it's out of balance and that it is the antithesis of the originating philosophy of America which was to make sure that the power rested with all of the people and not with a small minority?

I follow the rule of law. If that allows others to earn more than me legally, I accept that. I certainly wish that I had more, and I wish that everyone had more. Even though I don't have as much as some, I make donations to charitable organizations.

To me it is like freedom of speech. I sometimes find that what others say are offensive to me, but it is their right much like it is my right to speak freely too (so long as I am not threatening someone, or inciting a riot etc.). It is the price of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of property etc.

America was founded on freedom and the original draft of the declaration of independence stated "life, liberty and property" - property was later dropped as it was believed that it would support the perpetuation of slavery. In either case this country was founded by people who believed that their parent country (Great Brittan) exercised confiscatory practices, and and their independence was so that the individual had more control over their faith, their body and their property. It seems more un-American to hate someone simply because they have more and to use that hatred to confiscate their wealth.

Dutch
03-07-2011, 03:03 PM
Nice Recipe Dutch. You got more?

actually I do - I have to search around a little bit though - my kitchen is so unorganised :(

.

wardd
03-07-2011, 03:04 PM
I follow the rule of law. If that allows others to earn more than me legally, I accept that. I certain wish that I had more, and I wish that everyone had more. Even though I don't have as much as some, I make donations to charitable organizations.

To me it is like freedom of speech. I sometimes find that what others say are offensive to me, but it is their right much like it is my right to speak free too (so long as I am not threatening someone, or inciting a riot etc.). It is the price of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of property etc.

think of it this way

you go to a town hall meeting to voice your opinions

and there is 5 mins set aside for free speech

then 2 hours for those able to pay for the time

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 03:11 PM
With regard to Power resting with a small minority.... I see our elected officials as that small minority. They make promises and break them the second the get in office. They spend our money like it is Monopoly Money without looking at the wisdom and frugality of how it is spent. They vote themselves raises even though their constiuents are being laid off or suffering a loss of income.

Peerie Maa
03-07-2011, 03:13 PM
So you don't have a problem with the massive shift of wealth to the wealthy over the past 35 years? You don't agree that it's out of balance and that it is the antithesis of the originating philosophy of America which was to make sure that the power rested with all of the people and not with a small minority?

Ten posts an hour for 17 hours. This thread has legs. ;)

My concern would not be about the disparity of the wealth, that is just Pareto's Principle unchecked. However if you are correct in linking the power to the wealth in a direct ratio as your post suggests, then there is something deeply flawed in your political system.

wardd
03-07-2011, 03:13 PM
With regard to Power resting with a small minority.... I see our elected officials as that small minority. They make promises and break them the second the get in office. They spend our money like it is Monopoly Money without looking at the wisdom and frugality of how it is spent. They vote themselves raises even though their constiuents are being laid off or suffering a loss of income.

all somewhat true but the hope is the electorate will wake up

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. What I see are politicians that hold "town meetings" and then cancel them when they realize that their constiuents are going to complain about their elected official versus thanking them for raising our taxes. Why aren't you upset about everyones taxes? Shouldn't we all pay the least amount of taxes possible? Why aren't you angry with your politician who wastes your tax dollars that could have gone to a needy cause if it had been more wisely spent? How ever much the wealthy are avoiding in taxes, I would bet that it pales to the amount our government wastes.

wardd
03-07-2011, 03:23 PM
I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. What I see are politicians that hold "town meetings" and then cancel them when they realize that their constiuents are going to complain about their elected official versus thanking them for raising our taxes. Why aren't you upset about everyones taxes? Shouldn't we all pay the least amount of taxes possible? Why aren't you angry with your politician who wastes your tax dollars that could have gone to a needy cause if it had been more wisely spent? How ever much the wealthy are avoiding in taxes, I would bet that it pales to the amount our government wastes.

i'm upset that some get to pay less than the least amount of taxes

it's not the amount of tax it's what you get for it

would you be willing to pay a few hundred more in taxes if you got quality health care

would you be willing to pay a few hundred more in taxes if your children were able to get a quality education through college

would you pay a few hundred more if you were assured of a decent retirement?

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 03:32 PM
i'm upset that some get to pay less than the least amount of taxes

it's not the amount of tax it's what you get for it

would you be willing to pay a few hundred more in taxes if you got quality health care

would you be willing to pay a few hundred more in taxes if your children were able to get a quality education through college

would you pay a few hundred more if you were assured of a decent retirement?

Yes I would, but I would first want to know that the money they have already taken from me has been well spent. If they squandered the money I gave them for other "necessities" why would I believe that they would manage this any better. Let me ask you ...If you had $100,000 to invest, would you give it to Bernie Madoff or Warren Buffet? I sometimes feel that Bernie is the person managing my tax dollars and it is disappearing with nothing to show for it. Can you honestly say that the money you pay in taxes now is well spent. Do you ever wonder how much we would really need if Congress took away earmarks, overlapping programs, bloated entitlements, too many Government Employees, Overpaid Government employees, expensive weapon systems of questionable effectiveness etc.? I wonder about this and I don't know if hacking away at these things will bring us everything we need as a country, but I'd rather start there, than just to tax and spend even more (a percentage of which will get wasted).

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Garret and that is the issue..Spending money wisely. I don't really think most americans are against spending money, it is how that money would be spent. There really does not seem to be such a concept of accountability in gov. Sure congeress talks about it all of the time but as with most pols..it becomes lip service.

and regarding college, at that level is it a right? Or do we throw in graduate school as well.?

wardd
03-07-2011, 03:43 PM
Yes I would, but I would first want to know that the money they have already taken from me has been well spent. If they squandered the money I gave them for other "necessities" why would I believe that they would manage this any better. Let me ask you ...If you had $100,000 to invest, would you give it to Bernie Madoff or Warren Buffet? I sometimes feel that Bernie is the person managing my tax dollars and it is disappearing with nothing to show for it. Can you honestly say that the money you pay in taxes now is well spent. Do you ever wonder how much we would really need if Congress took away earmarks, overlapping programs, bloated entitlements, too many Government Employees, Overpaid Government employees, expensive weapon systems of questionable effectiveness etc.? I wonder about this and I don't know if hacking away at these things will bring us everything we need as a country, but I'd rather start there, than just to tax and spend even more (a percentage of which will get wasted).

you seem to want the perfect society

but you'll have to settle for the best we can have and right now that is difficult with one side skewing the results toward the few

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 03:45 PM
Isn't that y
what you want..a level playing field.. etc..? Oh right, you want handouts that favor you.

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 03:47 PM
One last point before I go. This thread started by complaining about the wealthy and arguing that we should take away more of their money because they are greedy leeches. Though there are many wealthy (and not so wealthy) people that are greedy, this feels eerily like pre-WW2 Germany where the Jews owned the business and controlled large parts of Germany's wealth. They were demonized by the Nazi's (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) who hated the greed (and inferiority) they believed that the Jews had. It provided the justification to confiscate their business and their wealth. I certainly don't think that USA circa 2011 is the same a Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany did not start out that way either.

pefjr
03-07-2011, 03:49 PM
but you'll have to settle for the best we can have and right now that is difficult with one side skewing the results toward the fewThere you go again, and you couldn't answer for that claim before. I call BS

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 03:50 PM
you seem to want the perfect society

but you'll have to settle for the best we can have and right now that is difficult with one side skewing the results toward the few

So you are OK with investing $100,000 with Bernie Madoff then?

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 03:51 PM
He probably would but remember it ain't his money to begin with.

wardd
03-07-2011, 03:52 PM
One last point before I go. This thread started by complaining about the wealthy and arguing that we should take away more of their money because they are greedy leeches. Though there are many wealthy (and not so wealthy) people that are greedy, this feels eerily like pre-WW2 Germany where the Jews owned the business and controlled large parts of Germany's wealth. They were demonized by the Nazi's (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) who hated the greed (and inferiority) they believed that the Jews had. It provided the justification to confiscate their business and their wealth. I certainly don't think that USA circa 2011 is the same a Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany did not start out that way either.

correction, prewar german jews were a minority and didn't control that much wealth, all the big bankers and industrialists were nonjewish german

and it's the nations money , it says so on every note

you just have to right to legally acquire and spend it lawfully and not deface it

and for that right you have to share in the responsibilities of good citizenship

pefjr
03-07-2011, 03:54 PM
it's not the amount of tax it's what you get for it
Not quite but you are learning. Congress can cut enough waste to provide for these desires but paying more taxes to these wasteful crooks has not and will not ever work. Cut DOD 70% and pay for most of it.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 03:54 PM
Don't we also have the right to chose where the money would be spent if it is stripped away...and spent foolishly by others?

wardd
03-07-2011, 04:00 PM
Don't we also have the right to chose where the money would be spent if it is stripped away...and spent foolishly by others?

you don't seem to understand that it's not spending or saving that made the wealthy wealthy

it was government policy, taxes, sweetheart contracts

did cheney get rich because haliburton did such a wonderful job in iraq?

did you know haliburton is head quartered in dubai and still gets military contracts?

Concordia 33
03-07-2011, 04:01 PM
correction, prewar german jews were a minority and didn't control that much wealth, all the big bankers and industrialists were nonjewish german

and it's the nations money , it says so on every note

you just have to right to legally acquire and spend it lawfully and not deface it

and for that right you have to share in the responsibilities of good citizenship

The Jews were a minority as are the wealthy 400 that you reference. Considerable wealth was taken - I don't have the time to reference it now, but if this thread is still active tomorrow, I'll provide you with the information.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 04:02 PM
Oh I understand perfectly.. And if you are actually daring gov. deals etc. you should write a letter to members of the current administration not complain here.

wardd
03-07-2011, 04:17 PM
The Jews were a minority as are the wealthy 400 that you reference. Considerable wealth was taken - I don't have the time to reference it now, but if this thread is still active tomorrow, I'll provide you with the information.

surely you jest?

comparing the 400 wealthiest people in the country with the powerlessness of prewar german jews

TimH
03-07-2011, 04:21 PM
I follow the rule of law. If that allows others to earn more than me legally, I accept that.


So if slavery was legal again you would have lots of slaves?


Doesnt capitalism require a certain amount of wealth distribution in order to function properly?

Is it ok for Wall Street bankers to have pocketed huge amounts of taxpayers money given to them as part of their bailout as bonuses while public services are being cut right and left to pay for it?

If the legislature enacts a law that makes some particular act or practice legal (legal in the sense that there is no penalty), does that make the act or practice ethically or morally acceptable?


I say just because something is legal doesnt mean it should be. America would never have existed if everyone just sat back and accepted whatever was dished out to them.

johnw
03-07-2011, 04:36 PM
One last point before I go. This thread started by complaining about the wealthy and arguing that we should take away more of their money because they are greedy leeches. Though there are many wealthy (and not so wealthy) people that are greedy, this feels eerily like pre-WW2 Germany where the Jews owned the business and controlled large parts of Germany's wealth. They were demonized by the Nazi's (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) who hated the greed (and inferiority) they believed that the Jews had. It provided the justification to confiscate their business and their wealth. I certainly don't think that USA circa 2011 is the same a Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany did not start out that way either.
And he wins the Godwin Award for this thread.

Look, Hitler wasn't seizing Jewish property because he wanted to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. He seized all the Jewish wealth, including that of poor Jews. He seized none of the wealth of the rich junkers. In fact, he believed that wealthy Germans not only deserved their wealth for past hard work, but because they were biologically better than the working class. For Fascists, class war was a kind of crime against nature, and because of their biological determinism, they wanted the sons of laborers to be laborers, the sons of landowners to be landowners. Social mobility was only to be available to party members.

For the Nazis, letting the wealthy keep their wealth was a matter of principle.

wardd
03-07-2011, 04:47 PM
And he wins the Godwin Award for this thread.

Look, Hitler wasn't seizing Jewish property because he wanted to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. He seized all the Jewish wealth, including that of poor Jews. He seized none of the wealth of the rich junkers. In fact, he believed that wealthy Germans not only deserved their wealth for past hard work, but because they were biologically better than the working class. For Fascists, class war was a kind of crime against nature, and because of their biological determinism, they wanted the sons of laborers to be laborers, the sons of landowners to be landowners. Social mobility was only to be available to party members.

For the Nazis, letting the wealthy keep their wealth was a matter of principle.

that has a familure ring to it

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 04:51 PM
f-a-m-i-l-i-a-r!

The Bigfella
03-07-2011, 04:51 PM
Bullsh17, the current condition of the economy is proof they don't put it to work. I am a cabinet maker for the rich, they aren't buying, neither are the large companies. If they aren't spending the money then who will? Sell me another one cause this one is rotten.

Don't confuse consumption and investment.

I had an interesting chat with a friend recently who manages his family's wealth.... which is a lot of wealth (how much is unknown, but I suspect its close to or in the billions - its been in the family for a while, as has the title). He was concerned with current events and he summed up his role rather nicely. His job is to manage risk for the family. In times like we've been going through, the choice is to either minimise it in order to preserve capital, or to take some risks that may multiply it (or reduce it severely). On the whole inherited bit of it, there's an unusual twist. He's adopted.

wardd
03-07-2011, 04:54 PM
f-a-m-i-l-i-a-r!

thank you

spelling correction from you means a lot

isla
03-07-2011, 04:56 PM
Can anybody tell me what CEOs of large companies are doing different, or better, that they deserve the disproportionate increase in pay that they have enjoyed in recent years. According to Professor G. William Domhoff of University of Califonia Santa Cruz (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)..

The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. It was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe. The changes in the American ratio from 1960 to 2007 are displayed in this graph, which is based on data from several hundred of the largest corporations.

http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/CEO%20Pay2.gif

This graph describes the change between 1990 and 2005.

http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/CEO%20Pay1.gif

Even allowing for the fact that corporate profits are up over 100%, suggesting that CEOs are doing more to earn their pay, the rise in CEO remuneration compared to the workforce is totally out of balance. Perhaps one of you economic wizards can put this in perspective for me?

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 04:59 PM
thank you

spelling correction from you means a lot Well as none of your friends seem to think it is important to point out or correct you on it, thought I would and sure, I do make mistakes which many people here are more than happy to point out ad nauseum.

wardd
03-07-2011, 04:59 PM
Can anybody tell me what CEOs of large companies are doing different, or better, that they deserve the disproportionate increase in pay that they have enjoyed in recent years. According to Professor G. William Domhoff of University of Califonia Santa Cruz (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)..

The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. It was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe. The changes in the American ratio from 1960 to 2007 are displayed in this graph, which is based on data from several hundred of the largest corporations.

http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/CEO%20Pay2.gif

This graph describes the change between 1990 and 2005.

http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/CEO%20Pay1.gif

Even allowing for the fact that corporate profits are up over 100%, suggesting that CEOs are doing more to earn their pay, the rise in CEO remuneration compared to the workforce is totally out of balance. Perhaps one of you economic wizards can put this in perspective for me?

they are appointing a better class of people to the compensation committee

The Bigfella
03-07-2011, 05:03 PM
Our system of wealth continuing to trickle up isn't working that well.

"Distribution" is a poor term. "Circulation" is better. Money to our society is like blood to our bodies, or water to life; it has to keep circulating. When either fails to circulate properly, we have problems.

This is exaserbated by those with the money buying the politicians so the budget problems are problems for the working class, not the wealthy: cut teacher pay and benefits, but don't tax the wealth. It's my understanding that a 5% tax increase on incomes over $500k would pretty much solve our budget problems.

Taking money from the working class, giving them less to spend, cuts demand, and only makes all our budget problems worse.

Taking money from anyone makes all your problems worse. Try using a carrot, rather than a stick.

btw... interesting looking through that list of the 400. I see they can't come up with a photo of one in the top 10%. The fact that their address is a small country town not far from me might be why....

John Smith
03-07-2011, 05:10 PM
Geez man earlier thread as an example ( one of the many union threads), libs wanted to throw more money into education..I wish people made up their minds.
I find it interesting that whenever education is discussed by serious people with some knowledge, Finland find her way into the conversation. They seem to be among the world leaders in positive results, and they are quite unionized.

I find it strange that those who believe in "local" solutions, government wise, think in such opposite terms when they consider education. Who is closer than the teacher?

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 05:13 PM
John..this came from a thread on the unions in WI and specifically education. I guess I do not see the connection to Finland but if there is one, I'd be interested to see it.

oznabrag
03-07-2011, 05:15 PM
f-a-m-i-l-i-a-r!



What an epic hypocrite!

wardd
03-07-2011, 05:17 PM
What an epic hypocrite!

it's ok he was a nonunion private school teacher

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2011, 05:22 PM
Again you don't have a clue..Not surprised but your crowd will clap and pat you on the head and say " good doggie.. but he of what under a thousand posts..no make it 1050 max knows all.

No worries. I've finally realized you are just a lib troll. So good night, ain't going to bother wasting bandwidth on you.

TimH
03-07-2011, 05:45 PM
I find it strange that those who believe in "local" solutions, government wise, think in such opposite terms when they consider education. Who is closer than the teacher?

Kind of like pro lifers who are against universal health care.

You HAVE to have that child, but you cannot be allowed keep it healthy!

wardd
03-07-2011, 05:46 PM
knowledge here is based on the number of your posts?


and in my last post was there anything factually wrong?

TimH
03-07-2011, 05:53 PM
knowledge here is based on the number of your posts?





some people think that wisdom comes with experience posting on the WBF. But sometimes experience posting on the WBF comes by itself.

wardd
03-07-2011, 05:55 PM
some people think that wisdom comes with experience posting on the WBF. But sometimes experience posting on the WBF comes by itself.

it took me years to learn how to make mistakes as fast as i do

johnw
03-07-2011, 06:28 PM
f-a-m-i-l-i-a-r!
Yes, it is.

Ted Hoppe
03-07-2011, 06:47 PM
What is amazing here is that percentage wise, the 400 richest get what they pay for. The 155 million folks who are struggling to maintain the American dream find themselves slipping and are not prepared to lift themselves out of the situation we find ourselves. What color is your parachute individualism and follow your bliss mythology days are over. As different today as it was when Teddy Roosevelt was a rough rider to post war 1945 America, we are just understanding our new position.

Two good quotes from one of founding fathers.

"Wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence." Thomas Paine - Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795.


"I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable
in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the
felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is
mingled in the scene.

The sight of the misery, and the unpleasant sensations it suggests,
which, though they may be suffocated cannot be extinguished, are a
greater drawback upon the felicity of affluence than the proposed ten
per cent upon property is worth.

He that would not give the one to get rid of the other has no charity,
even for himself.

There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by
individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do,
when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered.
He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that
he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing
civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys,
that the whole weight of misery can be removed."

-Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 1797.

McMike
03-07-2011, 07:43 PM
I follow the rule of law. If that allows others to earn more than me legally, I accept that. I certainly wish that I had more, and I wish that everyone had more. Even though I don't have as much as some, I make donations to charitable organizations.

To me it is like freedom of speech. I sometimes find that what others say are offensive to me, but it is their right much like it is my right to speak freely too (so long as I am not threatening someone, or inciting a riot etc.). It is the price of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of property etc.

America was founded on freedom and the original draft of the declaration of independence stated "life, liberty and property" - property was later dropped as it was believed that it would support the perpetuation of slavery. In either case this country was founded by people who believed that their parent country (Great Brittan) exercised confiscatory practices, and and their independence was so that the individual had more control over their faith, their body and their property. It seems more un-American to hate someone simply because they have more and to use that hatred to confiscate their wealth.


Who makes the laws? How do we know they didn't break the law? As I understand it the regulators had no idea how the subprime derivatives worked. I think you're being naive in simply giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't hate wealthy people, please stop putting words in my mouth.

McMike
03-07-2011, 07:45 PM
With regard to Power resting with a small minority.... I see our elected officials as that small minority. They make promises and break them the second the get in office. They spend our money like it is Monopoly Money without looking at the wisdom and frugality of how it is spent. They vote themselves raises even though their constiuents are being laid off or suffering a loss of income.


Who do you think gives the politicians their mandate? Let me give you a hint; money talks.

Again stop being naive.

McMike
03-07-2011, 07:46 PM
What is amazing here is that percentage wise, the 400 richest get what they pay for. The 155 million folks who are struggling to maintain the American dream find themselves slipping and are not prepared to lift themselves out of the situation we find ourselves. What color is your parachute individualism and follow your bliss mythology days are over. As different today as it was when Teddy Roosevelt was a rough rider to post war 1945 America, we are just understanding our new position.

Two good quotes from one of founding fathers.

"Wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence." Thomas Paine - Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795.


"I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable
in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the
felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is
mingled in the scene.

The sight of the misery, and the unpleasant sensations it suggests,
which, though they may be suffocated cannot be extinguished, are a
greater drawback upon the felicity of affluence than the proposed ten
per cent upon property is worth.

He that would not give the one to get rid of the other has no charity,
even for himself.

There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by
individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do,
when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered.
He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that
he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing
civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys,
that the whole weight of misery can be removed."

-Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 1797.

Amen to Mr. Paine!

Dutch
03-07-2011, 07:55 PM
got to find that damn recipe book

McMike
03-07-2011, 08:03 PM
got to find that damn recipe book

I know, it's about time you contribute something useful.:d

The Bigfella
03-07-2011, 08:19 PM
Who makes the laws? How do we know they didn't break the law? As I understand it the regulators had no idea how the subprime derivatives worked. I think you're being naive in simply giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't hate wealthy people, please stop putting words in my mouth.

Umm.. they did in this country. We didn't even get a recession as a result. No banks went broke either.

Keith Wilson
03-07-2011, 08:27 PM
Wealth can buy power. I don't think it's good for democracy when wealth is that concentrated.

It would be interesting to know how many of the 400 inherited thier money. For the richest 1% in the US, it's about half.

McMike
03-07-2011, 08:28 PM
Umm.. they did in this country. We didn't even get a recession as a result. No banks went broke either.

So you're saying their excuse was lame and that maybe the regulators were the criminals as well?

Where I'm at Bigfella, I think the US government and the wealthy have the same interests, they are the same people and that's bad for our country and probably yours to some degree.

McMike
03-07-2011, 08:30 PM
Wealth can buy power. I don't think it's good for democracy when wealth is that concentrated.

It would be interesting to know how many of the 400 inherited tier money. For the richest 1%, it's about half.

Saying money can buy power is like saying fire can be hot . . . no offence Keith but I think you understated the issue here a little.;)

The Bigfella
03-07-2011, 08:33 PM
No, I'm not saying the regulators were criminals. They didn't get it right. You don't send someone to gaol for not getting it right... but you might vote them out.

Yes, we have some wealthy politicians (not that many), but no... their interests are broadly aligned with the interests of the people as a whole.

Keith Wilson
03-07-2011, 08:36 PM
Not everybody who has a lot of money uses it to influence politics. Some just tend to business, some kick back and enjoy it.

McMike
03-07-2011, 08:36 PM
No, I'm not saying the regulators were criminals. They didn't get it right. You don't send someone to gaol for not getting it right... but you might vote them out.

Yes, we have some wealthy politicians (not that many), but no... their interests are broadly aligned with the interests of the people as a whole.

I agree but who do we vote in? . . . they choose the candidates, I have never voted for someone on a national level who wasn't selected for me to begin with.

McMike
03-07-2011, 08:38 PM
Not everybody who has a lot of money uses it to influence politics. Some just tend to business, some kick back and enjoy it.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I have never known a human being to not use all the tools available to them in order to influence any given situation to their favor.

The Bigfella
03-07-2011, 08:47 PM
I agree but who do we vote in? . . . they choose the candidates, I have never voted for someone on a national level who wasn't selected for me to begin with.

Join a party, become part of the selection process.

I chose not to do that, but I do choose to participate. I've met Prime Ministers (had one ring me at home), Premiers, Cabinet Ministers and many others in the political process from all major parties over the years. I'm in email contact with politicians on a regular basis. Even had some dealings with a couple of advisers on the staff of US Presidents (Middle East policy and Energy) ..... oh yeah, and I'm not wealthy, so I just rely on my charm, good looks, wit and superior intelligence.

purri
03-07-2011, 09:26 PM
^ but you wear thongs. (flip flops)

The Bigfella
03-07-2011, 09:49 PM
^ but you wear thongs. (flip flops)

wrong again mate... I had to retire my thongs on medical advice.

McMike
03-07-2011, 09:51 PM
Join a party, become part of the selection process.

I chose not to do that, but I do choose to participate. I've met Prime Ministers (had one ring me at home), Premiers, Cabinet Ministers and many others in the political process from all major parties over the years. I'm in email contact with politicians on a regular basis. Even had some dealings with a couple of advisers on the staff of US Presidents (Middle East policy and Energy) ..... oh yeah, and I'm not wealthy, so I just rely on my charm, good looks, wit and superior intelligence.

I vote in the primaries but I really don't like the idea of having to remain a registered party member in order keep doing so and i don't get to pick the pool of candidates anyway so it ends up being pointless as I'm really only picking from folks that have been picked for me.

I mean no disrespect and I realize I might be a bit presumptuous but as I understand you, you are loaded. Me, I have nothing to offer anyone in order to gain access to high end politicians. Also, while I have a little spare time now, once I become employed I don't anticipate having the time to dedicate to politics beyond arguing here on the forum. That's how it works, I work, help raise two kids and if I'm lucky I'll have time to shoot the sh17 here on the forum for a little bit before bed every night. I will most likely never have the opportunity you have simply because you have money and connections. It isn't fair but its the truth.

McMike
03-08-2011, 09:06 AM
I didn't say he/she WOULD become one of them. I said they could.... and on that note, I'll have to leave this discussion for a while. I've got to spend, I mean invest $62 million.

I'm curious. You say that you're not wealthy, yet anyone who is a part of "investing" $62 million is, in my book, wealthy. I would assume that, at minimum your position pays you at least $150,000/year but probably more. How is that not wealthy? I also don't understand how you could consider that an average working/middle class guy like me would ever have a chance to have a personal conversation with anyone of influence, it's a very rare thing to happen where I come from, never mind expecting that conversation to mean anything.

wardd
03-08-2011, 09:56 AM
Not everybody who has a lot of money uses it to influence politics. Some just tend to business, some kick back and enjoy it.

having enough wealth is potential power and politicians will listen to you regardless of what you do with it

elf
03-08-2011, 10:14 AM
I have yet to see a party that I could, in clear conscience, affiliate with. However, I nearly always find that the most important vote is in the primary.

S.V. Airlie
03-08-2011, 10:21 AM
I have yet to see a party that I could, in clear conscience, affiliate with. However, I nearly always find that the most important vote is in the primary.

For once I agree with elf...

Ted Hoppe
03-08-2011, 01:00 PM
Obscene? You live in a capitalistic society. You are using mathematics and select groups to attempt to offend the capitalistic morality. If any of these 400 have broken the law, wake me and I will help you bring them down. Meanwhile, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/10/16/image5389929x.jpg
#262 on the Forbes 400

* Jury selection begins today for Sri Lankan-born fund manager's trial
Tue, Mar 8, 2011, 09:14 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.


Mar 08, New York: The 12-member jury selection for the criminal trial of Galleon hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam begins today at a federal court in Manhattan New York.

Rajaratnam, 53, the Sri Lankan-born hedge fund manager who is accused of security fraud and conspiracy, managed the $7 billion Galleon Group hedge fund.

The FBI arrested Rajaratnam on October 15 in New York after a two-year sting operation using phone taps.

A federal grand jury in New York indicted Raj Rajaratnam, 53, and Danielle Chiesi of New Castle Funds in December 2009 for seventeen counts involving conspiracy and securities fraud crimes for their alleged involvement in the largest hedge fund insider trading case in history.

Rajaratnam is alleged of generating 45 million dollars in profits from the inside trading. The illegal trading activities go as far back as 2003 involving multiple schemes to trade stocks in companies including Hilton Hotels, Google, AMD, Akamai, IBM, and Sun Microsystems.


Did you book your tickets, hotel and pack your lynching rope?

pefjr
03-08-2011, 01:23 PM
Did you book your tickets, hotel and pack your lynching rope?Excellent!, thanks for waking me. I see they have everything in control and do not need me after all. Is he out on bail yet? Better watch him close. Take his money and pay back every one of the investers.

wardd
03-08-2011, 01:57 PM
what's wrong with insider trading?

if you have knowledge that others don't , shouldn't you be able to profit from it?

why should i have to share my money making potential with other too lazy to get the information themselves?

isla
03-08-2011, 02:02 PM
Meanwhile, in a small democracy far far away.. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-defends-16365m-bonus-for-bob-diamond-2235328.html)

Barclays (UK Bank) defends £6.5m bonus for Bob Diamond

Barclays claimed yesterday that it had shown restraint on pay as it revealed that its chief executive, Bob Diamond, was paid a bonus of £6.5m for 2010.

In its remuneration report, the bank also indicated that its joint heads of investment banking were each paid about £14m. In total, the top five non-board earners shared £49m.

As I asked in an earlier post, what have these guys done differently, or better, to justify bonuses like that? But give the guy his due, he was supposed to get £9.5 million, but he asked the bank to cut his bonus in the name of restraint. Remember, this is UK pounds, not dollars. Come on guys get real! :mad:

wardd
03-08-2011, 02:14 PM
Meanwhile, in a small democracy far far away.. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-defends-16365m-bonus-for-bob-diamond-2235328.html)

Barclays (UK Bank) defends £6.5m bonus for Bob Diamond

Barclays claimed yesterday that it had shown restraint on pay as it revealed that its chief executive, Bob Diamond, was paid a bonus of £6.5m for 2010.

In its remuneration report, the bank also indicated that its joint heads of investment banking were each paid about £14m. In total, the top five non-board earners shared £49m.

As I asked in an earlier post, what have these guys done differently, or better, to justify bonuses like that? But give the guy his due, he was supposed to get £9.5 million, but he asked the bank to cut his bonus in the name of restraint. Remember, this is UK pounds, not dollars. Come on guys get real! :mad:


they invented a better mouse trap