DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Define wealth. It appears Slick defines it as how much money and assets you have. What about family and friends. Experiences you may accrue. How about your health? You can have all the money in the world and without some of what I pointed out, you are really poor.

I would agree, as a lifestyle point, but we are talking economics here, personal economics. In fact, much of what you are looking at above is what that German Businessman cited in TC's link, about being rich in a 'poor' country. Providing healthcare, and removing some of the bad experience of worrying daily about simple necessities, can raise folks with limited incomes out of being truly poor. And, as the gentlemen stated, it is the least the wealthy can do to make that happen.

Yes, exactly, because it is in their hands to do it.

EDIT: "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves."

I little bit of truth I base my opinions on

Flip, it's a shame that more don't read(or comprehend) the same Bible you do.

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:I for one live paycheck to paycheck. I consider my self wealthy. I have no debt and I own my own modest house free and clear. A life time to achieve the real American dream. Not this greedy piggish life style the elite want. A place to call your own. Even got the survey hanging on my office wall. Hard work and dedication will payoff in the long run.

sure it will.....and the rich get richer. Proof?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles ... 0in%202010

therein lies the key issue. As this gap grows, your naive assumption above will prove as ludicrous as it is short-sighted.
As to your equally goofy prediction for the 'future meltdown', history shows that often enough wealth IS power. Also, that
history also shows that the wealthy survive upheavals just fine.....the only question will be whether they reside here, or
elsewhere. Examples? Look no further than Marco Rubio, whose wealthy family fled to Florida, and has survived just fine
even though the Castro regime later came to power. Too bad for Marco that he had to embellish the rtory and tell the voters
that they fled after the revolution, but he can answer for that next time he runs....

Yes it's naive to think a person who grew up moving from foster home to foster home would ever make it to home ownership. Oh wait that did happen. You have no idea about what really goes on in a day and life of mentally and physically abuse Foster Child from the inner city. Just to beat the odds and make to home ownership in America. So yes I feel wealthy. If I can it make so can all those lazy people who decide to live like that. Now that's "lazy people" who decide not any one else.

callmeslick wrote:... And, as the gentlemen stated, it is the least the wealthy can do to make that happen.

Sounds really good.
Now stop voting for the guys who say they are using the revenue from "the rich" to make it happen and instead sell the rich exemptions and loopholes etc. and shift the burden onto the middle class to make it.....well....they don't even make it happen and yet they increase the burden anyway!!

But hey! their health insurance program is REALLY good isn't it? They managed to make that happen, along with private jets to take their grandchildren on vacation etc. etc. all out of that increased burden they put on my back!!

The real Tea Party is going to be carrying shotguns and rope!

Lol well Slick, you can read all day but the trick is to ask for understanding.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I wonder how many of the protesters understand how much money Obama gave the fat cat bankers and wall streeters just so they could stay in business. I wonder how many of the protestors understand where Geitner hails from and where Obama got a bunch of his campaign donations from ? When I said they should really be marching around the white house there was a reason.

you realize, do you not, that most of those protesters are every bit as pissed-off at the Obama administration as they are at the GOP? Have you ever bothered to go to one of these rallies? Talked to participants, directly, as opposed to some filtered video clips from Conservative Loon-Sites?

Are they now? Then where is the Occupy White House group. Oh and conservative sites are loon sites but liberal ones are doing good journalism ?

I'm afraid I agree. If the OWS movement is to get at the heart of the problem, they need to invade Washington in HUGE numbers, far greater than the numbers that sit there now. Even liberal filmmaker Micheal Moore has spoken along those lines. The movement's not going to amount to anything until Washington is literally invaded by pissed off, unemployed, broke people who finally make a stand. The power and money stops there and that's where the rage needs to be directed towards.

Heretic wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:I for one live paycheck to paycheck. I consider my self wealthy. I have no debt and I own my own modest house free and clear. A life time to achieve the real American dream. Not this greedy piggish life style the elite want. A place to call your own. Even got the survey hanging on my office wall. Hard work and dedication will payoff in the long run.

sure it will.....and the rich get richer. Proof?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles ... 0in%202010

therein lies the key issue. As this gap grows, your naive assumption above will prove as ludicrous as it is short-sighted.
As to your equally goofy prediction for the 'future meltdown', history shows that often enough wealth IS power. Also, that
history also shows that the wealthy survive upheavals just fine.....the only question will be whether they reside here, or
elsewhere. Examples? Look no further than Marco Rubio, whose wealthy family fled to Florida, and has survived just fine
even though the Castro regime later came to power. Too bad for Marco that he had to embellish the rtory and tell the voters
that they fled after the revolution, but he can answer for that next time he runs....

Yes it's naive to think a person who grew up moving from foster home to foster home would ever make it to home ownership. Oh wait that did happen. You have no idea about what really goes on in a day and life of mentally and physically abuse Foster Child from the inner city. Just to beat the odds and make to home ownership in America. So yes I feel wealthy. If I can it make so can all those lazy people who decide to live like that. Now that's "lazy people" who decide not any one else.

Look, I appreciate the achievement, I really do. What you seem willing to ignore is that the handwriting is on the wall that such opportunities are dwindling, steadily, and have been for a while.

In other words, Heretic, while what you've accomplished is really awesome, it also no doubt took some lucky breaks along with your hard work, and those sorts of breaks don't present themselves to everyone. And all the data we have suggest that legitimate upward economic mobility is more difficult now than it has been for decades. The deck is being increasingly stacked against people trying to do what you did, to the point where, for most people, it's simply not feasible.

Heretic, My hat is off to you and what you accomplished.

callmeslick wrote:...
Look, I appreciate the achievement, I really do. What you seem willing to ignore is that the handwriting is on the wall that such opportunities are dwindling, steadily, and have been for a while.

And what you seem to be willing to do is filter reality through the Dem party template which has the effect of excusing half of the perpetrators and perpetuating the problem all the while patting yourself on the back for supposedly trying to fix things!

Top Gun wrote:The deck is being increasingly stacked against people trying to do what you did, to the point where, for most people, it's simply not feasible.

This is my reality. And I resent being called lazy, if even indirectly.

The problem is the outsourcing and lack of jobs. If they would just bring jobs back here and Made In The USA, we would be fine.

Will Robinson wrote:And what you seem to be willing to do is filter reality through the Dem party template which has the effect of excusing half of the perpetrators and perpetuating the problem all the while patting yourself on the back for supposedly trying to fix things!

reality doesn't need a filter.


i'm working my balls off and i'm poorer than I was ten years ago. As of right now, I can't afford basic car repairs. But I guess it's easy to talk like that when you have money.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And what you seem to be willing to do is filter reality through the Dem party template which has the effect of excusing half of the perpetrators and perpetuating the problem all the while patting yourself on the back for supposedly trying to fix things!

reality doesn't need a filter.

No, it doesn't but people use them to hide parts of it from others and sometimes them selves.

Ferno wrote:i'm working my balls off and i'm poorer than I was ten years ago. As of right now, I can't afford basic car repairs. But I guess it's easy to talk like that when you have money.

You are mistaken. I don't dispute most of the circumstances slick is describing just the selective, partisan assignment of blame for the cause of the circumstances. He is being a part of the problem to do that.

Will Robinson wrote:[You are mistaken. I don't dispute most of the circumstances slick is describing just the selective, partisan assignment of blame for the cause of the circumstances. He is being a part of the problem to do that.

who's he blaming?

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:[You are mistaken. I don't dispute most of the circumstances slick is describing just the selective, partisan assignment of blame for the cause of the circumstances. He is being a part of the problem to do that.

who's he blaming?

Go to just about any thread and see who he initially sites as the culprit. There is one constant and it is right in line with the rhetoric from his political party. I don't think he has ever blamed both or singled out his own unless he was led to that by the presentation of undeniable evidence.

The way so many of us begin the consideration and debate of a problem automatically, dogmatically, is terrible. It is the biggest factor in election day not resulting the purge that is needed to reform our government and it is our government , as a whole, that is the problem. As soon as you excuse half you seal your fate to perpetuate the problem and all the political momentum is spent picking which half of the guilty party gets to sit in the leadership chair. You have to do more than effect a change in who gets to be the pilot and who is relagated to the co-pilots role. To end up in a better place you have to force all pilots to start plotting a better course.

[ Post made via iPad ]

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:[You are mistaken. I don't dispute most of the circumstances slick is describing just the selective, partisan assignment of blame for the cause of the circumstances. He is being a part of the problem to do that.

who's he blaming?

Go to just about any thread and see who he initially sites as the culprit. There is one constant and it is right in line with the rhetoric from his political party. I don't think he has ever blamed both or singled out his own unless he was led to that by the presentation of undeniable evidence.

The way so many of us begin the consideration and debate of a problem automatically, dogmatically from the play book of one of the two parties is terrible. It is the biggest factor in election day not resulting the purge that is needed to reform our government and it is our government , as a whole, that is the problem. As soon as you excuse half you seal your fate to perpetuate the problem and all the political momentum is spent picking which half of the guilty party gets to sit in the leadership chair. You have to do more than effect a change in who gets to be the pilot and who is relagated to the co-pilots role. To end up in a better place you have to force all pilots to start plotting a better course.

The government:

Tea partiers want to pare it down, including taxes, to nothing except for national defense.

Republicans want to make it a tool and extension of the free market and for national defense, AND cut all taxes for those who have the most wealth.

Democrats want to make it a tool to control everything for everybody with no limit on taxes.

No one has any ideas on how to make it work for the people, stop the money interests and protect the commons for all of us fairly.

Will Robinson wrote:You are mistaken. I don't dispute most of the circumstances slick is describing just the selective, partisan assignment of blame for the cause of the circumstances. He is being a part of the problem to do that.

so, by merely pointing out that the current-day GOP plan is a recipe to accellerate a bad situation into an outright disaster I'm partisan? I have not been reluctant to state that the Dems have sold-out their way toward the current mess. I do think that the core,
old-fashioned Democratic values would help, at least marginally, toward reversing the ugly trend of the past 30 years. Rebuilding a basic, functional economy which works for the bulk of the populace is going to take a lot of work, and yes, it is going to require some real sacrifice out of those that have benefitted from a 3 decades-long skewed playing field.

Will Robinson wrote: Go to just about any thread and see who he initially sites as the culprit. There is one constant and it is right in line with the rhetoric from his political party. I don't think he has ever blamed both or singled out his own unless he was led to that by the presentation of undeniable evidence.

I've been reading his posts for quite a while now and what you're saying doesn't match up. I think you WANT to see party rhetoric.

BTW: the word is "cites"

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Go to just about any thread and see who he initially sites as the culprit. There is one constant and it is right in line with the rhetoric from his political party. I don't think he has ever blamed both or singled out his own unless he was led to that by the presentation of undeniable evidence.

I've been reading his posts for quite a while now and what you're saying doesn't match up. I think you WANT to see party rhetoric.

BTW: the word is "cites"

I just looked at the last 38 topics he posted in. 20 of them don't apply, 13 of the remaining 18 do AND support my claim. So 72% of the time when the conversation is in that arena he's on their sideline with the pom poms shouting 'Gimme a D !'.
An example of things you probably miss, when someone refers to tax cuts as a reward he is seeing things from a Democrats perspective. If he makes an argument based on the premise that a tax cut is a reward he is furthering the efforts of the democrat party.
Now you may not interpret things the same way but that is where my perception is based.

On the other hand, he does shoot straight much more than my perception had me thinking since I was thinking he would probably have 1 or 2% in that column at best and I never would have guessed over half of his posts were in non-political threads. My ass(umption) is showing there...

The worst part of this (or the silver lining) is, I actually went through the trouble to add it all up and to do it I had to re-read all the crap I've written too.
Doing that I see I'm not as cool headed as I thought. I need to get a life!
If I don't see you all for a while it's not that I don't enjoy your company but DAMN I should have better things to do than argue this much on the interwebs.

Will Robinson wrote:I just looked at the last 38 topics he posted in. 20 of them don't apply, 13 of the remaining 18 do AND support my claim. So 72% of the time when the conversation is in that arena he's on their sideline with the pom poms shouting 'Gimme a D !'.

Let's just say that given a choice between either the Republicans or Democrats, and if they genuinely followed their core principles instead of just being patsy shills for the money interests and corporations, I'd be rooting for the Democrats too. Buuuuuuuuuut, right now, they're one and the same in actual practice, along with their leader. The term "Standing up for your principles" tends to be a historical oxymoron for Democrats.

Will Robinson wrote:[The worst part of this (or the silver lining) is, I actually went through the trouble to add it all up and to do it I had to re-read all the crap I've written too.
Doing that I see I'm not as cool headed as I thought. I need to get a life!
If I don't see you all for a while it's not that I don't enjoy your company but DAMN I should have better things to do than argue this much on the interwebs.

well, don't stay away too long, or go away mad. You're right, of course, that too much Interweb argument isn't good for the soul.
That explains why I enjoy the long fishing breaks I take, with zero web or TV contact. I would wish to point out that much of what you read as 'Democrat party line' posting by me is: 1) my own thoughts and 2) largely a matter of your reading party orthodozy into my words. For the record, as I stated a while back, I USED to be a Dem Committeeman, but over the course of my life, I've supported and given money to both parties and candidates from same. I am not really prone to back third party candidates because I view it as wasted effort and money given the political realities. Getting back to the two large parties, I would probably be a Republican today, were there still a Rockefeller/George Romney/ Hatfield wing of the party. Sadly, the GOP has turned far too rabidly 'Conservative'(quotes to denote that they aren't really conservative based on traditional definitins).. The Dems, too, have me disillusioned, as far too many of them have lost sight of what made the party the champions of the Common Man. My alignment is with the Roosevelts, both Teddy and Franklin, and the consciousness they brought to politics, for what it's worth.
Enjoy the break, should you take one, Will, and come back re-invigorated. Just leave the ideological assumptions and purity on vacation, if you can.

Will Robinson wrote:\Now you may not interpret things the same way but that is where my perception is based.

yup.

If I don't see you all for a while it's not that I don't enjoy your company but DAMN I should have better things to do than argue this much on the interwebs.

now you know why I don't post more than I do.

And right now, I'm looking at a choice between firing up the BBQ and spending more time on the internet. Guess which one is calling me right now!

Lol, the trick is only caring so much Will. I'm passionate about what I think but I don't give a ★■◆● if anyone disagrees. I'll only get about 7-8 hours sleep tonight if EVERYONE on this board tended to disagree with me. Then I come back the next day to simply state my opinion.

Cool heads in E&C? Yeah that would be a cold day in hell. It's all part of the forum, and this corner of the DBB would be rather dull without it.

there are reason while I will sometimes go several days without a post. but I surf this forum almost every day

flip wrote:Lol, the trick is only caring so much Will. I'm passionate about what I think but I don't give a **** if anyone disagrees. I'll only get about 7-8 hours sleep tonight if EVERYONE on this board tended to disagree with me. Then I come back the next day to simply state my opinion.

agree completely

CUDA wrote:there are reason while I will sometimes go several days without a post. but I surf this forum almost every day

Awww, I miss your witty repartee when you go missing.

Nowadays I tend to just read what everyone else is saying, maybe a half hour a week.

SilverFJ wrote:Nowadays I tend to just read what everyone else is saying, maybe a half hour a week.

that should take it up.

here's a couple of worthwhile reads -

Smash Capitalism and You Destroy Civilization

and the polling article it cites

Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd

The first article coming from Forbes. Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house.

No system is perfect and neither is Capitalism. All systems need rules to keep some fairness in the equation. It seems that the Capitalism we have now favors those who have the most opportunity to win, and they don't want any rules to apply to themselves to stifle their ability to win the game.

On a side note, Capitalism only works fairly when there is constant economic growth. It's that growth that gives everyone the opportunity to achieve success. How will that jibe in the future as third world countries like China and India draw on our limited world resources? As they take for themselves and grow, we lose. There's only so much to go around in a finite world.

As for the WSJ poll, a Rupert Murdoch-owned property by the way, sounds kind of skewed. Another poll taken by a sociology professor at the Occupy Wall Street website found that by and large, most of the protestors were independents. Only 27.3% were Democrats and 2.4% Republicans. Most were highly educated and about half had employment. I guess the polling depends on the questioners.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ... se-you.php

tunnelcat wrote:
Most were highly educated and about half had employment. I guess the polling depends on the questioners.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ... se-you.php

Also it would appear they are pedophiles:

"Dallas Police continue to investigate whether a teenage runaway was sexually assaulted by an adult male at the Occupy Dallas encampment behind City Hall.
A source within the Dallas Police Department who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation said the girl ran away from home in Garland last month and that she is now refusing to cooperate with investigators. She initially told officers that she had sex with a man in his early twenties and had engaged in sexual activity with several other people.
Some members of the group told CBS 11 the girl identified herself as a 19-year-old and never knew she was 14. "

So just like the left likes to label the tea party as racist for non heard comments to a black congressman, I can equally say the OWS group are sexual deviants.

tunnelcat wrote:As for the WSJ poll, a Rupert Murdoch-owned property by the way, sounds kind of skewed.

you do realize that the article was written by a Former democratic Pollster for Clinton don't you??

tunnelcat wrote:The first article coming from Forbes. Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house.

Oh, so I'm supposed to go to some non-capitalist source to get my information on capitalism? Tell me, do you use this information dynamic in other areas of your life

No system is perfect and neither is Capitalism. All systems need rules to keep some fairness in the equation. It seems that the Capitalism we have now favors those who have the most opportunity to win, and they don't want any rules to apply to themselves to stifle their ability to win the game.

Agreed. Agreed somewhat, although you'll have to define "fairness" for me. As the writer of the Forbes article noted, "I agree with the Occupiers when we both answer “no” to a question like “should we bail out large financial institutions that have made a lot of bad investments?"

On a side note, Capitalism only works fairly when there is constant economic growth. It's that growth that gives everyone the opportunity to achieve success. How will that jibe in the future as third world countries like China and India draw on our limited world resources? As they take for themselves and grow, we lose. There's only so much to go around in a finite world.

Again, you'll need to define "fairness". then please provide a link to justify your first assertion. You're really hung up on economics being a zero-sum game, aren't you? So you believe that wealth cannot be created. Then how did we get to this point?

As for the WSJ poll, a Rupert Murdoch-owned property by the way, sounds kind of skewed. Another poll taken by a sociology professor at the Occupy Wall Street website found that by and large, most of the protestors were independents. Only 27.3% were Democrats and 2.4% Republicans. Most were highly educated and about half had employment. I guess the polling depends on the questioners.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ... se-you.php

meh. Professor Codero-Guzman's survey "used visitors to the Occupy Wall Street movement’s website (http://www.occupywallst.org) on October 5th as its sample size." Not protestors, but visitors to the website.


and now for something completely different, let's go to Occupy Oakland

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:As for the WSJ poll, a Rupert Murdoch-owned property by the way, sounds kind of skewed.

you do realize that the article was written by a Former democratic Pollster for Clinton don't you??

You know Clinton was a closet Republican don't you?

Well, this may give the OWS movement a little more momentum.

The American Dream is dying

Notice it's been going on ever since good ol' Ronnie's reign of terror too. BOO!

Look, I'm not against wealth being created. It gives incentives for people to work hard or create products and jobs for others. I'm against a system that favors those who are in power or already have the more wealth than they know what to do with. I think the system is now rigged against the middle class, and especially the poor.

Back when income was taxed at a high rate for the very wealthy, the tax code was set up so that the incentive was there for corporate owners and CEO's to plow those profits back into their companies. That way, they avoided paying those taxes to Uncle Sam, and those companies remained strong, profitable and grew if those corporate leaders did their jobs right. If those at the top screwed up, they certainly didn't get those giant golden parachutes as they were shown the door.

Now, Wall Street rewards these wealthy titans that only make massive quarterly profits, no matter HOW they do it. Especially those "leaders" that strip their companies bare of assets and workers in the process. THIS is considered a viable an investment strategy???? And all for what? Big profits that don't create any jobs here AND that reward the top power brokers and CEO's huge unheard of compensation packages. That's not creating wealth that's beneficial to the country, that's the few pigs hoarding it for themselves while everyone else suffers.

let me add to the above, and God, I hope Will is at least reading this, Ronald Reagan pushed one tax reform that virtually ALL current GOP lackeys and Tea Partiers overlook: It was his idea that Cap Gains and Dividend/Interest income should be treated as common income, without a lower rate. Thus, under Reagan, taxes on dividends and other types of cap gains was as high as 38%, if I recall the rate structure correctly.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:As for the WSJ poll, a Rupert Murdoch-owned property by the way, sounds kind of skewed.

you do realize that the article was written by a Former democratic Pollster for Clinton don't you??

You know Clinton was a closet Republican don't you?

I swear you make this ★■◆● up as you go along