Obama Budget Speech

#152
#152
utgibbs said:
Ridiculous to deny actually. I can tell you haven't gone through any funding rounds before.

The newly rich in 2005:

Inheritance: 69%
Marriage: 4%
Crime: 26%
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a link to this data. How is rich defined? You're telling me there weren't enough doctors and businessmen to break the 1% mark that year? Please.
 
#154
#154
DefenseisDesire said:
Amen 70% of new millionaires in America are first generation millionaires. Read the millionaire next door and maybe learn to manage your money gibbs. If poor people would quit buying lottery tickets and cigarettes they would get out of "poverty" even though 98% of people in poverty own a television. Its like blaming a gym for making people fat or in shape. Capitalism gives us the ability to change our fate if you work hard enough. Likewise, fat people like to blame their weight on circumstances if they would shut up and just do what it takes to lose weight they would change. Its not an information or capitalism problem its a personal responsibility problem.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Millionaire Next Door is pure anecdotal hokey, IMHO. Again, Bill Gates (or the cowboy with his cleaning crews) are the exception, not the rule.

I think I manage my wealth just fine, thankee. :hi:

I still feel it's odd that "socialist" Europe, according to the OECD has more upward mobility than capitalist USA.
 
#155
#155
therealUT said:
Correct. I'm grasping at straws. Words do have meanings, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Well, the beneficiaries on an inheritance, even from Old, Old, Old Money = "newly rich." :hi:

Besides, I already awarded GAVol a "touche" today for "wealth." I'm nothing if not generous. :)
 
#156
#156
utgibbs said:
Thus, the beneficiaries are newly rich. And, in fact, it is a lot of Old Money on top of Old Money.

C'mon, IP. You know you are desperate to score a point. :)
Click to expand...

Could you explain this score-keeping system, and who it is officiated by?
 
#161
#161
utgibbs said:
Well, the beneficiaries on an inheritance, even from Old, Old, Old Money = "newly rich."
Click to expand...

Thanks for this gem.

Obviously, there is no point in debating or discussing anything with you, since we are operating on two radically different assumptions:

Yours - words are defined in whatever manner aids your argument
Mine - words have very definite and standardized meanings

It's a question of both epitomology and philology; you have shown neither deference nor respect for either.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#163
#163
therealUT said:
Thanks for this gem.

Obviously, there is no point in debating or discussing anything with you, sense we are operating on two radically different assumptions:

Yours - words are defined in whatever manner aids your argument
Mine - words have very definite and standardized meanings

It's a question of both epitomology and philology; you have shown neither deference nor respect for either.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Pray tell how - and you'd better back it up with the word history.
 
#166
#166
lawgator1 said:
I agree with this basic sentiment, but point out some inherent shortfalls in what I think is an oversimplistic view of the matter.

1) even if 70 % of millionaires do not come from millionaire families, you have to admit that coming from certain upbringings gives a person a much better shot at it.

2) The concept of inherited wealth seems fundamentally unfair, but it is of course only natural as human beings that we want to pass on whatever we might have accumulated to our loved ones. Its not going anywhere, though objectively it does deny on its face that capitalism proportionately rewards hard work.

3) I don't know about you, but I don't want to be in a system that ignores human suffering. I am fine with the argument that people who work hard and save should enjoy that. I am not fine with the notion that we ought to move to a voucher system for old people's health, even though we know it to be inadequate, whilst we cut taxes for the wealthiest even more.

4) I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to live in a system that promotes education and maybe even a little bit more education for children coming from impoverished backgrounds, in order to increase the efficiency with which capitalism can reward hard work.

To work hard and be productive, you need the right tools. Sure, some people squander their opportunities and I don't feel sorry for them. But, the said irony is that people from some backgrounds just need better tools and the folks at the top don't seem to want them to have them.
Click to expand...

It surprises me that John Rawls is a 20th century thinker, and a post WWII one at that. I find his theory of justice one of the most original ideas in a very long time. You're arguments are very much in a Rawlsian tradition.

It goes even deeper. Birth order, for instance, has an enormous real word effect on where you might end up in life. It's not the Law of Gravity, of course, but it is amazingly predictive in the real world. Where you start matters a great, great, great, great, great, great deal.

Unfortunately, the neanderthals here have already said they don't want a meritocracy or anything resembling one. They want "the lottery!"
 
#168
#168
utgibbs said:
It surprises me that John Rawls is a 20th century thinker, and a post WWII one at that. I find his theory of justice one of the most original ideas in a very long time. You're arguments are very much in a Rawlsian tradition.

It goes even deeper. Birth order, for instance, has an enormous real word effect on where you might end up in life. It's not the Law of Gravity, of course, but it is amazingly predictive in the real world. Where you start matters a great, great, great, great, great, great deal.

Unfortunately, the neanderthals here have already said they don't want a meritocracy or anything resembling one. They want "the lottery!"
Click to expand...

Was there any real need in this?
 
#173
#173
#174
#174
hndog609 said:
I'm gonna guess here. Considering how much else on here has that "straight from the gorilla's mouth" look I'd say he keeps this site close by...perhaps even right outside his back door.

REFERENCE How to get rich in America OR What are your TRUE chances of getting rich in America?
Click to expand...

And none of the articles that guy links provide any of the percentages he claims. Odd. He also uses a story about a guy in Japan written in 2007 that's somehow supposed to be supportive of his numbers for America in 2005. Great stuff. I can link you about 500 websites of better quality that prove Obama is an Islamic terrorist from Kenya.
 
#175
#175
utvolpj said:
I'll use one of our previous CEO's as an example- in 5 years he took our company from $3bil to $9bil in sales. I would say he was definitely worth his salary to the stockholders/board. The last guy didn't quite understand the business and ended up getting canned as sales dropped (can blame the economy but I also trust the people who described him to me).
Click to expand...

Do you think the guy at the top get more credit and more blame than he deserves? Did "he" do it...or did the economy, workers, etc., etc...do it? Someone like Steve Jobs...the guy obviously knows what he is doing and has a track record of making all the right decisions and forward thinking. But when I hear of companies losing money, and the CEO getting paid millions in compensation at the same time, then inevitably someone will say the economy, outside market forces, etc, etc are to blame.

Maybe the guy in your example didn't understand the business...but he would have be canned regardless of sales, economy, corect? I would also wonder how he got to that position without understanding the business. Seems to me, there was somebody else in that company that understood the business better, so it wasn't about hard work, intelligence, etc. It was something else that got him in that position.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top