I'm sorry there are no quotes attributing your words to you in my post above, Real Wizard. I tried to format it properly but didn't see the option to quote (or to edit my own post for that matter). [/QUOTE]
The icons for Edit, Reply, and Reply with Quote are still next to the time line of the post.
They are just invisible but if you place your cursor after the time of the post, you can see the words for the invisible icons for Edit, Reply and Reply with Quote[/QUOTE]
Thanks so much for this. I will try to go back and edit my post now.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
over half of America is now living in third world conditions
[/QUOTE]
Really??? Hyperbole perhaps?? Source??
The following source on "percent below the poverty line" might be closer to reality ... US is 15% (comparable to much of western europe (and a far cry from 50%)
www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=69
[/QUOTE]
Right at the top it says - "rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations." So if you call the US a rich nation, then you need to at least double that 15%. And note that "third world conditions" and "poverty" are not necessarily the same thing.
So instead of cherry picking statistics to ignore the reality of the majority of your countrymen, I invite you to give these a spin:
"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."
In other words - 10% of America has been able to maintain the lifestyle it had 50 years ago.
That's a pretty good indication of where things are at. If you want to deny that the middle class has been steadily shrinking for the last several decades, that's your prerogative. Chances are you're in that 9.9% between the bottom 90 and the top 0.1, and you just aren't in a position to notice because you're one of the few lucky ones.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b] As George Carlin said: "the American Dream - you have to be asleep to believe it." [/QUOTE]
I get the point of this but believe the opposite – to believe in the American Dream you have to keep your eyes open and work for it –and not just for yourself but for your community as well. Imagine if we all did that.[/QUOTE]
Then you'd be in Sweden !
[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]
With someone else to blame, we’re able to redirect our fatigue and frustration thus making us feel better about ourselves. It’s US vs THEM. It’s disgusting but it’s true, and it works, and there’s no shaking common sense into those who buy into the idea.[/QUOTE]
The right has long figured out how to exploit people's fears for political gain. They do it, and will continue to do it, because it works. Ask any first year marketing student what most people respond best to, and the answer is fear.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
over half of America is now living in third world conditions
[/QUOTE]
Really??? Hyperbole perhaps?? Source??
The following source on "percent below the poverty line" might be closer to reality ... US is 15% (comparable to much of western europe (and a far cry from 50%)
www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=69
[/QUOTE]
Right at the top it says - "rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations." So if you call the US a rich nation, then you need to at least double that 15%. And note that "third world conditions" and "poverty" are not necessarily the same thing.
So instead of cherry picking statistics to ignore the reality of the majority of your countrymen, I invite you to give these a spin:
"Every piece of the pie picked up by the 0.1 percent, in relative terms, had to come from the people below. But not everyone in the 99.9 percent gave up a slice. Only those in the bottom 90 percent did. At their peak, in the mid-1980s, people in this group held 35 percent of the nation’s wealth. Three decades later that had fallen 12 points—exactly as much as the wealth of the 0.1 percent rose."
In other words - 10% of America has been able to maintain the lifestyle it had 50 years ago.
That's a pretty good indication of where things are at. If you want to deny that the middle class has been steadily shrinking for the last several decades, that's your prerogative. Chances are you're in that 9.9% between the bottom 90 and the top 0.1, and you just aren't in a position to notice because you're one of the few lucky ones.
[/QUOTE]
I spent too much time last night reading your links and trying to justify my reasoning even though I am not a quick thinker or remotely close to a good debater.
i agree that part of the problem is likely to be related to the top 0.1%, but I do not believe that money was stolen from the bottom 90%. I did try to call you out on your hyperbolic claim that "over half of America is now living in third world conditions", but i got nowhere. I still believe that this statement is NOT remotely close to the truth and inherently dishonest.
I also agree with some things in your two links, but I feel that the much of these articles is hyperbole loaded with irrational emotion and less concerned about an honest discussion of facts. I believe that the comments in one of the links about the top 9.9% aristocracy were particularly emotionally irresponsible and dishonest.
Saint Jiub · Member since
I believe that most of the wealth shift to the top 0.1% is due to the unearned income (the sale and loaning of money such as the stock market) rather than income from work and services performed. I believe that the stock market demands of high profits every quarter are counter productive to "the common good". Too much emphasis is put on unsustainable high profits to satisfy the stockholders, and too little is done to benefit their customers (the real source of their earned and unearned income). An example of this would be the corporate shills of QPL only releasing the alternate versions of NOTW songs as an overpriced box set without any options to obtain these songs in a less expensive (less gouging) manner ... but Jim Beach must look out for the welfare of the child heirs of Queen.
Another reason for the wealth shift is related to the technological boom of the last 40 years or so. The technology boom helped increase productivity and created an immense amount of "unearned" income that no one could legitimately claim entitlement. I believe most of this " free" money was claimed by the the top 0.1%.
The so-called alternative to soak and tax the rich is not any better. On the other extreme, you have many government workers gorging at the community trough so that they can retire at age 50 with outlandish defined benefit pensions and exorbitant health care benefits.
There are opportunities to earn a decent living out there, but many people are not interested because the work is too hard. One supplier of my employer is flying in Americans from outside the continental US, and providing housing, but still cannot find enough people that are willing to work.
One other reason for this issue is arrogance. There is no shortage of arrogance in today's world irrespective of political beliefs.
Saint Jiub · Member since
Here is an editorial from today in my local newspaper that expresses many of my beliefs:
I do not expect that anyone visiting Queenzone will read it.
[QUOTE]
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
[/QUOTE]
You were correct, I don't think many people will read it :-)
Saint Jiub · Member since
Pittrek -I have copied the text for the article if you are interested.
Commentary: Sorry, Elon and Kylie. We're waking up to those of you in the world of 'stratospheric wealth.'
Last week was a big one for billionaires.
Kylie Jenner, kid sister of reality-television star Kim Kardashian, scored a Forbes magazine cover extolling her efforts at the helm of her makeup company, valued by the magazine at $800 million. The feature article suggested that the 20-year-old was on pace to become the youngest-ever "self-made" billionaire later this year.
And Elon Musk, co-founder and chief executive of electric car company Tesla (estimated net worth: about $20 billion), made waves on social media by publicizing his newly invented kid-size submarine. The bullet-shaped tube was engineered over a weekend for the purpose of aiding in the Thai cave rescue, then was left in Thailand unused after the rescue was successfully undertaken the old-fashioned way — with actual divers.
Musk's and Jenner's lives are as far from the average as one might imagine. But we're oddly keen to keep up — Americans have long had a fascination with the extremely wealthy. All too often, a high net worth is seen as a proxy for intelligence, success and even virtue. Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was built in no small part on his supposed achievements as a real estate magnate and business leader, along with his billionaire status — although the exact details of his net worth were and remain oddly opaque.
But it seems we may be getting more skeptical. That's a good thing.
For all his bluster about selflessly helping the Thai government, Musk received more blowback than he bargained for. After Musk criticized Thai officials who pointed out that his invention was "not practical" and baselessly called one of the actual cave rescuers a pedophile, the market value of Tesla shares fell by millions. Observers accused the CEO of narcissism and self-aggrandizement and derided his incessant submarine-tweeting as a failed PR stunt.
And when the New York Daily News tweeted, "19-year-old Kylie Jenner is worth $900 million and on pace to become the youngest self-made billionaire ever. What are you doing with your life?" the deadpan responses were an eye-opening tour through what regular citizens regard as actually valuable contributions. "I'm a priest," read one. Another came from a former refugee turned clinical neuroscience Ph.D. There were mothers raising special-needs children, and millennials just struggling to get by.
Perhaps that's all because it has become increasingly obvious that the fortunes of the 1 percent haven't grown through work alone. A confluence of larger factors — globalization, the quick uptake of new technology, government regulations that favor large corporations and capital — have operated together to produce this blossoming of billionaires. It's a bloom that smells a bit rancid when compared with the downward-trending economic fortunes of almost everyone else. From 1984 to 2017, the wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans grew by nearly 2,000 percent. As of 2013, the median household had gotten about 20 percent poorer.
Still — there are probably better ways to counter the well-insulated billionaire class than by grumbling online. We could lobby our government to close some of the egregious tax loopholes that have resulted in the staggering expansion of personal wealth over the past several decades (carried interest, anyone?). It might even be time to institute a more progressive tax code, one in which the wealthy pay appreciably more — something that some of the most famous billionaires themselves have asked for.
Which makes this fact worth noting: Another update from the world of stratospheric wealth was a shake-up in the list of the world's richest people. While a new crowd of wealth-mongers are sprinting to the top (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns the The Washington Post, is now the richest person in modern history, with a $150 billion net worth), others, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, have slipped down the ranks — because they are beginning to give their money away.
That's a good thing, of course generosity is more admirable than wealth for wealth's sake, and these fortunes are so large that their owners couldn't spend them if they tried. Yet it's worth thinking harder about how these resources were amassed in the first place, and about whether the charitable endeavors they make possible — whether anti-malaria campaigns or tiny useless submarines — outweigh the inequality that brings them into being. Money isn't the only thing we value, after all.
The Washington Post
Christine Emba is an opinion columnist and editor for The Post.
Dr Magus · Member since
I have a far simpler solution.
Kill all the poor people.
Saint Jiub · Member since
I redacted my trolling response regarding abortion (in response to the Magus post about poor people).
pittrek · Member since
[QUOTE]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
5:24 - 23. 7. 2018
[/QUOTE]
See, this is one of the reasons why I don't like Trump. Not some nonsensical claims about his alleged racism, or misogyny, or other crap the media accuses him from without providing any evidence. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like the idea of dying in a nuclear war
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Not some nonsensical claims about his alleged racism, or misogyny, or other crap the media accuses him from without providing any evidence.[/QUOTE]
You mean the video where he said he could sexually assault women because he's famous?
You mean where he said he said white supremacists were equal to the people fighting white supremacists?
You mean when he was endorsed by white supremacists, and didn't speak out against them?
You mean when he just endorsed a white supremacist last month?
Trump doesn't need the media to look like a misogynist or a white supremacist. He's doing just fine all on his own.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Haemophilia Love wrote:[/b]
The so-called alternative to soak and tax the rich is not any better.[/QUOTE]
You're right. Because you can't take something away from anyone once they have it.
Once you lower that corporate tax rate, it's there for good. If you raise it again, that money will end up in Swiss bank accounts.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]Americans have long had a fascination with the extremely wealthy. All too often, a high net worth is seen as a proxy for intelligence, success and even virtue. Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was built in no small part on his supposed achievements as a real estate magnate and business leader, along with his billionaire status[/QUOTE]
And this is pretty much everything that is wrong with America. Plenty of other countries have tabloid culture and all that, but the American Dream mentality compounds it by convincing people from birth that achieving wealth is more important than anything else, including improving society as a whole. Even the mere act of receiving help is stigmatized as weakness, hence the mass hysteria against anything that remotely resembles "socialism". American culture is so unbelievably backwards. Nobody should be surprised that Trump became president despite having zero qualification for the job. All he had to be was rich, uncompromising, and brutish.
The end of the article touches on an important point - a ton of these rich folks are doing plenty of good with their money. Musicians, movie stars, and athletes are constantly giving their millions to any number of worthy causes. And countless others are part of grassroots organizations, building the world from the bottom up. The majority of good in this world is not because of politicians, but despite them.
pittrek · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]
Not some nonsensical claims about his alleged racism, or misogyny, or other crap the media accuses him from without providing any evidence.[/QUOTE]
You mean the video where he said he could sexually assault women because he's famous?
[/QUOTE]
No, he never said that. He said that if you're rich and famous you will find women who will LET YOU do anything.Why do people always ignore the "they let you" part?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSC8Q-kR44o
[QUOTE]
You mean where he said he said white supremacists were equal to the people fighting white supremacists?
[/QUOTE]
No, if you're talking about the Charlottsville attack, he didn't say that. He said that there were good people on both sides and there were bad people on both sides.
[QUOTE]
You mean when he was endorsed by white supremacists, and didn't speak out against them?
[/QUOTE]
Nobody is responsible for who endorses them. And I think he DID speak against them, unless I am confusing it with something else. But the truth is he did speak against them AFTER he was criticised by the media for not doing anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKi2AOPBavU
[QUOTE]
You mean when he just endorsed a white supremacist last month?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/06/13/trump-just-endorsed-an-apologist-for-white-supremacy-that-could-hurt-the-gop-this-fall
[/QUOTE]
Never heard about it until now, and I have never heard about that man until now, so I can't comment on it.
[QUOTE]
Trump doesn't need the media to look like a misogynist or a white supremacist. He's doing just fine all on his own.
[/QUOTE]
That's not my point. My point is that this dumbass threatens to basically start a nuclear war, but people care more about some stupid shit he said in a private conversation a decade ago.
