Rich are getting richer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Household net worth fell from 2007 to 2009 by a total of $17.5 trillion or 25.5%. This was the equivalent loss of one year of GDP.


By the fourth quarter of 2010, the household net worth had recovered by a growth of 1.3 percent to a total of $56.8 trillion.


An additional growth of 15.7 percent is needed just to bring the value to where it was before the recession hit in December 2007.



Household net worth fell from 2007 to 2009 by a total of $17.5 trillion or 25.5%. This was the equivalent loss of one year of GDP.


In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.



In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line.


This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968.


Looking back even further to 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income.


Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
 
And the government is getting fatter.

very-fat-lady1-300x234.jpg
 
It should read... The Rich are Getting Richer..... DUH!

Let's examine the pathology here... Wealthy individuals are not generally this way because of some quirk of fate... some fortunate turn of events... luck of the draw, or what have you... they are (generally speaking) wealthy because they possess an attribute their less-wealthy counterparts don't possess. Rich people tend to want to make more money, achieve greater financial ambitions, aspire to earn more than others through ingenuity, creative ability, and hard work. For this reason, the people who happen to be wealthy, are likely going to become more wealthy in the future. Conversely, people who aren't wealthy, and have no motivation to be wealthy, probably won't become more wealthy in the future, because they lack the same drive and motivation... which is largely why they aren't already wealthy.

So, in short... there is nothing odd or wrong about the fact that rich people continue to get richer, and poor people remain poor. It's like if you had a 15k marathon... a veteran runner would likely gain time throughout the race over someone who was a veteran couch potato, there is nothing odd or strange about that, it's to be expected. If some idiot chortled... Hey, that veteran marathon runner is making better time than the couch potatoes...that's not fairrrrr!; People would think them retarded. Likewise, when we hear idiots chortle that rich people are getting richer, we should think the same.
 
Dixie said:
It should read... The Rich are Getting Richer..... DUH!

Let's examine the pathology here... Wealthy individuals are not generally this way because of some quirk of fate... some fortunate turn of events... luck of the draw, or what have you... they are (generally speaking) wealthy because they possess an attribute their less-wealthy counterparts don't possess. Rich people tend to want to make more money, achieve greater financial ambitions, aspire to earn more than others through ingenuity, creative ability, and hard work. For this reason, the people who happen to be wealthy, are likely going to become more wealthy in the future. Conversely, people who aren't wealthy, and have no motivation to be wealthy, probably won't become more wealthy in the future, because they lack the same drive and motivation... which is largely why they aren't already wealthy.

So, in short... there is nothing odd or wrong about the fact that rich people continue to get richer, and poor people remain poor. It's like if you had a 15k marathon... a veteran runner would likely gain time throughout the race over someone who was a veteran couch potato, there is nothing odd or strange about that, it's to be expected. If some idiot chortled... Hey, that veteran marathon runner is making better time than the couch potatoes...that's not fairrrrr!; People would think them retarded. Likewise, when we hear idiots chortle that rich people are getting richer, we should think the same.
Click to expand...

To some extent you are right, however, members of the mega rich dynasties cannot be similarly lauded as a rule, neither can those who steal or take unfair or unethical advantage. I don't, for example, have a problem with Branson or Gates, but I would with Cheney, the bush dynasty, the Koch brothers, etc. There is smart and smart. We cannot allow ourselves to sink to the point that we admire the Madoffs of the world.
So, being rich, per se, is usually good for society, but being a lying, snivelling, cheating bastard whether rich or not is not good for society.
Is it wrong for the rich to get richer? How long is that piece of string?
 
Lowaicue said:
To some extent you are right, however, members of the mega rich dynasties cannot be similarly lauded as a rule, neither can those who steal or take unfair or unethical advantage. I don't, for example, have a problem with Branson or Gates, but I would with Cheney, the bush dynasty, the Koch brothers, etc. There is smart and smart. We cannot allow ourselves to sink to the point that we admire the Madoffs of the world.
So, being rich, per se, is usually good for society, but being a lying, snivelling, cheating bastard whether rich or not is not good for society.
Is it wrong for the rich to get richer? How long is that piece of string?
Click to expand...

This is why we have laws and courts, and routinely send people like Madoff to prison. No one is defending illegal or unethical behavior, and by and large, the overwhelming majority of people, wealthy or otherwise, are not crooks or cheats. You need to use this method to foment more hate and contempt for the wealthy, because that suits your agenda. From a moralistic standpoint, which is 'worse' ...someone like a Madoff, or someone who is a welfare queen, knocking down $140k a year in fraudulent welfare payments? To me, they are equally as bad, and both should go to prison. So, if we are going to talk tough on dealing with criminals and crooks.. fine, but that goes both ways, rich people are not the only bad people in the world.
 
To some extent you are right, however, members of the mega rich dynasties cannot be similarly lauded as a rule...
Click to expand...

As a rule, we should strive to apply the same standards of judgement on every individual, regardless of their lot in life. Oh now, in the Liberal Rules, we can look at a rich person as someone who is obviously not deserving of whatever they have, right? Mega-rich Dynasties must certainly be full of scoundrels and thieves, full of Robber Baron lineage... and we must now punish their heirs with burdensome taxation and penalty, for being ancestors to mean and wicked characters conjured up from the past. This is the typical liberal meme, and I have heard it stated dozens of way in thousands of instances, and it always comes down to the same ignorance of judging people by class. Not only is it wrong and against everything we stand for as civilized people, the lack of realization that what you are doing is wrong, makes it bigoted as well. In your minds, you justify this stupid obsession with hating the rich, and just like centuries of white people saw nothing at all wrong with enslaving black people, you cast your judgement based on economic class, and not individual character.

Rich people, like poor people, come in all types. We are all individuals, and have an individual life story. Our views, motivations, intentions, and character, are all defined by our life story, our experiences, our influences... there is not a way to apply a broad brush to any particular sub-group, and be anything more than a bigoted buffoon. Because a person happens to be wealthy, doesn't mean they got that way by cheating someone or taking advantage of them. Most honest business-people strive to be legitimate in that regard, even back in the old robber baron days, men had honor, they didn't cheat or steal their way to fortune. Again, the overwhelming majority of people rich or poor, are honest people. For the small percent who aren't, we have a legal system and recourse, and they seldom go unpunished. Liberals continue to try and paint a false picture, because it's convenient to have a scapegoat... blame the mean old greedy rich people for our problems... they need to pay more... we need to demand they pay their share... and that's how we got to where we are today.
 
Dixie said:
This is why we have laws and courts, and routinely send people like Madoff to prison. No one is defending illegal or unethical behavior, and by and large, the overwhelming majority of people, wealthy or otherwise, are not crooks or cheats. You need to use this method to foment more hate and contempt for the wealthy, because that suits your agenda. From a moralistic standpoint, which is 'worse' ...someone like a Madoff, or someone who is a welfare queen, knocking down $140k a year in fraudulent welfare payments? To me, they are equally as bad, and both should go to prison. So, if we are going to talk tough on dealing with criminals and crooks.. fine, but that goes both ways, rich people are not the only bad people in the world.
Click to expand...

You need to get real, bud. Where do you think the bush dynasty got their wealth? being nice to people? OK dum dum didnt, but because of who he was he was placed in a position where he could pull strings for his puppeteers. Have you forgotten the no-bid contracts?
Do you think that the Koch brothers are worthy of respect?
You want to class them with someone who fiddles their social security or whatever you people call it? Well, they are ALL bad, aren't they? Have YOU ever been in the position where you have to cheat to eat? No? who is surprised? I'm not saying that is the norm but sure as hell the bushes were not desperate when they lied to the world. The Kochs were not desperate when they fiddled their tax return (or employed very clever accountants).
You dont have much humanity about you, do you? And then you want to make it political?
 
Lowaicue said:
You need to get real, bud. Where do you think the bush dynasty got their wealth? being nice to people?
Click to expand...

The Bush family came to America shortly after the Mayflower, and made their fortune in business and banking, then in oil. Some of the earliest Bush's were advisers to the president, so the family has always been involved in politics. Generally speaking, politicians can't get elected without "being nice" to people. And what exactly would your definition of "being nice" be? Did the Bush family willingly turn over all their wealth to poor people? That would have been very nice, but also very stupid. Also, is there some prerequisite to "be nice" to others, in order to have a right to keep your wealth? Are certain people non-deserving of Constitutional rights because you've determined they aren't "being nice" to whomever? Do you think the Kennedy's have a record of "being nice" to others?

OK dum dum didnt, but because of who he was he was placed in a position where he could pull strings for his puppeteers. Have you forgotten the no-bid contracts?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean George W. Bush, but I have to correct you, he was ELECTED by THE PEOPLE, not "placed in a position of power." In fact, at the time, he garnered more votes than any man who ever ran for president. He was also re-elected with even more votes the second time.

No-bid contracts are typical with ANY administration, and you would be hard pressed to find a president in recent history, who didn't award no-bid contracts. If it hadn't been for two wars which required swift response from certain key contractors, Clinton would have awarded more no-bids than Bush. Who was Clinton's FAVORITE to award these no-bids to? Good old Halliburton! So you can yammer and whine about this all you like, it just makes you look stupid... not that it's hard for you.

Do you think that the Koch brothers are worthy of respect?
Click to expand...

I don't personally know them, I would have to know them in order to make that judgment, they may be great guys! To be honest, I had never heard of the Koch Brothers until Liberals started talking about them non-stop. What little I know is, they have contributed a lot of money to the cause of advancing conservatism and conservative principles. How are they any different in that regard, than George Soros? Are people automatically dubbed crooked and evil because they happen to hold a different political view than you?

You want to class them with someone who fiddles their social security or whatever you people call it? Well, they are ALL bad, aren't they? Have YOU ever been in the position where you have to cheat to eat? No? who is surprised?
Click to expand...

I've been in the position of having to make ketchup soup from ketchup packets lifted from fast food restaurants... is that "cheating to eat?" One thing I've never done, is knowingly cheat on anything... marriages, relationships, tests, whatever. I think someone who cheats and lies is without character, and I judge them accordingly, regardless of their status, or even.... their skin color! You see, I follow the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I judge people by the content of their character. I don't look at someone who happens to have wealth, and determine they aren't deserving of it, or that they cheated and lied to gain their wealth. That would be just as silly as looking at someone who is poor, and determining they must be completely honest and honorable, and would NEVER lie!

I'm not saying that is the norm but sure as hell the bushes were not desperate when they lied to the world. The Kochs were not desperate when they fiddled their tax return (or employed very clever accountants).
You dont have much humanity about you, do you? And then you want to make it political?
Click to expand...

Sounds like YOU are the one making this political. If the Koch Brothers or Bush's did something illegal, the courts and legal system will take care of that. Until they are found guilty by a jury of their piers, I have to assume they are innocent. Of course, you live by quite a different standard... where people are guilty because of who they are and what they have.
 
Dixie said:
This is why we have laws and courts, and routinely send people like Madoff to prison. No one is defending illegal or unethical behavior, and by and large, the overwhelming majority of people, wealthy or otherwise, are not crooks or cheats. You need to use this method to foment more hate and contempt for the wealthy, because that suits your agenda. From a moralistic standpoint, which is 'worse' ...someone like a Madoff, or someone who is a welfare queen, knocking down $140k a year in fraudulent welfare payments? To me, they are equally as bad, and both should go to prison. So, if we are going to talk tough on dealing with criminals and crooks.. fine, but that goes both ways, rich people are not the only bad people in the world.
Click to expand...

Wait, 140K a year in fraudulent welfare payments? Care to cite this figure?

Yet even if true, the million the welfare fraud stole is equal to the 57 billion Madoff stole over the same time period?

Stealing the retirement funds from hundreds of thousands of people is not worse than a welfare cheat?

By the way, the SEC is defending illegal and unethical behavoir and has been for a while. That's why Madoff never got caught.
 
Return of Dune said:
Wait, 140K a year in fraudulent welfare payments? Care to cite this figure?

Yet even if true, the million the welfare fraud stole is equal to the 57 billion Madoff stole over the same time period?

Stealing the retirement funds from hundreds of thousands of people is not worse than a welfare cheat?

By the way, the SEC is defending illegal and unethical behavoir and has been for a while. That's why Madoff never got caught.
Click to expand...

I don't know the details of the SEC or Madoff, other than he was tried, convicted, and sent to prison. I have not advocated for a less harsh sentence, or claimed he was innocent, or that we should ignore violations of the law. I merely pointed out that cheating and dishonesty often crosses class status lines. People who cheat the system to obtain fraudulent welfare claims, are really no different than Madoff, or any other crook, and should spend time in jail for it as well. Yeah, maybe the dollar amounts were different, but the level of dishonesty is the same. The point I was making is, this corruption and dishonesty goes both ways, the "rich" have no exclusive on unscrupulous behavior.
 
Dixie said:
No, I don't care to. Google is a pretty good search engine, I am sure you can find examples if you look.
Click to expand...


Translation: Dixie doesn't have to prove that his claims are true, you have to prove they are false.
 
Dixie said:
I don't know the details of the SEC or Madoff, other than he was tried, convicted, and sent to prison. I have not advocated for a less harsh sentence, or claimed he was innocent, or that we should ignore violations of the law. I merely pointed out that cheating and dishonesty often crosses class status lines. People who cheat the system to obtain fraudulent welfare claims, are really no different than Madoff, or any other crook, and should spend time in jail for it as well. Yeah, maybe the dollar amounts were different, but the level of dishonesty is the same. The point I was making is, this corruption and dishonesty goes both ways, the "rich" have no exclusive on unscrupulous behavior.
Click to expand...

Why would you use something as an example if you don't know the details?

You are a truly simple fucker.
 
Yurt said:
yay, another thread bump because legion isn't getting the attention he so desperately craves
Click to expand...

Does post #11 in this thread look like a thread bump to you?

I raised 4 distinct points, and did not adress the OP.

Please pull your head out of your ass and wipe the shit off your eyes.
 
Last edited:
Only the lazy and not interested are not rich. I'm a dumb ass cajun who can barely spell and I got to the top 10 of wealth ten years faster than average. Low ace the loser and dune the salad tosser are lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top