A rare survey of the one percent
December 6, 2011 By Wendy Leopold
(PhysOrg.com) -- Though little reliable survey research exists about the nation’s wealthiest one percent, public discourse is rife with claims about their opinions and attitudes. Now a Northwestern University pilot study sheds light on philanthropic and other behaviors of the so-called one percent.
“Our goal is to replace the rhetoric with facts,” said Fay Lomax Cook, co-author of “Wealthy Americans, Philanthropy and the Common Good” and professor in Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy. “The best surveys on wealthy Americans typically examine the top 20 to 30 percent of the nation’s income earners. As a result, they contain too small a sample to generalize about the one percent."
To uncover the political and social attitudes and behaviors of the one percent, Cook, with Northwestern political scientist Benjamin I. Page, Institute for Policy Research researcher Rachel Moskowitz and a large team of researchers, surveyed a random sample of 104 representatives from Chicago-area households with a median wealth of $7.5 million.
They believe their Survey of Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good -- developed with and carried out by NORC at the University of Chicago -- is the first representative, systematic effort to survey the political and social opinions of the one percent.
Experts at NORC, a highly respected national opinion and social science research center, conducted face-to-face or telephone interviews with each respondent that were designed to last 45 minutes.
Among the survey findings:
**Members of the one percent are far more likely to initiate contact with a federal official than is the general public. About half of the survey’s 104 respondents reported initiating contact with a member of Congress, White House official or federal regulatory agency official at least once in the last six months. In contrast, a 2008 public opinion survey by American National Election Studies found that only 25 percent of the general public had contacted any elected official in the past 12 months.
**Members of the one percent tend to emphasize relying on free markets or private philanthropy to produce good outcomes. More than other citizens, they tend to think in terms of “getting government out of the way” to solve public problems. Many tilt toward cutting, rather than expanding, popular entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. Most favor charter schools, merit pay and other market-oriented education reforms. More than two-thirds say the federal government “has gone too far in regulating business and free enterprise.”
**More members of the one percent point to the federal budget deficit as the country’s most pressing problem than to any other problem facing the nation. A much smaller group mentions unemployment and jobs. In contrast, members of the general public (57%) think the economy and jobs are the nation’s most pressing problem and only five percent of the general public thinks it is the deficit.
**Members of the one percent are more active in politics than less affluent Americans. Nearly all respondents said they voted in the 2008 presidential election; 84% reported paying attention to politics most of the time; 64 percent contributed money to a political candidate within the last four years; and one in five said they helped solicit or bundle contributions from other people to a political party, cause or candidate. On average, they reported giving $4,633 to political campaigns and organizations in the past 12 months.
** Members of the one percent volunteer much more of their time, effort and money to charitable causes than do members of the general public. Nine in ten respondents report participating in at least one volunteer activity and a majority volunteered in four different volunteer areas. Respondents are particularly likely to volunteer for education (65%), poverty and the needy (60 percent), private and community foundations (54 percent), youth development (52 percent), arts, culture and the humanities (46 percent) and religious organizations (46 percent).
**A typical (median) member of the one percent donates about four percent of his or her income to charitable causes. Those who have inherited substantial wealth tend to give not only more total dollars but also a higher proportion of their income to charity than non-inheritors. Fully one in five have established a philanthropic family foundation.
“To the surprise of some members of the research team, our study suggests that most members of the one percent are concerned about the common good, not just about their own narrow self-interests,” said Page, the Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making in Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. “In some important cases, however, their beliefs about how to achieve the common good differ markedly from what other citizens believe.”
The pilot survey was funded by the Russell Sage Foundation. Cook, who is director of Northwestern’s Institute for Policy Research, and Page are in the process of refining the Survey of Economically Successful Americans and working toward conducting a nationwide study of the one percent.
Provided by
Northwestern University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Consumption rivalry
May 25, 2012
-
Bilateral trade between all countries
May 24, 2012
-
Is the economic foundation of social media in jeopardy?
May 20, 2012
-
Psychology: Rosenthal and Hawthorne Effect
May 15, 2012
-
Is GDP and National Income the Same Thing?
May 13, 2012
-
Difference between hourly wage and real GDP per hour worked?
May 12, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Social Sciences
More news stories
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
5 hours ago |
5 / 5 (4) |
0
|
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor – while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives – may do more harm ...
Other Sciences / Social Sciences
May 24, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (20) |
155
Ancient Bethlehem seal unearthed in Jerusalem
Israeli archaeologists have discovered a 2,700-year-old seal that bears the inscription "Bethlehem," the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday, in what experts believe to be the oldest artifact ...
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 23, 2012 |
3.3 / 5 (15) |
24
Dollars and sense: Why are some people morally against tax?
As the U.S. presidential election campaigns heat up, the economic debate is dominated by bailouts, austerity and, inevitably, taxation. Now a new study published in Symbolic Interaction asks why tax is such an important issue ...
Other Sciences / Social Sciences
May 23, 2012 |
2.3 / 5 (3) |
16
Oldest Jewish archaeological evidence on the Iberian Peninsula
German archaeologists of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena found one of the oldest archaeological evidence so far of Jewish Culture on the Iberian Peninsula at an excavation site in the south of Portugal, ...
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 25, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (6) |
12
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.1 / 5 (21)
It is surprising that that is surprising to anyone.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (23)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (20)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (24)
If he has 500k per year income (like many FOX news contributors,) and gave away 4%, that still leaves 480k, which is still 11 times the mean household income.
Normal people CAN'T give away 4%, because they typically can't pay their bills as it is, and they aren't wasting it on $100 plate lunches and luxury cars either.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (29)
So what's wrong with establishing charitable foundations? These charities actually HELP poor people and enable poor children to go to college, and you're concerned about a tax dodge? That tax dodge provides for the "greater good" and a lot of kids who can't afford college have a chance at higher education. Maybe you don't want them to have good opportunities provided by the rich 1%. Typical Liberal jealousy of big money.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (18)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (22)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (108)
Yep that is a reasonable view. You're going to have a few enemies here.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (24)
Then I suppose you will agree to the extermination of the 1%. Tax them to death until all their wealth is gone and they can't afford to keep their employees on the job, confiscate whatever wealth they have left and then line them up against a wall and murder them. That should satisfy the poor and working poor. There won't be any middle class anymore once the jobs are gone for good.
Best thing for the rich to do is get out as fast as they can before the Communist come into power in Western countries.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (48)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (15)
I get the oppertunity to have had dinner with 4 people and it cost $1500, but a company paid for it - not one individual people who have money have money typically are frugal, most understand costs and save and skimp like ordinary people -- the difference is when they want to buy or purchase something it is done with ease and no strain on their finances
But lets be even more realistic, the top 5% has more turnover generationally than any other segment, why because it is hard to hold onto money... most people blow away family fortunes - so while you are mad at 1% they were your peers in elementary school that tried and failed but one in a thousand tried -- succeeded and became a millionaire - and we hate them... we used to applaud them for working hard - now we condemn them because we didn't take the risks they took to get there.
Are there a lot of people that have money cause of their parents influence - sure -
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (15)
are we truely disgruntled at the one percent or are we mad at ourselves for not taking those same risks -- for not studying in high school -- for parting a little too much in college -- for never taking the chance and applying to college - for not realizing federal funding would have paid for it and we could have worked our way through
BLAH BLAH -- the truth of the matter is if the OWS'ers wanted to oppse the one percent they would have been in the Hamptons bugging people with money -- not the people that have to actually go to work for a living
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (110)
You should be ashamed of yourself. You probably could have set up an entire farm in an impoverished country for what your "company" spent on one meal. How many man hours could that meal have paid for at your own company? That could be a weeks pay for a few well compensated employees.
This is why people don't like the 1%.
And this... Yep you've got the poor pegged. You sure do.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (24)
Liberals don't help Nam Vets or any veterans because they hate the military.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (105)
Well that explains a lot. I *almost* feel sorry for you.
But why would I feel sorry for a warfare queen?
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (47)
But it will be too late when they get a NEW MASTER. . .the Communist overthrow of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. It's already happening with Comrade Obama's ignoring of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (105)
No wonder you love the system. You've been on the dole your entire life and are afraid of someone else pushing you out.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (42)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (12)
You will never be one of those people who get to fly a moon rocket, or one of those people who draw bridges or fly hot air balloons in their spare time, because your society has put a cap on your wealth and said: "This is enough for you - this is your fair share and no more."
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (13)
Shouldn't that be a good indicator that those top 1% have all the wrong values?
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (105)
If you're only hope out of poverty is winning the lottery, a shitty system you live in. Any person who wants to work should have a job and that job should pay a living wage. Why is that so hard to agree on? Why does that crush anyone's dreams?
No offense, by my (and any persons survival) is more important than your dreams.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (43)
It's your job to make you successful... we shouldn't look at social policy in terms of "will this make people successful", but instead in terms of "is this morally and ethically sound".
FORCING me to give some of my hard earned money to government run charities ("welfare") is not morally or ethically sound.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (14)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (105)
In a society with such high unemployment can you really claim everyone has an opportunity to succeed? Also please don't trot out the "BUT WE AREN'T 100% CAPITALIST, DUH" bs. No one is. It's a shit argument. I'm stopping you before you attempt it.
The ultra-rich too often do not create wealth, they extract it. Job creation is correlated with wealth, but it is NOT a function of wealth.
Just in case that was too subtle, I changed "welfare" to "warfare". The US military is the world's largest welfare program.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (8)
It's better social policy to be more concerned with ethics and rational moral values. The rest will follow.
...and that's my fault? I should be punished for it?
It's a fools errand to try to make sure everyone is born equal, it always will be.
Agreed, but security is a primary need in order to have a wealthy and successful economic environment. There is a reason the US dollar is the de facto global currency.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (12)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (15)
TINSTAFL
You don't understand anything. Who's money do you think the government spends when it foots the bill for your healthcare or education?
Hint: The government doesn't have any money.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (106)
Take your head out of your ass. If you gain something at the expense of someone else, and that is latter corrected, it is not punishment.
You owe your success to the society you live in. Taxes are not theft, they are a membership fee. Get over it.
Actually wasn't someone talking about a free lunch he attended that was valued at $1500? I'd be willing to be you get all sorts of "free lunches" figuratively and literally.
My richest relative has all his travel expenses paid for. Free lunch.
Heinlein was a miserable old curmudgeon (pretty sure those were his own words).
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (10)
Please explain how this can be equated to me gaining something at someone else' expense...
I don't have a problem with taxes... what are you talking about?
You jump to conclusions and put words in people's mouths far more often than you should.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (9)
You don't understand the concept behind TINSTAFL. It is not referring to money. Currency is nothing but a proxy representation of effort/work.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (106)
You have succeeded because of the conditions of the society. Poverty is one of these conditions. The same policies that put many into poverty gave you the life you are so fearful of losing.
Sorry. Look I'm not going to take notes on the individual conservatives here so I am bound to mix some of you up. If I see you lessen your generalizations, maybe I'll be less apt to generalize you as a Marjon neophyte. This would probably disarm me a little bit. Try it.
LOL so when did you become a Marxist?
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (16)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (9)
You're saying that I have succeeded because others are poor?
First, I'd like to think my personal efforts had more of an effect on my condition than you are giving credit for...
Second, if what you say is true then poverty is necessary for success... so trying to get rid of poverty would then be self-defeating, no?
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (13)
That's about the biggest lie I've ever seen.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (12)
...okay... I didn't say it represented the effort of the individual holding the currency did I? Furthermore effort is not restricted to physical effort... I can roll a rock up a hill all day long but that's not worth anything. Effort refers to intellectual effort as well.
People really like to jump to conclusions around here
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (103)
Certainly you are where you are at more because of your work ethic than anything else. That doesn't change the fact that you more than likely greatly benefited from the conditions of the society.
I'm not saying you aren't a hard worker, or whatever. What bothers me is very often conservatives claim the poor aren't. Sure there are lazy poor and there are lazy old money.
The point is you may not be a victim of society but many people are and for no lack of trying.
Only in a flawed system. There will still be wealthy people if we eradicate or greatly alleviate poverty. There just won't be as many. Why is that a problem? You can still aspire to be Bill Gates.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (13)
Surely you must be aware by your adult life that FREE education and FREE health care is never really free at all. SOMEBODY had to provide the money to pay teachers, professors, school custodians, etc. and nurses, doctors and administration at your local Board of Health, which are all government-run agencies. The money that TAXPAYERS pay into the IRS filters down to pay for education, and the free health care is provided for those who can't afford a private physician. You can walk into any hospital and get free health care and emergency visits that is paid for by taxpayer money. NOBODY goes without education or health care UNLESS they CHOOSE to go without it. It's ALWAYS about CHOICE and NOBODY IS VICTIMIZED. People victimize themselves and then they look for somebody else to blame
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (36)
One of the two things you are claiming cannot be true, they are contradictory.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (106)
Healthcare and emergency care are not the same thing. You can be turned down for routine "maintenance". You are right in that you can't be turned away from an emergency room if you have an emergency.
What ever happened to an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
If you are going to have to pay one way or the other, why not pick the cheaper option? Too often the right is stuck in their ideology and not willing to look at the actual real world situation.
It's cheaper to insure everyone and make sure they get regular care than it is to pour $200,000 into someone in the last month of their life.
Conservatives are anything but fiscally conservative.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (14)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (16)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (12)
The problem is that they represent the majority of the electorate... another reason the government should not be providing charity to the citizens because they are effectively buying their vote. It is the height of corruption.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (13)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (14)
Aaah, so cute, let's leave them alone to keep getting wealthier by manipulating and corrupting markets and politicians while most of us struggle to make ends meet and over a billion people live in total poverty because of economic disparity...
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (11)
Maybe you need to have a good talk with GEORGE SOROS, billionaire who is known for manipulating currencies and destroying the economies of several countries. Take a gun with you and exterminate him, please.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (10)
Society is not government.
Govts support or destroy societies. Govts do not create societies as we have seen with the EU.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (8)
For once I actually agree with you on something.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (38)
But now, churches are hoarding the money donated by their congregation to build mega-chapels for tens of millions of dollars complete with A/V systems that a concert venue would be jealous of and air conditioning units that would otherwise be found on commercial skyscrapers.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
So many people fail to look at it this way.
To those saying that there isn't opportunity out there, please move to North Dakota and get back to me in a few weeks. You know, with this internet thing that you seem to be able to afford.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (10)
@Kochevnik and Sgorpo and tommytalks. . . .make sure you use live ammo and a AK-47. That Soros is a slippery one
:)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
One would think that the native Germans, British and others would have learned economics themselves, but no, they put that burden on Jews. Strange, isn't it.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (11)
what you see as 'conspicuous consumption' as practiced by a very few people, is actually a form of wealth holding. of course most think that being able to buy a lot is what its about, when in truth its being able to hold on to what you have that wealth is about.
money changes value mostly downward. stocks? they dont always go up, and there is no magic there, easy picks mined out.
they generally put their money to work, mostly back into their companies. most work boring businesses, and arent professionals.
its a wonder to hear such bloviating ignorati with their noses so high they would drown if it rain, pontificating on something they have taken no time at all to actually think about or even research. other than parroting what they been told or seems cool.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
http://politicalv...nd-time/
http://www.abovet...3000/pg1
A lot more info is available.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
www.forbes.com/we...ionaires
and here is the story of the richest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim
Lebanese Mexicans... who knew? :)
one of 6 children
Number 7 is Ellison who created Oracle db
(poor informatics lost its edge...)
worth 33 billion and a self made drop out
Amancio Ortega, self made, 33 billion
Eike Batista, self made 30 billion
Li Ka-shing, high school drop out, self made 20 billion
Karl Albrecht, you guessed it (and his brother did it too)
turned their mothers corner grocery store into Aldi
Larry Page (google), Sergey Brin (google), New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Lee Shau Kee, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), all self made
and there is the very evil Michele Ferrero and family... who make those chocolates people like. oh the humanity of it
John Paulson, Michael Dell (computers), Steve Ballmer (microsoft), George Soros, Aliko Dangote, Mark Zuckerberg (facebook), Jorge Paulo Lemann, all self made
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (10)
http://politicalv...onesian/
Amazing
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (5)
Very true. However I'd suggest that the wealthy are more concerned with protecting their wealth than with actually thinking about how to make the world a better place (e.g. putting money into 'philantropic foundations' is an incredibly efficient way of saving on taxes).
Naturally they are concerned that society continue on the way it does (and no different) because an unstable society could mean revolution (which might render their wealth and positions of power worthless over night).
And of course the would see the things that have made them successfull as templates for making everyone successfull - which is a bit of a stupidity because wealth isn't relative but absolute. To be (more than averagly) wealthy you have to effectively leach off at least one other person.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (9)
http://www.youtub...aEZscfvA
Not according to the socialists like Mr. 'Fair'. Profit is evil, unless the govt can take it to expand the entitlement society and empower themselves.
The most fair country in the world is North Korea.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
""And of course they would see the things that have made them successfull as templates for making everyone successfull - which is a bit of a stupidity because wealth isn't relative but absolute. To be (more than averagly) wealthy you have to effectively leach off at least one other person."""
That is untrue. Leaching off another person is what welfare queens and others who don't want to work continue to do. And some for generation after generation. They leach off the money that taxpayers provide to the government and the government pretend it's THEIR money in order to have the welfare queens think that it's the gov't that produces the money instead of the taxpayers. It's always a big con job and the Liberals in gov't congratulate each other for being so charitable to the poor. VERY BIG CON JOB.
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Dec 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
"""Very true. However I'd suggest that the wealthy are more concerned with protecting their wealth than with actually thinking about how to make the world a better place (e.g. putting money into 'philantropic foundations' is an incredibly efficient way of saving on taxes)."""
I am surprised that you don't see the value of philanthropy to assist and improve lives and fortunes of those who are in need. Philanthropic endeavors also provide funding for scientific research as in research grants to many worthwhile science projects. There are many hospitals that benefit from the philanthropy of the rich and poor children all over the world with cleft palates have been operated on free of charge due to rich philanthropists. Whatever they save on their income taxes, I'm sure that money goes right back into more philanthropic causes.
Shame on you, antialias. . .you are blinded by Liberal ideology and it is very unbecoming.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (7)
@Pirouette: Class Envy? isnt that the point? without the desire to be in the 1% our system falls apart right? If you cant get rich we would all just quit our jobs and beg on corners right? Why are you upset with class envy, isn't it what drives our society forward?
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (5)
I can admit that taxes are theft (I think social contract and similar theories is BS). Yet theft to ensure basic needs is justified. And these basic needs include security, justice, some welfare, education and healthcare, IMHO. So indeed, even based on morality and ethics, taxes are OK.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
Um, not quite.
Most wealthy people set up foundations because they want to determine how the charitable giving is done, which is exactly how it should be.
I have seen this first hand so many times I can't even begin to count. Very well meaning, but completely ineffective people doing charity work rolling through lots of money with incredibly meager results. In one case I know of well, a very good fellow was looking for financial donations for a food bank. After reviewing his books and looking at the results I was shocked (and so was he). His $600,000 budget had delivered 2000 meals a year. You do the math, he didn't. Meals were two cans of soup.
People who have worked their asses off all their lives are not unwilling to help the disadvantaged. That's why they set up foundations. After they set up the foundation they can't use that money themselves. They just don't want it wasted.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (7)
Then there's the other kind of class envy that doesn't motivate the person toward excellence and hard work to get ahead. THAT kind wants to tear DOWN and DESTROY those who have made it and are successful through education, talent, and a good work ethic. The second kind of class envy is motivated by jealousy, hate, anger and suspicion, etc. . So, one type makes a person upwardly mobile, and the other type diminishes the person's self-respect, develops paranoia sometimes, and feels that life is passing him by. He becomes a malcontent but is too lazy to pull himself up and out of the rut he's in. He may even become violent in his envy of others.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (6)
Man, I really tried to stay out of this, honest I did.
So, you know that money is not created or destroyed right and that it just moves around? From the way you laid out your argument you made it sound like one choice is a waste and one is not.
Where do you think the $1500 went? Just guessing but I'm guessing about $250 went to the wait staff at the (local) restaurant, they probably had a nice bottle of wine which put a bunch of workers to work at a vineyard in California, some went to reward the skill of the chef (and to pay his educators), some went to farmers, furniture makers, cleaning staff, dishwashers, equipment makers, and (hopefully) a nice chunk went to the guy who stuck his neck out and took a huge loan to start the restaurant in the first place to create all these opportunities.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
I seriously doubt that anyone follows you anywhere.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (99)
"That's, like, you're opinion, man."
LOL!
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (7)
CH. . . .you're correct about currency. Rather than a barter system which is an exchange of goods of equal or better value, currency was created to represent payment in full for the value of the goods that were bought or sold. Much more convenient than bartering. However, since the advent of the Euro. . .the new currency system in Europe seems to be failing even though there is probably no further need for a rate of exchange from one country to another.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
LOL Kochevnik. . .you've got them down pat. What do you think of the news that North Korea is building a missile system that can hit the U.S. Don't you find that exciting? Red China has at least one already, but we owe them too much money for them to use it. But, you never know.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (99)
Jesus you don't even know when someone is disagreeing with you.
durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (8)
As always the world is more complicated than your black/white mind can handle. Not subscribing to the view that the 1% have it right about how to live does not mean I advocate a communist policy.
More effort must still pay off - but there must be a progressively smaller payoff (and a hard upper limit). The CEO of a big company does NOT work 10 times as hard as the guy on the assembly line - and consequently should not be getting 10 times his salary. That he spent some time earning a degree as opposed tothe worker who went into the workforce after highschool should be taken into account, sure, but there should be limits to the discrepancy between lowest and highest pay.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
How young ambitious capoes and soldiers from Italian Institute of Technology (IIT) under supervision of a decrepit american don-godfather from Northwestern University are successfully completed their sequential plagiaristic enterprise: http://issuu.com/...saivaldi
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (8)
http://www.youtub..._LP-pUbg
Define 'work as hard'?
If the assy worker makes a mistake, how much does it cost the company? What does it cost the company and workers if the CEO makes a mistake?
With great power comes great responsibility and who will take that responsibility at minimum wage?
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
These are more appropriately called service fees and could be, and have been, replaced with private, fee for service providers.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
So? Should we be paid by how much we work? Or by how valuable we are? Which do you think is fairer?
The value of management is totally overestimated (and I say this as someone who is on his way into mid-level management)
How much does a company make without workers? Nothing
How much does a company make without management? Certainly less than it does now - but more than nothing.
So who is more valuable? The one doing the work!
do you know of any CEO who is held responsible (with his own assets) for the mistakes he makes?
A worker gets fired if he screws up his job - same as a CEO. The worker is no more or less at risk here.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (103)
Well it's reassuring that if you jump out of a plane with a nice suit, a parachute, and $200,000 the government will track you down for 40 years, but if you jump out of a corporation with a nice suit, a golden parachute, and $100,000,000 no one bats an eye.
More regulations NOW!
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
People are not (and should not) be payed by how hard they work, but by their contribution to society.
Not effort, but results.
As for the payoff, I believe there must be a progressively smaller payoff up to some limit, with the line being flat after that, with no limit.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (101)
In light of this:
Is a sane and coherent view. The problem with conservatives is they very often stop at the first point and reject the second.
That and they tend to define "contributions to society" very dubiously.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (37)
Assumes you know and have personally interviewed "most" wealthy people on the subject. Seems unlikely.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (40)
You start out by saying you're not a Marxist. However, you define the wealthy as "money grubbers". Are you sure you understand your own bias?
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (38)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Yes, we could all be driving on toll roads, from doorstep to doorstep. Think of the problems with the billing, though. Remember, 100 years ago, there wasn't the technology to implement such a system. Times do change, but I much prefer the system as it is now.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (12)
Your logic is faulty, to put it kindly.
Assuming those millionaires grew up in the U.S., the whole point is that they DID NOT get healthcare or education FOR FREE.
In fact, they likely paid a very large amount of money for both.
Conversations about true opportunity for everyone can be held independently of what one group of people earns.
And, while this should be self-evident, the pitiful state of our economy has understandably soured a whole lot of people, fostering a general sense of negativity and pessimism.
Neither is a solution for betterment. Optimism and hard work are the only things you can control yourself. The whole OWS crowd just can't seem to comprehend this.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (9)
The fallacy, of course, being that in the one case, a criminal broke the law. In the second case, no one did anything illegal. Why in the world, unless one is a stockholder of a given corporation, would anyone be concerned with how much a corporate executive is making either while in a company, or upon retirement?
Oh, yes, the whole class envy thing. Greed is a powerful, dangerous, and destructive emotion.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (7)
In that case the CEO/management should get nothing and the workers everything. The management does not produce anything. It isn't even part of the production process at any stage.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
A) At least you were honest enough to say "I'd suggest" rather than claiming this questionable line of thinking as truth or fact. You have NO idea about the motivations of the wealthy, unless you've personally interviewed them.
B) Who cares? It's literally none of anyone's business either way.
Not sure I follow this logic. Are you suggesting that no patterns of success can possibly be elucidated upon and repeated by others?
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
This is painfully incorrect and woefully naive. Your biases aside, it's clear that you've never spent any time in a management role of any consequence.
While one could make the case that large numbers of decision makers throughout the world are redundant and unnecessary, to suggest that senior management does not "produce" anything is quite illogical.
For starters, it seems you are equating value with physical labor, which should be an obvious red flag to anyone in a technological society. Whether one uses a keyboard, or picks up a wrench, is unimportant in determining one's "contribution to society".
Essentially, everything you've said is opinionated and requires others to share your view, thus eliminating the application of logic.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Well said Rygg2. . . .the assembly worker would be hard pressed to take any kind of responsibility for the failure of the company, Take Phobos-Grunt, for instance. It isn't the guy who turns the screw that will be harassed and possibly jailed for the failure. It's the upper echelon whose heads will roll. Therefore, you might say that the CEO DOES work as hard, but in a different way.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
LOL. . .he does that to you too? He does that to several members including me. FrankHerberturd gets these brainfarts caused by chronic constipation of the mind, so he lets loose his gasbag via PMs. He sent me one that said, "the angle of the dangle equals the square root of the mass of the ass".
I guess he was referring to his own ass. Maybe that was his version of AGW science?
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (38)
Yep, first time anyone has PM'd me for anything other than PhysOrg or a couple of people discussing an article.
Angle of the dangle...lmao :)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
http://www.realcl...ama.html
I was shocked, SHOCKED. Michael Moore and his vast wealth and fabulous mansion in an exclusive neighborhood going after Obama? The worm may be turning.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Apathy, for example, is when a guy and a blind girl are walking on the beach. He's leading her by the hand as they approach some jellyfish washed up on the beach. As he steps gingerly to the left of the mass, he doesn't bother preventing the girl from stepping on them.
Later on when her feet are burning, he tells her that she stepped on jellyfish. When she asks him why he let her do that, he tells her, "I felt apathy".
Apathy is a powerful tool of the welfare queens, whose only desire is to rob the taxpayers even though those same taxpayers may be poor themselves. . .the working poor or the middle class. have the audacity to want a better life and work for it. But they don't get anything for free because the government is apathetic to them also. Higher taxes are coming. Our only hope is a Conservative President.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
Actually saw him interviewed on Piers Morgan. No big surprise in any of that though. I do recall one statistic from way back when he was elected - he had taken in more money from corporations than any other president in history. All those OWS protesters probably don't get the irony of the situation.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (3)
Oh, please. What are you, a communist? Management is needed, too, it is the brain that plans and guides the body.
Of course, one can say that management is often overpayed for various reasons, I can certainly agree with that.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Of course, one can say that management is often overpayed for various reasons, I can certainly agree with that."
Come on guys. This isn't about income. This is about accumulated wealth; wealth accumulated over generations and which is used to influence those who we (those of us without huge wealth) think we elect to govern us. In fact, those 'governors' are actually people who have been bought by some wealthy entity long before we are given a glimmer of his 'candidacy'.
The only thing that the common folk have as an advantage is that the wealthy need us to buy their products and polish their cars and furniture and art work.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (5)
EXACTLY!! My thoughts exactly. You should earn more, but not that much more. There are only so many hours in a week and only so much you can do. It would be hard to demonstrate you work that much harder than the average Joe.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (7)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (9)
In reality, it's more like the Left wing's failed economic policies led by Obama. His hopey changey lies to get votes and promises that never came to pass prove that his is a failed administration and ideology. Obama's Liberal/Socialist crap led to the damn bailouts of the banks, Wall Street brokerage houses and industries that should been allowed to fail and shut down. And instead, he followed Bush's advice that all those businesses were TOO BIG to fail and he forced the banks and Wall Street businesses like Shearson Lehman and the other Jewish run brokers to accept big money from the government.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
AND the "common folk" NEED the jobs that the wealthy can provide.
Dec 07, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
Dec 08, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
The socialist agenda is that policy should be developed and implemented that tends to make everybody equally destitute except, of course, the leaders of the movement.
If anyone else manages to succeed or manages to remain successful, that person must be slapped down by every means necessary. By regulation and taxation and even direct seizure if regulation and taxation is not successful.
Dec 08, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Dec 08, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (10)
Data over several decades prove their policies fail to promote liberty and economic growth for everyone.
All they can do is whine, cry, attack or run away.
Dec 09, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
Dec 09, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (6)
Given that each person has one vote there's no threat to democracy. If you're worried about campaign cash influencing election outcomes consider two things. Are you influenced by campaign commercials? Second, the reality is politics corrupts money, not the other way around.
What threatens our prosperity, is government outlawing transactions in which people would freely engage.
Dec 09, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
And YOU don't even know when I'm playing along with him, you $HITHEAD
Dec 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (101)
Would you have even lived to maturity without government assistance? I think that answers your question.
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (9)
Free marketeers must battle the socialists from both parties.
http://www.foxbus...id=87530
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
I don't know whether or not Nerdy, Nou, Rygg2 or the others have sent the PMs from FrankHerbert$hithead and his many other user names over to Physorg administration, but I have, so the moderators need to gather up enough evidence before they give him the heave-ho.
It may take a while, but they know what is going and they do read the threads and PMs going from one member to another. I have never sent any PMs to FrankHerbfart nor answered any of his PMs. I'm not interested in what a fool has to say, and it's all garbage anyway.
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (6)
I, too, have always questioned the accuracy of what many researchers claim to be "MOST" or "ALL" and other terms to try to signify a majority of people in any given group.
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
First of all, thank you for your service to our country. I am a Nam veteran also.
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
2. No, "rich people" are not necessarily conservative (there are many examples above), but fiscally conservative people tend to have more money than those who spend every dime they have and more. There are many "poor conservatives" who blindly follow the rantings of some politician waving a patriotic sword, or spewing racial hatred. I support strong regulations to prevent Wall St fraud, so I guess you would call me a liberal socialist. I also believe in the work ethic, so call me conservative, and I believe in a "Fair" government over a strong one
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (7)
Just Wall Street fraud?
What about govt fraud? There were sufficient regulations to stop Madoff, but the govt failed for over 10 years.
How about the fraud created by the Federal Reserve and its fiat currency to inflate its value and tax everyone on the sly?
The problem with 'strong regulations' is they lead to strong lobbying and campaign contributions to change those 'strong regulation'.
If by 'strong regulations' you mean the govt should protect private property by vigorously prosecuting theft and fraud, I would agree.
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
"The president understands that Wall Street, banks, fat cats, etc. remain the most inviting target and he figures that he can ride the twin steeds of Resentment and Envy to reelection and four more years of even bigger Big Government. "
"The man once tipped to be Obamas Treasury secretary and whom Vice President Biden described as the fellow whos always the smartest guy in the room explained his affairs thus: I simply do not know where the money is. Does that apply only to his private business or to his years in the Senate, too?"
"But who wields monopoly power today? Washington dominates ever more areas of life, from government-backed mortgages to the government takeover of education loans to Obamacares governmentalization of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. "
http://www.nation...eyn?pg=2
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
That ended when Mcdonalds became breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (97)
So you agree military paychecks, perks, pensions, VA benefits, etc. are a form of welfare?
I'm going to have to assume your definition of "fair" is dubious until you provide one.
Dec 10, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
Why?
Could it be that somehow the govt power has been corrupted by 'progressives' to increase their control? The statists feed on envy and to get voters to vote for them and the statists work with large corporate interests to limit their competition with regulatory expense.
Promoting envy is NOT what was once considered the American way. Promoting opportunity is.
Govt colluding with cooperate interests which effectively grants monopoly power restricts opportunity.
The solution is the restrict the power of the state, not increase it.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
What does this mean?
Do you imply the unwashed masses only eat at McDonalds?
And what if they did? What is wrong with McDonalds? They employ millions raising, processing and selling food all around the world.
Some moron buys and eats everything McDonalds sells him, get sick, writes a book and makes movie for other morons blaming McDonalds. Yet a responsible individual makes responsible choices at McDonalds for B,L and D and looses weight and has positive bloodwork results. But she receives no recognition from the irresponsible morons. What a surprise!
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (5)
It's obvious that when they were giving out common sense, logic and reason, these folks were out to lunch.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I think you are getting close to the root of problem. About 50-60 years ago I read a report of an incident and the Public Official in charge said "I'm not interested in finding out who caused this problem, I want to know how we are going to correct the problem." The end of accountability was in my face and I could see it clearly. Now children, parents, teachers, public officials, and even convicted felons are not held accountable. Think about it. "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." Give me a break.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
From the above link:
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (6)
1) The rich don't pay their fair share, even though they not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, but also a disproportionate share of their own income.
2) Everyone must pay their "fair share," but the suggestion is that it's only the rich who must do so, not the 47% who pay no federal income taxes.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (97)
Dunning-Kruger effect
http://en.wikiped...r_effect
It's so ironic someone with so little "common sense" lambasting others for their lack of it.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
4) "You're on your own." Would that we were. It used to be understood that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," was a wry reflection that the government guy would basically spin his wheels, do nothing, and at least leave you no worse off than you were before. Now when you hear that, you immediately think, "Uh-oh - BOHICA..." External Link
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
The US Navy used to teach the leadership triangle, authority-reponsibility-accountability. All had to be equal for effective leadership.
But then the socialists can't have real individual leaders since this empowers the individual weakening the state's central power.
The power of one to stand up and be a force for change is great unless beaten down by the consensus.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
@FrankHerbert. . . It is a form of socialized welfare which is why most people on such socialized welfare oppose it on a mass scale. The experienced know better.
My father was a veteran of the US army and a VA beneficiary under the GI bill. He had cancer and I would sit and talk with him, and the veterans every Wednesday for chemotherapy.... For 6 years. Many came and left, perhaps very hastily. The answer for the VA socialized medicine to our veterans is Morphine. If they are not healthy enough to fight their doses of Morphine, they will be swiftly euthanized, thus less of a burden on our tax system. My father would deny Morphine regardless of the anger and frustration of the doctors issuing him his last drug. Don't get me wrong, the VA was great for extremely expensive doses of chemotherapy, but private medicine and caring people kept him alive 5 years past his death date
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (4)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
Sorry for your loss.
Sepsis is a problem even in the private sector. My wife nearly died of sepsis last year about this time. She got septic because she was kept in the E.R. for 12 hours after her appendix ruptured before it occurred to the physicians that they might want to determine why she was in such pain.
The current government direction is to eliminate the elderly as quickly as possible because they do not produce. Obamacare, if it continues without abatement, will rapidly reduce the number of elderly Americans.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
@MentalHealthNut. . . .I am also sorry for your loss of your loved one. The VA people are not the best at healing and preserving life, but so many veterans can't afford much else. And the VA was forced by the Obama government to downsize their care of veterans, especially the elderly.
And now the Obama regime is cutting about 8,700 people from the military's complement of personnel, both military and civilian. It might not be a stretch to say that the VA quite possibly euthanizes elderly veterans with an overdose of morphine. I thinks it's very possible.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (6)
I think it most likely will repeat, in so many ways. The conditions are almost the same: runaway economic woes, governments falling like a house of cards, dissension and dependency on welfare money that is no longer available, etc. The 1930s saw the rise of Adolf Hitler because the German people were so destitute and hunger prevailed, while the Jews in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Italy were well off and they tend to take good care of their own as a religion and a race, even though they lived in many parts of the world. Hitler took advantage of that and determined that Germans were going without, while the Jews had plenty. Europe now is waiting for such a leader to take them out of their misery. Nobody likes to live as a pauper, so the ONE that leads them will be very powerful indeed.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (4)
Your "appeals to emotion" are inappropriate. Morphine is used to prevent pain in terminally ill patients. It isn't used to euthanize anyone. Conspiracy theories that suggest public health workers administer the drug to kill their patients is, frankly, absurd.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (5)
No, she was hurting in a wider area than just the lower right quadrant. They may have done some blood work, but white count does not necessarily elevate prior to or simultaneous with a ruptured appendix. It can take a little while. A simple scan would have revealed the problem, but that was apparently too much trouble for the night shift. My wife and I both work in health care. I felt that she either had a ruptured appendix or a bowel obstruction.
Yes, it was negligence and actionable. Legal action does not improve the situation, it just feeds the lawyers.
It is only going to get worse with Obamacare.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (3)
"Fair" government means everyone contributes, in some way or another, and members of the government owe their allegience to their consituents, not to the lobbyists.
Pirouette: ALL people pay taxes. Sales taxes, especially. SOME Corporations pay no taxes at all, and Corporations are NOT people. (continued)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Side note: I also lost my mother at age 69 to sepsis and an incorrect diagnosis (they thought she had a heart attack. It was, in fact, a punctured colon.) Being a lawyer I could have sued, but that wouldn't bring her back and would only drain the family resources, which were not great. For vengeance? By the way, young doctors, as well as young lawyers, often have better knowledge of diseases/law than their elders, but they do not have the experience to apply it. You need both.
1VeryOldGuy: History is repeating. The "Big Lie" tactics are the same. Hatred is rampant, compromise is non-existent.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (96)
No offense, but you DID NOT risk *your* life for *my* safety.
I suggest you 1) come down off your cross, 2) use the wood to build a bridge, and 3) GET OVER IT.
Soldier cults are disgusting, very fascist behavior.
------
That comes across as really offensive. Sorry.
Were you drafted? If so I think it's awful what was done to you. If you volunteered, I would feel bad if you recognized the hypocrisy of the United States.
However, I do not and never will blindly give adulation to soldiers, particularly ones that are not conscripted. Most of them receive amounts of money simply for the ability to follow orders blindly that they would never receive in any other environment.
It's the 21st century not the 11th. The Huns aren't going to rape and pillage you.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (97)
Yeah that's a little bit of intellectual dishonesty I like to engage in. My point is that in the military you do something and get paid for it, and many (most?) of these people would not achieve any comparable success in the private sector.
Why not have something like the CCC? If the military is such a good use of tax payers money and all it does is provide some amorphous sense of safety, shouldn't something similar that actually accomplishes something tangible be acceptable?
I'm not interested in debating with our junior economists on this, but really, if there aren't enough jobs why can't we get a mandate to put people to work?
I'm not saying you do, BUT you cannot claim to live in a fair society while you oppose welfare programs and claim jobs are a privilege when there obviously aren't enough.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (6)
@Dunbar. . .it's been said that some of the terminally ill patients in a hospital in New Orleans may have been euthanized during the high water that came from the flooding from Hurricane Katrina. Now I wasn't in New Orleans at the time so I don't know if it's true.
But you could be right or you could be wrong. It would require a visit to all of the VA hospitals in America and a full interview of the VA staff to determine whether or not euthanasia has been performed on terminally ill veterans. Many of those veterans were single or widowed, and many had no family or friends to help them. If you could provide evidence that such things don't happen in any VA hospital, then I will concede.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
It is all our fault that for allowing for the current inequitable system to emerge. Wealth wouldn't be a problem if our system didn't allow for unlimited, undisclosed campaign bribes, giving the wealthy a disproportionate say in politics, or if our tax system didn't impede social mobility (tax rates go up until you're in the top 1%, rather than remaining flat until then; capital gains taxed lower than income), or if the already wealthy didn't benefit from corporate welfare/welfare for the rich. Those statutes and programs, not wealth, are the threat.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
@dogbert. . . . .I'm afraid you're right. . . .and as the wealthy who are not Liberals get "taken down" by the Liberal masses and more and more businesses either go broke or flee overseas, then we will see less and less of quality health care and even our military will be so diminished that they will no longer be sustained enough to protect our country from foreign hostiles. And without jobs from the private sector to hire the unemployed or for those to retain their employment, tax money will have to come from somewhere else. And along with all that, the billions of dollars each year that the third world countries and the U.N. will demand from us, the U.S. may just stop operating as a sovereign country altogether. Such a shame that the Liberals are so desperate to destroy the USA in whatever way they can.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
http://www.physor...lem.html
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (10)
That would be refreshing from the 'progressives'/socialist/statists.
But those who seek more control can never compromise the control they have seized.
The choice before you GDM is what side do you support, individual liberty or tyranny. How do you compromise with evil?
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
MentalHealthNut, didn't you read what FrankHerbFart said? ""Soldier cults are disgusting, very fascist behavior."" And ""Frank: The military is not a form of welfare."" to which he says:
"Yeah that's a little bit of intellectual dishonesty I like to engage in. My point is that in the military you do something and get paid for it, and many (most?) of these people would not achieve any comparable success in the private sector.""
He appears to be saying that only stupid people join the military because they can't make it by working for a private company. LOL. . . .typical Liberal/Socialist crap talk against our military, without which we would be sitting ducks if not for our soldiers to protect us from the hostiles, both foreign and domestic.
Dec 11, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Dec 12, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (7)
Never as far as I know. Are you saying that Ayn Rand was Entitled to collect welfare and Medicaid?
Shouldn't she have died in the streets from her self inflicted lung cancer as she claimed others should do when they could not afford treatment?
And don't you think it was poetic justice that she spent her entire life denying that smoking caused cancer and claiming that the worlds doctors and scientists were involved in a global conspiracy to restrict her freedom to smoke, only for her to have developed lung cancer from smoking?
Odd, her denial that smoking causes cancer is almost identical in form to your denial that CO2 causes global warming. Right down to the claim that the worlds scientists are involved in a conspiracy to limit your freedom.
Is there no limit to Libertarian\Randite ideological failure?