Richest 85 people have as much money as...

[Stillriledup]

the 3.5 BILLION poorest.

And i'm not kidding.

:(

[horses4courses]

Saw that this morning - Oxfam report coinciding with the World Economic Summit currently under way in Switzerland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/world/wealth-of-85-richest-people-equal-to-that-of-poorest-3-5bn-1.1661670

[Robert Fischer]

the 3.5 BILLION poorest.

And i'm not kidding.

:(

and the 85 brightest stars in our galaxy (the Milky Way) are probably giving off as much energy as the the 3.5 BILLION lowest energy stars.

:(

[HUSKER55]

it is called productivity.

[tucker6]

the 3.5 BILLION poorest.

And i'm not kidding.

:(
Are you insinuating that the 85 got to where they are on the backs of the 3.5B? Because that would simply be not true. They are on the bottom because of:


cultures
religions
govts
wars
self (drugs/education/motivation, etc)

[Robert Fischer]

Are you insinuating that the 85 got to where they are on the backs of the 3.5B? Because that would simply be not true. They are on the bottom because of:





cultures
religions
govts
wars
self (drugs/education/motivation, etc)



Any individual person can move significantly upward in terms of wealth with the right approach and without any really bad luck.

However, as a group, those 3.5billion can not rise up to wealth equality, no matter what happens with the factors you mentioned.

It's systemic.

This is how power arranges itself, and we created money and economy in the image of that system.

[Clocker]

Any individual person can move significantly upward in terms of wealth with the right approach and without any really bad luck.

However, as a group, those 3.5billion can not rise up to wealth equality, no matter what happens with the factors you mentioned.


In most of the world, you are born into some level of wealth or poverty, and you die there. In this country, a lot of people born into wealth screw it up and die poor. And a lot of people are born into poverty and die as a member of the middle class. The mobile society is capitalistic. The stagnant society ranges from socialism to totalitarianism.

Do-gooders complain about people stuck in poverty without realizing that the lower 20% today are not the same people that comprised the lower 20% 10 years earlier. The problem is that this mobility in this country is shrinking. And within the last 5 years or so, it is the worst it has been for a very long time.

Hmm. What's different about the last 5 years?

[Mike at A+]

In most of the world, you are born into some level of wealth or poverty, and you die there. In this country, a lot of people born into wealth screw it up and die poor. And a lot of people are born into poverty and die as a member of the middle class. The mobile society is capitalistic. The stagnant society ranges from socialism to totalitarianism.

Do-gooders complain about people stuck in poverty without realizing that the lower 20% today are not the same people that comprised the lower 20% 10 years earlier. The problem is that this mobility in this country is shrinking. And within the last 5 years or so, it is the worst it has been for a very long time.

Hmm. What's different about the last 5 years?
You mean the "hope and change" years?

[NJ Stinks]

In most of the world, you are born into some level of wealth or poverty, and you die there. In this country, a lot of people born into wealth screw it up and die poor. And a lot of people are born into poverty and die as a member of the middle class. The mobile society is capitalistic. The stagnant society ranges from socialism to totalitarianism.

Do-gooders complain about people stuck in poverty without realizing that the lower 20% today are not the same people that comprised the lower 20% 10 years earlier. The problem is that this mobility in this country is shrinking. And within the last 5 years or so, it is the worst it has been for a very long time.

Hmm. What's different about the last 5 years?


Obviously, the last 5 years have had to deal with legacy of George Bush. Dah. :rolleyes:

[Marshall Bennett]

Obviously, the last 5 years have had to deal with legacy of George Bush. Dah. :rolleyes:
Yeah go ahead, blame it on Bush. Other than yourselves there's little else you can blame it on. By now one would think you'd have found something new to blame all your lack of intelligence on, but then again, one needs at least a small degree of intelligence to find anything. So keep blaming Bush. :)

[thaskalos]

Yeah go ahead, blame it on Bush. Other than yourselves there's little else you can blame it on. By now one would think you'd have found something new to blame all your lack of intelligence on, but then again, one needs at least a small degree of intelligence to find anything. So keep blaming Bush. :)
I wonder...did all the intelligent people vote for Romney?

[tucker6]

Any individual person can move significantly upward in terms of wealth with the right approach and without any really bad luck.

However, as a group, those 3.5billion can not rise up to wealth equality, no matter what happens with the factors you mentioned.

It's systemic.

This is how power arranges itself, and we created money and economy in the image of that system.
I agree. The first four items I mentioned create enormous inertia to wealth exchange in a society.

[tucker6]

I wonder...did all the intelligent people vote for Romney?
If you have to ask, then you're not one of them. ;)

[Tom]

I wonder...did all the intelligent people vote for Romney?

Yes, but we were outnumbered by your side! ;)

[NJ Stinks]

Yeah go ahead, blame it on Bush. Other than yourselves there's little else you can blame it on. By now one would think you'd have found something new to blame all your lack of intelligence on, but then again, one needs at least a small degree of intelligence to find anything. So keep blaming Bush. :)


I imagine there is a certain amount of comfort in believing that. I do know that's all I had to fall back on in 2000 and 2004.

[Clocker]

The first four items I mentioned create enormous inertia to wealth exchange in a society.

The issue isn't wealth exchange, it is wealth creation. And it isn't about trickle down. Trickle down is a straw man the redistribution fan boys made up and attacked.

The items you mention stifle innovation and initiative. The engine of capitalism is the entrepreneur, usually from the middle class. And an oppressive government that represses the creation of wealth doesn't have to be communist or totalitarian. It can be a heavily regulated social democracy. Like ours.

[tucker6]

The issue isn't wealth exchange, it is wealth creation. And it isn't about trickle down. Trickle down is a straw man the redistribution fan boys made up and attacked.

The items you mention stifle innovation and initiative. The engine of capitalism is the entrepreneur, usually from the middle class. And an oppressive government that represses the creation of wealth doesn't have to be communist or totalitarian. It can be a heavily regulated social democracy. Like ours.
I agree with you. My use of "wealth exchange" was meant to convey that in some heavily regulated and oppressive societies, the same people/families retain all the wealth, and that it is highly unlikely for even an entrepreneur to break through this barrier. Thus my inertia comment. I think we're saying the same thing differently is all.

[thaskalos]

The issue isn't wealth exchange, it is wealth creation. And it isn't about trickle down. Trickle down is a straw man the redistribution fan boys made up and attacked.

The items you mention stifle innovation and initiative. The engine of capitalism is the entrepreneur, usually from the middle class. And an oppressive government that represses the creation of wealth doesn't have to be communist or totalitarian. It can be a heavily regulated social democracy. Like ours.
Ours is not an "oppressive government that represses the creation of wealth..."

It's a SELECTIVELY oppressive government...which endeavors to entrust "wealth" into the hands of the very few...

[tucker6]

Ours is not an "oppressive government that represses the creation of wealth..."

It's a SELECTIVELY oppressive government...which endeavors to entrust "wealth" into the hands of the very few...
Name one prominent govt in world history that didn't favor the very wealthy? Even the USSR and China had/has an aristocracy of the rich and powerful.

[thaskalos]

Name one prominent govt in world history that didn't favor the very wealthy? Even the USSR and China had/has an aristocracy of the rich and powerful.

I don't disagree with you. I was just responding to Clocker...who wrote:

"The engine of capitalism is the entrepreneur, usually from the middle class."

Yes...the engine of capitalism is indeed the "entrepreneur, usually from the middle class".

But who is doing the "driving"...?

[PhantomOnTour]

In most of the world, you are born into some level of wealth or poverty, and you die there. In this country, a lot of people born into wealth screw it up and die poor. And a lot of people are born into poverty and die as a member of the middle class. The mobile society is capitalistic. The stagnant society ranges from socialism to totalitarianism.

Do-gooders complain about people stuck in poverty without realizing that the lower 20% today are not the same people that comprised the lower 20% 10 years earlier. The problem is that this mobility in this country is shrinking. And within the last 5 years or so, it is the worst it has been for a very long time.

Hmm. What's different about the last 5 years?
The Republicans are doing all the whining and bitching instead of the Democrats

[Clocker]

Ours is not an "oppressive government that represses the creation of wealth..."



Our government is repressing the creation of wealth by burdensome rules and regulations and by redistribution of wealth. Just look at the energy sector. The feds are preventing oil exploration whenever possible, preventing a major pipeline, and doing their best to kill the coal industry. At the same time they are redistributing wealth to crackpot green energy projects that are doomed to fail.

It's a SELECTIVELY oppressive government...which endeavors to entrust "wealth" into the hands of the very few...

It is a broadly oppressive government that has the unintended consequence of enriching the fat cats at the top of the food chain. Income inequality has increased hugely under this administration. The lower and middle classes have suffered because of a poor economy and because of policies like EPA regulations and ObamaCare that kill jobs. And the lower classes are hurt by a manic Federal Reserve policy that is raising prices while making the rich much richer without the inconvenience of having to work for their money, like having to actually invest in businesses and create jobs.

[barn32]

The world's wealthiest 85 people should distribute their wealth equally to the 3.5 billion poorest people so that everyone would now have $34,400 and live happily ever after.

[iceknight]

In most of the world, you are born into some level of wealth or poverty, and you die there. In this country, a lot of people born into wealth screw it up and die poor. And a lot of people are born into poverty and die as a member of the middle class. The mobile society is capitalistic. The stagnant society ranges from socialism to totalitarianism.

Do-gooders complain about people stuck in poverty without realizing that the lower 20% today are not the same people that comprised the lower 20% 10 years earlier. The problem is that this mobility in this country is shrinking. And within the last 5 years or so, it is the worst it has been for a very long time.

Hmm. What's different about the last 5 years?Depends.

But, what this report is saying is:

"Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report. This “capture of opportunities” by the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes has led to a situation where 70 per cent of the world’s population live in countries where inequality has increased since the 1980s and 1 per cent of families own 46 per cent of global wealth — almost €85 trillion.
Opinion polls in Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the US, UK and Netherlands found that a majority in each country believe that wealthy people exert too much influence. Concern was strongest in Spain, followed by Brazil and India and least marked in the Netherlands."

NOW, if it can clearly be proven that the drop in tax rates on the top (richest) has aided in moving people from the poorest class into the other 3.49999999 billion - which is sort of the middle class, then I would be happy with the trickle down economics theory. It seems to have been the other way, especially when you see middle class finances decimated by a credit crisis/swaps etc (which also ruined several city pensions) that finally ended up benefiting the few people at the top. The people at the top of most banks got away with hefty parachute packages and just moved to other firms, ad infinitum.

[RaceBookJoe]

The world's wealthiest 85 people should distribute their wealth equally to the 3.5 billion poorest people so that everyone would now have $34,400 and live happily ever after.

That would be an interesting experiment. My guess is that if that happened tomorrow, 20 yrs from now that most, if not all of the "top 85" would figure a way to create a way to get back to wealth status, and at least 95% of the 3.5B of the poorest still would never figure a way to create wealth.

[Mike at A+]

The world's wealthiest 85 people should distribute their wealth equally to the 3.5 billion poorest people so that everyone would now have $34,400 and live happily ever after.
And if we put ANY existing bureaucracy in charge of doing the distributing, 5% would go to "the poor" and the other 95% would go toward "administrative expenses".

[mostpost]

In most of the world, you are born into some level of wealth or poverty, and you die there. In this country, a lot of people born into wealth screw it up and die poor. And a lot of people are born into poverty and die as a member of the middle class. The mobile society is capitalistic. The stagnant society ranges from socialism to totalitarianism.

Do-gooders complain about people stuck in poverty without realizing that the lower 20% today are not the same people that comprised the lower 20% 10 years earlier. The problem is that this mobility in this country is shrinking. And within the last 5 years or so, it is the worst it has been for a very long time.

Hmm. What's different about the last 5 years?
Economic mobility in this country has been shrinking for 35 years. That would logically mean that it would now be the worst it has been. It does not mean the current administration is to blame. The causes of this phenomenon are clear. They are policies that are supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

[Clocker]

then I would be happy with the trickle down economics theory.

There is no economic theory supporting anything called or resembling "trickle down". It is a pejorative term liberals use to oppose the conservative principle that the private sector makes better economic decisions than the government.


Opinion polls in Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the US, UK and Netherlands found that a majority in each country believe that wealthy people exert too much influence.

Many, if not a majority of, conservatives and independents in this country agree. One way to put an end to that is through a major tax code reform, simplifying rates and eliminating special interest loopholes. Another is to get the government out of the private sector, eliminating excessive regulation and subsidies.

It seems to have been the other way, especially when you see middle class finances decimated by a credit crisis/swaps etc (which also ruined several city pensions) that finally ended up benefiting the few people at the top. The people at the top of most banks got away with hefty parachute packages and just moved to other firms, ad infinitum.

That covers a multitude of sins, including politicians trying to regulate things they didn't understand, trying to micromanage the private sector, and protecting big firms from the consequences of their own screw ups. And the sins of the government here were bipartisan. Both sides helped to develop the problem, and the TARP bailout of failed banks was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican president.

[Clocker]

The causes of this phenomenon are clear. They are policies that are supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

They are apparently not clear enough for you to elucidate them.

[Greyfox]

Obviously, the last 5 years have had to deal with legacy of George Bush. Dah. :rolleyes:

I agree Bush was a poor President.
His main legacy was Obama, who has turned out to be even worse.

[Clocker]

Economic mobility in this country has been shrinking for 35 years.

The US Treasury does not agree with you. A study of income mobility from 1996-2005 found that "The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade."

From the summary of the report (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf)

.

The key findings of this study include:

•There was considerable income mobility of individualsin the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.

•Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.

•Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.

•The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).

•Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups. The degree of mobility in the overall population and movement out of the bottom quintile in this study are similar to the findings of prior research on income mobility.

[mostpost]

There is no economic theory supporting anything called or resembling "trickle down". It is a pejorative term liberals use to oppose the conservative principle that the private sector makes better economic decisions than the government.
"Trickle Down=supply side economics; the idea that producing goods in and of itself creates a market for those goods. By creating that market jobs are created and everyone makes money. Supply side aka trickle down holds that if we reduce taxes and regulation on the "job creators" they will use that money to produce. It is a stupid theory. As is the theory that the private sector always makes better economic decisions than the government.

[Clocker]

"Trickle Down=supply side economics; the idea that producing goods in and of itself creates a market for those goods.

"Trickle down" does not equal supply side. And your description of supply side economics is not even close to correct. Other than that, you nailed it.

[sammy the sage]

Economic mobility in this country has been shrinking for 35 years. That would logically mean that it would now be the worst it has been. It does not mean the current administration is to blame. The causes of this phenomenon are clear. They are policies that are supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.

If I control THE money; I care NOT what party rules...central banker's LAUGHING all the way to the bank...

[Robert Fischer]

If I control THE money; I care NOT what party rules...central banker's LAUGHING all the way to the bank...

yea, it's not a partisan thing.

but whatever floats people's boats...

[mostpost]

"Trickle down" does not equal supply side. And your description of supply side economics is not even close to correct. Other than that, you nailed it.
From Investopedia:

Definition of 'Trickle-Down Theory'

An economic idea which states that decreasing marginal and capital gains tax rates - especially for corporations, investors and entrepreneurs - can stimulate production in the overall economy. According to trickle-down theory proponents, this stimulus leads to economic growth and wealth creation that benefits everyone, not just those who pay the lower tax rates.

From wikipedia:
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.
They sure seem the same to me and to anyone with any sense.

[mostpost]

It is a broadly oppressive government that has the unintended consequence of enriching the fat cats at the top of the food chain.
It isn't an unintended consequence at all. It is a deliberate effort by those same fat cats. Lowering taxes on the wealthy does not have the effect of creating jobs, it has the effect of making the wealthy wealthier.

Eliminating regulations has the effect of harming the environment and making the workplace less safe. It does not have the effect of creating jobs.

These fat cats use the financial power they have-particularly with Republicans-to influence the passage of favorable legislation. Legislation for lower taxes; legislation for less regulation; legislation to destroy the power of unions; legislation to permit and even encourage the transfer of manufacturing plants to nations with no worker protections and low wages.

[horses4courses]

It isn't an unintended consequence at all. It is a deliberate effort by those same fat cats. Lowering taxes on the wealthy does not have the effect of creating jobs, it has the effect of making the wealthy wealthier.

Eliminating regulations has the effect of harming the environment and making the workplace less safe. It does not have the effect of creating jobs.

These fat cats use the financial power they have-particularly with Republicans-to influence the passage of favorable legislation. Legislation for lower taxes; legislation for less regulation; legislation to destroy the power of unions; legislation to permit and even encourage the transfer of manufacturing plants to nations with no worker protections and low wages.

You always get fixated with stating facts.....not popular around here ;)

[Mike at A+]

It must be a real miserable life to keep whining over the success of others. I really couldn't care less what other people make. I wouldn't even be thinking about it if the low mentality media wasn't promoting this inequality nonsense. This would be a much better place if people would simply mind their own business.

[thaskalos]

It must be a real miserable life to keep whining over the success of others. I really couldn't care less what other people make. I wouldn't even be thinking about it if the low mentality media wasn't promoting this inequality nonsense. This would be a much better place if people would simply mind their own business.

If we simply minded our own business...then what kind of board would this be?

[Mike at A+]

If we simply minded our own business...then what kind of board would this be?
It would be a place to share ideas and opinions without demonizing those who have done well and discuss ways to help people help themselves without attempting to legislate confiscatory policies that are proven to do more harm than good. 0bama and the Democrats were nothing but a Trojan horse to people expecting a quick fix for their failures and ending up with a few more crumbs in return for their votes. They were bamboozled big time. Self esteem comes from a meaningful job, not from a handout.

[Clocker]

You always get fixated with stating facts.....not popular around here ;)

If there was a fact (or an idea) in that post, it would die of loneliness.

[tucker6]

It would be a place to share ideas and opinions without demonizing those who have done well and discuss ways to help people help themselves without attempting to legislate confiscatory policies that are proven to do more harm than good. 0bama and the Democrats were nothing but a Trojan horse to people expecting a quick fix for their failures and ending up with a few more crumbs in return for their votes. They were bamboozled big time. Self esteem comes from a meaningful job, not from a handout.
you are my hero Mike. Couldn't add another word to what you wrote. This country was built on entrepreneurial spirit. Seems like many would like to legislate that spirit out of existence.

[boxcar]

Any individual person can move significantly upward in terms of wealth with the right approach and without any really bad luck.

However, as a group, those 3.5billion can not rise up to wealth equality, no matter what happens with the factors you mentioned.

It's systemic.

This is how power arranges itself, and we created money and economy in the image of that system.

Good thing they can't all "rise up to wealth equality", for who would collect our garbage? Clean our our septic tanks? Bag our groceries? Cut our lawns? Etc, etc, etc, etc.........

Boxcar

[iceknight]

There is no economic theory supporting anything called or resembling "trickle down". It is a pejorative term liberals use to oppose the conservative principle that the private sector makes better economic decisions than the government.


Many, if not a majority of, conservatives and independents in this country agree. One way to put an end to that is through a major tax code reform, simplifying rates and eliminating special interest loopholes. Another is to get the government out of the private sector, eliminating excessive regulation and subsidies.


That covers a multitude of sins, including politicians trying to regulate things they didn't understand, trying to micromanage the private sector, and protecting big firms from the consequences of their own screw ups. And the sins of the government here were bipartisan. Both sides helped to develop the problem, and the TARP bailout of failed banks was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican president.
responses in reverse order:
Or Politicians persuaded to do certain things by Lobbyists and other business interests writing bills for them. politicians accepting large donor money (you are right both sides do it though - but most of the money comes from businesses seeking less regulation).


As for the private sector making "better decisions", they make better economic decisions which STRICTLY support their economics first and those that support the economics of the business owners first. But their so called "economic decisions" also mean that not making safety upgrades or worker safety decisions unless a regulatory body forces them. Wasnt this country built upon wonderful private sector decisions such as Love canal etc? and more recently.. West Virginia. Your tune would be lot of different had you lived in any of those counties in WV. But without getting personal I can assure this, the private sector as it is currently wants government regulation, but only where it supports the status quo and where they can use existing laws to make the courts and police work for them.

The private sector does not make sound economic decisions that benefit the commons. In general, labor (ie people are) is just a commodity to the private sector owners.

[Clocker]

Definition of 'Trickle-Down Theory'

They sure seem the same to me and to anyone with any sense.

They don't seem the same to anyone with an understanding of economics.

There is no such thing as "trickle down" in the study of economics, and no theory or empirical work to support it. It is a slang term for supply-side, used by people that don't understand supply-side yet oppose it.

Trickle-down is a disparaging term for supply-side just as "tax and spend" is a disparaging, slang term for Keynesian economics. And the wiki definition of supply side you quoted is superficial and incomplete. It doesn't even correctly summarize the wiki explanation of supply-side, let alone the full meaning of the theory.

And realistic advocates of the principles of supply side theory do not believe it is a cure all policy tool for all economic problems. Unlike Keynesians, who take it on faith that Lord Keynes is the way and the truth.

[Clocker]

Wasnt this country built upon wonderful private sector decisions such as Love canal etc? and more recently.. West Virginia. Your tune would be lot of different had you lived in any of those counties in WV.

Even libertarians, the greatest advocates of freedom from government regulation, agree that a proper role of government is to protect individual rights when the individual is incapable of protecting himself. An individual person cannot protect his life, liberty and property from something like Love Canal, so that is a proper role of government regulation.

Legislating how much water my toilet uses or outlawing incandescent bulbs is not a proper function of the federal government.

[HUSKER55]

Legislating how much water my toilet uses or outlawing incandescent bulbs is not a proper function of the federal government.


but wait!!! there is more!

what amazes me is how many people don't see a problem with this.

[Clocker]

what amazes me is how many people don't see a problem with this.

It amazes you because you don't know what is good for you. Those who do know what is good for you will be along shortly to explain it :rolleyes:.

[HUSKER55]

my hero!!! thanks! you can have my vote but in return.... :D

[aardvark]

It would be a place to share ideas and opinions without demonizing those who have done well and discuss ways to help people help themselves without attempting to legislate confiscatory policies that are proven to do more harm than good. 0bama and the Democrats were nothing but a Trojan horse to people expecting a quick fix for their failures and ending up with a few more crumbs in return for their votes. They were bamboozled big time. Self esteem comes from a meaningful job, not from a handout.
Wow. Well said.

[fast4522]

Is 2014 the year YOUR job will be taken by a robot? 'Jobocalpyse' set to strike as droids are trained to flip burgers, pour drinks - and even look after our children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2542113/Will-robot-jobocalypse-make-YOU-obsolete-2014-year-droid-takes-job-say-experts.html


While I buy all of it, one can not ignore some job loss to technology.
Some advancements will keep some manufacturing here in the US as well as made in America again. There will be a time when electronics manufacture inside our country becomes cheaper than China's slave shops. Those slave shops in China that pay no overtime and have long mandatory shifts will be no match for continuous production by robots that do not receive pay.

It will be the great recession of China.

[iceknight]

Even libertarians, the greatest advocates of freedom from government regulation, agree that a proper role of government is to protect individual rights when the individual is incapable of protecting himself. An individual person cannot protect his life, liberty and property from something like Love Canal, so that is a proper role of government regulation.

Legislating how much water my toilet uses or outlawing incandescent bulbs is not a proper function of the federal government. I agree!

[Tom]

Legislating how much water my toilet uses or outlawing incandescent bulbs is not a proper function of the federal government.


but wait!!! there is more!

what amazes me is how many people don't see a problem with this.

How much water in our toilets......yet conservatives are extreme!:lol:

[RaceBookJoe]

Is 2014 the year YOUR job will be taken by a robot? 'Jobocalpyse' set to strike as droids are trained to flip burgers, pour drinks - and even look after our children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2542113/Will-robot-jobocalypse-make-YOU-obsolete-2014-year-droid-takes-job-say-experts.html


While I buy all of it, one can not ignore some job loss to technology.
Some advancements will keep some manufacturing here in the US as well as made in America again. There will be a time when electronics manufacture inside our country becomes cheaper than China's slave shops. Those slave shops in China that pay no overtime and have long mandatory shifts will be no match for continuous production by robots that do not receive pay.

It will be the great recession of China.

The internet has taken its toll on retail brick & mortars also.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah... facts... like the term fat cat.... very factual...

You always get fixated with stating facts.....not popular around here ;)

[reckless]

I wonder...did all the intelligent people vote for Romney?

I don't believe all the intelligent people voted for Romney.

I do believe all the stupid idiots voted for Obama.

[HUSKER55]

AMEN TO THAT!

[hcap]

I don't believe all the intelligent people voted for Romney.

I do believe all the stupid idiots voted for Obama.Of course not you believe idiots like Karl Rove who fought tooth and nail with his own people on election night on Fox, when they clearly called it for Obama. :lol:

Talk about stupid!

[JustRalph]

Of course not you believe idiots like Karl Rove who fought tooth and nail with his own people on election night on Fox, when they clearly called it for Obama. :lol:

Talk about stupid!

Non sequitur, much?

[hcap]

I believe I made my point. Conservative generalities get squashed on presidential election nights.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap
Of course not you believe idiots like Karl Rove who fought tooth and nail with his own people on election night on Fox, when they clearly called it for Obama.

Talk about stupid!

1. Rove was not running for anything
2. His leg never tingled.
3. Talking about stupid......have you never watched PMSNBC? Home of the dimwits? :lol: :lol: :lol: Day-in-day-out dimwits. Workingman dimwits. Professional dimwits. And then there is Knucklehad Ed.....in a class by himself. :lol:

[hcap]

1. Rove was not running for anything
2. His leg never tingled.
3. Talking about stupid......have you never watched PMSNBC? Home of the dimwits? :lol: :lol: :lol: Day-in-day-out dimwits. Workingman dimwits. Professional dimwits. And then there is Knucklehad Ed.....in a class by himself. :lol:One presidential election night on Fox with Rove =100 "Fox and Fiends". = 10 Dennis Miller unfunny jokes.

Compared to Fox Noos Knucklehead Ed is a combination Albert Einstein. Albert Schweitzer and Thomas Jefferson :lol:

[tucker6]

One presidential election night on Fox with Rove =100 "Fox and Fiends". = 10 Dennis Miller unfunny jokes.

Compared to Fox Noos Knucklehead Ed is a combination Albert Einstein. Albert Schweitzer and Thomas Jefferson :lol:
How do you know so much about Fox News? Every post you make references them. I'm starting to think you have a man crush on one of the guys there. Tell us who it is. We won't judge you harshly, will we guys? :cool:

[hcap]

You gonna make a big deal about fair and balanced? I watch Fox with the volume real low and the blond bimbo flesh tones turned way up

[Saratoga_Mike]

You gonna make a big deal about fair and balanced? I watch Fox with the volume real low and the blond bimbo flesh tones turned way up

There are some legitimate programs on Fox - Chris Wallace's Sunday morning program is by far the best on TV today. Until Tim Russert's passing, that title clearly belonged to Meet the Press - it didn't take David Gregory too long to ruin that program. How he still has a job is beyond me.

[Clocker]

it didn't take David Gregory too long to ruin that program. How he still has a job is beyond me.

Who at NBC/MSNBC is any better? Andrea Mitchell? :eek:

[Clocker]

There are some legitimate programs on Fox - Chris Wallace's Sunday morning program is by far the best on TV today.

The Journal Editorial Report on Saturday afternoon is also very good. Most people who criticize Fox for being partisan are focused only on the evening opinion shows like Hannity or O'Reilly. Not even the most rabid conservative would claim Hannity was fair and balanced.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Journal Editorial Report on Saturday afternoon is also very good. Most people who criticize Fox for being partisan are focused only on the evening opinion shows like Hannity or O'Reilly. Not even the most rabid conservative would claim Hannity was fair and balanced.

I tired of Paul Gigot sometime ago - I assume he's still on that one. Even though I agree with most of his positions, he's just too whiny for my liking.

[Clocker]

I tired of Paul Gigot sometime ago - I assume he's still on that one.

Unfortunately, he is. He contributes nothing to the show, and is always interrupting with pointless comments to show everyone that he knows as much as the people that actually have something to say.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Unfortunately, he is. He contributes nothing to the show, and is always interrupting with pointless comments to show everyone that he knows as much as the people that actually have something to say.

yeah, that's Gigot

[fast4522]

"Fast I notice you like stick figures."
"Just to keep it simple......."

Ah, my avatar.

"volume real low and the blond bimbo flesh tones turned way up", again gay overtones that no one is interested in hearing. You see I understand, when you have nothing, you work best with the knife. Then when the knives turn on you, your calming foul. "Just to keep it simple......."

[reckless]

Of course not you believe idiots like Karl Rove who fought tooth and nail with his own people on election night on Fox, when they clearly called it for Obama. :lol:

Talk about stupid!

I missed this before.

I know it's above your intelligence level but I have posted on numerous occasions my disdain for Karl Rove. I saw right through him very early in the game and was never a fan... and you could look it up if you don't believe me.

To suggest otherwise is YET another example of how silly and insignificant your opinions are. These 'facts' you write are also wrong.

When you say 'Talk about stupid!', I assume you're talking about yourself, right? If not, you must be talking about Rove carrying on and on on Election Night. I thought so too, so we're in agreement that Rove is stupid.

But I suspect you mean yourself when you say 'Talk about stupid!'... that line fits both you and your regular thinking at hand.

[Tom]

The Journal Editorial Report on Saturday afternoon is also very good. Most people who criticize Fox for being partisan are focused only on the evening opinion shows like Hannity or O'Reilly. Not even the most rabid conservative would claim Hannity was fair and balanced.
Most libs have no clue what "news" really is.

[hcap]

I missed this before.1 down a few hundred more to go

[dartman51]

There are some legitimate programs on Fox - Chris Wallace's Sunday morning program is by far the best on TV today. Until Tim Russert's passing, that title clearly belonged to Meet the Press - it didn't take David Gregory too long to ruin that program. How he still has a job is beyond me.

Don't pay any attention to Hcap. He, like most liberals, apparently has a problem with intelligent women. He uses the term 'bimbo', but, evidently doesn't know what it means.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Bimbo is a derogatory slang term for an attractive but unintelligent female. Similar terms are "dumb blonde" and "valley girl".

That hardly describes the women on FOX. Maybe he's thinking of the women he knows.

[fast4522]

When it no longer works, they are all considered bimbo's to the lame. It is just a matter of time for all organs to fail.

[Tom]

On FOX, it is most of the MEN who are the bimbos! :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

There are some legitimate programs on Fox - Chris Wallace's Sunday morning program is by far the best on TV today. Until Tim Russert's passing, that title clearly belonged to Meet the Press - it didn't take David Gregory too long to ruin that program. How he still has a job is beyond me.


You are right about Gregory. He'd ask a question and not listen to the response. He couldn't leave the script. Has he improved? I don't know because I stopped watching.


As for Wallace, he is good by FOX standards but I'll stick with Bob Schieffer at CBS. I just took a look at Wallace's show today. The show wasn't 30 seconds long and he's telling Obama's Senior advisor 2013 was a loser for Obama and what the hell is going to change in 2014 from 2013? I don't need that kind of fair and balanced "journalism". If I did, I'd watch The Ed Show more often. :rolleyes:

[Saratoga_Mike]

You are right about Gregory. He'd ask a question and not listen to the response. He couldn't leave the script. Has he improved? I don't know because I stopped watching.


As for Wallace, he is good by FOX standards but I'll stick with Bob Schieffer at CBS. I just took a look at Wallace's show today. The show wasn't 30 seconds long and he's telling Obama's Senior advisor 2013 was a loser for Obama and what the hell is going to change in 2014 from 2013? I don't need that kind of fair and balanced "journalism". If I did, I'd watch The Ed Show more often. :rolleyes:

It's as if David is totally unprepared for the show every week. He's horrible. And trust me, he's totally full of himself off-set.

I didn't watch the Fox show today. 2013 was a good year for Obama? There are certain objective truths, and 2013 just wasn't a good year for Obama. He's had good years - last yr was not one of them. Finally, it's a Sunday morning opinion show, not hard news. Certain segments report hard news, but when Chris is interviewing people opinion may creep into the discussion. I've seen Wallace hammer Reps and Dems.

[Tom]

That's why they call it Fair and Balanced.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Don't pay any attention to Hcap. He, like most liberals, apparently has a problem with intelligent women. He uses the term 'bimbo', but, evidently doesn't know what it means.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Bimbo is a derogatory slang term for an attractive but unintelligent female. Similar terms are "dumb blonde" and "valley girl".

That hardly describes the women on FOX. Maybe he's thinking of the women he knows.

You raise a good point - imagine if Reps described attractive female journalists on CNN as "bimbos". HCAP et al would go ballistic. Feel free to criticize the Fox reporters (many deserve it), but stick to substantive criticism.

[Tom]

Going by this definition of bimbo, no one will EVER use that rem regarding PMSNBC!

[Saratoga_Mike]

That's why they call it Fair and Balanced.

Chris Wallace is very good at what he does. If I were running NBC News, I'd fire David Gregory and replace him with Chris Wallace...they should make the move before the MTP audience totally disappears.

[Clocker]

The show wasn't 30 seconds long and he's telling Obama's Senior advisor 2013 was a loser for Obama and what the hell is going to change in 2014 from 2013? I don't need that kind of fair and balanced "journalism".

If you search "Obama worst year", you will find that a lot of main stream media outlets agree, including the Washington Post and the UK Telegraph. And then there is this (http://thehill.com/video/administration/193881-gibbs-2013-was-obamas-worst-year), by coincidence on "Meet the Press":

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that there was "no doubt" that 2013 had been the worst year of President Obama's presidency.

"No doubt about it. I would say this is the worst year of the presidency. It does beat out 2011," Gibbs told NBC's "Meet the Press."The former Obama spokesman and aide said that the president's stumbles were particularly magnified because they came following his reelection.



I would suggest that there is enough bipartisan agreement on Obama's year to make it a legitimate topic for political discourse.

[Tom]

New name for the show - Where's the Press?

[johnhannibalsmith]

The big problem with Wallace is that he reminds me of Droopy Dog.

And while I'm not a big fan of D-Greg, that show just sucks in general now. Part of it is that if they interview politicians or candidates, you suffer through the nightmare that is non-answers and talking point gibberish. When they put together a "panel", its always the same grouping of boring pseudo-pundits from the same morons that write the scripts daily anyway.

So the show is just a bore. Nothing important is ever said and no debate is ever interesting. You could put almost anyone at the head of the table with that kind of chemistry and I can't imagine it getting a whole lot better.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The big problem with Wallace is that he reminds me of Droopy Dog.

And while I'm not a big fan of D-Greg, that show just sucks in general now. Part of it is that if they interview politicians or candidates, you suffer through the nightmare that is non-answers and talking point gibberish. When they put together a "panel", its always the same grouping of boring pseudo-pundits from the same morons that write the scripts daily anyway.

So the show is just a bore. Nothing important is ever said and no debate is ever interesting. You could put almost anyone at the head of the table with that kind of chemistry and I can't imagine it getting a whole lot better.

I didn't suck when Tim Russert was the moderator, so I'd say Gregory is the problem.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I didn't suck when Tim Russert was the moderator, so I'd say Gregory is the problem.

Politicians weren't seemingly always quite so predictably on-script at all times and it seemed like MTP tried to assemble a little variety with the pundit perspectives and "round tables" back then. I don't know, maybe my memory is jaded and broken, but it sure seems like Russert was just one of many components of that show that was MUCH better even in the recent past.

[hcap]

You raise a good point - imagine if Reps described attractive female journalists on CNN as "bimbos". HCAP et al would go ballistic. Feel free to criticize the Fox reporters (many deserve it), but stick to substantive criticism.Wow! Maybe you gents should do "substantive criticism" :lol: when Hilary or Pelosi or Wassermann-Schulz is called a bitch or many of the other dumb shit names the right here calls democratic women. Maybe Maddow should not flagrantly display her tool belt, oh you rightie denizens of blind self righteous bullshit


Bimbo ? :lol: :lol: is minor compared to bitch. It was supposed to bee a light hearted comment on not overly intellectual but physically attractive tv anchor women. So sorry to offend such hypocritical sensitivities.

Funny, I feel like "The Society of Retired Outraged Regulators of Etiquette and Manners" just passed some gas

[JustRalph]

I didn't suck when Tim Russert was the moderator, so I'd say Gregory is the problem.

They should have ended that show when he died.

[Clocker]

They should have ended that show when he died.

The show died when Tim did. They just didn't have the good grace to bury the show.

[barn32]

The following is the list of moderators for Meet the Press:

Martha Rountree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Rountree) 1947–1953
Ned Brooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Brooks) 1953–1965
Lawrence E. Spivak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_E._Spivak) 1966–1975
Bill Monroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Monroe_%28journalist%29) 1975–1984
Roger Mudd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mudd) & Marvin Kalb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Kalb)
(co-moderators) 1984–1985
Marvin Kalb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Kalb) 1985–1987
Chris Wallace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace) 1987–1988
Garrick Utley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrick_Utley) 1989–1991
Tim Russert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Russert) 1991–2008
Tom Brokaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brokaw) 2008
David Gregory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gregory_%28journalist%29) 2008–present


But don't forget This Week with David Brinkley

The following is a list of hosts.

David Brinkley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brinkley) 1981–1996
Sam Donaldson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Donaldson) & Cokie Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cokie_Roberts)
(co-moderators) 1996–2002
George Stephanopoulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos) 2002–2010
2011-present
Christiane Amanpour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiane_Amanpour) 2010-2011

[HUSKER55]

one of the moderators I used to like was was on a program called "Sunday Morning'. Charles Karault (hope I spelled that right) was a really guy next door type but I thought was really sharp.

[tucker6]

one of the moderators I used to like was was on a program called "Sunday Morning'. Charles Karault (hope I spelled that right) was a really guy next door type but I thought was really sharp.
I always liked his "on the road with Charles Kuralt" segments on Cronkite's CBS Evening News. Always had a feel good human interest story.

[NJ Stinks]

If you search "Obama worst year", you will find that a lot of main stream media outlets agree, including the Washington Post and the UK Telegraph. And then there is this (http://thehill.com/video/administration/193881-gibbs-2013-was-obamas-worst-year), by coincidence on "Meet the Press":



I would suggest that there is enough bipartisan agreement on Obama's year to make it a legitimate topic for political discourse.


I got it. He didn't make the playoffs in 2013.


Let me know when ANY show on FOX News starts with a positive take on something Obama said or did.

[JustRalph]

I always liked his "on the road with Charles Kuralt" segments on Cronkite's CBS Evening News. Always had a feel good human interest story.

Charlie had another side. He was putting notches in his belt during those travels :lol:

[Clocker]

Let me know when ANY show on FOX News starts with a positive take on something Obama said or did.

There are news reports on Fox and there are opinion views on Fox. Most shows are one or the other. Shows after 7PM eastern are clearly opinion. The major exception is Special Report, starting at 6PM Eastern. It has about 40 minutes of news followed by about 20 minutes of opinion. The views of a panel of three people expressing opinions are clear, and usually consist of 2 conservatives and one liberal or moderate.

Shows up until 6PM Eastern are generally non-partisan, although one of the principle anchors, Shepard Smith, often lets a little liberal bias show. It is subtle, and not obvious to the Kool Aid drinkers.

If you throw out O'Reilly and Hannity, I think that there is no question that Fox is more fair and balanced than CNN or MSNBC.

[tucker6]

There are news reports on Fox and there are opinion views on Fox. Most shows are one or the other. Shows after 7PM eastern are clearly opinion. The major exception is Special Report, starting at 6PM Eastern. It has about 40 minutes of news followed by about 20 minutes of opinion. The views of a panel of three people expressing opinions are clear, and usually consist of 2 conservatives and one liberal or moderate.

Shows up until 6PM Eastern are generally non-partisan, although one of the principle anchors, Shepard Smith, often lets a little liberal bias show. It is subtle, and not obvious to the Kool Aid drinkers.

If you throw out O'Reilly and Hannity, I think that there is no question that Fox is more fair and balanced than CNN or MSNBC.
The problem NJ Stinks and other liberals have with Fox is that Fox is willing to air stories not consistent with their views of the world. I never saw one story about Solyndra on CNN for example. If there was, it was at 3am. CNN and MSNBC are mostly into happy talk about Obama when he is at 40%-ish in the polls. The public knows better.

[Stillriledup]

Is the current number still 85? Anyone know?

[thaskalos]

Is the current number still 85? Anyone know?
No...the number is no longer 85. The world's wealthiest have gotten richer...while the poorest have declined in net worth. The number is now 35.

[TJDave]

No...the number is no longer 85. The world's wealthiest have gotten richer...while the poorest have declined in net worth. The number is now 35.

Amazing. This thread is less than 6 months old. ;)

[Stillriledup]

Amazing. This thread is less than 6 months old. ;)

It is? :D

[reckless]

one of the moderators I used to like was was on a program called "Sunday Morning'. Charles Kuralt was a really guy next door type but I thought was really sharp.

I liked him and the show but I am not sure he was really the guy next door type.

The story goes that Kuralt led a double life so to speak.

When he was On the Road with Charles Kuralt he had a goumada in Montana or Idaho, not sure exactly where but it was a place with a big sky and millions of elks and blueberries. The two played house for over 20 years at least.

Wifey, of course, knew nothing about this special arrangement. The wives are always the last to know, you know?

And no one else knew too ... until after he died and the little honey put in a big claim and contested Kuralt's will. The Queen Bee wifey was shocked that the honey bee lay down wanted a big sting of the millions of dollars Cholly earned over the years when he played the role of a responsible husband, doting father and journalist.

[Secondbest]

There hasn't been a decent TV anchor or moderator since Howard K Smith died.

[Secondbest]

To get back on the subject of the thread. Two years ago we took a cruise to the carribean.The boat stopped in Belize and Roatan island in Honduras.You can' believe how poor these places are although Roatan had a lot of Toyotas driving around. Belize is the worst they were promoting the bank and post office as highlights of a tour.
In Roatan a bunch of kids attached themselves to us .We felt bad for them when we met the family .They lived in Tin roofed hut .I can't blame them for wanting to get out of there.As Bette Davis said "What a Dump".
Belize was worse.

[classhandicapper]

When you print money (as the world has been doing for years now), asset prices tend to rise along with other good and services. That means the wealth of those with assets (stock, bonds, real estate, etc...) increases and the wealth and purchasing power of those with saving accounts, on fixed income, with jobs etc...gets inflated away.

Printing money hurts everyone, but those with assets and some good sense can actually increase their wealth significantly in real terms.

The left screams about wealth inequality and then implements Keynesian policies that make the problems worse. The stupidity of the left would be funny if it wasn't so bat shit crazy and harmful.

[Clocker]

Printing money hurts everyone, but those with assets and some good sense can actually increase their wealth significantly in real terms.



Inflation hurts lenders and helps borrowers. The bigger the borrower, the more they are helped. And the Treasury is the biggest frog in that pond.

[EasyGoer89]

Top 8= Half of everyone else.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/821128821281878016

[xtb]

Top 8= Half of everyone else.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/821128821281878016

Soros has to be in there somewhere.

[thaskalos]

Top 8= Half of everyone else.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/821128821281878016

If Ann Coulter was a little more "informed"...then she would know that Amanico and Ortega are the same person.

[ElKabong]

If Ann Coulter was a little more "informed"...then she would know that Amanico and Ortega are the same person.

Ortega sounds like a cool guy on the surface. Doesn't wear a tie, started from humble beginnings, donated 20 million euro to charity.

To coulter's point, she's right tho. Most of those mentioned have a liberal lean. Nothing wrong with that, liberals should acknowledge it and own it

[thaskalos]

Ortega sounds like a cool guy on the surface. Doesn't wear a tie, started from humble beginnings, donated 20 million euro to charity.

To coulter's point, she's right tho. Most of those mentioned have a liberal lean. Nothing wrong with that, liberals should acknowledge it and own it

Whoever said that the liberals have taken a vow of poverty?

But money isn't "everything"...and here's the proof right here. You could be the world's second-richest man...and STILL get your name butchered by Ann Coulter.

[ElKabong]

Whoever said that the liberals have taken a vow of poverty?

But money isn't "everything"...and here's the proof right here. You could be the world's second-richest man...and STILL get your name butchered by Ann Coulter.

Where did I say they took a vow of poverty? I mentioned the list of the most wealthy people in the world have a liberal lean. Take ownership of that. Wear it proudly, don't deflect. Own that badge, man. Bang the drum, don't whine about wealth needing to be redistributed when liberals seem to be the biggest hoarders :)

Wear that shit with pride, man. Walk tall

[thaskalos]

Where did I say they took a vow of poverty? I mentioned the list of the most wealthy people in the world have a liberal lean. Take ownership of that. Wear it proudly, don't deflect. Own that badge, man. Bang the drum, don't whine about wealth needing to be redistributed when liberals seem to be the biggest hoarders :)

Wear that shit with pride, man. Walk tall

Who is "deflecting"...and, when did I ever speak out against the "hoarding of wealth", or for "redistribution"? The only ones that I've ever accused of "hoarding wealth" here were the CHRISTIANS...because such "hoarding" violates the commands of their religious leader.

If the richest men in the world were conservatives, you would consider that a compliment...and you would be here telling us that the liberals were "lousy businessmen". Right? :ThmbUp:

[ElKabong]

Who is "deflecting"...and, when did I ever speak out against the "hoarding of wealth", or for "redistribution"? The only ones that I've ever accused of "hoarding wealth" here were the CHRISTIANS...because such "hoarding" violates the commands of their religious leader.

If the richest men in the world were conservatives, you would consider that a compliment...and you would be here telling us that the liberals were "lousy businessmen". Right? :ThmbUp:

So, you won't embrace the fact that wealthy liberals account for most of the wealth from the latest news reports??

Sounds like what you described Ann coulter as being a few posts up... Embrace it! :)