No, it's not that at all. I just didn't feel like taking the time to read that long of a rant. Don't be so offended.
and the Beat Goes On
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
No, it's not that at all. I just didn't feel like taking the time to read that long of a rant. Don't be so offended.
Just caught this post.
If you've been fortunate enough to have gained satisfaction from your involvement in the first (5) of the above.....kudos to you !!
Your #6 question, however, seems to suggest that those unfortunate/underprivileged souls that have needed to avail themselves of Public Assistance......have "TAKEN" that charity from the pockets or bank accounts of besieged taxpayers.
Forget responses from posters, here.
Convince YOURSELF that THAT is true Christmas Spirit.
Ya' know Dub, once again you are wrong. As you told GLide, this post was for 35. And it was a legit question because he questions Corporate America, he questions rich folks, he questions white folks...he's just an angry person. And yes, I've done all five and still do to this day.
Like I mentioned, just quickly scanned a page of posts and caught this. Although I doubt I'd likely have a problem with YOU responding to a reply of mine to another.....will try to remember the converse you're mentioning won't fly.
For centuries, charity for the unfortunate remains God's work, does it not ?? Your " (5) " are good examples. So, #6 should fit the profile of your (5), can we agree ?
Lol. You think I'm offended? I feel sorry for you.
You took the time to post.......that you didn't have time to read a post.
I see people like you all the time.....asking for cliffs.
Not surprising the truth gets lost with you people. You don't read things yourself and rely on the interpretations of others that believe just like you do. Then you go and repeat them.
That's really not much different than calling up the girl the you went out with and saying "Getting laid was really great, and I guess that my having to get those syphilis shots as well as taking the herpes meds isn't all that important."
You know I was poking you with my comment re Glide. I don't care who responds or when.
#6 im my opinion really has nothing to do with the other five, and as long as I can I'll continue to what I can to help those less fortunate.
Happy New Year !!
(I'll assume that in addition to those things that you, personally, can do for the less fortunate are rewarding ………...you are glad that local, state and federal government agencies are similarly able to help, as well.)
1) I donate what I can. Just because you have more doesn't mean I did less ( you sound like mnuchin's wife)
2) We have a gift drive in our department. I do what I can.
3) I give extra money to the local high school/middle school for the "principals fund" . The fund is for kids who can't afford lunch or run a little short, but are too proud. Those damn freebie seekers you like to talk about.
4) I'm clinical educator/preceptor for the college kids at my hospital. I also work with high school interns who are interested in health care. I do it for free.
5) Got a rescue dog last spring. Put change in the local SPCA coffee cans for food and blankets
6) Freebies again. Trump has turned farming into a welfare state. Small farm foreclosures are up, so are suicides. Trump bailout gave $62 million to Brazilian owned meat packer plant. The average bailout check (taxpayer freebie) to Wiscionsin farmers is just over $2,700.00. Yup, f' ing farmers. Always with their hand out. Some people.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksh...china-tariffs-farmers-subsidies/#365024de5b39
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/05...ailout-cash-meant-for-struggling-u-s-farmers/
https://www.jsonline.com/story/mone...elp-but-wont-cover-massive-losses/2136238002/
Last edited:
Thanks for what you do....I could care less what one gives as long as they can give something. My son is on our local school board so I'm familiar with the breakfast and lunch programs....more than I believe 70% of the local kids are on it which I think is good for them but a sad statement for an at risk community. And yes, my late wife was a teacher and a lot of her students were helped by the two of us.
And like you...I'm not rich but I do what I can do.
Just curious on how much net worth one has to be considered rich? Everyone has a number so it would be interesting to hear.
As reported by CNBC.....
To be considered “rich,” Americans say you need a net worth of at least $2.3 million.
That’s according to a recent poll by SeniorLiving.org, which asked 1,000 U.S. adults how much a person would need to have in order to be called “rich.” For those still working, you’d need to earn an annual salary of over $300,000 to earn the “rich” title.
In comparison, the median U.S. household income was $60,336 in 2017, according to the latest data available from the U.S. Census. The median net worth is $97,300, according to the Federal Reserve’s most recent research, the 2016 survey of consumer finances. The average net worth is significantly higher: $692,100, according to the Federal Reserve.
That would seem entirely consistent with the concept of a hugely top heavy wealth structure in the U.S.
That's consistant with a a capitalist society in which private property rights and the free market serve as the basis of trade, distribution of goods, and development, and where everyone can succeed or fail on their merits.
What would you say the number is? I know there's many factors like age, health, and where one lives. In Indiana that 2.3 million number seems high to me. Would like to hear what others think too.
I think there are a ton of variables including is your home(s) paid for? Free of debt? Personal property other than homes...cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. And age brings a lot to that equation. Are you 40, 50, 70, 80?
Also health, do you have insurance or a medical fund?
I know what I'm worth and I'm pretty comfortable with where I am. I'm not rich...but comfortable. If need be, I can buy a new car/truck and not worry about spending what it would cost. I'd say that somewhere north of a million would be a good start. Maybe.
I agree if we are retired living in the Midwest and relatively healthy a little over a million is pretty good. For people living in the east or west coast's that is probably a little shy of being considered rich. Health is everything so that alone makes a person rich along with enough money to pay expenses.
That doesn't sound necessarily correct to me. In fact, without spending much time thinking it through, it would seem on the surface that a highly disparate situation such as those numbers show would be more akin to an oligarchy/plutocracy.
Hmm... perhaps you should read this article from the Moscow Times about Russian wealth inequality and comment further.
EDIT:
The figures that you cited would give a 7.11 mean to median ratio. For a point of reference the mean to median ratio for Great Britain is 1.97 per the British Office for National Statistics.
Last edited:
According to most lefties though, if you're successful and rich, you either inherited it or cheated your way to get there. I believe it was Obama who said something to the effect of "You didn't do that on your own".
The reality is, whether people believe it or not, the USA is still the greatest economy in the world where with some sweat, perseverance, and yes, luck, you can become as successful as your heart desires.
the other version of a redistribution of wealth
So what. Do you think these rich people are just lucky? Or are they smart enough to have a great idea, monetize it and reap the benefits?
It's a completely different conversation to include the concepts of "luck or smarts", when discussing modern, free societies and wealth distribution/middle-class composition.
Then would it be sensible to expect that the generally median American would be among the best situated in the world?
it illustrates that is what is in decline in recent years in the u.s.
I personally don't think using a population break point is a particularly useful format since comparing industrialized and non-industrialized nations has obvious limitations to me. But since you asked -,
Median wealth (in US $) per adult by population (in excess of 100,000,000)
China - 20,942
India - 3,042
United States - 65,904
Indonesia - 1,977
Pakistan - 1,766
Brazil - 5,031
Nigeria - 1,249
Bangladesh - 2,787
Russia - 3,683
Mexico - 9,944
Japan - 110,408
Ethiopia - 1,360
Philippines - 2,663
Egypt - 4,900
It would seem to me that the comparison that may be more telling is using more similarly situated industrialized nations. For convenience, I am using the top 15 countries on Credit Suisse's list of total wealth of a nation and including -
Median and Mean wealth (in US $) of adults in each
Switzerland - 227,891 - 564,653
Australia - 181,361 - 386,058
Japan - 110,408 - 238,104
Canada - 107,004 - 294,255
France - 101,942 - 276,121
United Kingdom - 97,452 - 280,049
Spain - 95,360 - 207,531
Italy - 91,889 - 234,139
South Korea - 72,198 - 175,015
Taiwan - 70,191 - 210,525
United States - 65,904 - 432,365
Germany - 35,313 - 216,654
Netherlands - 31,057 - 279,077
China - 20,942 - 58,544
India - 3,042 - 14,569
(Sorry about the way G&B site eats up formatting spaces)
Last edited:
ya no problem...id say we are doing great for a giant, ethnicly diverse and geographically diverse country of 350 million with a huge immigrant population.
True to an extent, but I find it troubling that as the "richest country" in the world, our median wealth, that is the wealth of the true "middle American", is less wealth than that of the middle man in 21 other countries - Switzerland, Australia, Iceland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Belgium, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Ireland, France, UK, Singapore, Spain, Austria, Italy, Malta, South Korea, Norway, Taiwan and Qatar - while our mean wealth trails only Switzerland and Hong Kong.
I could care less about wealth distribution.
Do you know what a bell curve is? There's some percentage of the population on both ends (some really wealthy, some really poor) but the vast majority is somewhere in the middle.
Right now, under Trump, that 'vast majority' in the middle is doing better financially and employment-wise than at any other point in history.
The harsh reality is, some people just don't have the smarts, discipline or ambition to lift themselves up the economic ladder. Not everyone is meant to be upper class, or even middle class. But the great thing is, in the USA, everyone has the opportunity.
As they say in Caddyshack, "the world needs ditch diggers to."
It depends on what countries we're being compared to?
What is the median income in those countries for their 'middle class'?
Look at the population of the countries your comparing us to? Iceland? Luxembourg? Belgium?
That's like saying it's not fair that the median income of Beverly Hills is some much vastly different than the median income of Detroit.
Nice "cherry-pick" of your 3 countries ! Somebody ELSE just picked France, Australia and Japan, from the list......
And worse, the Beverly Hills/Detroit juxtaposition ....
bone: statistical analyses ain't your #1 strength....might wanna remember....
1) Caddyshack reference in a wealth distribution conversation ??!!....... oh wait....this is a bone post...never mind..
2) The fact that there exists such a thing as a statistical bell curve is hardly of any value, here. If you'd rather not be required to learn enough about the concept of wealth distribution in countries...then fine,
we'll leave you alone to watch Caddyshack, again. Maybe Rodney Dangerfield has some cogent lines about the people of the world "lifting themselves up".
so this is no longer a complaint about D's?
not yet.
it has taken awhile for the private middle class earners to trend back up.
which began in the 90s.
(this is more detail to the above chart showing how the rest/middle has become outpaced by the very top).
So, go ahead and list the populations of the countries he listed.
Here, I'll help you start:
China and India are both about 1.5B
USA: 350M
so this is no longer a complaint about D's?
not yet.
it has taken awhile for the private middle class earners to trend back up.
which began in the 90s.
(this is more detail to the above chart showing how the rest/middle has become outpaced by the very top).
There's a difference between wealth "Distribution" and wealth "Re-Distribution".
One means that one group has more than the other.
The other means that one group has more than the other, therefore, in order make make things fair, (according to Dems), we're going to take from the wealthy and re-distribute it to less wealthy.
In the lefty and Dems world of "Everyone gets a trophy", the wealth gap isn't 'fair'.
Well guess what? Life aint fair. Not everyone gets to be wealthy. Not everyone gets to be healthy. Not everyone scratches off the winning lottery ticket.
But again, there's no other country on the planet where the opportunity exists to try and fulfill your dreams. (unless of course you're stuck on the democrat plantation and believe in victimhood).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Ranking Big Ten Football’s 2024 Nonconference Schedules - Purdue #4
- Latest: BCfanatic2020
-
-
-
-