[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

But but but, the gap is growing!!!!! Boo Hoo Booo Hooooo

BMan can I get a

Here ya go GB--this is my new recommended avitar for basset, the Left's "Rubberstamp Man" (hum the words in your head!)

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Here ya go GB--this is my new recommended avitar for basset, the Left's "Rubberstamp Man" (hum the words in your head!)

[Mulderator]

Here's what a liberal would recommend to fix the problem. They'd promulgate some legislation that fixes multipliers for all levels of management. We start with the janitor.

His boss can only make 1.5 time his salary.
A "low level manager" can only make 2 times the janitorial salary.
A "mid level manager" can only make 3 times the janitorial salary.
A "high level manager" can only make 4 times the janitorial salary.
An "executive" can only make 5 times the janitorial salary.
For CEOs we match the multiplier to France and Germany!

And finally--50% of all the executives and CEOs must be women and the company must have the same relative percentage of minorities as in the general population within a 500 mile radius of the company's headquarters.

Of course, we unionize the company (all employees below executive must join and give 10% of their incomes as union dues) to make sure the executives and CEO aren't taking advantage of the rest of the employees!

[Stoner]

I see a junior member is taking a thrashing
Stiff upper lip, kid


Forgetting what it takes to be poor, I'd like to see thoughts on what it takes to be of the 'rich and wealthy'.
GB is about the only one I remember responding with a value to a poll I once did.
I don't ask this for debate, but to see what others place as a value. Saying 'rich' and 'wealthy' seems arbitrary, and I often think viewed differently.
I don't need anyone to defend their position, I'm just curious if we all mean the same thing.

[bassetman]

Remember my "Do you make more than $90/hr" poll?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I see a junior member is taking a thrashing
Stiff upper lip, kid

We don't take no prisoners, do we?

Originally Posted by Stoner

Saying 'rich' and 'wealthy' seems arbitrary, and I often think viewed differently.

And that's the liberal's greatest asset--they never define "rich"--the definition changes to suit whatever half-arsed argument they happen to be making.

But I think what this thread clearly shows is the typical "emotional reaction" people (the bassets, the linksys, the Reps, etc) don't ever identify solution--hell they don't even identify the cause of the problem. What they do is the same tired old rhetoric of villanizing "the rich", again, without ever defining "rich". The beuaty of this liberal slight of hand (and I really have to acknowledge its genius--and I'm not talking about the bassets or Linskys or Reps--they didn't invent it, they're just parroting what they hear) is that its virtually impossible to rebut. There's always going to be "poor" and there is always going to be "rich" and the you can always make the majority of people reading the crapola associate themselves with the "poor" and get angry at the "rich."

A perfect example is I don't consider myself "rich" yet many on this board would, even those that make more money than me and that's because I'm a lawyer. So the beauty of it the liberals use the term "rich" against the very people who are themselves "rich" and who are too ignorant to realize it! You really have to hand it to these liberal magicians that come up with this crap. Mulder has to hand it to anyone that can up with some good spin!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I'd like to see thoughts on what it takes to be of the 'rich and wealthy'.

Honestly--I heard about or read a study on this and it totally depends on your situation in life. Those in the lower incomes think $100,000 a year is "rich." Those make $100,000 grand, think $500,000 a year is "rich" and so on. Obviously, you get to a number where its not debatable--no one debates that Gates is "rich".

If you recall the Bush/Kerry townhall debate, Kerry put it at about $250,000 a year, which is funny because in California, $250,000 a year would just about put you in an average home!

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Remember my "Do you make more than $90/hr" poll?

Wages and total worth are really different considerations, IMO.
True..one can lead to the other, but where I live there are many 10cent millionares.
They live like $90/hr wage owners but make $35/hr. They will never be 'rich'

I think accumulation is a better guage.

For instance....I make $0/hr wage( I'm retired) but my income is otherwise and I have accumulated.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Honestly--I heard about or read a study on this and it totally depends on your situation in life. Those in the lower incomes think $100,000 a year is "rich." Those make $100,000 grand, think $500,000 a year is "rich" and so on. Obviously, you get to a number where its not debatable--no one debates that Gates is "rich".

If you recall the Bush/Kerry townhall debate, Kerry put it at about $250,000 a year, which is funny because in California, $250,000 a year would just about put you in an average home!

Good points.
But, for discussion, the concept of 'rich and wealthy' seems a projection with out definition except to the user.
Arguing it can't be defined seems logical if the consideration is by group acceptance. Obviously , as you posted, there is disagreement.

But I'm not looking for a consensus.
I'm interested in what individual members think it means.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

but my income is otherwise and I have accumulated.

Yeah--you accumulated a bunch of BS!

Your comment brings up another point about the "poor." A person that earns below a certain income in a year is included in "poor" regardless of their net worth. So, as an example, a weatlthy business owner who happens to have a loss in a particular year (whether just a paper loss or a real loss) is going to be grouped in with "poor". And of course, anyone retired living on a "fixed" income will be grouped in. So you, Stoner, as an example--I don't know what your situation is, but if you have your retirement in savings and investments that are non-tax deferred (i.e., you don't pay tax by taking out cash like in a 401K) would be considered "poor" even though you may have 2 million in assets.

But this is how ridiculous this all is and why its do irritating to watch the liberals fumble around with their stupid arguments because they don't realize the devil is in the details, if you will.

I was just listening to a news report yesterday that indicated the estimate was about 70% fraud in the Katrina aftermath and hundreds of millions of tax payer money squandered for alleged "victims". The extent of the fraud was absolutely astoundiing. Again, what is shows is what happens when you allow liberal hysteria to take over a situation as oppossed to calm reasoned and deliberate thought. Republicans were warning about this, but of course, the liberals were so intent on villanizing Bush and so intent on protecting the poor victims of hurricane Katrina, they let loose yet another of their stupid ill conceived social justice programs that does anything but achieve social justice.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Yeah--you accumulated a bunch of BS!

Your comment brings up another point about the "poor." A person that earns below a certain income in a year is included in "poor" regardless of their net worth. So, as an example, a weatlthy business owner who happens to have a loss in a particular year (whether just a paper loss or a real loss) is going to be grouped in with "poor". And of course, anyone retired living on a "fixed" income will be grouped in. So you, Stoner, as an example--I don't know what your situation is, but if you have your retirement in savings and investments that are non-tax deferred (i.e., you don't pay tax by taking out cash like in a 401K) would be considered "poor" even though you may have 2 million in assets.

But this is how ridiculous this all is and why its do irritating to watch the liberals fumble around with their stupid arguments because they don't realize the devil is in the details, if you will.

I was just listening to a news report yesterday that indicated the estimate was about 70% fraud in the Katrina aftermath and hundreds of millions of tax payer money squandered for alleged "victims". The extent of the fraud was absolutely astoundiing. Again, what is shows is what happens when you allow liberal hysteria to take over a situation as oppossed to calm reasoned and deliberate thought. Republicans were warning about this, but of course, the liberals were so intent on villanizing Bush and so intent on protecting the poor victims of hurricane Katrina, they let loose yet another of their stupid ill conceived social justice programs that does anything but achieve social justice.

Not going to respond, eh

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Wages and total worth are really different considerations, IMO.
True..one can lead to the other, but where I live there are many 10cent millionares.
They live like $90/hr wage owners but make $35/hr. They will never be 'rich'

I think accumulation is a better guage.

For instance....I make $0/hr wage( I'm retired) but my income is otherwise and I have accumulated.

True, a senior with no job, but with $10 Mil in oil stockes is still rich!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

True, a senior with no job, but with $10 Mil in oil stockes is still rich!

Not according to the statistics you liberals cite all the time (which are derived from IRS reported income). Doesn't matter what you have in assets--if you have no income, you are grouped in with the "poor."

I try to educate you people on this stuff, but very few care to educate themselves--you prefer to live in your own little world where rich is evil and poor is noble!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Not going to respond, eh

I just can't help it--stupidity (or ignorance as the case may be) has a way of irking me to no end!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Not according to the statistics you liberals cite all the time (which are derived from IRS reported income). Doesn't matter what you have in assets--if you have no income, you are grouped in with the "poor."

I try to educate you people on this stuff, but very few care to educate themselves--you prefer to live in your own little world where rich is evil and poor is noble!

I guess that makes you a bad teacher eh?