OT - Politics doesn't make sense to me

[JoMal]

For bush to have humility wouldn't he have to know how to spell it, and understand it, two things i'm pretty sure are beyond him.

For you to have intelligence wouldn't you have to know to capitalize "Bush" And "I'm"? And, I might add, not run the sentence on from question to statement without a question mark to separate the 2? You could have even just added the question mark to the end, even THAT would have been something.

Like shooting fish in a barrel boys, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Laker Dan, when you end a sentence with the number "2", what, exactly, are you separating? A crap from a leak?

"And" I might add, starting a sentence with a conjunction, while catchy, tends to make me long for a butt.

You have me on the "2", but unfortunately, "and" has become a perfectly acceptable way to begin a sentence although not a paragraph and I have begun using it to save time. If you are longing for a butt, I might point you in the direction of the subject of my ridicule, he seems to be quite the butt

Isn't he, now.

[JoMal]

Yawn...missing the point as usual, focusing on the structure instead of the content.  Typical of laker fans.

And this board

Add some content worth commenting on and you might get get more than what you get now. As far as the board in concerned, for newbie here, allow me to inform you that you can leave as quickly as you came and I doubt anyone would miss you.

I don't know, Dan, I don't know....

Error corrected, that's what I get for typing with one hand and drinking with the other.

No need. You just have to get get another drink to even things out.

[Ted]

We're still waiting for the content. If you gave us some, we'd start focusing on it!



Edit: Aww crap. Dan beat me to it again. He's fast for an old dude.

I'm still waiting you to correct the following:

I doubt we will ever Bush and McCain standing next to each other or anywhere near each other for the next three months.

Very surprising from a scholar such as yourself. 

I find it humorous that someone would call someone out about grammar/spelling in a post that is flagged "Last Edit......".  LOL!  I know I screw up on spelling and grammar but I don't try and hide my shame...  ..only correct when the meaning could be lost by such a mistake.

T'was not I who "called out" the perpetrator. I merely stole from the shadows to deliver my barb and scurry away.

I do thank you for the "heads up" on the word omission. Correction forthcoming.

[westkoast]

So this is what I've learned from the two conventions this past month or whatever...

To the democrats we are in the great depression, poor people are barely able to eat, and everyone in the entire world hates our country.

To the republicans the economy is in good enough shape to where  its not worth mentioning (they haven't said a peep yet), we are still the most well respected country in the entire world bar none, the war is going well and we did a good job overseas.


There is no middle ground, its crazy! 

[Lurker]

So this is what I've learned from the two conventions this past month or whatever...

To the democrats we are in the great depression, poor people are barely able to eat, and everyone in the entire world hates our country.

To the republicans the economy is in good enough shape to where  its not worth mentioning (they haven't said a peep yet), we are still the most well respected country in the entire world bar none, the war is going well and we did a good job overseas.


There is no middle ground, its crazy! 

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a new third party to come in.  One that is centrist in it's ideology.  But then of course no one would support it right?  Or isn't that the large percentage of population that is considered the "swing" vote in this election...the undecided middle.  So basically whichever party can dupe the greater number of centrists to believe their spiel will be victorious.

[rickortreat]

So this is what I've learned from the two conventions this past month or whatever...

To the democrats we are in the great depression, poor people are barely able to eat, and everyone in the entire world hates our country.

To the republicans the economy is in good enough shape to where  its not worth mentioning (they haven't said a peep yet), we are still the most well respected country in the entire world bar none, the war is going well and we did a good job overseas.


There is no middle ground, its crazy! 

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for a new third party to come in.  One that is centrist in it's ideology.  But then of course no one would support it right?  Or isn't that the large percentage of population that is considered the "swing" vote in this election...the undecided middle.  So basically whichever party can dupe the greater number of centrists to believe their spiel will be victorious.

It's almost always like that in Politics, as the process is to consolidate power in fewer and fewer hands over time, until things get stretched so unfairly that the majority demands change. One could say that the Republicans have dominated politics in this country since the Clinton Administration, and in the process have systematically undermined everything worthwhile this country stood for.

Under Bush, wealth has become so consolidated that 1% of Americans own 90% of the wealth!  Imagine how much better off you would be if they only owned 80% and you and everyone else shared that extra 10%!

Not that I advocate giving money to people - I believe that people should work to get what they want. It is simply that the system is rigged so that more and more money flows to fewer and fewer people, and that this is clearly not in the general public's best interest.  Let's at least be clear about this: The only reason they have so much and you have so little comparatively is because collectively we allow it.  We support the laws and the processes that are in place by our willingness to cooperate and tolerate the way we are governed.  Not too much in the way of political uprisings here, so why shouldn't they try and control an even greater percentage of the wealth?!?

[ziggy]

Under Bush, wealth has become so consolidated that 1% of Americans own 90% of the wealth!  Imagine how much better off you would be if they only owned 80% and you and everyone else shared that extra 10%!

Where did you get this little factoid?

[jemagee]

Under Bush, wealth has become so consolidated that 1% of Americans own 90% of the wealth!  Imagine how much better off you would be if they only owned 80% and you and everyone else shared that extra 10%!

Where did you get this little factoid?

Hasn't it always been some obnoxiously high percentage, regardless of the president anyway?

[ziggy]

Under Bush, wealth has become so consolidated that 1% of Americans own 90% of the wealth!  Imagine how much better off you would be if they only owned 80% and you and everyone else shared that extra 10%!

Where did you get this little factoid?

Hasn't it always been some obnoxiously high percentage, regardless of the president anyway?

I guess it depends upon your definition of obnoxious.  I think it is safe to say that CALPERS has a very nice chunk, as well as several hundred to a thousand more retirement funds, all of which I am sure are free of membership by the top 1%.  Last I heard Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Blamer weren't members of WaPers.

[jemagee]

I think the line i've usually heard was that 95% of the worlds/us wealth was owned by 5% of the population or something like that.

[rickortreat]

I got that fact from the article I suggested that everyone should read earlier in this thread.

[ziggy]

I got that fact from the article I suggested that everyone should read earlier in this thread.

From
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001
    Total Net Worth

Top 1 percent   Next 19 percent   Bottom 80 percent 1983   33.8%   47.5%   18.7% 1989   37.4%   46.2%   16.4% 1992   37.2%   46.6%   16.3% 1995   38.5%   45.4%   16.1% 1998   38.1%   45.3%   16.6% 2001   33.4%   51.0%   15.5%

This says your 90% number is high by 56.6%.  This says also that the top 20% hold less than the 90% you stated.  I will be blunt.  The notion that the top 1% own 90% of the wealth is an absolute and utter fabrication.


According to the following article
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html

40% of world's wealth owned by 1% of population
Last Updated: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 | 5:52 PM ET
CBC News

The richest one per cent of the world's population owns 40 per cent of the total household wealth, while the bottom half of the world makes do with barely one per cent, according to a research report released Tuesday.

The study, which further underlined the continuing disparity between rich and poor, is by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research, part of the United Nations University.

The world wide number is 40%, and the US number is 33.4%, so the rest of the world is approaching 43-44% while the US is at 33%, a full 10% less than the rest of the world.


Another article on incomes rather than net worth
http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2008/9/2/incomes_up,_inequality_down

an excerpt from the article
The most shocking part of the report, at least for those who have bought into conventional wisdom, is that in 2007 inequality among families declined at the fastest pace in 45 years. The share of income earned by the top 5% of families declined to 20.1% in 2007 ? the lowest level since 1995 ? from 21.5% the year before. The share of the bottom 20% of families increased to 4.1% from 4.0%.

I know Rick, you think he is an idiot.

[Lurker]

Well, I was going to respond with something liek you are confusing stats on wealth & income.  For example many NBA players are in the top 5% of income earners.  But very few are in the top 5% of wealth.

But ziggy posted a much better rebuttal.   

[Lurker]

In an article (search Palin Iraq war) about Sarah Palin...

Sometimes you need to ask for a little help from the man upstairs, and sometimes you simply follow His clearly laid out plan:


"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's will."

Isn't that what terrorists claim...that they are on a task for God?  That their "war" is all part of God's plan?

I guess that means Sarah Palin is a terrorist.  But don't tell the religious right.

[westkoast]

No Lurker there is a huge difference...

I mean when have Christians EVER gone on to attack other people and countries in the name of their respective god? 







Oh yea I forgot The Crusades.