PDA

View Full Version : Banana Republic



Qtec
11-08-2010, 05:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, <u>the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up <span style="color: #CC0000">20 percent</span> of the national pie.
</u>
But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.

<u>The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #CC0000">almost 24 percent of income,</span> up from almost 9 percent in 1976.</span></u> As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like <u>Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana</u>.</span>

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but 531 times as much in 2001.</span> Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.</span>

That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get <u>$370,000 </u>from Republicans, </span>according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings. </div></div>

Redistribution of wealth has been taking place for the last 30 years.

Q link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?src=me&ref=general)

Gayle in MD
11-08-2010, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, <u>the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up <span style="color: #CC0000">20 percent</span> of the national pie.
</u>
But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.

<u>The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #CC0000">almost 24 percent of income,</span> up from almost 9 percent in 1976.</span></u> As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like <u>Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana</u>.</span>

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>but 531 times as much in 2001.</span> Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.</span>

That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get <u>$370,000 </u>from Republicans, </span>according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings. </div></div>

Redistribution of wealth has been taking place for the last 30 years.

Q link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?src=me&ref=general) </div></div>

The Mentally lazy are killing all of us, in more ways than one.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

wolfdancer
11-08-2010, 11:32 PM
It's simple really...the poor work for their money, while the rich have their money working for them.

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's simple really...the poor work for their money, while the rich have their money working for them. </div></div>

These days the rich are stealing money from the rest, in the process of doing business, gouging the public so badly, in order to continue with their HUGE, and INCREDIBlY unjustifiable increases in CEO salaries and bonuses, or they're out-sourcing our jobs, while accessing Republican sponsored SOCIALISM for the wealthy.

This entire BS about socialism, is about the most ridiculous assertion they make.

How the right loves to distort language, in order to promote their fear and lis.

Mushroom Clouds, LMAO. everything they say, and everything they write, is just another big "Musroom Cloud" coming from their cloudy little minds.

Truly sad, but Hilarious to watch, in a way..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LOL...G.

We're ALL socialists. Some just deny it.

G.

eg8r
11-10-2010, 10:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's simple really...the poor work for their money, while the rich have their money working for them.
</div></div>I agree completely which I why I never understand why the poor don't start doing the things like the rich. I am reading a great book called "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley. He outlines many surprising things about real millionaires.

eg8r

wolfdancer
11-10-2010, 12:51 PM
and then there is this thing called....disposable income.
The poor have little, or none...to save, or invest. Their income
just about equals there "outcome". It's like running on a treadmill....no matter how long you run...you don't get very far.

eg8r
11-10-2010, 01:30 PM
The stories of starting out poor and becoming wealthy or self-sustainable are all fake?

eg8r

wolfdancer
11-10-2010, 02:00 PM
no, they are not, but the odds are against them. For every success story...how many don't make it?
Some years back, I read about the hypothetical of taking a newborn baby from a primitive tribe, and raising it in a good environment. Could the child say, become a Rhodes Scholar? The answer was "no"...his brain would not be as developed as modern mans are (the old nature Vs nurture argument.)
On a similar note....there was an interesting study on Ishi, an Indian that emerged from the woods at age 49, and " was taken in by anthropologists at the University of California, Berkeley, who both studied him and hired him as a research assistant."
About the only things he learned to do...were personal hygiene and to register as a Republican.

eg8r
11-10-2010, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no, they are not, but the odds are against them. For every success story...how many don't make it?
</div></div>So then we just tell the poor to give up and accept where they are and quit trying to get ahead? Or do you tell them to keep their chins up because they could just vote for the Democrats that offer the most handouts?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On a similar note....there was an interesting study on Ishi, an Indian that emerged from the woods at age 49, and " was taken in by anthropologists at the University of California, Berkeley, who both studied him and hired him as a research assistant."
About the only things he learned to do...were personal hygiene and to register as a Republican.
</div></div>So basically you are saying the smartest person to ever get out of UC Berkley was a 49+ year old indian with no formal education? I would have to agree with you.

eg8r

wolfdancer
11-10-2010, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So basically you are saying the smartest person to ever get out of UC Berkley was a 49+ year old indian with no formal education? I would have to agree with you.
</div></div>
You forgot about Steve Bartkowski...who could stand in midfield and throw a ball completely out of the stadium.

eg8r
11-10-2010, 03:31 PM
OK, he wins. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Deeman3
11-10-2010, 10:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no, they are not, but the odds are against them. For every success story...how many don't make it?
Some years back, I read about the hypothetical of taking a newborn baby from a primitive tribe, and raising it in a good environment. Could the child say, become a Rhodes Scholar? The answer was "no"...his brain would not be as developed as modern mans are (the old nature Vs nurture argument.)
On a similar note....there was an interesting study on Ishi, an Indian that emerged from the woods at age 49, and " was taken in by anthropologists at the University of California, Berkeley, who both studied him and hired him as a research assistant."

<span style="color: #FF9966"> Nature or nurture, environment and role models. Poor, uneducated parents if they have parents at all, how do we deal with this and all the challenges of salvaging such a large part of the population?

The most compassionate programs at great expense have had only marginal success and it is not practical to remove them all from the environment even if allowed.

No one has good answers here. The most insolvable problem of our time...

.</span>
About the only things he learned to do...were personal hygiene and to register as a Republican.

I only hope he voted right! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

LWW
11-11-2010, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some years back, I read about the hypothetical of taking a newborn baby from a primitive tribe, and raising it in a good environment. Could the child say, become a Rhodes Scholar? The answer was "no"...his brain would not be as developed as modern mans are </div></div>

Do you believe this racist tale?

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no, they are not, but the odds are against them. For every success story...how many don't make it?
Some years back, I read about the hypothetical of taking a newborn baby from a primitive tribe, and raising it in a good environment. Could the child say, become a Rhodes Scholar? The answer was "no"...his brain would not be as developed as modern mans are (the old nature Vs nurture argument.)
On a similar note....there was an interesting study on Ishi, an Indian that emerged from the woods at age 49, and " was taken in by anthropologists at the University of California, Berkeley, who both studied him and hired him as a research assistant."
About the only things he learned to do...were personal hygiene and to register as a Republican.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> BWA HA HA HA! Good to have you back!

Hilarious, your stuff is always so funny because it smacks of reality. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
11-11-2010, 06:56 AM
Do you believe that racist tale?

LWW