The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 54 of 54
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,564

    Default

    I appreciate the addition of the "working class" to all the hubbub about the middle class.

    It sux that here in American we like to pretend that class does not exist and also that upward social mobility is the default position. So many people spend their time pretending that they are either richer and poorer than they are, depending on the audience and the topic.

    Oh, and with respect to those other arbiters of class besides money-- education, appreciation for culture, manners and the rest, it rocks my (old fashioned) world that the middle class is getting larger, that there is no acknowledged working class and that so many people regard a college education as a credential for earning only.

    The AGI numbers help. I understand that the magic $250K we are discussing goes more and less far in various parts of the country. Like others, I'd POTUS to appreciate the life-experience of poor Americans who are struggling to get by and not full of faith that they, like the dude who considers himself average but finds himself running for prez, can do Big Things. The limits of money extend beyond dollars.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne FS View Post
    I want a President who still cares about ALL Americans, ALL, not one who says we've done enough for the very poor and "I'm not concerned" about them.
    This isn't what I meant to say. What I mean is our country NEEDS a President who cares about ALL Americans.

    It doesn't matter what *I* want. The POTUS must be a President for all, not for the few.

    FDR & Eleanor Roosevelt were certainly wealthy. Thank God, thank God they did not have the attitutude of the Romneys. Or, speaking of the Roosevelts, Teddy R. Can you imagine having the foresight to save all those public lands and not carve them up and sell 'em off to the highest bidder?


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,564

    Default

    Dude, seriously. What Presidential Candidate can honestly think of himself as average, as having been quite as cut out from opportunity throughout his life as so many?

    I don't think anyone gets to candidacy without having accumulated an extraordinary degree of power, if not wealth. That's a life-changing experience.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne FS View Post
    Or, speaking of the Roosevelts, Teddy R. Can you imagine having the foresight to save all those public lands and not carve them up and sell 'em off to the highest bidder?
    Well... you must understand that nature conservation was not allied with a socially-libaral POV in circa 1900. Many, many histories of the era confirm this. In fact, big game hunters who made their money in the gilded age were worried about losing a great part of America-- both it's frontier and it's all-white population. You might be surprised how close discussions of eugenics and nature conservation were back then. If you care about this kind of topic, I'll send you a reference or two. But I bring it up because the political bedfellows then were so different from today's.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat



  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    19,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne FS View Post
    ROTFL. Obama is SO much more in touch than Romney. It doesn't matter that he's wealthy. Stop trying to make this about "the poor hate the rich," "class warfare," etc. It's simply not true. It's not the wealth, it's what you do with it.

    I'm sure Obama is financially extremely well off. The difference is, he cares more about those who are not. The Kennedys are rich, too. Nobody's richer than Bill Gates. But those people, who are incredibly wealthy and I'm sure interested in making even more money, have never forgotten that millions more are not like them, and they actively work to help those less fortunate.

    There are many wealthy people of both parties who help. I want a President who still cares about ALL Americans, ALL, not one who says we've done enough for the very poor and "I'm not concerned" about them.

    The quote isn't "money is the root of all evil," the quote is "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." And that makes all the difference.
    Obama isn't incredibly wealthy or wasn't when he was elected. He had about 5m dollars from his books that he made himself. In today's world having capital of 5 million dollars gets you about 50k in interest at 1%. At least I think that's what it works out--but I'm numbers challenged.

    Please correct the income figure if I'm wrong.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug. 20, 2006
    Location
    wyoming
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midge View Post
    Forbes did an article on it. I think the income was around 250k per year. There was a lot of interesting stuff on the percentages. I'm remembering off the top of my head, but the top 1% pay something like 25% of the total taxes and around a third of charitable giving.

    On the other end, the bottom 40% makes only 15% of the income and pays about 5% of the taxes.
    I did some research several months ago for a similar discussion. Don't have the links anymore and can't remember the exact numbers, but the top 1% or 2% control something like 75-85% of the total wealth of the country. So you'll find me shedding no tears for the taxes they pay - imo, these statistics indicate they should be paying a lot more. Obviously the taxes levied on the remaining 99% of the folks will be more onerous to them than the similar percentage that many of the one-percenters end up paying.

    The one-percenters will have to go peddle their whines to some other sucker.

    Liz


    4 members found this post helpful.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vineyridge View Post
    Obama isn't incredibly wealthy or wasn't when he was elected. He had about 5m dollars from his books that he made himself. In today's world having capital of 5 million dollars gets you about 50k in interest at 1%. At least I think that's what it works out--but I'm numbers challenged.

    Please correct the income figure if I'm wrong.
    I'm unsure about the income, but that is absolutely true, Obama is by no stretch "incredibly wealthy" and at any rate, wasn't until he wrote his books.

    The Right-wing crazies have been peddling some fantasy about how he's been lying about his past (really, they're half a step away from the birther nutters) and in reality he grew up some sort of coddled rich kid. The only evidence they have, however, is that he went to a prep school in Hawaii. Which uh, last time I checked, doesn't automatically mean you're a privileged child of the upper class.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Well... you must understand that nature conservation was not allied with a socially-libaral POV in circa 1900.
    I must understand? I totally get it. It's the same today you know. All these people are anti-hunting but who is it who preserves the land? Hunters. I live in PA. You think we'd have all the PA State Game Lands we do without hunters? Nope. And without the foxhunters, Chester County would be one giant stripmall today.

    I'm saying that, that it initially has been the very wealthy who did that, who preserved the land. And you can't deny that TR did preserve it for all of us. He thought beyond his own generation.

    I have a friend who hates hunting & hunters. Her husband is a member of Ducks Unlimited and one night she was kvetching about going to a dinner they were having. I like DU, they do great work, and I was surprised that she didn't want to have anything to do with them. She said yes, but they only preserve all these wetlands and have brought back all these birds so they can hunt them and keep plenty for hunting for years.

    I said yes, but the point is they DID preserve the wetlands and the wildfowl. What have YOU done to make more ducks in the world and a place for them to live in? If it was up to you & me, the ducks would've been SOL because we didn't do anything. Sure, they hunt some, but if it wasn't for DU and other groups like them to put curbs on excessive hunting and more important, provide the habitat to for breeding & life, they'd be gone.



  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    43,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne FS View Post
    ROTFL. Obama is SO much more in touch than Romney. It doesn't matter that he's wealthy. Stop trying to make this about "the poor hate the rich," "class warfare," etc. It's simply not true. It's not the wealth, it's what you do with it.

    I'm sure Obama is financially extremely well off. The difference is, he cares more about those who are not. The Kennedys are rich, too. Nobody's richer than Bill Gates. But those people, who are incredibly wealthy and I'm sure interested in making even more money, have never forgotten that millions more are not like them, and they actively work to help those less fortunate.

    There are many wealthy people of both parties who help. I want a President who still cares about ALL Americans, ALL, not one who says we've done enough for the very poor and "I'm not concerned" about them.

    The quote isn't "money is the root of all evil," the quote is "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." And that makes all the difference.
    So, you use class warfare rhetoric when it is convenient for you, but if others do, you call them on it?

    I heard a news interview on CBS several weeks ago, when that was questioned, with Romney being asked about what he said and he cleared that remark with, in the context he was speaking, he meant the middle class are the ones that will drive the economy and that would then help everyone.
    He meant "he was not concerned", IN THAT CONTEXT of fixing the economy, because helping the middle class would directly be what brought the whole economy back in track.
    Still, it makes for a good sound bite when someone wants to bash him.

    Maybe we ought to pass one more law saying that you can be rich if you let us tell you how to give your money away.
    If not, we will take it from you and give it to whoever we want to.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Maybe we ought to pass one more law saying that you can be rich if you let us tell you how to give your money away.
    If not, we will take it from you and give it to whoever we want to.
    But this is hardly a new topic. Rather, isn't it in essence about what tax debates are about? Do we trust the uber-wealthy to distribute their dollars in a way that furthers interests other than their own? Do they accumulate and hold wealth in ways that are at the expense of the poor? The "give it to whoever we want to" is also a huge topic of debate. Just who is deserving and who makes that attribution?

    I don't care which way the increasing disparities between rich and poor are brought somewhat into line. Were the rich to become fabulous stewards of our society/economy, that'd be fine. But I don't see the gap between groups narrowing as of yet.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Apr. 29, 2005
    Location
    Paris, Kentucky
    Posts
    3,200

    Default

    I wasn't going to wade in, but I had to ROFL when I saw that the same people screaming that 250k/yr = wealthy are the same people screaming that the Obamas who made 4.9million last year ARE NOT wealthy.

    You can't have it both ways.
    Holly
    www.ironhorsefrm.com
    Oldenburg foals and young prospects
    LIKE us on Facebook!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    May. 4, 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,333

    Default

    Yes, the Obama's are millionaires. Who want you to think they are poor folk. They both went to prep schools for the upper class (note, while trashing his mother's race in his book, he doesn't seem to mind having had his grandparents fund his prep education). They both went to Ivy league colleges.

    Lovely Michelle worked at a hospital in Chicago. How nice, right? Except her job (along with David Axelrod) was pushing poor and under insured patients out the door. Lol. Yes, very in touch with the poor folk. And J.Crew is her idea of dressing down. How many slummers can afford to shop there?

    Who did the Obama's tithe to? Why, the church of pastor Jeremiah Wright. Nice, inclusive guy there.

    Obama is actively crushing the coal industry, flat out said he wanted to make it impossible for them to run coal plants in this country. Want to talk poorest of the poor? Coal mining families qualify. Ever seen what it looks like back in the hollows of coal territory? Abject poverty. Let's put those folks out of work, that's in touch. What is happening to electric rates in states dependent on coal fired power? So, first let's strangle the industry and put them out of work, then watch their electric rates go way up! Fantastic. You bet your hind end they are gonna get bitter and cling to their guns and religion. Another great Obamaism.

    Anyway, while this has been fun....I have to get a new IV line put in so I will leave you kids to the fight. Don't stay up too late!
    Sorry to see xtranormal is gone
    For funnies, search youtube for horseyninjawarrior!

    Www.caringbridge.org/visit/mysecretgarden


    2 members found this post helpful.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alittlegray View Post
    Yes, the Obama's are millionaires. Who want you to think they are poor folk. They both went to prep schools for the upper class (note, while trashing his mother's race in his book, he doesn't seem to mind having had his grandparents fund his prep education). They both went to Ivy league colleges.
    No $hit they're millionaires. Nobody is disputing that, including them. However, they haven't ALWAYS been millionaires.

    Prep school doesn't equal wealthy by any stretch. Privileged, sure...but they never deny having had privileges. Privilege and wealth aren't necessarily the same thing.

    Here is Michelle Obama's "prep" school: http://www.wyoung.org/index.jsp
    It's a Chicago PUBLIC school. Yes, it's a magnet school, but she went there because of her academic achievement, not ability to pay.

    And going to an Ivy League or otherwise expensive or exclusive school also has nothing to do with wealth. A good chunk (close to 50% or much more at some places) of the student body at the top colleges in this country rely on large amounts of financial aid to attend those schools. Smart, driven kids apply to these schools because of the education they offer...not necessarily because they're well-off.

    So in other words, I honestly have no idea why all of you conservatives keep bringing up the schools they went to--they literally have ZERO to do with their supposed "wealth".


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2012
    Posts
    1,994

    Default

    My household, while not "rich," statistically falls into the top 5-7% of households regarding income. I would GLADLY pay more in taxes if it means that others had the same advantages I did growing up including access to public transportation, education, etc. I think we ALL benefit to some degree from these kinds of services, as a society no matter if we "personally" benefit or not.

    A lot of those 47%, as some mentioned earlier, are elderly, students, active duty military, working poor, etc. And a lot are middle class families whose tax liabilities are reduced because of their kids, mortgages, student loan debt, etc. because of our tax code. It doesn't mean that they aren't contributing members of society or that they are burdens to the rest of us.

    Interesting graphics from NPR here on who exactly the 47% are: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...in-one-graphic


    3 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Statistics
    By cwill in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul. 5, 2012, 05:05 PM
  2. Fwd: [AERCMembersForum] Statistics on horses with more than 8,000 miles
    By rainechyldes in forum Endurance and Trail Riding
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Mar. 15, 2011, 10:13 PM
  3. Statistics
    By avezan in forum Eventing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Jun. 19, 2010, 06:18 PM
  4. Statistics of cribbing
    By JB in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May. 3, 2010, 08:47 PM
  5. How to find horse statistics?
    By vbunny in forum Off Course
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Apr. 30, 2010, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness