wealthy people keep making good decisions while po folks make worse ones ? Obama for example.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Redistribution of wealth: New figures.
- Thread starter Openmind
- Start date
wealthy people keep making good decisions while po folks make worse ones ? Obama for example.
Werbung:
Obama is a wealthy person.
ok fair, voting for Obama.
If Obama is a wealthy person, then, according to your formula, he must be making good decisions. Either that, or he's an exception to your rule, but he does seem to be making money for himself and his family.
I'm not sure how many wealthy vs. not so wealthy voted for him, but I'd be willing to bet that the wealthy ones who didn't aren't any better off than the ones who did.
I'm also not so sure that voting McCain/Palin was such a good decision either. Maybe there wasn't a good decision to be made last time around.
here's another hypothesis: The wealthy keep getting more wealthy because money begets money.
haha. ok po folks make worse decisions LIKE voting for Obama.
the wealthy know the difference between presidential candidates only impact them marginally while that impact is far greater on those of more humble means.
Are you sure that the selection of the pres affects the wealthy less than the poor? I wonder. Who is going to pay off that 15 teradollar debt? Certainly not the poor. On the other hand, it is the poor who go and fight the wars that the CIC decides to start, at least mostly the poor. Then (on the other hand again), the president either supports or doesn't support the tax the rich mantra, not that he can do a lot about it anyway, but the bully pulpit does have an effect.
I wonder if you're right.
The selection of the POTUS has less effect on all of us than we'd like to think, IMO. The president doesn't really control the economy, for example, as so many seem to think.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Another Leftist myth to be debunked...
The U.S. military is not a "poor man's force." The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class. - About.com
And...
In an interview Tuesday, Gilroy said the socio-economic data dispels the myth that recruits hail disproportionately from families in poverty or surviving on modest incomes. He cited a Heritage Foundation study showing that from 1999 to 2007, the percentage of non-prior-service recruits entering the military from families in the nation's poorest neighborhoods fell from 18 percent down to 10.7 percent. Recruits from families living in richest one-fifth of neighborhoods rose from 18.6 percent to 24.9 percent.
Recruits in 2006 and 2007, the latest years for available data, were modestly over-representative of neighborhoods where average family income is $40,000 or more. Neighborhoods with family incomes below $40,000 were under-represented among recruits signed during those two years. - Military.com
Recruits in 2006 and 2007, the latest years for available data, were modestly over-representative of neighborhoods where average family income is $40,000 or more. Neighborhoods with family incomes below $40,000 were under-represented among recruits signed during those two years. - Military.com
Another Leftist myth to be debunked...
The U.S. military is not a "poor man's force." The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. On the socioeconomic side, the military is strongly middle class. - About.com
And...
In an interview Tuesday, Gilroy said the socio-economic data dispels the myth that recruits hail disproportionately from families in poverty or surviving on modest incomes. He cited a Heritage Foundation study showing that from 1999 to 2007, the percentage of non-prior-service recruits entering the military from families in the nation's poorest neighborhoods fell from 18 percent down to 10.7 percent. Recruits from families living in richest one-fifth of neighborhoods rose from 18.6 percent to 24.9 percent.
Recruits in 2006 and 2007, the latest years for available data, were modestly over-representative of neighborhoods where average family income is $40,000 or more. Neighborhoods with family incomes below $40,000 were under-represented among recruits signed during those two years. - Military.com
Wow! Myth debunked. I stand corrected.
So, who is affected most by the choice of president, then, the rich or the poor? It's beginning to sound like the rich have a bigger stake in the game.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
From a statistical standpoint, the "poor" don't really have much to lose and everything to gain, the "rich" don't have much to gain (that they don't already have) but a lot to lose, so the middle class would seem to be the most affected since they could go either way as a result of presidential policy.
Werbung:
that could be, too. Dogtowner says the poor are more affected.
It does seem to me than none of us are affected as much as we'd like to think, unless, maybe those of us who are in the military or have a loved one in the military.
