73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Dr.Who]

You seem to have limited experience in big corporations politics. Actually, "allowing the entire company to go under" is usually exactly what happens. . . but with some "finesse" that allows the top management to fly away with all their millions!

Do you have any facts to support your notion that at least 51% of the time (usually) execs allow big corporations to go under? Or is that just more baseless generalizing to prop up envious class warfare?

 

[Dr.Who]

Dont forget, Open IS one of those one percenters. So only SOME of them are to be hammered. It gets funnier and funnier.

I have not seen that. How do you know that?

She said her husband did well and she worked as a social worker. That does not fit he profile of a 1%er.

[OK I was wrong]

 

[Dr.Who]

No, dear. . .I am NO LONGER one of the 1%. . .that went away with our decision to retire! And even then, we were probably at the very bottom of the 1%. . . .for a few years!

But long enough to KNOW that we didn't get taxed as fairly as we should have been. Long enough to have made me uncomfortable with my sense of justice and fairness.

To tell you the truth, I'm glad I don't have to deal with that inner conflict of conscience. And I am glad that, because of my vocational career, I did give some back to the disenfranchised.

Did you earn your wealth illegally?
Did you hurt people in the process?

 

[dogtowner]

I have not seen that. How do you know that?

She said her husband did well and she worked as a social worker. That does not fit he profile of a 1%er.

[OK I was wrong]

I gather you saw her admission of guilt.

 

[Openmind]

Do you have any facts to support your notion that at least 51% of the time (usually) execs allow big corporations to go under? Or is that just more baseless generalizing to prop up envious class warfare?

'Where did I say "51%?"

 

[dogtowner]

Did you hurt people in the process?

well in her world its not possible any other way. but she did admit he worked hard (which is also supposed to be impossible coming from his humble beginnings). guilt has very curious manifestations.

 

[Openmind]

I gather you saw her admission of guilt.

I think that you guy's obsession with trying to discredit me or find contradictions in my statements is hilarious!

I guess I really stirred some inner feelings of insecurity in the depth of your Theories.

It seems to blow your mind at anyone who enjoyed a very comfortable lif style should not want to hang on wor dear life to the elitist "party line!"

Problem is that there are many more people like me, who can keep a sense of social fairness, rather than be blinded by personal greed.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, I have cut quite a few "luxuries," and when given the opportunities, I do help people who are facing trouble. As a landlord, I do give "leeway" to my tenants when they are facing a difficult time, and I am rewarded by very long term tenants who trust me, who will always make it a priority to pay their rent on time, and who are comfortable enough with me to call and ask for an extension if they cannot do it. And, when they are late with their rent, and although a "penalty fee for late payment" is in the contract, they know that I will forgoe that penalty fee 95% of the time!

Cough.

That's lame. You only give up luxuries. You need to wait for opportunities. You have a mutually beneficial business arrangement and you get your reward. Not doing what could be worse is not the same as actively doing what could be better. That is the same kind of logic that says taking a helping job instead of a job in business (which helps too) is some kind of charity. The examples you have given are stingy. Is that why your conscience bothered you before? Well, lets just say that you merely gave bad examples and in reality you did a lot more. Only you know.

No one has to give up EVERYTHING to be in peace with their conscience. NO ONE is asking the top 1% of the wealthy to give up their lifestyle, or to give up all their wealth. . .what needs to happen is a realization that, by participating in the burden of life that at least 70% of their fellow Americans are facing today, they are doing their duty, and that it in fact comes back to them in good faith and good will.

Of course no one has to give up everything. They don't even have to give up more than they want to (though they should want to give up a lot).

Everyone should participate in the burdens that are needed to run our country in accordance with the constitution. Right now the rich participate and the bottom 50% not so much.


so now you wan the money taken from the rich to be used to help the bottom 70%? This is no longer just about the poor? People who are poor, I mean who do not have the means to support themselves, they probably make up 5% of the country. Does anyone have a stat on that?

 

[Dr.Who]

I have told you several times now that I'd be eager to return to the Clinton era tax rates on the condition that we also return to Clinton era spending levels. You are the one who will not compromise and agree to cut spending by 50% in order to return us to the Clinton era spending levels.

The progressive tax system is evil and unconstitutional in the way it is spent.

We compromise when we are deciding between two right ideas and we just can't agree. We don't compromise with evil and illegality.

 

[dogtowner]

I think that you guy's obsession with trying to discredit me or find contradictions in my statements is hilarious!

sure is !

I guess I really stirred some inner feelings of insecurity in the depth of your Theories.

nope

It seems to blow your mind at anyone who enjoyed a very comfortable lif style should not want to hang on wor dear life to the elitist "party line!"

Problem is that there are many more people like me, who can keep a sense of social fairness, rather than be blinded by personal greed.

nope seen others of your kind. and none of them see how absurd their lives are.

 

[Dr.Who]

What tells you I didn't?

What tells you I didn't contribute to my clients more than just my professional skills?

What tells you that I didn't take that 72 year old developmentally disabled man, with diabetes and emphyzema to lunch once every too weeks, his only "outing," his only chance to go to his favorite lunch place. What tells you that I didn't have to face, with him, the disgusted looks of some other diners, when he started coughing and mucous spilled out of his nose into the soup he was eating? What makes you think I didn't pay for some new clothes, the first he had in years, so that he could go to a movie theater, without being embarrassed by the smell of old tobacco, feces, and urine that hung around him?

What makes you think that, when I finally found a new apartment where he could actually look out and see some trees, instead of his old apartment, with the only window facing a blind wall, 3 feet from where he stood, that I didn't purchase a small television for him, so that he could watch his favorite program, which he had not been able to watch for 8 months because his old, third hand, television had died!

What makes you think that I didn't give the best of myself, with joy, to those people who were treated like lepers by most? What makes you think I didn't actually feel love for that old, dirty, stinky man, with nails as brown as tobacco, with old food stuck into his 20 inch beard, with lices in his unwashed hair?

What makes you think I didn't feel like "I" had given birth to him, when I, (with the help of a personal care person, working for minimum wage) had succeeded in getting him to take a bath, twice a week, and convinced him to allow me to pay for a barber to shave his 20 inches beard, and to shave his long gray hair, and I watched him walk to his new place in his (almost) new, clean clothes?

What makes you think I didn't cry when he died just 2 years later, after having finally lived in a REAL home, and having finally found pride in the way he looked. . and after he told his care taker that he wanted ME to have his TV, his most precious possession!

Am I being overly emotional? Yes, I am.
Maybe you should try it. It might change the way you see people.

I worked for social service agencies for all of my career too. We all did that. That is not special that is just being a normal person. Teachers have been pointing out the fallacy of that logic for thousands of years: “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"

As a person who is claiming the 1%ers need to give a whole lot more how can you give as your examples things that are a pittance compared to what a 1%er could have done. You see I agree that a 1%er can do a whole lot - they can start foundations, they can give hundreds of thousands of dollars to any charity they like, they can turn a person's life around completely and then do it a hundred more times. What should not happen is that they should be forced to do it or forced to do it through government programs that are not even authorized to exist.

You were a 1% and you give as an example that you took a man to lunch when you could have done so much more with say a hundred thousand dollars? Unless you have done a very poor job of describing your generosity it is no wonder you were troubled. Don't get me wrong, your actions are commendable - as far as they went. I was never a 1%er but I took clients to lunch and bought a tv set or two at a few hundred dollars a pop, and paid to have someone's engine rebuilt and even put in suppositories which was definitily not a part of my job description. Some of these kinds of acts I have kept secret from everyone who knew me until now because it is not about me. My actions are not even special - that is just supposed to be normal. I had employees who only made about 6$/Hr and the sacrifices they made for our clients was often more than my own - that's just normal.

 

[Dr.Who]

The top 1%, paying 40% of the tab, also hold 42% of the wealth.

So. . .how about giving that 2% "extra wealth" to lower the deficit?

How can anyone feel that it is fair to walk past a hungry child into Cartier, to go buy a $100,000 necklace?
Oh, wait. . .I guess Gingrich has NO problem with that, especially if he can put that purchase on his credit card!

You are right that they should give more and do so generously.

You are wrong when you think the gov should force them to do it and then to do it through the gov.

When a person is forced to give they will not be able to feel good about it because they did not make that choice. Gov coercion robs society of all the good feelings all of us could have when we personally help others. Do you suppose if we all felt that feeling more regularly it just might make the world a better place?

 

[Dr.Who]

If you have been good to the most disenfranchised person, I am glad. I never said you didn't. However, in my experience, you would be a rarity.

Americans are the most giving people on the planet. That is probably not so rare.

 

[dogtowner]

Americans are the most giving people on the planet. That is probably not so rare.

maybe so but Gallup thinks more like 5th. I knew that a while back it was Ireland. Perhaps in strict dollar terms you are correct.

The top 21 most generous countries, in order, are:

1. Australia
1. New Zealand
3. Ireland
3. Canada
5. Switzerland
5. United States
7. Netherlands
8. Britain
8. Sri Lanka
10 Austria
11. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
11. Sierra Leone
13. Malta
14. Iceland
14. Turkmenistan
16. Guyana
16. Qatar
18. Hong Kong
18. Germany
18. Denmark
18. Guinea
​

 

[Dr.Who]

maybe so but Gallup thinks more like 5th. I knew that a while back it was Ireland. Perhaps in strict dollar terms you are correct.

I thought gallup performed polls. Did they ask people if they felt they gave a lot?

Anyway, Americans give the most in terms of the amount of money they give.

If we measure money given from individuals to individuals I suspect that America will rank #1 no matter how you measure it.

But, yes there are ways to measure it that result in America not being number one. IMO if the measure is not a measure of giving from person to person it is not a very good measure of generosity. If you want to measure in any way other than total amount then we should include a measure of how many poor there are - obviously a nation with fewer poor needs less giving and a nation with richer people would have different ratios too.