73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Dr.Who]

'Where did I say "51%?"

If something usually happens then it cannot be a rare event. In fact it would have to be an event that happens most of the time. I gave you the benefit in the argument by only saying 51%.

 

[Dr.Who]

I gather you saw her admission of guilt.

If one is a 1%er they have done nothing to feel guilty about.

They can only feel guilty if they have broken a law. maybe a legal law or maybe a moral law.

 

[Openmind]

If something usually happens then it cannot be a rare event. In fact it would have to be an event that happens most of the time. I gave you the benefit in the argument by only saying 51%.

Sorry, I don't think this answered my question.

Could you give me the link of the post where I stated "51%?"

If you can't. . .just say so.

 

[Openmind]

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.

You're my hero!!!!
And I am glad that you recognize that "poor people" (minimum wage workers) are often MORE, not less charitable than the wealthy! That has also been my experience.
Now. . .how can someone who worked for social services all his life, be so against "government" when your lifelihood, all your life, including your retirement is TOTALLY based on your "government" job?

Is it a case of "do as I say, not as I do?" Or is it a case of "I got my icing on the cake, you'll need to work, not only for the icing, but also for the cake?"

 

[Dr.Who]

You're my hero!!!!
And I am glad that you recognize that "poor people" (minimum wage workers) are often MORE, not less charitable than the wealthy! That has also been my experience.
Now. . .how can someone who worked for social services all his life, be so against "government" when your lifelihood, all your life, including your retirement is TOTALLY based on your "government" job?

Is it a case of "do as I say, not as I do?" Or is it a case of "I got my icing on the cake, you'll need to work, not only for the icing, but also for the cake?"

I always worked for private companies.

Had I worked for government I could still be against bad policy and unconstitutional actions.

But I am not against gov. I am against the gov perfomring roles that it is not authorized to do. Within the scope of the constitution the gov should operate and maybe even do it within a large organization.

But since you assumed my social service carreer means I must have worked for gov I guess that means your social service career was for government and perhaps your allegiance is based on your experience rather than on principles.

 

[Openmind]

I always worked for private companies.

Had I worked for government I could still be against bad policy and unconstitutional actions.

But I am not against gov. I am against the gov perfomring roles that it is not authorized to do. Within the scope of the constitution the gov should operate and maybe even do it within a large organization.

But since you assumed my social service carreer means I must have worked for gov I guess that means your social service career was for government and perhaps your allegiance is based on your experience rather than on principles.

Well, I worked for "private companies also," BUT, in social services, those private companies are either funded by CHURCHES, or by GOVERNMENT AGENCIES!

By the way. . .did the Constitution authorize us to attack other countries based on a (false) suspicion of having WMD?

Did the Constitution authorize us to provide full retirement to Congress people having served only one term?

did the Constitution authorize us to subsidize HUGE corporations with tax dollars?

 

[dogtowner]

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.

Gallup does many things. I said in strict dollar terms you are almost certainly correct. If you go with per capita then the list shown is likely right. That was the measure used when I saw Ireland leading the field. As there are quite a few here of Irish descent, it gives us a leg up ! Oh, there are poor all over that can be helped, Irish don't do it all in country.

 

[Dr.Who]

Gallup does many things. I said in strict dollar terms you are almost certainly correct.

I think we agree.

If you go with per capita then the list shown is likely right.

I doubt per capita would change it. But per gdp might or per gdn...anything in which having more wealth would skew the numbers.

 

[dogtowner]

I think we agree.

I'd say so.

I doubt per capita would change it. But per gdp might or per gdn...anything in which having more wealth would skew the numbers.

a GDP based analysis had the US 20th.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'd say so.




a GDP based analysis had the US 20th.

Well of course it does - it is a skewed analysis. We could potentially give every single person with a real need enough money to have an average income (though presently we only give them, and more, enough to have an income of about 16k) then when we ran out of poor, because the rest of the people had so much the ratio of the GDP to giving would place us in a bad spot in the rank.

But if we lowered the GDP of the whole country then we would be much better off in the ranking.

 

[dogtowner]

Well of course it does - it is a skewed analysis. We could potentially give every single person with a real need enough money to have an average income (though presently we only give them, and more, enough to have an income of about 16k) then when we ran out of poor, because the rest of the people had so much the ratio of the GDP to giving would place us in a bad spot in the rank.

But if we lowered the GDP of the whole country then we would be much better off in the ranking.

yup, and why I opted for a more sensible measure.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, I worked for "private companies also," BUT, in social services, those private companies are either funded by CHURCHES, or by GOVERNMENT AGENCIES!

All were secular not for profits. And during my time working at those I had a lot of interactions with many other social service organization. Some were government funded, like Ravenswood Mental Health Center, but in no way was it rare for many of them to be private. The one kind of social service agency that I happen to have never had dealings with were church sponsored ones.

By the way. . .did the Constitution authorize us to attack other countries based on a (false) suspicion of having WMD?

Congress did indeed have the authority to declare war. They were probably wrong about the nature of the wmd. Since they thought they were right it was probably constitutional.

Did the Constitution authorize us to provide full retirement to Congress people having served only one term?

The const does authorize the gov to pay for its operations. The specifics of that is left up to congress. And yes that is a total waste.

did the Constitution authorize us to subsidize HUGE corporations with tax dollars?

NO. and all spending that goes to just a few people but comes from all the people needs to stop. You would certainly here me object to corporate welfare much more than I do if there were anyone here that were advocating it.

Now that I have answered that, does the answer to any of those mean that it has now become constitutional for the gov to spend taxpayer money on the poor?

 

[BigRob]

By the way. . .did the Constitution authorize us to attack other countries based on a (false) suspicion of having WMD?

That was Congress.

Did the Constitution authorize us to provide full retirement to Congress people having served only one term?

This is not in fact true at all. You might check your facts.

did the Constitution authorize us to subsidize HUGE corporations with tax dollars?

Congress again.

 

[dogtowner]

NO. and all spending that goes to just a few people but comes from all the people needs to stop. You would certainly here me object to corporate welfare much more than I do if there were anyone here that were advocating it.

in the same sense that the "general welfare" clause is applied then yes it does. if its good for the economy as a whole, its justifiable.

Now that I have answered that, does the answer to any of those mean that it has now become constitutional for the gov to spend taxpayer money on the poor?

no as its not "general" but very specific in nature and does nothing cor the general welfare.

That said I'm totally happy to eliminate all of it. None of it was intended out of that phrase.

 

[clarkatticus]

You are able to take part in the American Dream if you want to. No one is going to hand it to you. If you want to stand for other things, then by all means, do so, but don't then complain that someone else is not paying your bills while you stand for those things.

As for the Constitution, where does it say that wealth is supposed to even divided among the population?

The American Dream is open to anyone who wants to work for it.

No Rob, as I said, there are 5% that are unemployable. This means they do not, for whatever reason, function in the system of economics we have. I say economics, not form of government, a distinction most do no comprehend. A person can not be a capitalist, or even a socialist or communist, and still be an American, our forefathers made no distiction. In fact, I doubt Jefferson would have liked the form of economy we have now, especially since he had great disdain for Washington and Hamilton. You turn you nose up at those who think and act differently than you as if they have no worth. Now there are 9 to 19% unemployed and only 5% are so willingly. The wealth of a nation cannot be divided evenly, but every effort should be made to access happiness to every individual, a legacy some overlook. Add all the issues the 99%ers ask, and this is the commonality