85 people have as much money as half the world

Oil is good Sal, it punishes the poor, and occasionally destroys the environment as well as keeping the rich and corrupt in power!

As well as suppressing zero point energy systems, so it doesn't get a foothold, (like electricity did).


We certainly can't have individuals being able to create their own electricity, instead of being held captive to greedy electricity company's and their price hikes!


Shane

There are over 1400 billionaires in the world controlling 5.4 trillion dollars. Think about it - if you took all the money from all the billionaires in the world...you could pay off barely 1/3 of the US debt. The top 85 richest people have a lot of money - but they don't have enough to support 3.5 billion people.

From worldbank.org:
The extreme poor in Sub-Saharan Africa account for a third of the world's extreme poor (up from 11% in 1981). India contributes another third (up from 22% in 1981) and China is next with 13% (down from 43% in 1981).

China improved its numbers greatly - by controlling population growth. Other countries aren't doing that - and their poverty numbers keep rising.

World Population To Increase To 9.7B By 2050; India Will Overtake China As Most Populous Nation: New Study

Africa to Record Largest Population Growth Over Next 40 Years

At least Bill Gates has done his bit, to help the poor generate electricity! Only trouble is you have to drink a lot to make it work!

And in the meantime zero point energy is ignored! Too many oil sociopathic friends l guess? :rolleyes:


Shane

Unfortunately, they rarely have taken on any personal responsibility.

Joe Mobley

Seriously? Gates and Buffet said they want you to go into debt? I must have missed that because I have never heard either one say anything even remotely close to that.

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd. When will you learn?

The ones that keep harping on this aren't interested in living on minimum wage themselves because they gave all their excess to those that need it. They are interested in taking OTHER people's money and giving it to the poor.

They don't need to care about their fellow citizens themselves as long as the rich can be blamed for not caring for THEIR fellow citizens AND coughing up the cash.

Mark

If you take away all the wealth from the billionaires to payoff government debt, who are going to run your industries?

There are two different categories in your 3.5 billion figure - On one hand we have in Asia and Africa, poor who have no access to basic education, housing, or jobs. On the other you have in the West, people who have access to better public education system than our private education system, a state housing system, welfare, and free healthcare.

In asia there are some VERY VERY VERY rich people also! Most people in Asia are poorer because they want it that way or the government restricts them! If they want it that way, YOU will destroy their society! If it is the GOVERNMENT, you will AGAIN hurt them. This has happened in Africa where some countries are ruled by a dictator and that DICTATOR gives the money to his army and friends!

I have, for example, seen documentaries about people in china that have land, live in modest huts or whatever, and farm. The government causes them some strife by limiting resources, and what they can do with any goods, but they get by and don't seen to care that they aren't rich.

As for Africa, there are STILL tribes. They have no need or desire for money. Heck, many sources of income have caused people in africa a lot of strife. They have been blamed with braking up families, etc...

In a way, money is like the internet! In the 70s, many of you never really gave a second thought to computers. NO WAY! MANY companies did things on PAPER! THEN the internet was opened up, and SOME companies saw the potential, and decided to use it for some things. THEN, some young guy came up with a program to access documents remotely! The WWW was born, and *****THEN***** you hopped on! Over 2 DECADES after the birth of the micro computer. TWO *********DECADES*********! In fact, it was 2 DECADES after the INTERNET!

NOW, a portion of the public thinks that the entirety of humanity that works should strive to give the entirety of humanity the internet. That means they must have infrastructure, business, computers, be literate, etc..... an endless slope because you FINALLY decided to hop on.

AND, to FURTHER rub salt into the wound, MANY feel that companies should go into debt with no hope of profit to do this. MONEY is the SAME way. Like us, before the internet, they may have no real need for it. So WHAT if they hunt for food, and have a closed society, etc....

WHO is to say that money isn't like the internet. YOU love it, and feel it is important, because you can buy tvs, food, cars, etc.... You want a society to have it so THEY can buy that stuff Much of it they probably couldn't buy anyway. Do they have cable in the deepest regions of asia of africa? Are there roads? Are there supermarkets?

Steve

Not to get political on you, but do you even know how it got that way?

I would think you'd get pretty far. Subsistence farming is raising enough food to feed you and your family. True, there's nothing left to sell in the market for a subsistence farmer....but it provides for the farmer's personal needs.

In our history people traveled to new areas of the country, staked out land and began subsistence farming. The first priority for settlers was not raising food to sell in markets - but in creating enough food to feed the family. Once they were growing enough for personal use they began to clear more areas of land and plant a little more in crops each year. Excess went to market - provided funds to clear or buy more land or better seed.

That's why many charitable organizations focus on providing seed and tools and water to people in third world countries. In those areas, helping people become subsistence farmers is the first step out of abject poverty and starvation. Teaching people how to grow food and how to preserve food - that's a big deal.

What hope is there for those who have never known any lifestyle except govt handouts?

I think that chart is WAY off! hey keep LOWERING their costs on Social security. They are EVEN talking about not paying anyone hitting the rolls after like 2018. MEANWHILE, they are INCREASING the costs on insurance by throwing money down the toilet on things like healthcare.com, all the discussions, etc.... And THEN, they add things like "sex change" operations, and contraception to it! EVEN THEY don't think they look great. They say they have the SAME plan "the other side" came up with! MAXIMUM debate if it were the same plan? ZERO! Acceptance if it were the same plan? DECENT! PAPER/INK with same plan? Perhaps ZERO! CODING with same plan? ZERO! So how come they debated for years, had low acceptance, spent a FORTUNE on paper and ink, and spent a TON on coding? It was NOT the same plan. So WHY do they often say it IS? MAN, they are apparently STILL trying to create healthcare.gov! and they are STILL changing the law!

Steve

Mike, you've got to do better than just about anything from the Heritage crowd. It would be prudent to double check whatever you get from them.

OK...

The chart shows the cost of health care for the fed gov over the next 10 years but it does not include the income the ACA program brings in from a myriad of taxes.

(some people like being fiscally responsible and paying for stuff instead of putting stuff on the national credit card)

If it did...

The CBO says in the first 10 years of the ACA the feds will spend about 10 billion per year - extra compared to what they're spending right now.

But from year 11 onward the ACA will save the feds about 100 billion per year compared to what they're spending now.

If there was a chart the feds health care costs would look a whole lot different- as in much flatter than the one presented by Heritage above that only includes the costs to the feds.

Clever try by Heritage but that misinformation was debunked a couple years ago.

Also to note:

The ACA is setup in such a way that if it is repealed, the health insurance costs for the feds will definitely go up.

Really? Cartoons? I guess you've signed up your family and you are perfectly happy with what you got. Or have you?

To most people, this is stressful and far from funny.

TL,

Let me tell you the TRUTH!

Upper LEFT: The big O DICTATEs raising the minimum wage to 10.10/hour, so the biggest detractor may be contradicted in part if he claims that O reduced the REAL wage by more than 20.3%!

UPPER RIGHT: Let's FORGET the people that had to DROP treatments and may be dead next year!

LOWER LEFT: Person searching for entitlements that may apply to augment the new job class P created of "UNEMPLOYED WORKERS".

LOWER RIGHT: And I can LOSE WEIGHT with the new budget! MN, THESE PICTURES ARE HARD! Why didn't I lern to READ!?!?!? What they heck, GOVERNMENT CHEESE! YEAH!!!!!

Steve

Do we get to choose what taxes and debt we are going
to contribute toward paying now?

If so, I'm happy to pay for education and medicine for
people in this country, but I don't want my money going
to any more corporate subsidies or wars!



Funny.
But I've stopped making claims about the lack of intelligence
of all Conservatives based on their weakest points and advocates.
Perhaps if we all did that, we could actually meet a little closer
to the middle and maybe-- just maybe-- get something done?



They sure have. And they took all the risk when they did,
and the employees didn't risk anything, right?

Of course, the subsidies that my father got meant that he actually
took zero risk in building his empire. Oh, and my Uncles, they
lost millions in government money, so they didn't really take any
risk either?

Then again, it was partially the taxes of those employees that
the government was giving my family to gamble with...

Oh well... Perhaps my family "earned" it by learning not to be the suckers
at the bottom anymore? They "earned" it by being "intelligent" enough
to use government money to avoid risking any of their own, and after
a few expensive failures, finally found success?

Of course now that they are extremely wealthy, and they haven't
paid any taxes in years back into that system that allowed them to
experiment and fail repeatedly without any personal risk-- But they
sure do bitch about lazy employees and people on welfare!

(Ironic, because those "lazy" employees are the ones doing the
actual work, and a lot of the people on welfare are actually paying
taxes, unlike my Uncles and Father?)

***

Sure, some small and mid-sized businesses take a lot of risk
to make the little bit of money they do, and they don't deserve
to be taken advantage of by their employees.

But I don't know any (real) Liberals who are upset with the fact
that they are living the American Dream?

It's the energy companies, the sugar barons, the Chinese importers
that Liberals are upset with. These mega-rich did NOT build the
business themselves while taking major risks! They built their businesses
with help from the government-- from everyone's taxes-- and now
they don't want to pay back into the system that they themselves
used?

Why does "responsibility" and "accountability" only get spat at
the employees and the poor, and how did "a level playing field" become
"entitlement"?

And if we really do want to go after people with the "entitlement"
mindset, then why are we not starting with the few who get $billions,
rather than the millions who get only $thousands?

Not sure if you meant this for more than one person, but for me personally
I didn't ignore them-- I just didn't feel strongly about them either way, and I
already tend to write way more than what people probably want to read! But
I'll respond to them here:





Allow me to clarify my take on this? Personally, I don't advocate that
employees get a much bigger piece of the pie-- although some of them
certainly should, they did agree to work for what they are getting,
didn't they? And small/medium-sized businesses probably already pay
their employees a competitive rate.

What I have an issue with is that major corporations get so many
tax breaks that they don't need-- Money that could (and should, imho!)
be going to help other people start businesses-- the very same benefit
that they received!

That's what I think a "level playing field" should mean-- The whole
$15/hr flipping burgers is a distraction.


Or to paying off some of that debt that everyone is so scared of?



Those people don't "deserve" their jobs.
I have no pity (or tolerance!) for them.







Again, I don't know if you mean this example to include me or if it was a
for the broader part of the whole conversation, but I will force my 2 cents
in anyway, because I'm a loudmouth like that. :rolleyes:

1. A "Maximum" wage is a terrible idea. I know that some people promote the idea.
And I know that IBM once tried to put a cap on how much Ross Perot could earn.
They lost him before the end of the month-- and deserved to lose him!

2. A "Minimum" wage is a necessary thing. Personally I could never do it. Taking
such a job is like accepting it when the employer says, "I would pay you less,
but it's against the law!"

And $50K seems rather high for a minimum wage. I think that would put a huge
percentage of small/medium sized businesses out of business-- At the very least,
there would be massive layoffs and hiring would freeze.

It's true that some people are going to be comfortable on a guaranteed minimum,
and will have no desire to improve or be competitive. My advice is not to hire
them to begin with-- Or to get rid of them if they are hurting your business.
Easier said than done, I know-- But if business owners wanted "easy" then they
would be minimum wage employees, wouldn't they?

3. I see the point your example is making, but it's a very unrealistic scenario.
The idea that such a world is the "Liberal Agenda" is a major point of confusion
for Conservatives-- And for some people who think they are Liberal, but don't
know what they are talking about!


I love that Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the world.
He can be a real ass, but he actually does give back quite a bit.

I am personally a huge fan of Larry. I love his style, his philosophy, and a lot
of what he has done-- in business and outside of it. And I believe that he
absolutely deserves his success.

But I think it is absolutely insane that he received a $3.4M refund because
he made his house into a Japanese castle-- complete with a moat!?
Not only because he doesn't need it, but because his business was
built with government money. It wasn't only his own money and his
own risks-- It was tax money that we all paid.

I'm tremendously happy that he was successful. Oracle is wonderful,
and I feel sorry for the suckers that buy the BS from the SAP salespeople.
I'm thrilled that he enjoys his money-- He isn't a boring old asshole
who hordes it like Golem from Lord of the Rings.

And I'm aware that it was within the rules and laws for him to get the
money back-- No shit, he took a big loss. But seriously, nobody was
ever going to buy that house anyway, it is for him alone, and possibly
his children. Why play the money game?

Why not give back to the community that helped you when you were
starting out, so that you had the potential to build something great,
so that the money is still there for the next person to do it?

That is what annoys me.