rich gets richer

Status
Not open for further replies.
yup daredevil you got that right
part of it, is alot to do with PR work...
 
Jiro said:
many Hollywood celebrities have their own charity programs... why? for PR purpose. Their character doesn't match up with their action.
Click to expand...
Without your giving specifics I can't know if the people of whom you post have characters that match their giving or not.

That has nothing to do with what little Obama gave to charity. Except for the chunk he gave to Rev. Wright's church, he donated very little.
 
Reba said:
Without your giving specifics I can't know if the people of whom you post have characters that match their giving or not.

That has nothing to do with what little Obama gave to charity. Except for the chunk he gave to Rev. Wright's church, he donated very little.
Click to expand...

curious - is it common for President to donate a lot during Presidency?
 
Jiro said:
curious - is it common for President to donate a lot during Presidency?
Click to expand...
It's common for generous people to show a lifetime pattern of giving.
 
Reba said:
It's common for generous people to show a lifetime pattern of giving.
Click to expand...

but I'm asking a very specific question. Is it common for President to donate a lot and often during Presidency?

on that side note - I recall Obama donating $1.4 million of Nobel Prize money to charities.
 
Daredevel7 said:
That's kind of a really bad analogy. The government doesn't spend on "products" like people buy with credit cards. The government spends on INVESTMENTS. It can have a return by cash back (tax revenues, creating jobs), safety (military), or morale/health (health insurance, social security). It isn't as simple as "Oh I want to buy this $1,000 espresso machine, but I don't have the money now, so I'll just use my credit cards to pay for it."

Sometimes, I hate those "simplified" analogies because they can be SO misleading.
Click to expand...

Where is the 845 billion dollar investment then?
 
Daredevel7 said:
That's kind of a really bad analogy. The government doesn't spend on "products" like people buy with credit cards. The government spends on INVESTMENTS. It can have a return by cash back (tax revenues, creating jobs), safety (military), or morale/health (health insurance, social security). It isn't as simple as "Oh I want to buy this $1,000 espresso machine, but I don't have the money now, so I'll just use my credit cards to pay for it."

Sometimes, I hate those "simplified" analogies because they can be SO misleading.
Click to expand...

The analogy is very apt here. The govt borrows money and must pay interest charges. When the govt borrows it's called a "deficit" and we have a total borrowed amount of $13.4 trillion dollars. The govt continues to borrow more money in order to cover the previous money they borrowed earlier and must pay interests to the tune $375 billion dollars as of 1 August 2010 to the holders of the National Debt. And that interest keeps going up each year and that means the govt must borrow more and more money. It won't be long if this keeps up until the annual interest owed will match that of the govt annual tax receipts.

So, yeah, it's a very apt analogy using the credit card scenario when one must borrow (get more credit cards) to pay off the previous credit card bill plus interest. The cycle keeps repeating here. This spending habit is simply not sustainable. People need to seriously admit this fact.
 
no. not really. if it's that simple - then we wouldn't be in this kind situation for past few decades.

let's face it - you don't know shit and neither do I :)
 
Foxrac said:
She could only read if someone quote your post while replying your post.
Click to expand...
I can only read Koko's posts when someone quotes him.
The reason why I called kokonut a rabble rouser has everything to do with how other respond to him and nothing do with what I read in quotes. Anyone who starts a thread with the intent of stirring up the pot and egging on others in a flame war - especially political threads to the point where they get shut down is going to get called a rabble rouser in my book.

Koko, if you don't like what I say, you're free to ignore me. If you can't take what you dish out to others, you shouldn't be posting on this forum at all. If you don't want to be considered a disreputable rabble rouser - then you should not be be behaving like one and crying about me calling you one. Are you going to be a man and take it on the chin or are you going to cry about it? it's your choice. :wave:
 
deafskeptic said:
I can only read Koko's posts when someone quotes him.
The reason why I called kokonut a rabble rouser has everything to do with how other respond to him and nothing do with what I read in quotes. Anyone who starts a thread with the intent of stirring up the pot and egging on others in a flame war - especially political threads to the point where they get shut down is going to get called a rabble rouser in my book.

Koko, if you don't like what I say, you're free to ignore me. If you can't take what you dish out to others, you shouldn't be posting on this forum at all. If you don't want to be considered a disreputable rabble rouser - then you should not be be behaving like one and crying about me calling you one. Are you going to be a man and take it on the chin or are you going to cry about it? it's your choice. :wave:
Click to expand...

Funny when you say that. Like I've been saying all along, I encourage people to use the ignore button whenever and wherever possible. I still read your posts. So what? But..oh, drats! I forgot. You can't read my comments.

Oh well....
 
Jiro said:
but I'm asking a very specific question. Is it common for President to donate a lot and often during Presidency?
Click to expand...
I don't know. It depends on the President. If someone is a generous giver then he usually continues giving in the same manner after become President that he did before becoming President.

on that side note - I recall Obama donating $1.4 million of Nobel Prize money to charities.
Click to expand...
Yes.

"The White House has announced that President Obama has donated the $1.4 million given to him in conjunction with the Nobel Peace Prize to ten charities..."

"A White House spokesman tells CBS News that Mr. Obama is avoiding tax liability for the prize money by not accepting the award himself."
Obama Donates Nobel Prize Money to 10 Charities - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
Reba said:
I don't know. It depends on the President. If someone is a generous giver then he usually continues giving in the same manner after become President that he did before becoming President.


Yes.

"The White House has announced that President Obama has donated the $1.4 million given to him in conjunction with the Nobel Peace Prize to ten charities..."

"A White House spokesman tells CBS News that Mr. Obama is avoiding tax liability for the prize money by not accepting the award himself."
Obama Donates Nobel Prize Money to 10 Charities - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...

You don't know because the Presidents don't usually donate lot and often during Presidency. They do that AFTER the President.
 
Reba said:
I don't know. It depends on the President. If someone is a generous giver then he usually continues giving in the same manner after become President that he did before becoming President.

Yes.

"The White House has announced that President Obama has donated the $1.4 million given to him in conjunction with the Nobel Peace Prize to ten charities..."

"A White House spokesman tells CBS News that Mr. Obama is avoiding tax liability for the prize money by not accepting the award himself."
Obama Donates Nobel Prize Money to 10 Charities - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...

Perhaps he can donate all of his presidential salary since he doesn't need it? He'll be well taken care of for the rest of his life anway. There were only two presidents that actually gave their all of their presidential salary to charities. Hoover and JFK.
 
kokonut said:
Perhaps he can donate all of his presidential salary since he doesn't need it? He'll be well taken care of for the rest of his life anway. There were only two presidents that actually gave their all of their presidential salary to charities. Hoover and JFK.
Click to expand...

why not Bush? He's loaded.
 
deafskeptic said:
I can only read Koko's posts when someone quotes him.
The reason why I called kokonut a rabble rouser has everything to do with how other respond to him and nothing do with what I read in quotes. Anyone who starts a thread with the intent of stirring up the pot and egging on others in a flame war - especially political threads to the point where they get shut down is going to get called a rabble rouser in my book.

Koko, if you don't like what I say, you're free to ignore me. If you can't take what you dish out to others, you shouldn't be posting on this forum at all. If you don't want to be considered a disreputable rabble rouser - then you should not be be behaving like one and crying about me calling you one. Are you going to be a man and take it on the chin or are you going to cry about it? it's your choice. :wave:
Click to expand...

lol, the rhetorics of 'choice'
 
Jiro said:
You don't know because the Presidents don't usually donate lot and often during Presidency. They do that AFTER the President.
Click to expand...
If people are givers they give before, during and after being President.

Why wouldn't they continue giving while they're President?

I've never been President but I've been giving a higher percentage of my income than Obama, even when I was poor, so being President has nothing to do with donations.
 
i know what you mean reba, my family are loaded, making 250k-600k a year easily, and you know what i pull in 8k a year (student and prolly fucked anyway) and for xmas or birthdays i give them like $20-30 bottles of wines what they give? a cheapie $5 or 8 from rhe supermarket and something from the $2 shop fucken unreal... i know im not talking millions or using govt funds (which probably wasnt theirs in the first place so its a kind of political safe-keeping 'obligation' but families...i get 30-40 times less and my prezze is like 3 time more value than their prezzie -such fucking tightarses...! no wonder i get real pissed off with hearies...and they are my own family... now i find it hard to believe to squabble about famous people, like who gives a fuck? geneousity should be taken as in a more realistic terms, like in real life... not some imagnary figures that newspapers/magazine spews out, its all public relations bullshit why waste time on your trivial pursuit of such bullshit 'public knowledge' its just a Waste of time...nuff saz
 
netrox said:
Wait a minute.... and you still think they should get tax cuts?

"The super-rich got even wealthier this year, despite the stumbling economy.

Forbes magazine released its annual list of the 400 richest Americans on Wednesday, and their combined net worth climbed 8% this year, to $1.37 trillion."

Tax them at 40%!

Forbes 400 richest Americans list for 2010: Gates is No. 1 - Sep. 22, 2010
Click to expand...

I don't hear any talk about taxing billionaires. I just hear talk about taxing people who make over $250,000. Why don't we talk about the effect this would have on small businesses and people who have worked hard their whole lives and taken big risks to finally make big money? There's a whole lot more of them than the very few super-rich.

This seems to be more about spiting the super-rich than actually doing something productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top