rich gets richer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba said:
That's ridiculous.

There is no excuse for any President to be stingy about giving donations.

They should be careful about to which organizations they give, as should anyone, but that doesn't mean they should quit donating.

Was Obama regularly giving over 10 percent of his income before he became a presidential candidate?
Click to expand...
Obama wasn't born wealthy and he didn't lived a wealthy, privileged life.

Reba said:
Which living former presidents are giving over 10 percent now?
Click to expand...
I don't know but again - percentage is misleading since all of them do not have same amount of money. The article was missing a lot of information.

Reba said:
What has Obama's average giving percentage been for the last three years or more?
Click to expand...
didn't kokonut answer that question already? I think the better question is... how much has each President donates during Presidency?

Reba said:
I believe all the First Ladies donate their inaugural outfits.

What do you think of Biden's lack of giving?
Click to expand...
:dunno: so now you're saying one's altruism is judged by how much one donates, overlooking what one has done for the community?
 
TXgolfer said:


oh really??????

So it's about the amount paid and not the %????

Cool a guy that makes a million pays way more in taxes
at a 10% tax rate than a guy that makes $50,000 pays at a 50% tax rate. Does that work for you???? :laugh2:

Funny all those times you preached that the rich need
to pay more I thought you were referring to a higher rate. :)
Click to expand...

keep steamrolling
 
Jiro said:
Obama wasn't born wealthy and he didn't lived a wealthy, privileged life.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with what he gives? A person doesn't have to be wealthy to be generous. That's why I use percentage as a gauge rather than dollar amount. Obama doesn't even give the same percentage that poor people give.

I've never been rich; at times I've been below poverty level. But I've never based my giving on an income bracket.

Face it; Obama has no excuse.

I don't know but again - percentage is misleading since all of them do not have same amount of money.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why percentage is the only fair comparison to use. Even then, one would expect someone with a higher income would also give a higher percentage, not a lower percentage.

The article was missing a lot of information.
Click to expand...
No doubt.


...I think the better question is... how much has each President donates during Presidency?
Click to expand...
How so?

so now you're saying one's altruism is judged by how much one donates, overlooking what one has done for the community?
Click to expand...
It's a combination of the two. Also, I didn't use the word altruism.
 
Why are we focusing on the rich? Forget them. Food pantries nationwide are experiencing shortages.
 
Jiro said:
Obama wasn't born wealthy and he didn't lived a wealthy, privileged life.
Click to expand...

So?


I don't know but again - percentage is misleading since all of them do not have same amount of money. The article was missing a lot of information.
Click to expand...

Just the opposite. AMOUNT is misleading since they don't have the same amount of money. If you said person a and person b both gave $10,000 you might think they are equal but if person a makes 20k a year and person b makes $1,000,000 their giving is hardly equal. Percentage puts their giving in context.

didn't kokonut answer that question already? I think the better question is... how much has each President donates during Presidency?
Click to expand...

Not really.....especially when a candidate is running on how much he cares about the poor.

:dunno: so now you're saying one's altruism is judged by how much one donates, overlooking what one has done for the community?
Click to expand...

No....but when a person helps the community to advance their political career (candidate) or part of their job (president) it is hardly considered altruism..... :lol:

But what they do with their own money would be. :)
 
craigm26 said:
very recent article by a UC Berk prof. on income inequality. Decent.

Top 1% of earners get 20% of the money
Click to expand...

Not hard to see how it happens...

An easy way to see it:

A town of 100 has a new store opening. Everyone in the town has $10. The town's total economy is $1000.

The store opens, everyone buys $1 worth of stuff the first time around.

The store owner gets $99.

Now the store owner has $109. Everyone else has $9.

This is before taxes, inventory, and all other expenses - however in one trip around, the owner has now control of 10.9% of the town's total economy.
 
I'll try to get more ...uhhh.. nerdy... with the sources I come up with. Access to UC libraries are much more extensive (and more conclusive) with a alumni membership than just pulling articles from newspapers or magazines. Basically, I'm being lazy with my own thoughts, not very scientific.
-----
Bottom line personal perspective on economics though..I think capitalistic societies are cyclical (meaning = a bunch of levers and measures to "correct" "growth") and we have tools in our arsenal to determine what should reflect our values (social, political).

It's hard to say with conclusive authority that doing x with taxes (up, down, sideways- whatever) will make that exact outcome. Hopefully, we look at data, debate civilly (is that the right word?) and not be that greedy.
 
Jiro said:
got any more information?
Click to expand...
What more do you need? You've got all the facts about Obama and Biden's giving.

The fact is, they aren't very generous guys. Whether or not that's important to you is a matter of your opinion. To some people, that's important, to others, it is not.
 
Maybe they think inflation will kick in a bit...they have longer life to live...they don't want their kids to inherit the assets. shrug. I think charitable donations are more personal and not as ...offensive... as say spending $119 million for governor's seat (Whitman in CA).
 
Reba said:
What more do you need? You've got all the facts about Obama and Biden's giving.

The fact is, they aren't very generous guys. Whether or not that's important to you is a matter of your opinion. To some people, that's important, to others, it is not.
Click to expand...

but you just agreed with me that the article was missing a lot of information.
 
Jiro said:
but you just agreed with me that the article was missing a lot of information.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of information there. There is never "all" information. But there certainly is enough information to determine that Obama and Biden didn't donate much of their fortunes to charity.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting that fact.
 
deafskeptic said:
:lol: I've noticed that for years. I've changed my position on the Drug war when faced with the results and facts but it was like 15 years before I changed my mind.

That article is going to be seen as having a liberal slant given the source therefore it will be invalid in conservatives eyes just so you know.
Click to expand...

Given the source sure, but some people are more scientific in making judgments then say a man of faith. It takes a lot of faith (and discussion of values) to believe most newspaper articles than say...raw data and building your own analysis. Sometimes, it's just grossly inappropriate or impossible to try to measure certain arguments or we're just too lazy to put in the time to understand each other. Throwing facts out and respecting each others' beliefs (trust) no matter how much you think it's wrong is sometimes a good road to take.

How much a sitting President gives as a measure of generousity might be invaluable to one person, but to another it means absolutely nothing on their respective performance. Think Scrooge had a great foreign policy? :dunno:
 
craigm26 said:
Given the source sure, but some people are more scientific in making judgments then say a man of faith. It takes a lot of faith (and discussion of values) to believe most newspaper articles than say...raw data and building your own analysis. Sometimes, it's just grossly inappropriate or impossible to try to measure certain arguments or we're just too lazy to put in the time to understand each other. Throwing facts out and respecting each others' beliefs (trust) no matter how much you think it's wrong is sometimes a good road to take.

How much a sitting President gives as a measure of generousity might be invaluable to one person, but to another it means absolutely nothing on their respective performance. Think Scrooge had a great foreign policy? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I try not to take anything on faith.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that Scrooge had a sucky domestic policy unless you count his employees as "foreigners".

Personally, I don't care how much Obama gives. Some people will never be happy with Obama no matter what he does.

I would like to see how he is doing as President as this is more important to me than how much he gives to charities but then some people will always find something to nickpick with Obama. I will admit I'm not terribly pleased with him right now and no koko doesn't get credit for my pov. Two year down the road, I may have a different view of him. We shall see. I'm looking at this from a long term range though it's useful to be in the now instead of the future.
 
deafskeptic said:
I try not to take anything on faith.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that Scrooge had a sucky domestic policy unless you count his employees as "foreigners".

Personally, I don't care how much Obama gives. Some people will never be happy with Obama no matter what he does.

I would like to see how he is doing as President as this is more important to me than how much he gives to charities but then some people will always find something to nickpick with Obama. I will admit I'm not terribly pleased with him right now and no koko doesn't get credit for my pov. Two year down the road, I may have a different view of him. We shall see. I'm looking at this from a long term range though it's useful to be in the now instead of the future.
Click to expand...

Faith alone is kinda hard to do in any society. But some trust is needed and some people should take leaps of faith at opportune, unselfish times.

When I factor in political candidates, very very small percentage, if at all will consider the "generosity factor". I'm not really clear on how it would impact decision-making in such a way.

Yes, the economy hasn't recovered in a fashion that would make most Americans happy. I think our country lives too quickly and expect unrealistic demands (Europe - slow lifestyles and low GDP growth rates...easier to cut/tax or the fluctuations of demand/supply aren't as painful) without actually doing much about the problem/solution. Not going to give the ol' democratic pat on the shoulder, but what do I know about his decision-making? Honestly, not that much. Especially where I can just criticize without knowing or trying to step in those shoes. There's a lot of stuff we don't know, but from what I've read and what I know, he's not doing *that* badly. I'm not really sure who else would be *that* President who could take the GDP to a much higher growth rate. :dunno:.

After reading the rolling stone articleObama in command: The Rolling Stone interview - Politics - White House - msnbc.com, I went "That's the guy I wanted to vote for as President". I think the "dreamy" bubble of "change" (soooo overused...gov't always change with business climates...c'mon) burst and reality of a slower economy set the expectations unrealistically and very well-funded conservative side becomes a bit more patriotic. Seriously..."Take back our country"??? Where did we lose it in the first place? The communists? Who loses the most (% vs. $ yes, I know...) in a "bad" economy? The wealthy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top