Rahm and his business

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i think it’s a superbly organized community, and that whoever helped organize it, should
run for president.

what Chicago needs, is the exact opposite of what liberalism forces upon it. What it needs, all it needs, is an embrace of the culture of traditional, old fashioned family values ( two parents raising kids, encouraging them to stay in school, working hard, making good long-term decisions, and god forbid, going to church on sumdays and listening, and i don’t mean Rev Wright’s church). What Chicago gets instead, is a mocking of those family values, a pat on the head, and a small welfare check. it’s not working. Is it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, those good old fashion conservative values - Tell the poor that you are on your own (that empathy thing - or should I say lack of empathy). Claim that any social services causes laziness and that the poor in the inner cities are poor bc of liberalism. "They need to lift themselves up by the boot straps".

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Who ran Indianapolis for most of the past two decades and where does it stand on the list of dangerous cities?
Hint it's #2 and Chicago and SF are nowhere's near as dangerous. It must be the politicians fault, though and certainly a liberal one.

Not sure if that is true or not about Indy but Chicago fits the narrative so that is why it is always discussed. - Like how NC is always mentioned when best states to live are discussed - never mind that the conserv. states all lage in wages, GDP per capita, educ. and many other stats.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

yes, those good old fashion conservative values - Tell the poor that you are on your own (that empathy thing - or should I say lack of empathy). Claim that any social services causes laziness and that the poor in the inner cities are poor bc of liberalism. "They need to lift themselves up by the boot straps".

“tell the poor that you are on your own”.

please provide some evidence, that one of the pillars of conservatism, or if judeo/christian ethics, is to ignore the poor? or is this one of those situations where (1) i’m right, and (2) you can’t bear to admit it, so you lob a fabricated, baseless, stupid insult instead? we’ve discussed many times the study which annihilated the notion that liberals care more about the poor.

“claim that any social service causes laziness.”. it would
quite stupud to say that all social
service programs cause
laziness. it would
be quite thoughtless to deny that in some cases, it causes laziness. I certainly never said that all charity programs cause laziness. Seems like you are responding to something that no one has said.

Paul, is Chicago a city that’s been run by liberals for many years? Is it working? In my opinion, we’ve tried decades of liberalism in places like Chicago, and i think the people there deserve better, so i advicate for trying something different. is that as callous as you are desperately trying to make it out to be?

in the future, if you could respond to what i actually say, rather than responding to stupid jibberish that I’d never say,,our discussions will be more productive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Who ran Indianapolis for most of the past two decades and where does it stand on the list of dangerous cities?
Hint it's #2 and Chicago and SF are nowhere's near as dangerous. It must be the politicians fault, though and certainly a liberal one.
We already have the highest percentage of population imprisoned of any country in the world.
Perhaps public floggings and branding are in order or just give everyone a gun and let them shoot it out.
We are the country that is closest to that also, we have more than a gun per person, all we need to do is share.

who ran indianapolis? well from 1998-2000 it was a republican, then a democrat from 2000-2007, then a republican from 2007-2016, then a democrat since 2016. so it’s been pretty even, ten years for each side. i have no idea what policies have been implemented, i don’t know if it’s a left leaning city or right leaning. Can you fill
me in? But we all know Chicago is very very liberal. how’s it working? I answered your question directly, and exactly as you asked. any chance you can show me the same courtesy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“tell the poor that you are on your own”.

please provide some evidence, that one of the pillars of conservatism, or if judeo/christian ethics, is to ignore the poor?But that is the platform they constantly run on - cut taxes and then when the deficit balloons, cut social welfare programs and claim the poor are lazy. or is this one of those situations where (1) i’m right, and (2) you can’t bear to admit it, so you lob a fabricated, baseless, stupid insult instead? we’ve discussed many times the study which annihilated the notion that liberals care more about the poor. And we have constantly shown that the conservatives lack empathy and their budgets show that.

“claim that any social service causes laziness.”. it would
quite stupud to say that all social
service programs cause
laziness. it would
be quite thoughtless to deny that in some cases, it causes laziness.Yes, those poor in the inner cities lead great lives. Would you for 1 min. trade your life for theirs? I wouldn't and I hate getting up 5:23 every morning I go into the office. I certainly never said that all charity programs cause laziness. Seems like you are responding to something that no one has said.I hear if from my conservative friends quite a lot.

Paul, is Chicago a city that’s been run by liberals for many years? Is it working? Liberals of course. But you're taking what a small % of people are doing and conflating it to all. In my opinion, we’ve tried decades of liberalism in places like Chicago, and i think the people there deserve better, so i advicate for trying something different. is that as callous as you are desperately trying to make it out to be?

in the future, if you could respond to what i actually say, rather than responding to stupid jibberish that I’d never say,,our discussions will be more productive. When you are the owner of this site I'll post the way you want me to. Conservatives say those things I mentioned. You yourself have claimed that liberal policies has caused the poor to continue to be poor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at the per capital GDP (and many other stats). Conservative states lag behind (even with the greater natural resources they have - and the advantage of higher per capita government spending in those states.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

. It must be the politicians fault, though and certainly a liberal one.
.

if you are implying that I never criticize Republicans, you're not all that attentive. I do it all the time. I'm in favor of gay marriage, opposed to the death penalty, in favor of more gun control, in favor of more free healthcare for people born sick (free to them), and I think Trump is disgusting. Is that going too fast for you? Or do you understand that I'm not a blind ideologue?

I think that politicians usually don't cause or cure poverty. But they have an impact.

I believe that very, very few people are poor who (1) make good long-term decisions, and (2) who work hard. So I think politicians who are sane, should do everything they can, to encourage those two behaviors. I think there are plenty of bad people and stupid people on the right, but that being said, I think there's no question that the republican agenda does a better job of stressing those behaviors, than the liberal agenda.

Liberalism stresses the idea that if something feels good you should do it. And it relies heavily on the idea that nothing is anyone's fault. That everyone who fails, didn't screw themselves, but rather, was victimized by someone else, preferably by a white guy wearing a suit. And that it's "progress" to get as far away as possible, from 1950's family values. I don't think it's been a great cultural leap forward, and there's all kinds of evidence to support that. Not that the 1950s were a utopia (segregation and racism). But the higher percentage of intact, nuclear, traditional families, was a good thing in my opinion. And it's not necessarily worthy of a celebration, to get further and further away. Liberals can't get away from it fast enough.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Look at the per capital GDP (and many other stats). Conservative states lag behind (even with the greater natural resources they have - and the advantage of higher per capita government spending in those states.

" that is the platform they constantly run on - cut taxes and then when the deficit balloons, cut social welfare programs "

First, who ran up more debt than the guy who was there from 2009-2016? Anyone? Second, conservatives want to cut waste, not vital social programs. Big difference.

"And we have constantly shown that the conservatives lack empathy "

Yet the one study, shows that conservatives donate more time, more money, to charity. So who is the "we" that has shown that conservatives lack empathy? The anti-abortion position is based on nothing but empathy. You're lobbing baseless, un-provable allegations.

"their budgets show that"

That's a good one. Here in CT where you live I believe, the democrat-controlled legislature last year, (1) signed a union deal guaranteeing raises, longevity bonuses, and no layoffs, and at the same time (2) closed 26 non profits. IS that indicative of the liberal monopoly on empathy you are desperately, desperately trying to establish? I'm not saying there aren't any conservatives who are greedy and callous, but the conservative platform isn't lacking in empathy the way you are trying to depict it. You can say it as many times as you want. I can say that I look like Justin Verlander and should be married to Kate Upton. That doesn't make it so.

"those poor in the inner cities lead great lives"

Can you go one single post, without responding to something that I never said? Not only did I never say they lead great lives, I said they deserve something better. Are you hearing voices? Or is your reading comprehension really that bad?

"When you are the owner of this site I'll post the way you want me to"

I didn't demand that you do anything. I made a request (that you respond to what I'm actually saying) . Many would say it's a reasonable request. But if you want to act as if I said that we should kill the poor and sell their stuff, obviously I can't stop you. BUu you're embarrassing yourself.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Not sure if that is true or not about Indy but Chicago fits the narrative so that is why it is always discussed. - Like how NC is always mentioned when best states to live are discussed - never mind that the conserv. states all lage in wages, GDP per capita, educ. and many other stats.

True, conservatives focus on Chicago because it fits our narrative. But what you failed to mention (wonder why) is that liberals desperately avoid talking about it, because it doesn't fit their narrative.

As to NC and SC, yes, there are crappy places to live there, places I'd never want to raise kids - just like there are crappy places in CT where I'd never want to raise kids.

But please, Paul, tell me where I'm wrong with this statement...NC and SC have SOME CITIES with a great quality of life, which are relatively inexpensive - mainly suburbs of Charlotte. CT, by comparison, has exactly ZERO places to live which are great places to raise kids or retire, which are also cheap. True or false? Please tell me, where can I live in CT, which offers the quality of life of the Charlotte suburbs (places like Waxhaw, NC or Fort Mill SC), at the same cost? Please tell me, so I can move there.

Not all of NC and SC is great and cheap. But some places are. CT has precisely zero places that offer a comparable bang for the buck.

So here, you are the one twisting things for political expediency. I have never heard anyone say that all of NC and SC is an improvement over CT. But the suburbs of Charlotte are, I am saying this because CT is always near the bottom of the nation for population change, and the suburbs of Charlotte are growing like crazy. Same with Nashville.

And we all know that CT is going to get worse in the next 10 years as the debt comes due. Our projected deficits are big for the next 2 years. Tolls are coming, tax hikes are coming. For tolls, they are talking about 30-40 cents a mile during rush hour.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you are implying that I never criticize Republicans, you're not all that attentive. I do it all the time. I'm in favor of gay marriage, opposed to the death penalty, in favor of more gun control, in favor of more free healthcare for people born sick (free to them), and I think Trump is disgusting. Is that going too fast for you? Or do you understand that I'm not a blind ideologue?
My experience tells me that things people claim vehemently to be is close to what they are not. Perhaps you're the exception.

I think that politicians usually don't cause or cure poverty. But they have an impact.

I believe that very, very few people are poor who (1) make good long-term decisions, and (2) who work hard. So I think politicians who are sane, should do everything they can, to encourage those two behaviors. I think there are plenty of bad people and stupid people on the right, but that being said, I think there's no question that the republican agenda does a better job of stressing those behaviors, than the liberal agenda.
I think that many people who are poor are illiterate and have not even had good examples of how to succeed or know what success is. Most liberals and conservatives I know would agree with me. As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much we will never win. If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water, you will surely sink with the next wave. So after you sink a couple of times, you stay where the hand helps you. I blame that on politicians and most are guilty.

Liberalism stresses the idea that if something feels good you should do it. And it relies heavily on the idea that nothing is anyone's fault. That everyone who fails, didn't screw themselves, but rather, was victimized by someone else, preferably by a white guy wearing a suit. And that it's "progress" to get as far away as possible, from 1950's family values. I don't think it's been a great cultural leap forward, and there's all kinds of evidence to support that. Not that the 1950s were a utopia (segregation and racism). But the higher percentage of intact, nuclear, traditional families, was a good thing in my opinion. And it's not necessarily worthy of a celebration, to get further and further away. Liberals can't get away from it fast enough.

You've been watching too much right wing BS, that whole last paragraph is the equivalent of a liberal saying conservatives are Fascists.

Like this,
Conservatism stresses the idea that something that feels good must be bad. And it relies heavily on the idea that everything is someone else's fault. That everyone who fails is an idiot, morally bankrupt, inbred and likely a damn foreigner.
That nothing good has happened since the Beatles came across the ocean, and things were better when women stayed at home and didn't find out you had a girlfriend. We stayed married for the sake of the children. She needed a good smack. A little grab-ass is just boys being boys. We should bring back the three Martini lunch. Archie was right, those Liberals ruined everything. Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke Meathead

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You've been watching too much right wing BS, that whole last paragraph is the equivalent of a liberal saying conservatives are Fascists.

Do you think Jim is going to just turn into a meme on day? I mean like actually turn into one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You've been watching too much right wing BS, that whole last paragraph is the equivalent of a liberal saying conservatives are Fascists.

Like this,
Conservatism stresses the idea that something that feels good must be bad. And it relies heavily on the idea that everything is someone else's fault. That everyone who fails is an idiot, morally bankrupt, inbred and likely a damn foreigner.
That nothing good has happened since the Beatles came across the ocean, and things were better when women stayed at home and didn't find out you had a girlfriend. We stayed married for the sake of the children. She needed a good smack. A little grab-ass is just boys being boys. We should bring back the three Martini lunch. Archie was right, those Liberals ruined everything. Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke Meathead

i don’t especially care how many liars you know. i’m pro gay marriage, and opposed
to the death penalty. Gay marriage causes me no harm, and i think that life is pretty sacred.

i agree many poor people had crappy parents, and that’s not their fault. So isn’t the solution to enact public policy that incentivizes
good parenting, rather than providing incentives for young girls to have kids and not get married? and shouldn’t public policy encourage hard work and good long-term decision making?

Conservatives do not say that if something feels good it must be bad. where the hell did you get that idea? boy i’d love to see you support that. Things are bad if they hurt you or others. Liberals
put too much emphasis on short term gratification ( celebrating casual sex, legalizing drugs), and
ignore the inconvenient long term effects.

I’ve never heard anyone say that anyone who fails, is an idiot.

You are really taking a cue from Paul, and responding to stupidity which no one has ever said. i said most poor people are poor because of making bad decisions, and i stand by that. some are just unlucky, some
don’t have the ability to rise out of poverty.

People who at least go to community college and don’t have kids until
they are married, are rarely poor.

“she needed a good
smack.”.

hilarious. what does it say about your positions, that you cannot defend them
against my simple statements? that instead of responding to what i actually said, that you are instead responding to nonsense that no one ever said?

when my beliefs are unable to withdtandnthe scrutiny of simple challenges, thats the day i get new beliefs. you’ll never see me dodge that way, i don’t have to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you think Jim is going to just turn into a meme on day? I mean like actually turn into one.

Maybe I’ll turn into a meme, on the same day that you display a speck of intellectual honesty.

“Gosh fellers, i went to
chicago once and i didn’t see anyone get murdered, so it can’t be all that bad.”

i can readily admit that the GOP tax cuts in KS were a flop. I’d
be a maniac to deny that. But you can’t admit that the liberals
have severely damaged Chicago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i don’t especially care how many liars you know. i’m pro gay marriage, and opposed
to the death penalty. Gay marriage causes me no harm, and i think that life is pretty sacred.

i agree many poor people had crappy parents, and that’s not their fault. So isn’t the solution to enact public policy that incentivizes
good parenting, rather than providing incentives for young girls to have kids and not get married? and shouldn’t public policy encourage hard work and good long-term decision making?

Show me a government policy that did or does that


Conservatives do not say that if something feels good it must be bad. where the hell did you get that idea? boy i’d love to see you support that. Things are bad if they hurt you or others. Liberals
put too much emphasis on short term gratification ( celebrating casual sex, legalizing drugs), and
ignore the inconvenient long term effects.

I’ve never heard anyone say that anyone who fails, is an idiot.

You are really taking a cue from Paul, and responding to stupidity which no one has ever said. i said most poor people are poor because of making bad decisions, and i stand by that. some are just unlucky, some
don’t have the ability to rise out of poverty.

People who at least go to community college and don’t have kids until
they are married, are rarely poor.

“she needed a good
smack.”.

hilarious. what does it say about your positions, that you cannot defend them
against my simple statements? that instead of responding to what i actually said, that you are instead responding to nonsense that no one ever said?

when my beliefs are unable to withdtandnthe scrutiny of simple challenges, thats the day i get new beliefs. you’ll never see me dodge that way, i don’t have to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit
What I said is no more true than the divisive BS you wrote
Do you honestly believe that all who disagree with you on some points are at a complete opposite position and that there is no common ground.
You might as well quit now because you will never find total agreement and why should you even pursue a solution
You sound like the idiot Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit
What I said is no more true than the divisive BS you wrote
Do you honestly believe that all who disagree with you on some points are at a complete opposite position and that there is no common ground.
You might as well quit now because you will never find total agreement and why should you even pursue a solution
You sound like the idiot Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“show
me a government policy that did or doesnthat.”

Bill clinton kicked
millions of people off welfare. they went back to work. it got people to get off the dole
and get back to work. During the depression, many social programs
didn’t just send checks to people, we paid them
to work. this isn’t rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit
What I said is no more true than the divisive BS you wrote
Do you honestly believe that all who disagree with you on some points are at a complete opposite position and that there is no common ground.
You might as well quit now because you will never find total agreement and why should you even pursue a solution
You sound like the idiot Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

show me the nuttiest thing i’ve said today. have fun. who says i expect total agreement? once again you are responding to
something i never said. you’re constantly making stuff up
and pretending i said them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“show
me a government policy that did or doesnthat.”

Bill clinton kicked
millions of people off welfare. they went back to work. it got people to get off the dole
and get back to work. During the depression, many social programs
didn’t just send checks to people, we paid them
to work. this isn’t rocket science.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what you can find is programs done by Democrats 20 and 80 years ago and you claim that Republicans have the answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

show me the nuttiest thing i’ve said today. have fun. who says i expect total agreement? once again you are responding to
something i never said. you’re constantly making stuff up
and pretending i said them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke Meathead
You need to finish reading before your head explodes
Remember now, you always get confused about this
liberal good
authoritarian bad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So what you can find is programs done by Democrats 20 and 80 years ago and you claim that Republicans have the answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the answer is common sense, good values, and hard work. Do you disagree?

from where i sit, the conservative platform is more reflective of that notion, than the liberal platform ( the liberal platform being, gimme gimme gimme).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So what you can find is programs done by Democrats 20 and 80 years ago and you claim that Republicans have the answer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you deny that what bill clinton ( and Newt Gingrich) did, worked?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you deny that what bill clinton ( and Newt Gingrich) did, worked?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then why has the democratic
party completely turned its back on the principles underlying what Clinton did? Anyone who advocates for doing what Clinton did, would never ever ever get the democratic nomination for
any office. Today’s democratic party, advocates for the opposite of what Clinton and Gingrich did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

then why has the democratic
party completely turned its back on the principles underlying what Clinton did? Anyone who advocates for doing what Clinton did, would never ever ever get the democratic nomination for
any office. Today’s democratic party, advocates for the opposite of what Clinton and Gingrich did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why.

I'll stick with what I said previously, you can go on beating dead horses.

As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much we will never win. If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water, you will surely sink with the next wave. So after you sink a couple of times, you stay where the hand helps you. I blame that on politicians and most are guilty.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why.

I'll stick with what I said previously, you can go on beating dead horses.

As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much we will never win. If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water, you will surely sink with the next wave. So after you sink a couple of times, you stay where the hand helps you. I blame that on politicians and most are guilty.

"You would have to ask someone else if what you think is true and why."

In other words..."answering that question honestly would make my side look wrong, and I can't ever do that, so I refuse to answer..."

"As long as the battle is to make sure nobody gets too much"

That's the liberal battle, not the conservative battle. Unlike liberals, conservatives realize that wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Bill Gates earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for you and I to scrounge for. Stop obsessing over the wealthy. It's so pointless. Would you or I be better off, if all the billionaires never existed? Or if they become poor tomorrow?

It's not fair that we have billionaires and poor people. But it's not sinister, either. Except for a few criminals, the rich did not become rich, by taking from the poor. They created wealth, they didn't steal it.

You know what happens when the rich get richer? Do you think they put the money in their mattresses or bury it in their yards? Or do they spend some, invest some, save some, pay taxes with some, and give some to charity? All of which, helps the economy.

The wealthy are not causing poverty. They just aren't. Do you really not see that? Seriously? If you want what they have, do what they did.

"If the lifting hand ends when you start to get above water"

I disagree that's happening. But not all of us need to be carried all the way back to shore by someone else. Most of us, once above water, can get ourselves to shore. That's exactly why, when Bill Clinton kicked millions of people off welfare, they didn't all starve to death - they went to work. There is incredible opportunity to be middle class in this country. It's harder than it was 40 years ago, no question. But still within reach for most of us. For those who truly can't take care of themselves, I'm happy to pay taxes for well-run programs that help them.

Stop obsessing over the wealthy. It's a terrific liberal rallying cry ,that the 1% are to blame for everything. But it's demonstrably false bullsh*t. It doesn't even come close to making any sense.

Wealth isn't finite. It's just not. If it was, GDP wouldn't ever change.

[Pete F.]

Interesting to see what comes out when your head explodes.
You certainly can read a lot into a couple of sentences.
I understand the welfare trap.
We need to enable, not endow people and we need to make it work.
We haven't done it consistently and certainly not the Republicans, though you claim Gingrich did by hanging on Clinton's coattails.

If you think wealth distribution is not a problem in this country, maybe you should talk to a few billionaires. Bill Gates would be a good start.
You can read something he wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/bill...ch-wealth.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Interesting to see what comes out when your head explodes.
You certainly can read a lot into a couple of sentences.
I understand the welfare trap.
We need to enable, not endow people and we need to make it work.
We haven't done it consistently and certainly not the Republicans, though you claim Gingrich did by hanging on Clinton's coattails.

If you think wealth distribution is not a problem in this country, maybe you should talk to a few billionaires. Bill Gates would be a good start.
You can read something he wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/bill...ch-wealth.html

when i ask a question, yiybeither didge or accuse
me of being angry. i’m not the least bit angry, OK?

can you tell me in your own words, why it’s “a problem” if Bill Gates gets richer because Microsoft’s stick goes up? And if he thinks it’s so bad, why does he accept the stick options?

You are making zero sense. Bill Gates didn’t steal from anybody. if he burned all his money, the wealth gap would decrease, but who is better off?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Interesting to see what comes out when your head explodes.
You certainly can read a lot into a couple of sentences.
I understand the welfare trap.
We need to enable, not endow people and we need to make it work.
We haven't done it consistently and certainly not the Republicans, though you claim Gingrich did by hanging on Clinton's coattails.

If you think wealth distribution is not a problem in this country, maybe you should talk to a few billionaires. Bill Gates would be a good start.
You can read something he wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/bill...ch-wealth.html

then i read the article, which you didn’t, either that or you didn’t understand it. Gates said the wealth gap isnt “fair”, and i agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s a problem.

Pete, in your words, what is the problem with his wealth? he has pledged to give away tens of billions of dollars. would
we be better off, if gates never made his fortune? Who would be better off, and how?

You are jealous of him, and feel entitled to what he has, but aren’t willing to do what he did to get it.

This is why one of the 10 commandments is not to covet your
neighbors goods.

Bill Gates’ wealth might not be fair. But it’s not problematic. How many thousands of upper middle class jobs are there at microsoft? how
many people will be helped when he gives his money away ( and he seems to be taking his time with that).

he created his wealth, he didn’t take it from anyone else. Do you agree with that, or not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Jim, I'm too old to worry about that. I just worry about what my kids will have to deal with. They all are gainfully employed, straight enough but I still worry about what they will have to deal with.
I'm not jealous of wealthy people, I'm worried about the concentration of wealth and what it's effect on our society will be. I've seen enough people with stupid money and it's effects to know it's not good.
Feel free to read what Warren Buffet said but I'm sure you still wont be able to say that there is a problem.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7812736.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the country has a gun volume issue... more cars more accidents more fish more caught more homes in wooded more houses on the coast areas more costly disasters More Guns more deaths by Guns its not the only reason its 1 of many I think

If it's a volume issue, then why do we want to increase the volume of people by allowing even more legal or illegal immigrants added to the already 11 to 30 million illegals already here.

Spence said: "Number [of gun deaths] is high because Chicago has a big population, when you compare the homicide rate to other US cities it doesn’t even make the top 20."

Replacing people with your above stated volume issues you get:
more people more accidents more people more fish caught more people more costly disasters on the coast areas More People more deaths by Guns or by other weapons . . .

Let's fix the volume issue--start with importing less people . . .

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim, I'm too old to worry about that. I just worry about what my kids will have to deal with. They all are gainfully employed, straight enough but I still worry about what they will have to deal with.
I'm not jealous of wealthy people, I'm worried about the concentration of wealth and what it's effect on our society will be. I've seen enough people with stupid money and it's effects to know it's not good.
Feel free to read what Warren Buffet said but I'm sure you still wont be able to say that there is a problem.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7812736.html

Pete, then we both agree that we worry what our kids will have to deal with. we have that
in common. and that’s something, hopefully.

I have 3 boys ages 12, 9, and 7. And my middle guy will be someone who might need a little help. i’m hoping i can give him everything he needs, but obviously i hope he outlives me by several decades, so he might need help after i’m gone. So i do know that worry, i really do.

I feel things are a lot harder than they were for my father. he bought our house when he was 26 years old, only paid 1.5 times what his annual salary was at that time, and sold the house 40 years later for 6x what he paid. I will never see anything like that. Hell, in january I’ll have ben in my house for 15 years, and i dont think it’s worth a dollar more than what i paid, plus what i put into it. Zero. That’s how it goes in CT.

If wealthy people become
more wealthy by creating wealth, not by taking it from someone else...then why should
we care? In all sincerity, can you address that? Why should i care if the Obamas become billionaires, which they probably will? how does that hurt me or my kids? I just don’t see it...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim, I'm too old to worry about that. I just worry about what my kids will have to deal with. They all are gainfully employed, straight enough but I still worry about what they will have to deal with.
I'm not jealous of wealthy people, I'm worried about the concentration of wealth and what it's effect on our society will be. I've seen enough people with stupid money and it's effects to know it's not good.
Feel free to read what Warren Buffet said but I'm sure you still wont be able to say that there is a problem.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7812736.html

if Mr Buffet feels his wealth is bad, why does he keep it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device