Rahm and his business

[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.

[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

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.

[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

[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.

[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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

He's thought about it and made a decision
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...his-estate.asp

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He's thought about it and made a decision
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...his-estate.asp

he announced that a long time ago. why wait? why not give it all away now, if it’s so immoral?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he announced that a long time ago. why wait? why not give it all away now, if it’s so immoral?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s immoral to have money
What foolishness do you watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

you sound jealous and this is stupid.....lot's of people with stupid money do really good things with their stupid money...

[Pete F.]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wa...ons-2018-01-04

[Pete F.]

Here is part of what Warren Buffett said in a Time magazine article.
You think that saying Wealth inequality is an issue, makes it a personal moral choice. It's a societal moral choice which is obviously far too progressive for you, unlike Warren Buffett.
You think that with the US being in the top ten in GDP per capita, we cannot afford healthcare, education and infrastructure.
Now don't let the voices in your head misconstrue what I am saying as that I think uncontrolled spending will accomplish anything. We need a government that works for all the people, we don't have that.
We are getting left behind by the rest of the world inch by inch.


Let’s think again about 1930. Imagine someone then predicting that real per capita GDP would increase sixfold during my lifetime. My parents would have immediately dismissed such a gain as impossible. If somehow, though, they could have imagined it actually transpiring, they would concurrently have predicted something close to universal prosperity.

Instead, another invention of the ensuing decades, the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.


In 1776, America set off to unleash human potential by combining market economics, the rule of law and equality of opportunity. This foundation was an act of genius that in only 241 years converted our original villages and prairies into $96 trillion of wealth.

The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

In the years of growth that certainly lie ahead, I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

You can read the whole thing here:
http://time.com/5087360/warren-buffe...th-in-america/

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

It's always been there, for anybody who cares to work for it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

It's always been there, for anybody who cares to work for it.

Agreed. There aren't as many paths to get there, as there used to be. But the paths are still there.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Agreed. There aren't as many paths to get there, as there used to be. But the paths are still there.

it all depends on what you want to define as a "Decent Life"

use to be a time when you lived a decent life if you had 3 square meals and a roof over your head. people were happy gathering together on a sunday afternoon for dinner.

now, it seems, that you need internet, cable TV, Iphones, 2 $50k auto's complete with entertainment systems, annual trips to Disney, and so on before you can call it a "Decent life"

Kids used to be happy with a crappy bike and they'd go outside all day and play. Now they need multiple $500 Gaming Systems, Dance lessons, Athletic camps, $200 sneakers, their own iPhone at 10, and they still sit around and bitch that they have nothing to do.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

it all depends on what you want to define as a "Decent Life"

use to be a time when you lived a decent life if you had 3 square meals and a roof over your head. people were happy gathering together on a sunday afternoon for dinner.

now, it seems, that you need internet, cable TV, Iphones, 2 $50k auto's complete with entertainment systems, annual trips to Disney, and so on before you can call it a "Decent life"

Kids used to be happy with a crappy bike and they'd go outside all day and play. Now they need multiple $500 Gaming Systems, Dance lessons, Athletic camps, $200 sneakers, their own iPhone at 10, and they still sit around and bitch that they have nothing to do.

Very good point. I guess I define it as exactly middle class. Used to be, you could leave your high school graduation, go to a local manufacturing plant, and be middle class. I think those opportunities are fewer and further between.

And I have come to believe, as I presume that you do, that scouting is a decent antidote to all that crap.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is part of what Warren Buffett said in a Time magazine article.
You think that saying Wealth inequality is an issue, makes it a personal moral choice. It's a societal moral choice which is obviously far too progressive for you, unlike Warren Buffett.
You think that with the US being in the top ten in GDP per capita, we cannot afford healthcare, education and infrastructure.
Now don't let the voices in your head misconstrue what I am saying as that I think uncontrolled spending will accomplish anything. We need a government that works for all the people, we don't have that.
We are getting left behind by the rest of the world inch by inch.


Let’s think again about 1930. Imagine someone then predicting that real per capita GDP would increase sixfold during my lifetime. My parents would have immediately dismissed such a gain as impossible. If somehow, though, they could have imagined it actually transpiring, they would concurrently have predicted something close to universal prosperity.

Instead, another invention of the ensuing decades, the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.


In 1776, America set off to unleash human potential by combining market economics, the rule of law and equality of opportunity. This foundation was an act of genius that in only 241 years converted our original villages and prairies into $96 trillion of wealth.

The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

In the years of growth that certainly lie ahead, I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

You can read the whole thing here:
http://time.com/5087360/warren-buffe...th-in-america/

Is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation, hurting anybody? If so, how?

One time, just one time, can you answer the question that I asked?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation, hurting anybody? If so, how?

One time, just one time, can you answer the question that I asked?

Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Read it yourself
the Forbes 400, paints a far different picture. Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold–from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion–while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn’t trickle down. It surged upward.
The market system, however, has also left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no one is denying that income inequality is getting worse. What I am asking, and I think you know this, is this...how is Warren Buffet's wealth accumulation CAUSING anyone else to fail to achieve their own dreams?

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean one causes the other.

Tell me how Buffet's wealth is the cause of anyone else's poverty?

Pointing out how wealthy Buffet is, does not explain how he caused anyone else's poverty. I don't think you are this stupid, I think you cannot answer, but you aren't honest enough to admit I'm right.

Buffet's wealth might not be fair in light of how many poor people there are. But his wealth isn't causing anyone's poverty. He created that wealth, and as Spence said, he's sharing billions of it. This is a good thing, not the sinister thing you desperately want it to be. He created that wealth, he didn't steal it.

Where did I or anyone say that poverty is just a rich man's fault?