What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

First, do you actually believe that Obama is making decisions to execute military strategy regarding the hiring of contractors? Lets just say that those decisions are made steps below his level...if you think he should fire Petraeus and the military hierarchy that's another matter.

Too flippin funny. If a Blackwater employee so much as looked crosseyed at an Iraqi, that was Bush's fault, but now these things are occurring way below the presidential level... I'm shocked - shocked - to hear that rationalization from you.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Maybe one of right-wing colleagues can explain why giving billionaires tax breaks is so much more vital than passing health benefits for 9/11 heroes.

How much money do they contribute to campaigns?

And lets not totally blame the righties...it isnt like the lefties are out there stumping for it or talking about it in public. The only person discussing it at all is Stewart. The fake news guy is the only one reporting the news...
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

First, do you actually believe that Obama is making decisions to execute military strategy regarding the hiring of contractors? Lets just say that those decisions are made steps below his level...if you think he should fire Petraeus and the military hierarchy that's another matter.

Second, it points out that the military is waay bloated and out of date. If its stuck with rusting tanks and troops in Germany...its needs to gut itself and rebuild for the 21st century. Its been obvious to a handful of us for some time that's its poorly set up for a noncold war world. Revamping it may not be a task we as a country can take on for a couple of years due to the economy...but we can start by cutting dead weight.

Please stop. Obama is running the same show Bush did. He lied to us.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

For instance, individuals who make $50,000 will see a bump of $1,000 in take-home pay, which is $600 more than the Making Work Pay credit they got this year. For a couple at that income level, it will mean $200 more than they received under Making Work Pay.

Individuals making $100,000, who didn't qualify for Making Work Pay this year, will see a $2,000 bump in take-home pay for the year. For couples at that income level, who did qualify, that $2,000 bump will represent a $1,200 increase over the money they received under Making Work Pay.

For people making less than $20,000 (or couples making less than $40,000), they may actual see a drop of about $210 on average in their take-home pay relative to this year, because the payroll tax break will be worth less to them than the Making Work Pay credit was.

Good to know where our priorities lie!
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

How much money do they contribute to campaigns?

And lets not totally blame the righties...it isnt like the lefties are out there stumping for it or talking about it in public. The only person discussing it at all is Stewart. The fake news guy is the only one reporting the news...

And Al-Jazeera :p

Odd that the "liberal" media isn't all over this though...
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

And liberals try to ensure everyone has a chance to be greedy for themselves, rather than letting a few lucky people with successfully greedy ancestors kick their feet back and let their head start crush everybody else.

If we're being accurate.
Yeah they are just lucky, keep telling yourself that.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Yeah they are just lucky, keep telling yourself that.

Really! People like Paris Hilton are to be admired for all their hard work and sacrifice.

simple_life_131227a.jpg


People like Kepler are just jealous because he has to work for a living.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

"The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.

Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."


Source
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm sure Paris Hilton worked very hard to be born into that family...

Her grandfather wasn't.

8% of the people in the government's definition of wealthy can attribute that to inheritance. The percentage with college and advanced degrees is multiples of that in non-wealthy categories. Of people in the category, 85% of their income comes from salary and wages.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

"The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.

Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."


Source

And those stats say what to you? Those who earn > $250k are lucky? BS. to me it says that education is the key to mobility. Are you going to tell me people with good grades are only lucky too? Or that people who chose to study the fields that they were told provide the best likelihhod of success in the future were just lucky too?

You want to talk about people getting what they deserve? Right back at ya.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Her grandfather wasn't.

Go back and read the original sentence better.

8% of the people in the government's definition of wealthy can attribute that to inheritance. The percentage with college and advanced degrees is multiples of that in non-wealthy categories. Of people in the category, 85% of their income comes from salary and wages.

So if I go to Choate and Harvard on my Dad's dime, that's all due to me, right?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You want to talk about people getting what they deserve?

I didn't make any comment about people getting what they deserve. In fact, in the aggregate, what people get is not strongly statistically related to how hard they worked. Dubya never did an honest day's work in his life, while there are millions in poverty who will never get an even break. In a poor country, OK, I can understand it, but in a rich country, that set up sucks and we should change it.

As far as getting good grades goes, I worked very hard for the grades I got, of course, and that is due to me. But I also had a stable home with parents who valued education and the income to live in a district with a great public school, I didn't have to drop out at 16 to help on the farm, and I never had to choose between dinner and a vaccination. So yeah, I'd say "inheritance" means a helluva lot more than what you get when your parents kick.

Or perhaps you think generation after generation of Kennedys just happen to be workaholic geniuses?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Her grandfather wasn't.
Go back and read the original sentence better.



So if I go to Choate and Harvard on my Dad's dime, that's all due to me, right?

No, but if you come out of those schools and earn > $250k/year you are either working for your dad (which is his right) or you apparently learned something along the way and can apply it in a highly compensated field. There are plenty of kids that are given everything in life and produce nothing themselves. There are some legacy admits in all tops schools although I hear it is less and less. And, if they are only there due to that, I doubt they'll be in our $250k subset.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

"The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.

Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."


Source

Considering 80% of millionaires are first generation its tough to say that we have a mobility gap. My question is how redistributing income and simply giving it to someone else going to give them the incentive to become wealthy? We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty and the poverty rate is the same if not a little higher than when we started.

Some more info on how the wealthy aren't just sitting on their money.
How many of the "rich" work for a living
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I didn't make any comment about people getting what they deserve. In fact, in the aggregate, what people get is not strongly statistically related to what they deserve.

As far as getting good grades goes, I worked very hard for the grades I got, of course, and that is due to me. But I also had a stable home with parents who valued education and the income to live in a district with a great public school, I didn't have to drop out at 16 to help on the farm, and I never had to choose between dinner and a vaccination. So yeah, I'd say "inheritance" means a helluva lot more than what you get when your parents kick.

I was replying to Scooby's quote about whether I deserved additional response to my post

edit: My mistake in putting that in response to your post
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top