Let's start

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's funny coming from a radical leftist...who has funded your engineered radicalization?


TIME magazine

By PHILIP ELLIOTT October 3, 2018

Charles Koch is known for his activism on conservative and libertarian causes, but a new report reveals that he’s also given more than $1 billion to civic and philanthropic groups.

Forbes magazine got that number after tallying lifetime donations for the first time as part of its annual list of the world’s richest individuals, published Wednesday. With a $53.5 billion fortune, Koch was at No. 7 on that list, tied with his brother, David.

“I do not believe ‘sum total’ is the most effective measure for evaluating my philanthropy,” Charles Koch told TIME in a statement. “Those results — which are real and measurable — are the true indicator of my philanthropy.”

Koch advisers say the overwhelming bulk of the donations has gone to civic and philanthropic groups, not the political ones he’s better known for. Last year, 95% of his personal giving went to educational programs and community groups that deal with persistent poverty.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

it’s charity when liberals do it, sinister when conservatives do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

seems you think charitable donations and political donations are the same

you tend to do that alot


https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

[Pete F.]

I disagree
Look at the GDP per person in 1982 and 2017
Look at the supposed wealth of the forbes 400 in 1982 and 2017
A much greater percentage of wealth is going to the top 400 now than in 1982
Have they earned it or has our current system made it so they can accummulate it.
Is that a good thing for society as we know it?
How has home ownership changed in the middle class since 1982 and why?
What drove Amherst, Cerebrus, Front yard, Pretium, Tricon to buy up foreclosed homes?
They have spent billions buying up homes.
Your kids will be serfs.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I disagree
Look at the GDP per person in 1982 and 2017
Look at the supposed wealth of the forbes 400 in 1982 and 2017
A much greater percentage of wealth is going to the top 400 now than in 1982
Have they earned it or has our current system made it so they can accummulate it.
Is that a good thing for society as we know it?
How has home ownership changed in the middle class since 1982 and why?
What drove Amherst, Cerebrus, Front yard, Pretium, Tricon to buy up foreclosed homes?
They have spent billions buying up homes.
Your kids will be serfs.

" much greater percentage of wealth is going to the top 400 now than in 1982
Have they earned it or has our current system made it so they can accummulate it."

How would YOU know whether or not they "earned it"? And what kind of "system" would prevent wealth inequality? I'll ask for the second time, do you support laws which tell wealthy people, that they can no longer work or invest? Would you support a law which caps wealth?

"Your kids will be serfs"

Probably not.

It's so easy to blame someone else for your lot in life. Chances are, you own it.

Pete, what did a wealthy person ever do, to prevent you from being wealthy?

I'm not wealthy. "The system" didn't prevent me from being wealthy, nor did any wealthy person. I could have gone to medical school, I could work until 9PM every night and get a couple of promotions. I choose not to. My choice, I own the choice, I own the consequences.

[Jim in CT]

Pete, no one is denying that wealth inequality is getting worse. you said, in my example, that the billionaire isn’t the problem.

You have shown that wealth inequality exists. You haven’t shown, whatbthe connection is between wealthy people and poor people. please focus on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have shown that wealth inequality exists. You haven’t shown, whatbthe connection is between wealthy people and poor people. please focus on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This isn’t rocket science. It takes money to make money, especially in an economy when the value of labor is diminished. A wealthy person can get more wealthy without lifting a finger. Given cost of living and services generally goes up year over year the poorer increasingly see their standard of living decline or those in the middle can’t buy houses or afford health insurance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Wealth inequality really began in this country when corporate tax rates were slashed. They used to be so high that profits were turned into payroll for employees. In those days the middle class was booming. If trump really wanted to make America great again he would raise the taxes on big corporations so that they would have two choices - pay high taxes or pay their employees more which in turn would be a massive stimulus to the economy.

Instead we have a trickle down economy where the masses are all slaves to debt because their costs of living have soared higher than their income has risen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Wealth inequality really began in this country when corporate tax rates were slashed. They used to be so high that profits were turned into payroll for employees. In those days the middle class was booming. If trump really wanted to make America great again he would raise the taxes on big corporations so that they would have two choices - pay high taxes or pay their employees more which in turn would be a massive stimulus to the economy.

Instead we have a trickle down economy where the masses are all slaves to debt because their costs of living have soared higher than their income has risen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or they were used for capital investment that could be claimed to reduce their effective rate. Lowering the tax rate but keeping the deductions, along with industry specific exemptions changed this equation so some large corporations effectively pay little or nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Or they were used for capital investment that could be claimed to reduce their effective rate. Lowering the tax rate but keeping the deductions, along with industry specific exemptions changed this equation so some large corporations effectively pay little or nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No that’s just what winning looks like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by Nebe

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You get paid for your work, not for "having a freaking job" ENTRY LEVEL jobs are for entry level people. If that crappy summer job you had during summers at high school paid a "Living wage" maybe you never would have went to college. Entry level jobs are to get people started and not to provide for a family of 4.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

My point is that there is not much insentive to pay your employees a living wage. I once read that some Walmart employees would have to work 150 hours a week to afford a 2 bedroom apartment and groceries. As a result they have to go on food stamps that we all pay for. And all the while the Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes there is an incentive, because in most cases, employees can and will go elsewhere if they’re underpaid. businesses have every possible incentive to hold onto top employees. wveryone hates walmart, but everyone likes the low prices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes there is an incentive, because in most cases, employees can and will go elsewhere if they’re underpaid. businesses have every possible incentive to hold onto top employees. wveryone hates walmart, but everyone likes the low prices.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Employees will stay at a lower paying job if their pre-existing conditions won’t transfer to new insurance. They won’t move if they can’t afford relocating costs or the risks of a steady job. And while the job market is good right now that’s a phase, many years there are no other options for many,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Invest early, we stress the importance of starting a retirement account at an early age to get a head start. It takes discipline but creates financial independence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Invest early, we stress the importance of starting a retirement account at an early age to get a head start. It takes discipline but creates financial independence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

put 15% of your pay
into a 401k,l starting on day 1, just use a target retirement fate account if you’re not savvy, and never withdraw.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Spence, what, no snappy comeback? was steve croft just auditioning for faux news? or did i take it out of context?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Do your homework Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Do your homework Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you’ve got
nothing and have been offered video evidence that something happened that you said
never happened....that’s the best you got? do my homework? i do
my homework, which is now i knew this happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

when you’ve got
nothing and have been offered video evidence that something happened that you said
never happened....that’s the best you got? do my homework? i do
my homework, which is now i knew this happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do more homework.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Do more homework.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have that’s why I know you’re wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Watch the whole interview, Not just the Dinesh D'Sousa BS.
That's about as bush league as Sarah Sanders clip of Jim Acosta.
https://ia801906.us.archive.org/27/i..._Interview.mp4

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Watch the whole interview, Not just the Dinesh D'Sousa BS.
That's about as bush league as Sarah Sanders clip of Jim Acosta.
https://ia801906.us.archive.org/27/i..._Interview.mp4

i did. many times. he collaborated nazis ( who could blame him?) and saidhe feels no guilt about it. it’s not all that ambiguous.

in all seriousness, what are you people afraid will happen, if you admit that someone in the left is just a rotten person? what do you fear will happen to you if you admit that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i did. many times. he collaborated nazis ( who could blame him?) and saidhe feels no guilt about it. it’s not all that ambiguous.

in all seriousness, what are you people afraid will happen, if you admit that someone in the left is just a rotten person? what do you fear will happen to you if you admit that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you think that makes him rotten?
SAD

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And you think that makes him rotten?
SAD

not feeling bad, that he collaborated with Nazis, helping them harm fellow Hews? yes, i’d say that makes him a rather sociopathic person..as steve kroft said in 60 minutes, that experience would send most people to the psychiatrists couch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not feeling bad, that he collaborated with Nazis, helping them harm fellow Hews? yes, i’d say that makes him a rather sociopathic person..as steve kroft said in 60 minutes, that experience would send most people to the psychiatrists couch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read the snopes piece Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Look at the list of conservatives propagating this scummy lie. It's like a who's who of the Republican Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Read the snopes Jim!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device