flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > becoming world president, obama?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
Gee, thanks vid. Now that I know that you think increasing my taxes is fine, I feel much better about it. I'll tell the rest of us upper 5 percenters that you approve. Who knows, maybe after 4 years of Obama we can aspire to be defenseless cabbage and potato pancake eating rubes too. Wink

I read that link you provided and disagree with your assessment. It looks like the top 5% (income greater than $153,542.00 per year ... wow, that's not a zillionaire by any stretch) pays 60.14% of all taxes. To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

Anyway, back on topic. The world needn't worry about Obama becoming the President of the world. He'll have his hands full here with the bigmac munching rednecks.

Borsuc - nice article link, which summarized it pretty well.
Post 17 Nov 2008, 02:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
I'm consistently surprised by the people even in my own state (California) - everyone I spoke with thought Prop.8 was not going to pass. I had no idea people were so conservative with the idea of relationships.

Obama will be a great president - not in terms of the body count while in office; but in terms of joining people together for positive change.
Post 17 Nov 2008, 05:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Gee, thanks vid. Now that I know that you think increasing my taxes is fine, I feel much better about it. I'll tell the rest of us upper 5 percenters that you approve. Who knows, maybe after 4 years of Obama we can aspire to be defenseless cabbage and potato pancake eating rubes too

In 2005-2006, income of top 1% grew by 200$ (12%), income of top 2-5% grew by 100$ (8%), and income of low 50% grew by 50$ (5%).
In 2004-2005, income of top 1% grew by 300$ (21%), income of top 2-5% grew by 100$ (9%), and income of low 50% grew by 40$ (4%).
In 2003-2004, income of top 1% grew by 250$ (23%), income of top 2-5% grew by 90$ (9%), and income of low 50% grew by 40$ (4.5%).

Don't you see a problem here? Isn't the gap really widening? Can it go like this forever? In a system which is supposed to be majority rule, is there anything to wonder about, when majority wants to get higher share of total production, and make the gap smaller?
Post 17 Nov 2008, 10:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
My issue is not with closing the gap. My issue is sending my money in the form of taxes to the government under the guise of fairness. I think it highly unfair for 5% of the population to be forced to pay 60% of all taxes, no matter how much they make. The government isn't going to give the money to those workers. The governement is absolutely horrible at managing money and I resent that they force me to send them more money. For example, take a look at this. If the government's aim was to close the wealth gap, they would simply pass a law stating that employees are to be paid a certain percentage of the companies profit. They don't do that. They want to collect all the money centrally and "redistribute" the wealth as they see fit. As you can see from that link, they do a damn fine job of redistributing the wealth. I can't stand the thought of sending more money into that system under the guise of fairness.

bitRAKE - I sincerely hope you are right. But I personally haven't seen anything that causes me to share your optimism. Obama doesn't have any executive experience, none. He's not managed a business, a city, a county, a state, nothing. When he was a State Senator he voted "present" as many, if not more than he actually voted yea or nea. He spent less than 18 months in the US Senate before he began running for President. When he completes his first term in office (4 years), it will be the longest he's ever held a single job in his entire life. He ran on lofty concepts like, "Hope", and "Change", but no real substance. When he did delve into substance he generally corrrected the specificity the next day ("Iran doesn't present a threat to the US" one day and the very next, "Iran poses a grave threat"). As for "bringing people together", here are a few early examples of the post-racial harmony his election is bringing. Some really enlightening videos. Enjoy the harmonious warmth. The sidebar articles are uplifting too. Confused
Post 18 Nov 2008, 01:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
HyperVista, what would you prefer another Bush term? Make no mistake Obama will have a hard time at it - if you haven't noticed it's a sinking ship he's at the helm of! I'll commend the man just for keeping it afloat, but I imagine he'll do better than that. Bush has abused executive power at every turn of his head -- yes, yes, in the name of security -- whatever. It isn't ethical. I don't want someone with that kind of executive experience in office - they are power mongers with an egoistic "might makes right" mentality.

Executive Power and the War on Terror

Thanks for reminding me how much I hate politics.
Good luck in Ireland.
Post 18 Nov 2008, 02:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Hypervista: I may agree with you that this is not the right way. I was just pointing out that current way is not right either, because it creates and widens that gap. I really don't know how US gov is capable and willing to solve problems for lower class.

It surely is very hard to build a gov that is capable to do good for lower classes at expense of higher classes - mostly those were totalitarian govs (fascists, communists, US-backed anticomunnist puppets), probably because they weren't under lobby of millionares. But using this as excuse to not solve the problem isn't good either.

To sum up my point: "Some CHANGE really is needed. I don't have enough information to make opinion whether Obama is the right guy for this, but due to US two-party-monopoly, he seems like the only option". More the government fails, the more extreme stance people take (communists and fascist only ever got to power in times of financial crisis, poverty, famine, etc.). So this leftist quarter-semite half-african US president named Hussein, is IMO in big part simply product of Bush's failure. The more Bush's ideas were failing, the more extreme change people wanted.
Post 18 Nov 2008, 09:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
The question I have thus far been unable to answer is this:
Has the real wealth of the top 25% of the USA population, ranked in terms of net worth, increased or decreased in the past decade, compared with the bottom 25%? I believe, but have no evidence, that the top 25% has increased its wealth, many fold, compared with the poorest 25%, despite supposedly paying a very heavy tax burden...
compare the following hypothetical distribution of seven salaries:

1
2
3
4
50
606
6000

The median salary is 4.
the mean salary is 952.

Ten years later:

2
3
8
16
500
60,000
600,000

The median salary has quadrupled. How about the mean? it has increased a hundred fold, to 94,361.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
per capita income 1999: $21,587

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/us-pci.htm
2007 Per capita income: $38,611


http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
total employment is ~135 million, therefore about 44% of the labor force is paid by salary, not by hourly wage.
For 2007 data, the mean hourly wage was $40k/year. The median income was $30k/year.

This difference (25%) between the mean and the median reflects the wealth redistribution from the impoverished to the wealthy.

http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p60-206.pdf
In 1998, the median income was ~~$20k. Over the past ten years, inflation has risen:
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
so that a salary of ~~$20k/year in 1998, would correspond to a salary of ~~$27k/year in 2008. Therefore the actual increase in median income has been ~~$300-400/year per capita, as a result of ten years of economic growth. What about the costs of life--Rent, food, water, electricity, clothing?

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
During that time, the consumer price index has changed from ~~162 in 1998, to ~~215 in 2008.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/
Families spent 9.8 percent of their disposable personal income on food, in 2007.

So, the median family income devotes 10% of its income on food, but what about the lower 25% of the population? Wouldn't that group spend MORE than 10% of its income, since the price of food doesn't change, but their income is much less than the top 25%?

The question I have thus far been unable to answer is this:
Has the real wealth of the top 25% of the population, ranked in terms of net worth, increased or decreased in the past decade, compared with the bottom 25%? I believe, but have no evidence, that the top 25% has increased its wealth, many fold, compared with the poorest 25%, despite supposedly paying a very heavy tax burden... In my humble opinion, well, ok, arrogant, but "humble" in the sense of belonging to the bottom 25% of the distribution, the tax burden has not prevented the wealthy from amassing a much larger fortune than the poorest among us.
Confused
Post 18 Nov 2008, 10:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
total employment is ~135 million, therefore about 44% of the labor force is paid by salary, not by hourly wage.

What's the difference between salary and wage?
Post 18 Nov 2008, 11:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
bitRAKE - don't get me wrong. I don't like Bush anymore than you do and did not vote for that ass clown either. I just don't hold much optimism for an inexperienced egotist who spouts comtempt for the constitution, expresses socialist ideas and agendas, and surrounds himself with blame America first types (Ayers, Wright, Michelle, etc.). Again, I hope I'm wrong. I think the first indication will be who he picks for his cabinet and advisors. I'm cautiously optimistic at this point.

Here is an interesting video on the Obama electorate. It explains pretty well why this county is screwed.

I'm heading to Ireland in early April to check out housing. I have some friends at Microsoft, they have a large presence in Dublin. I haven't decided 100% yet, but exploring options.
Post 18 Nov 2008, 12:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
HyperVista wrote:
...surrounds himself with blame America first types (Ayers, Wright, Michelle, etc.).
What are the other types? Do whatever (wealthy) America wants until someone (that effect them) complains. Either extreme has problems, but the former didn't kill/impoverish a mass of people before trying to find another solution. A little self-reflection is a good thing(tm) for a country or individual. And don't for a second believe we have been in a state of panic needing immediate response without reflection - those wack jobs already had in mind the terror needed to enact their agenda. Like you exploring your escape options. I'll be right here living in California - come hell or high water.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 18 Nov 2008, 14:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
bitRAKE wrote:
..those wack jobs already had in mind the terror needed to enact their agenda.

Oh, a conspiracy therorist... nice. Laughing
Post 18 Nov 2008, 16:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Where did I say conspiracy? If I implied it - that was not my intent. They are opportunists.
Post 18 Nov 2008, 16:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
bitRAKE wrote:
They are opportunists.

Here's a video of Obama's Chief of Staff from this past Tuesday saying, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"

Yeah, opportunists for sure! Change we can believe in! (Sorry, I couldn't resist) Razz
Post 20 Nov 2008, 17:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
IMHO, it's best to watch the video from the source. That fragment is just shock to draw you in - he means opportunists used a crisis to profit rather than solve the problem. His father has said some things I don't agree with, but Rahm seems sufficiently critical of the right and left.
Post 20 Nov 2008, 20:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
I agree. There is something I like about Rahm. And when I said in an earlier post that I was cautiously optmimistic about Obama's selection for advisors and cabinet, I had Rahm in mind.
But I believe the point he was making about not wasting a serious crisis was not missing an opportunity crisis presents to implement policy. Something I gathered from your note that was critical of the Bush administration. For example, one incident he sites is the 1973 energy crisis where he saw an opportunity lost in that crisis to fix the problem through energy policy changes, which we didn't do and to our detriment. But the overall point was using a crisis to push an agenda. I think it fair to say all politicians and political parties are opportunists.
Post 20 Nov 2008, 21:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
HyperVista wrote:
I think it fair to say all politicians and political parties are opportunists.
Hahaha...I wondered when you get to this. Laughing That is why I explained it the way I did initially. We are all technically opportunists, but not all of us look for the loose-win senerios - they are the worst type of opportunists. I appreciate the role a maggot or condor plays in nature; but this doesn't mean I'm going to sit around and let the flies mass on rotting flesh.

Who wins? Who looses? What is the migration path? These are the questions people of conscious ask with full knowledge that the loosers are the problems of tommorrow. Is this the agenda pushing you are talking about - if not then all politics has become corporate agenda and lacks any type of conscious (ie time for revolution).

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 20 Nov 2008, 22:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
bitRAKE wrote:
Hahaha...I wondered when you get to this.

Well, I don't think I ever expressed a belief that opportunism was resident in only one of the two political parties.
bitRAKE wrote:
if not then all politics has become corporate agenda and lacks any type of conscious (ie time for revolution).

Well, that makes the assumption that all corporations lack a conscience. Would you say that Ben & Jerry, Inc. lacks corporate conscience? I agree with the revolution sentiment. I think that more accurately reflects my view of things right now. Except instead of revolution I may be voting with my feet and moving my children to a place where they'll stand a better chance of having an enjoyable and successful life. Identity politics and class warfare has certainly taken it's toll.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

For me, Obama's philosophy of "spreading the wealth" and promising all things at the expense of the people who have done the right things and worked hard to achieve is the realization of Jefferson's concern. It's my belief that with the Obama election social fascism is at our doorstep. It's not just Obama, it's been coming for quite some time now, perhaps as early as Woodrow Wilson and certainly with Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society".

Cheers!
Post 21 Nov 2008, 12:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
and certainly with Roosevelt's "New Deal"

I already wanted to mention this, but I didn't want to start it because my knowledge on this topic is pretty limited. Don't you see some parallels between Obama's proposed CHANGE an Roosevelt's New Deal? Failing Laizzes Faire (unregulated) capitalism in 20s-30s compared to booming socialist economy just over the corner, and weakly regulated militarist system of Bush (at least the regulation of banking evidently WAS weak if it allowed current crisis) borrowing from half-socialist China. Is there anything more logical than a change, ie. government interention to stop ship from sinking? It certainly did work in 30s.

Again, I don't comment on Obama's particular way - I don't know. But broadly, more government intervention is solution that historically worked in this kind of problems.
Post 22 Nov 2008, 04:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
vid wrote:
Don't you see some parallels between Obama's proposed CHANGE an Roosevelt's New Deal?

Yes, a very astute observation. Who wouldn't want a change after the hubris of the Bush administration? I think you are correct in that we are seeing history repeat itself once again. However, if you listen carefully to Obama's rhetoric and if he implements it, he'll make Roosevelt look like Reagan in terms of social policy.
Post 22 Nov 2008, 20:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
congratulation to obama Smile big day ahead.
i hope i could meet him someday. just wanna shake his hand and give him a hug Smile
Post 20 Jan 2009, 05:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.