CNN says: Angry White People, at Tea Parties.

[billy p]

Billy Boy... if you got negative rep... it did not come from me. I've given one red chicklet my entire tenure here to someone who absolutely deserved it for being a rude **********... not because of his opinion... AND I signed my name.

Believe this... I'm not shy. I'm not at all timid. If I feel I need to make some sort of point to you, you'll know it's me. Understand?

Sorry Chris, I know it didn't come from you... in fact Adam nailed it. The likelihood the same person could be involved, we'll never know but I was only echoing your sentiment. As for the rep I've received recently it maybe warranted but I'm not surprised by it. In fact, the reason I've always kept far away from polictical threads is mainly because they become ideological or dogma by nature.

L8ter, Bill

 

[Matt34]

Now if anyone would rather, for example, GM just close up shop, have their execs walk away with hundreds of millions like the CEO of Lehman Brothers did, and watch GM's nearly 250k employees go unemployed overnight along with the hundreds of thousands of employees holding jobs at various parts suppliers and dealerships and materials manufacturers around the world...

Nobody said it wouldn't royally suck but what's even scarier is after giving a failing business model billions of tax payers dollars only to fail again 5-10 years down the road. Then what are we left with?

 

[itschris]

Forgive me for saying this, but that's a load of crap. Bill Gates didn't just take what he was given. Neither did Warren Buffett. Or Oprah, Will Smith, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump or thousands of other successful people that rose from modest means by hard work, intelligence and ambition. The American experience actually disproves the defeatist, determinist statements like these.

Perfectly put Dave. Look what Bill Gates has done for the world through his product and his philamprothy. Success is the potential reward for hard work. Nemo, the 98% you talk about don't really have it that bad. They're a lot better off because the 2% you speak of chased the carrot and created something, perpetuated existing industry, or offer something others want.

Knock this down a micro view. What if you couldn't get a promotion at work and receive higher pay, a nicer office, more vacation, whatever... would you work harder than the guy who sits next to you to get a new job that had twice the hassle, five times more work, fifteen additional hours a week with zero tangible benefit? Of course not. Would you even work a lot harder than the next guy just to do so? Maybe some would... but not really.

My job is a lot harder than someone who digs ditches. I happen to have beers with a guy who does just that after he dropped out of what we do about 5 years ago. Now granted, his job is more physically demanding, but he has none of the stress, accoutability, responsibility, hassle, you name it, to the degree that I do. He actually relishes that fact these days. I can tell you, I wouldn't do what I do if I couldn't get paid more than my friend Steve... a lot more.

I think everyone gets caught up in the dollars... the actual money. Think about it as compensation and give real thought to the word. It may change the way you think about things.

 

[highfigh]

highfigh, you kind jumped into the exchange with Matt and maybe you took something I said out of context when you quoted me. Below is what I referred to:

Yes, politicians, career representatives I believe it was called, being paid by corporations for special interests and favoritism is absolutely wrong. However, the exchange was regarding those "outsted out of office" and how they "become a lobbyist for a major corporation" when the fact is, that is a free market. Someone's former profession would not prevent them from being employed by a corporation later, even if that person can use connections for business purposes. All's fair in love, war, and a true free market.

Also, pocketing politicians is far beyond the scope of simply an economic discussion. That's flat out governmental corruption.

Now if anyone would rather, for example, GM just close up shop, have their execs walk away with hundreds of millions like the CEO of Lehman Brothers did, and watch GM's nearly 250k employees go unemployed overnight along with the hundreds of thousands of employees holding jobs at various parts suppliers and dealerships and materials manufacturers around the world...

Monopoly is a great game on a dining table, where every person starts off with the opportunities to allow the most savvy player to prevail. Not so much in real life. When 2% of the population controls 85% of the money, the remaining 98% have to take whatever they are given. This is the most important aspect of the US industrial revolution.

I believe I quoted what I was commenting on but I don't remember seeing what you posted above, which isn't how I took it. I still don't quite agree with the "All's fair in...a free market." part, though, because a truly free market precludes any governmental involvement. Agreed- we haven't had a real free market in quite a while and with the bunch we have in DC, we won't for a long time.

I was surprised to read that Obama said nationalization of the banks probably won't happen. I would rather read that it won't happen, but at least he didn't set a time table.

Re: GM and bankruptcy, I wouldn't mind loans to them with the requirement that the money be used to pay existing debts, they file for Chapter 11 and reorganize and because management did such a fine job, they will be reviewed by qualified management analysts to see who keeps their jobs. Bad management, union stranglehold and arrogance are why the automakers are failing, along with the recent failures. If they reorganize and as I understand that chapter, most contracts they have entered into would be null and void. In some cases, I would expect the new contracts to remain similar to the existing ones but AFAIK, union contracts would be included. I could only see renegotiating labor contracts so they fall more in line with the foreign-based automakers as a good thing but I'm not sure how they would be able to deal with the retiree health care and pensions.

As I have posted before, greed, arrogance and avarice have caused this and people just can't resist getting more. More of what, doesn't matter and I don't remember seeing a case of union members turning down a raise.

 

[Nemo128]

There is a curious dichotomy in this post that I don't quite get unless there is sarcasm involved. While you say that bought politicians and gov't corruption is wrong, you seem to equate that with "a true free market". .

Read my post again, carefully. Specifically the part of, as you put it, former politicians, and my part of former positions not disqualifying you from future employment. You read what you wanted to read.

Forgive me for saying this, but that's a load of crap. Bill Gates didn't just take what he was given. Neither did Warren Buffett. Or Oprah, Will Smith, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump or thousands of other successful people that rose from modest means by hard work, intelligence and ambition. The American experience actually disproves the defeatist, determinist statements like these.

Sorry, I have to laugh.

Bill Gates = His family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president.

Warren Buffet was born in 1930. The cost of, for example, the Wharton School (possibly the best business and management college in the country) was as much as part time manual labor cost in 1930. You should look into plots showing the increase of college tuition vs the increase in the average unskilled worker salary throughout the years.

I'll give you one simple example. In 1976, NJIT in Newark NJ cost ~$20/credit. A part time car washer in Newark NJ, back in 1976, could earn a minimum wage of $2.30 a week without a problem. By comparison, the cost of a credit hour now, 2009, is $400. A part time car washer at the same location today can earn a minimum wage of $7.15. If you don't see the disparity between being able to pay for a college credit working 10 hours, and being able to pay for one working 56 hours, what exactly do you base your assertions on?

A gallon of regular gas cost 59c in 1976, less than 1/4 of an hour wage. A gallon just a few months ago rose as high as 4.50 here, more than 1/2 an hour wage. The story is the same with a gallon of milk, a carton of eggs, a loaf of bread.

Do you honestly not see the disparity between those born into money and those not? Do you not see the disparity between the value and opportunities presented with the lowest of wages in the first 80 years of the 1900s and just the last 20 years? In his autobiography, Buffet readily admits that his ability to make money coincided directly with the opportunities presented at the times. Do you honestly think we can, today, see sequels to the stories of the captains of industries?

I won't knock the examples of Oprah and Will, simply because they did come from poor upbringings and worked hard to achieve their celebrity and wealth. HOWEVER, again we encounter the example of the opportunities presented by their times. Oprah found success through hard work and earning a scholarship to a historically black university, Will Smith through breaking out in the newly forming rap music world without stepping foot in a college. Considering, again, the disparity between the acceptance levels at colleges of lower class minorities in the 60s-70s to that of today, you'll also see that the competitive level of the entering classes is highly in favor of those with familial money. And of course, if you want every urban black youth to take Will Smith as their role model for success, you really don't want them to look at education as a lucrative option, do ya?

Steve Jobs basically stole the profits from his partner for an initial gig with Atari, which gave him the money to engage in business negotiations with a multimillionare to found Apple Computer. He didn't do it with his own money, and his own books show he didn't work hard. His partner from the Atari deal did all of the work that netted them the profit, and he stole almost all of it! So, you want people to live by his example of lying to their business partners and stealing profits? Oh, and how he credited his LSD usage with some of his greatest periods of growth? SERIOUSLY?

TRUMP? You do realize he's the son of one of the most powerful real estate developers of New York's history? I'm not even gonna go into Trump...

I love it when people use history's examples of success as a benchmark that today's upcoming generations can look to for inspiration and guidance. Apparently some people believe that times changes in all things, except for opportunities for success. Those somehow stay the same.

Oh, and as for my examples about 1976 to 2009. That's the comparison between the woman's father and myself. Whenever we discuss the topic, he always says "I don't know how you did all this by yourself." Sometimes, neither do I.

 

[Nemo128]

Apologies to Rickster, I think the thread wound up going way off topic, and I'm partly to blame there.

 

[Adam]

Apologies to Rickster, I think the thread wound up going way off topic, and I'm partly to blame there.

Just about the only threads that stay on topic are those without any responses, and even some of those can't say that.

In other words, no worries.

 

[lsiberian]

Read my post again, carefully. Specifically the part of, as you put it, former politicians, and my part of former positions not disqualifying you from future employment. You read what you wanted to read.



Sorry, I have to laugh.

Bill Gates = His family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president.

Warren Buffet was born in 1930. The cost of, for example, the Wharton School (possibly the best business and management college in the country) was as much as part time manual labor cost in 1930. You should look into plots showing the increase of college tuition vs the increase in the average unskilled worker salary throughout the years.

I'll give you one simple example. In 1976, NJIT in Newark NJ cost ~$20/credit. A part time car washer in Newark NJ, back in 1976, could earn a minimum wage of $2.30 a week without a problem. By comparison, the cost of a credit hour now, 2009, is $400. A part time car washer at the same location today can earn a minimum wage of $7.15. If you don't see the disparity between being able to pay for a college credit working 10 hours, and being able to pay for one working 56 hours, what exactly do you base your assertions on?

A gallon of regular gas cost 59c in 1976, less than 1/4 of an hour wage. A gallon just a few months ago rose as high as 4.50 here, more than 1/2 an hour wage. The story is the same with a gallon of milk, a carton of eggs, a loaf of bread.

Do you honestly not see the disparity between those born into money and those not? Do you not see the disparity between the value and opportunities presented with the lowest of wages in the first 80 years of the 1900s and just the last 20 years? In his autobiography, Buffet readily admits that his ability to make money coincided directly with the opportunities presented at the times. Do you honestly think we can, today, see sequels to the stories of the captains of industries?

I won't knock the examples of Oprah and Will, simply because they did come from poor upbringings and worked hard to achieve their celebrity and wealth. HOWEVER, again we encounter the example of the opportunities presented by their times. Oprah found success through hard work and earning a scholarship to a historically black university, Will Smith through breaking out in the newly forming rap music world without stepping foot in a college. Considering, again, the disparity between the acceptance levels at colleges of lower class minorities in the 60s-70s to that of today, you'll also see that the competitive level of the entering classes is highly in favor of those with familial money. And of course, if you want every urban black youth to take Will Smith as their role model for success, you really don't want them to look at education as a lucrative option, do ya?

Steve Jobs basically stole the profits from his partner for an initial gig with Atari, which gave him the money to engage in business negotiations with a multimillionare to found Apple Computer. He didn't do it with his own money, and his own books show he didn't work hard. His partner from the Atari deal did all of the work that netted them the profit, and he stole almost all of it! So, you want people to live by his example of lying to their business partners and stealing profits? Oh, and how he credited his LSD usage with some of his greatest periods of growth? SERIOUSLY?

TRUMP? You do realize he's the son of one of the most powerful real estate developers of New York's history? I'm not even gonna go into Trump...

I love it when people use history's examples of success as a benchmark that today's upcoming generations can look to for inspiration and guidance. Apparently some people believe that times changes in all things, except for opportunities for success. Those somehow stay the same.

Oh, and as for my examples about 1976 to 2009. That's the comparison between the woman's father and myself. Whenever we discuss the topic, he always says "I don't know how you did all this by yourself." Sometimes, neither do I.

Very well put.

 

[Davemcc]

However, the exchange was regarding those "outsted out of office" and how they "become a lobbyist for a major corporation" when the fact is, that is a free market. Someone's former profession would not prevent them from being employed by a corporation later, even if that person can use connections for business purposes. All's fair in love, war, and a true free market.

Let me see if I can interpret this correctly. You are saying that former politicians should not be prevented from taking employment anywhere. I agree. Perhaps I was confused by your previous comment about the influence of lobbyists and the money they give to politicians, since a large number of former politicians enter the business world as lobbyists trying to lobby their former peers. When you conclude that all's fair..., I take it that you are trying to say that lobbying for political advantage is fair game in a free market. That's where I differ, if that's what you're trying to say. I don't think politicians should have so much influence that they can affect the market to one company's advantage in a free market.

To the other comments, the argument that x's mommy was a doctor and y's daddy was a lawyer only goes so far. I've known plenty of "rich kids" that were spoiled screw ups that never did anything with their lives. One doctor's kid I hung around with was found dead in a car on the wrong side of town. The difference between these screw ups and the Gates, Buffets and Trumps of the world is that they worked hard for what they had. They could have gone either way. That's the difference between Gates the world's richest man and Gates the car wash attendant.

If you come from $5K/yr parents, you can work towards becoming a $25K/yr person yourself. If you come from a $25K/yr household, you can work towards earning $100K/yr. Nothing can stop you but yourself. One of my friends is a perfect example. He came from a home troubled by divorce, no money, rough family, etc. He got married and worked full time to get his MA, then PhD and now he is a director at a major economic think tank. He left a poor household with nothing but his own determination and built a career on his own with no help from his family to a position where he can affect national policy. I strongly believe that hard work, determination and character will bring you great benefits in life, regardless of the economic conditions in which you start.

 

[billy p]

Let me see if I can interpret this correctly. You are saying that former politicians should not be prevented from taking employment anywhere. I agree. Perhaps I was confused by your previous comment about the influence of lobbyists and the money they give to politicians, since a large number of former politicians enter the business world as lobbyists trying to lobby their former peers. When you conclude that all's fair..., I take it that you are trying to say that lobbying for political advantage is fair game in a free market. That's where I differ, if that's what you're trying to say. I don't think politicians should have so much influence that they can affect the market to one company's advantage in a free market.

To the other comments, the argument that x's mommy was a doctor and y's daddy was a lawyer only goes so far. I've known plenty of "rich kids" that were spoiled screw ups that never did anything with their lives. One doctor's kid I hung around with was found dead in a car on the wrong side of town. The difference between these screw ups and the Gates, Buffets and Trumps of the world is that they worked hard for what they had. They could have gone either way. That's the difference between Gates the world's richest man and Gates the car wash attendant.

If you come from $5K/yr parents, you can work towards becoming a $25K/yr person yourself. If you come from a $25K/yr household, you can work towards earning $100K/yr. Nothing can stop you but yourself. One of my friends is a perfect example. He came from a home troubled by divorce, no money, rough family, etc. He got married and worked full time to get his MA, then PhD and now he is a director at a major economic think tank. He left a poor household with nothing but his own determination and built a career on his own with no help from his family to a position where he can affect national policy. I strongly believe that hard work, determination and character will bring you great benefits in life, regardless of the economic conditions in which you start.

I still prefer the silver spoon route. Working my a$$ for nearly 30yrs, I am only now starting to reap the rewards.

Regards, Bill

 

[jamie2112]

I still prefer the silver spoon route. Working my a$$ for nearly 30yrs, I am only now starting to reap the rewards.

Regards, Bill

Its a good one if you can get it.........

 

[Nemo128]

The difference between these screw ups and the Gates, Buffets and Trumps of the world is that they worked hard for what they had. They could have gone either way. That's the difference between Gates the world's richest man and Gates the car wash attendant.

I can't show you anything beyond what you want to see...

He left a poor household with nothing but his own determination and built a career on his own with no help from his family to a position where he can affect national policy. I strongly believe that hard work, determination and character will bring you great benefits in life, regardless of the economic conditions in which you start.

Yeah, I'm an example of that type too. That does not mean everyone can be what is socially defined as "successful". The system itself demands the disparity between the rich and the poor, and it demands the number of people earning a certain to be inversely proportional to the size of that income. For every one "your friend" or "me", there are countless more who can't reach any level beyond basic subsistence, and it's not through lack of trying for all of them contrary to what popular belief may be. I understand your belief that hard work, determination, and character will bring one great benefits in life, regardless of economic conditions. I wish your beliefs reflected reality. Look at the state of the world right now. That alone should prove that, unfortunately, it's just not the case.

 

[Matt34]

I can't show you anything beyond what you want to see...



Yeah, I'm an example of that type too. That does not mean everyone can be what is socially defined as "successful". The system itself demands the disparity between the rich and the poor, and it demands the number of people earning a certain to be inversely proportional to the size of that income. For every one "your friend" or "me", there are countless more who can't reach any level beyond basic subsistence, and it's not through lack of trying for all of them contrary to what popular belief may be. I understand your belief that hard work, determination, and character will bring one great benefits in life, regardless of economic conditions. I wish your beliefs reflected reality. Look at the state of the world right now. That alone should prove that, unfortunately, it's just not the case.

No system is perfect but at least we have a chance at "success". Our (N. America) definition of success is very much different than the rest of the world and I've seen a lot of the other spectrum to not feel much pity for the "unsuccessful" we have here.

 

[Matt34]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.

Yeah ok,

The investor husband didn't know his Senator wife was introducing legislation at the same time he was buying stock in a company that her legislation benefitted and the Senator wife didn't know her investor husband was buying stock in a company that would benefit from legislation she was introducing...

 

[Nemo128]

Great article. One issue I take with it is:

"sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms."

Unless I see both the industry normal compensation rates as determined by independent analysis, and not government agency analysis, plus the compensation rates granted to CBRE, I take this article with a little apprehension.

Without that information, we cannot determine for ourselves, as people of sound mind and reasoning ability without the influence of group speak, if the real estate firm is indeed getting a greater return than warranted. We can't even vet the statement about their compensation rates. It could be completely wrong.

But a public representative should without question excuse themselves from legislative matters that involve a company they, whether through self or family, have a vested interest in. Her husband's company netted over $13M from this! She is a prime example of the shameless corruption in our public leadership, and anyone in California reading this should take action immediately.

Nice find Matt.

 

[Tomorrow]

Well, now, here ya go. Back to the Tea Party issue. Here is a completely unbiased network, and a completely unbiased show, interviewing a completely unbiased individual about attendants of the Tea Parties and other conservatives. Facts and wisdom only. Yeah, right.

This is what makes America great...that our country can spawn, produce, and air such ignorant, divisive idiocy as represented in the video and the country still moves forward.

I'm telling you, Annunaki....you need to run for office.

 

[itschris]

What I find interesting is that no prominent liberal has come out to say anything against her. Liberals are always preaching about tolerance, but they themselves are only tolerant if you agree with them. If you don't, your racist, hate children, love war, hate old people, or.... you're just stupid.

I can't stand people who talk of their opinion as if what they say is indisputable fact. That arrogance just kills me.

 

[lsiberian]

Let me see if I can interpret this correctly. You are saying that former politicians should not be prevented from taking employment anywhere. I agree. Perhaps I was confused by your previous comment about the influence of lobbyists and the money they give to politicians, since a large number of former politicians enter the business world as lobbyists trying to lobby their former peers. When you conclude that all's fair..., I take it that you are trying to say that lobbying for political advantage is fair game in a free market. That's where I differ, if that's what you're trying to say. I don't think politicians should have so much influence that they can affect the market to one company's advantage in a free market.

To the other comments, the argument that x's mommy was a doctor and y's daddy was a lawyer only goes so far. I've known plenty of "rich kids" that were spoiled screw ups that never did anything with their lives. One doctor's kid I hung around with was found dead in a car on the wrong side of town. The difference between these screw ups and the Gates, Buffets and Trumps of the world is that they worked hard for what they had. They could have gone either way. That's the difference between Gates the world's richest man and Gates the car wash attendant.

If you come from $5K/yr parents, you can work towards becoming a $25K/yr person yourself. If you come from a $25K/yr household, you can work towards earning $100K/yr. Nothing can stop you but yourself. One of my friends is a perfect example. He came from a home troubled by divorce, no money, rough family, etc. He got married and worked full time to get his MA, then PhD and now he is a director at a major economic think tank. He left a poor household with nothing but his own determination and built a career on his own with no help from his family to a position where he can affect national policy. I strongly believe that hard work, determination and character will bring you great benefits in life, regardless of the economic conditions in which you start.

Lobbyists are a part of life bro. People on here Lobby for a speaker brand or receiver brand. I Lobby for the social justice movement.

These issues are highly complex and have no simple solution. Rhetoric against taxes, lobbyists, politicians and our government is very popular, but I see it solving little. Still our nation is doing ok. We have a lot of places to improve, but it's up to us to do it.

I feel for you Dave as Canada has a really bad tax system IMO. Our federal system isn't too bad, but our state systems can be terrible.

At the end of the day there's no need for all the anger. Let's just relax and enjoy what we do have while continuing to work for keeping it.

 

[lsiberian]

What I find interesting is that no prominent liberal has come out to say anything against her. Liberals are always preaching about tolerance, but they themselves are only tolerant if you agree with them. If you don't, your racist, hate children, love war, hate old people, or.... you're just stupid.

I can't stand people who talk of their opinion as if what they say is indisputable fact. That arrogance just kills me.

I've found both sides to have arrogant jerks. For example Sean Hannity worked in the same radio station as one of my friends and wasn't exactly nice according to my friend.

The lady was probably bored and looking to stir up controversy for ratings. On a side note who likes tea?

 

[itschris]

I've found both sides to have arrogant jerks. For example Sean Hannity worked in the same radio station as one of my friends and wasn't exactly nice according to my friend.

The lady was probably bored and looking to stir up controversy for ratings. On a side note who likes tea?

It's not secret I'm a conservative. Sean is a very staunch conservative who presses forth his opinions. He's not the most likable guy, I'll give you that, but for the most part, he doesn't resort to likening all people who disagree with him as hicks and racists. He was extremely critical of McCain and also of the Bush administration. He's not a blind mouthpiece. I have to say the majority of the democrats/liberals seem much more united. You can say whatever you want, in any way you want, about any one you want... as long as it's someone who disagrees with the left agenda, and everyone will just play along.

I've seen many times where Hannity and O'Reilly have interuppted a guest and said "C'mon.. that's not fair" when the guest may have gotten a bit to zealous in their comments. I see now such boundaries with the liberal media outlets.