• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:30
CEST 21:30
KST 04:30
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway42v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature2Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy8uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event17Serral wins EWC 202549
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple6SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments7[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread 2v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature Is there a way to see if 2 accounts=1 person? uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments SEL Masters #5 - Korea vs Russia (SC Evo) Enki Epic Series #5 - TaeJa vs Classic (SC Evo)
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 487 Think Fast Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull
Brood War
General
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway ASL 20 HYPE VIDEO! How do the new Battle.net ranks translate? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Soma Explains: JaeDong's Double Muta Micro
Tourneys
BWCL Season 63 Announcement Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches KCM 2025 Season 3 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI The year 2050
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Biochemical Cost of Gami…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2978 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1026

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21705 Posts
April 29 2014 17:52 GMT
#20501
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Adila
Profile Joined April 2010
United States874 Posts
April 29 2014 17:55 GMT
#20502
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.


What measures that don't involve a physical presence? They obviously don't care about any court orders.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 18:02:43
April 29 2014 18:02 GMT
#20503
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.


I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that?

Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state...

This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
April 29 2014 18:08 GMT
#20504
On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.


I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that?

Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state...

This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.

That's ultimately the issue. It's a volatile situation that won't necessarily end without shots being fired if the government takes any physical action. The best course of action is likely to just let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
April 29 2014 18:17 GMT
#20505
On April 30 2014 03:08 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.


I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that?

Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state...

This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.

That's ultimately the issue. It's a volatile situation that won't necessarily end without shots being fired if the government takes any physical action. The best course of action is likely to just let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot.



Residents who fear for their lives probably don't want to just "let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot."

Judging by what has already been said that 'solution' doesn't preclude gun fights either?

There are plenty 'volatile' situations police and other forces deal with everyday. People have been 'justifiably' shot for much less than what these militia's are doing.

So basically because they are well armed and ready to shoot we should let them do what they want? Because they would respond with violence if the government intervened?

They have essentially invaded/occupied a congressional district. Do they have to expand to the whole county, state, or region before it would be appropriate to take 'physical action'?

Put another way if they show signs of not falling apart but expanding how long would you wait to take action?

"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 21:20:01
April 29 2014 18:21 GMT
#20506
In other Racism news:

DONALD STERLING BANNED FOR LIFE FROM THE NBA (he cant even go to the games) Also has been assessed the maximum $2.5 million fine.

The commissioner is doing anything he can to force the sale of the team. (This actually helps the other owners more than it punishes Sterling)

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10857580/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba

Hopefully this serves as a stark warning to the peers he was saying were the reason he didn't want his girlfriend being seen on instagram with 'black people' (Magic Johnson).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21705 Posts
April 29 2014 18:30 GMT
#20507
On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.


I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that?

Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state...

This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.

Yeah the guy is like a role model for em with a background like that.
And to be honest when militia start shooting live rounds at police trying to remove them I would say shooting back is very much justified.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2014 18:39 GMT
#20508
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw.

You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion.

But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts?

Yeah that could happen.



I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.

So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.

But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...

Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'.

Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex.
But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down.

OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
April 29 2014 18:47 GMT
#20509
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw.

You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion.

But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts?

Yeah that could happen.



I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.

So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.

But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...

Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'.

Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex.
But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down.

OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

Show nested quote +
United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?



A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2014 19:01 GMT
#20510
On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw.

You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion.

But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts?

Yeah that could happen.



I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.

So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.

But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...

Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'.

Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex.
But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down.

OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?



A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?

Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 19:18:01
April 29 2014 19:16 GMT
#20511
On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw.

You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion.

But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts?

Yeah that could happen.



I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.

So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.

But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...

Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'.

Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex.
But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down.

OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?



A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?

Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?


Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues?


If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly?

And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those.

If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 29 2014 19:22 GMT
#20512
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed the Obama administration an important victory in its effort to reduce power plant pollution in 27 Midwestern and Appalachian states that blows downwind and leads to unhealthy air.

The decision caps a decades-long effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to find a legally acceptable way to ensure that states are good neighbors and don't contribute to pollution problems in downwind states, where environmental officials can do nothing to control it. The rule upheld Tuesday was EPA's third attempt to solve the problem.

In a 6-2 decision, the court upheld a rule adopted by the EPA in 2011 to limit emissions that create smog and soot that drifts into the air above states along the East Coast.

The ruling means that the polluting states will be forced to reduce smokestack pollution that sullies the air in downwind states. Industry and upwind states had fought the effort and paint it as another attempt by the administration to shut down coal-fired power plants.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2014 19:29 GMT
#20513
On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
Nobody claims it is a strictly static group so I don't know why you say stuff like that other than to troll or put use to your straw.

You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion.

But you understand how someone could move up in income by cashing out assets and people could move down by deferring realizations of income; so while they both 'moved' they are for dramatically different reasons with significantly different real world impacts?

Yeah that could happen.



I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.

So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.

But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...

Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'.

Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex.
But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down.

OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?



A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?

Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?


Show nested quote +
Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues?


If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly?

And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those.

If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made.

Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 19:46:54
April 29 2014 19:39 GMT
#20514
On April 30 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 12:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You can avoid my 'trolling' / 'straw-men' by simply acknowledging that such facts exists when you make your arguments. Alternatively, you can intelligently respond when I point out a given fact. I'd prefer the alternative as I prefer this to be a point / counter-point discussion.

[quote]
Yeah that could happen.



I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.

So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.

But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...

Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'.

Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex.
But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down.

OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?



A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?

Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?


Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues?


If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly?

And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those.

If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made.

Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself?



Ah well why would you go and say something like that, I thought we were making progress? Did you read my comment on Harry Reid?
stupid ass Harry Reid gave these nutjobs cover for insanity like that with his dumbass 'domestic terrorist' comment.


+ Show Spoiler +
I could of picked better terms than 'stupid ass' 'dumbass' and 'nutjobs' and I would add 'dangerous' to Harry's 'terrorist' comment in retrospect along with some other nuance.

That sound like a partisan to you? Or what I said about your last comment? If every 'partisan' thought and talked like that he probably wouldn't be leader would he?

I don't appear to be the one that isn't truly listening?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2014 19:44 GMT
#20515
On April 30 2014 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]


I presume people engaged in the discussion are smart enough to know something as simple as that unbelievably obvious fact.

So pointing it out or going out of the way to state it is silly and is why I have a hard time seeing it as something other than straw or troll.

But it fits right into your pattern of picking up on irrelevant points that were never in contention to begin with...

Who is it you think your factoid helped? What insight did it provide not already commonly known/accepted? Everyone engaged in the discussion knows that they aren't strictly 'static'.

Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex.
But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down.

OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?



A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?

Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?


Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues?


If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly?

And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those.

If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made.

Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself?



Ah well why would you go and say something like that, I thought we were making progress?

Are you trolling or really that stupid?

Your big idea was to stop Republicans. You reworded my complaint about Democrats to be more friendly to your side. Then called for coming together as if you just set the table in a way that at all resembled fair. Piss off and stop PMing me.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
April 29 2014 19:50 GMT
#20516
On April 30 2014 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 03:08 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:
What suprised me more is that the these militia's havnt been put down yet. And no I dont mean shoot them. There are plenty of measures that dont involve killing them.


I think the belief was that when the militias found out they were defending a racist, career criminal, who didn't recognize the federal government they would not want to do that?

Turns out being a racist, career criminal, who doesn't recognize the federal government (at least sometimes) is not enough to dissuade those militias for 'standing up' to defend your 'right?' to graze for free on government lands in perpetuity unlike every other rancher in the state...

This might be a good time to try out some of the governments new sonic and microwave crowd control devices? Doesn't mean the militias wont return fire with bullets though.

That's ultimately the issue. It's a volatile situation that won't necessarily end without shots being fired if the government takes any physical action. The best course of action is likely to just let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot.



Residents who fear for their lives probably don't want to just "let it die out on its own, through in-fighting and whatnot."

Judging by what has already been said that 'solution' doesn't preclude gun fights either?

There are plenty 'volatile' situations police and other forces deal with everyday. People have been 'justifiably' shot for much less than what these militia's are doing.

So basically because they are well armed and ready to shoot we should let them do what they want? Because they would respond with violence if the government intervened?

They have essentially invaded/occupied a congressional district. Do they have to expand to the whole county, state, or region before it would be appropriate to take 'physical action'?

Put another way if they show signs of not falling apart but expanding how long would you wait to take action?


It's because this has become a highly politicized engagement. Ideally, this would be a repeat of Shay's Rebellion, but now we have a large part of the electorate that would use this wrongfully as "an abuse of power."
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
April 29 2014 19:55 GMT
#20517
On April 30 2014 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 04:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 30 2014 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 29 2014 18:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 29 2014 17:57 IgnE wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Just because its an 'obvious fact' doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

ex. [quote]
OK, but none of those groups are static. Leaving college in debt and in the bottom 20% of wealth isn't so bad if you can reasonably expect to get a good job, pay off that debt and save enough to get into the top 20% of wealth by retirement. The more exchange there is between groups, the less static they are, the less the inequality matters.

This is a non-trivial point. It's not trolling or throwing up a straw man. Do you have a counter argument to it or not?

Edit: Ex. "I don't think there's enough exchange between groups" or "there are too many permanent members to each group".


So when rich kids graduate college and start working at entry-level salaries what wealth bracket do they fall in? They haven't yet inherited their family's wealth and they aren't making top 1% income yet. How much of the influx and outflux in the wealth and income categories is due to the creation of this "heir" class that is decidedly wealthy in every way except his tax return?


ikr?

Anyway on the volitility of the 400 wealthiest:

~88 out of a recent Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to make the list.

Yeah that's right ~21% of the 2012 Forbes 400 got there without having to earn a single solitary cent.
Source

Just ~1,302 people have made the list since it started. Out of a potential 10,000. Which means 8,698 out of 10000 ~87% of the Forbes 400 over a 25 year period were repeats.

Source

Several of the people who fell off the list actually died (5 last year) In the Walton's case 1 top spot was split into several of the top spots. So several who fell out of the top 10 were actually pushed out by spreading the wealth of one person who 'earned' it to their heirs. You only need to use events like that to account for about 302 more members of the 400 club to mean that 90% of the top 400 (families) have stayed there for 25 years and only 10% (as of 25 years of the list) had brief stays or were brand new members to the list.

I was unable to find any records of someone falling from the Forbes 400 into anything less than the top 1% if someone can, I would be interested in seeing it? But based on scarcity of any evidence it would seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario.

From the CNBC article:

United for a Fair Economy breaks down the Forbes list using a baseball analogy. It says 35 percent of the list was born in the “batter’s box,” with a lower-middle class or middle-class background.

That includes people like Larry Ellison of Oracle , who was born in a lower-middle class part of Chicago. It also includes Harold Hamm, a one-time gas-station attendant who built an oil and gas empire.

The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member.

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list. The home-basers include Forrest Mars Jr. and Bill Marriott. The report listed 3.25 percent as “undetermined,” meaning there was insufficient information on their financial background.


Doesn't sound perfect, but it doesn't sound too unreasonable either. I assume most would prefer fewer 'third base' and 'home plate' members. What would you like to do about that?



A starting point might be for Republicans and conservatives to stop trying to get rid of/reduce in any way possible the estate tax ('death-tax' [thanks for that Mr. Luntz].../sigh) altogether and instead start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?

Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals stop trying to brand welfare as a corporate subsidy, stop protecting the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and start talking about sensible reform that would address the issue?


Good idea. Additionally, how about Democrats and liberals have a reasonable debate about what impacts corporate utilization of social programs has, positive or negative, to what degree, and on who, and what benefit might be gained from better understanding the relationship. "How about dem..." Take an honest and somewhat unforgiving look at the entrenched interests of the legal, manufacturing and tech industries and continue talking about sensible reform that would address the issues?


If you said it like that then yeah I agree with that. I would hope in good faith a similar list for Republicans and Conservatives from the Dem/Libs perspective could be treated similarly?

And there should probably be one or two from tertiary perspectives addressing the bi-partisan aspects like those.

If we could agree to come to the table with that I think some real progress could be made.

Well if you want real progress you'll have to get rid of the partisans who don't want to listen to the other side. Maybe start with yourself?



Ah well why would you go and say something like that, I thought we were making progress?

Are you trolling or really that stupid?

Your big idea was to stop Republicans. You reworded my complaint about Democrats to be more friendly to your side. Then called for coming together as if you just set the table in a way that at all resembled fair. Piss off and stop PMing me.


If you wanted to re-frame the Republican one similarly I would of probably signed on to that too (I think I alluded to this). I admit the tone was a response to your tone from several posts ago and not the immediate one which was responded to directly (which is only an explanation not an excuse) so I apologize.


"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 20:10:46
April 29 2014 20:08 GMT
#20518
This discussion is seriously off. Do you know how many people are born in middle class famillies and how many in rich families ? Do you seriously think you can compare ? Volatility is statistical noise... Do you know how we measure social mobility ? We measure the chance that someone born in middle class or lower has to become part of the 1% in comparaison to the chance that someone born in a 1% familly has to achieve the same result.
If the goal is to evaluate meritocracy, then that s the type of measure that is relevant and not "volatility".
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
April 29 2014 20:17 GMT
#20519
that was originally bought up because of this danglars post:

He draws his conclusions in that section from the observations he quotes. Quoted elsewhere in the thread is the amazing interchange of the rich in today's observed society. You write about the top 1%, which has amazing turnover. Time and time again the income changes in the top 1%, but never the identities. IRS records show that the top 400 taxpayers has a turnover of about 98% in a decade. Those earning in excess of a million are more likely than not to have earned that for only 1 year of a decade. The rich aren't getting richer and preserving their class, it belongs to the newly rich and the previous 1% are now poorer.

so yea
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 29 2014 20:38 GMT
#20520
MILWAUKEE (AP) — A federal judge in Milwaukee has struck down Wisconsin's voter Identification law, saying it unfairly burdens poor and minority voters.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued his long-awaited decision Tuesday. It invalidates Wisconsin's law.

Wisconsin's law would have required voters to show a state-issued photo ID at the polls. Supporters said it would cut down on voter fraud and boost public confidence in the integrity of the election process.

But Adelman sided with opponents, who said it disproportionately excluded poor and minority voters because they're less likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them.

Wisconsin's law was only in effect for a 2012 primary before a Dane County judge declared it unconstitutional.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Prev 1 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL Team Wars
19:00
Round 3
Team Dewalt vs Team Bonyth
LiquipediaDiscussion
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
15:00
Playoffs Day 2
uThermal1377
IndyStarCraft 350
SteadfastSC320
Rex59
YoungYakov36
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
uThermal 1377
IndyStarCraft 350
SteadfastSC 320
ProTech105
MindelVK 66
Rex 59
CosmosSc2 1
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 32136
Calm 2881
Rain 1773
ggaemo 146
ToSsGirL 50
NaDa 34
SilentControl 8
Dota 2
qojqva4517
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Reynor57
Counter-Strike
fl0m2276
ScreaM2051
Stewie2K206
Heroes of the Storm
Grubby2624
Liquid`Hasu803
Khaldor520
Other Games
FrodaN1566
B2W.Neo1104
Mlord384
RotterdaM341
KnowMe165
PiGStarcraft155
ViBE138
Hui .89
ZombieGrub59
JuggernautJason23
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1411
StarCraft 2
ComeBackTV 239
angryscii 25
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• sM.Zik 1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 3153
• masondota21347
• WagamamaTV394
Counter-Strike
• imaqtpie1079
• Shiphtur228
Upcoming Events
Afreeca Starleague
14h 31m
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
19h 31m
RotterdaM Event
20h 31m
Replay Cast
1d 4h
Replay Cast
1d 14h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 14h
JyJ vs TY
Bisu vs Speed
WardiTV Summer Champion…
1d 15h
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Mini vs TBD
Soma vs sSak
WardiTV Summer Champion…
2 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
LiuLi Cup
4 days
BSL Team Wars
4 days
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
SC Evo League
5 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
5 days
[BSL 2025] Weekly
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
SC Evo League
6 days
BSL Team Wars
6 days
Team Bonyth vs Team Sziky
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-08-13
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 20
CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
CSLAN 3
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.