• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

You common people just don't get it

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
That is going under the assumption that being rich makes one smarter then all the less off folk.
The counter-argument is that they became rich due to chance. While this is a favored view of the liberal, it has not been my experience and I reject it accordingly. There are exceptions, but those who get rich by winning the lottery seldom stay rich.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
They sure seem to, these CEO's seem to be no different than the general public. They just think they are smarter or better, yet the are just as idiotic as the general public. The only difference is that they have money so the mistakes they make doesn't have that big of an effect on their lifestyle.
They don't just have money - they made money. There is a huge difference. They didn't just walk out their front door one day to find a pallet full of $100 bills. They made some decisions that got them to where they are. I see a trend where liberals ascribe all of reality to pure random chance. This is a great worldview if one does not want to be held responsible for one's actions. However, my experience contradicts this premise so I reject it.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
The counter-argument is that they became rich due to chance. While this is a favored view of the liberal, it has not been my experience and I reject it accordingly. There are exceptions, but those who get rich by winning the lottery seldom stay rich.
They became rich because they were well equipped to take advantage of the opportunities that came their way.

Maybe they were extremely athletically talented or brilliant or had the right education that lined up with a very fortunate opportunity.



Michael Jordan for example was extremely talented as an athlete and smart enough to take advantage of the licensing opportunities his talent afforded him.

Stephen King is creative enough to horror and fantasy that appeals to a very large audience of readers excellent movies (as well as many stinkers) have been made from his works. He was also lucky enough to find a publisher to give him a chance. However, he had to keep on producing content the his audiences would continue to buy after his first sale.

Bill Gates didn't finish his education. However, he was smart enough to realize the opportunities that were presented with the release of the first personal computers and the rest is well known.


I don't know what liberals you know but I don't think that a majority of people who are wealthy got that way through pure luck.

Sure chance can play a role but if you can't capitalize on your opportunities you won't be as successful as somebody who can.




Getting back to the subject of the original post.

I don't think that a wealthy person has to give to charities to be a good person, although they get points with me for doing so.

I do have a problem with wealthy people who demonstrate a certain attitude by seeking out every available way to keep their taxes low.

These also seem to be the ones who argue for keeping their tax rates low even though just repealing the Bush tax cuts on the people who earn over $300k a year would not impact their living too much unless they are living very extravagantly.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I think the wealthy SHOULD give to charity - they have excess money (read this to mean much more than they need), so they have an obligation to help those who do not have enough.

This is not the same as paying more taxes - taxes are far less efficient than most charities. In other words, they waste too much money to accomplish their goals.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
They became rich because they were well equipped to take advantage of the opportunities that came their way.

Maybe they were extremely athletically talented or brilliant or had the right education that lined up with a very fortunate opportunity.



Michael Jordan for example was extremely talented as an athlete and smart enough to take advantage of the licensing opportunities his talent afforded him.

Stephen King is creative enough to horror and fantasy that appeals to a very large audience of readers excellent movies (as well as many stinkers) have been made from his works. He was also lucky enough to find a publisher to give him a chance. However, he had to keep on producing content the his audiences would continue to buy after his first sale.

Bill Gates didn't finish his education. However, he was smart enough to realize the opportunities that were presented with the release of the first personal computers and the rest is well known.


I don't know what liberals you know but I don't think that a majority of people who are wealthy got that way through pure luck.

Sure chance can play a role but if you can't capitalize on your opportunities you won't be as successful as somebody who can.
There are plenty of examples in this very thread. Michael Jordan didn't become insanely wealthy by just being talented. He found his talent, worked his ass off, and became the best person in the world at what he did. I've yet to meet a person that didn't have talent at something, so the difference seems to come from work ethic and willingness/ability to take risks. The ability to take risks I think is much less important than the willingness to do so as our society generally takes very good care of someone who gambles and loses. There are of course other factors, but it's absurd to say that someone who is a CEO of a huge company doesn't know anything more about how to properly manage finances than someone living in a trailer after bankrupting themselves after winning the lottery.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
There are of course other factors, but it's absurd to say that someone who is a CEO of a huge company doesn't know anything more about how to properly manage finances than someone living in a trailer after bankrupting themselves after winning the lottery.
Did I say such a thing?

CEO's know how to run companies and take advantage of tax codes to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities that the corporation has to it's board and the stockholders.

They worked hard to get the education to learn that.

That doesn't change what I said. In fact your CEO's are an example of what I said...

If you can't capitalize on the opportunities you are presented you won't be as successful as the people who can.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
This is not the same as paying more taxes - taxes are far less efficient than most charities. In other words, they waste too much money to accomplish their goals.
It all depends. Medicare has a very low administrative cost. about 5% and it does something that charities would have a hard time picking up. Providing a baseline standard of medical care for people over a certain age.

Medicare does have its problems mainly with funding but that it is not the fault of the way it is run administratively, but rather the way it's funds are borrowed against.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It all depends. Medicare has a very low administrative cost. about 5% and it does something that charities would have a hard time picking up. Providing a baseline standard of medical care for people over a certain age.

Medicare does have its problems mainly with funding but that it is not the fault of the way it is run administratively, but rather the way it's funds are borrowed against.
Yeah, there are always exceptions to the rule. Medicare's other problem is fraud. though any huge service will have some problem with fraud.

All in all, charities do more will less than a government can ever hope to do. Mostly because charities always have people willing to work for free. If you shift down to religious charities, they are some of the most efficient out there - when you are doing something for your god you are more likely to accept hardships and "make due".

Just generalities, there are always exceptions out there.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Yeah, there are always exceptions to the rule. Medicare's other problem is fraud. though any huge service will have some problem with fraud.

All in all, charities do more will less than a government can ever hope to do. Mostly because charities always have people willing to work for free. If you shift down to religious charities, they are some of the most efficient out there - when you are doing something for your god you are more likely to accept hardships and "make due".

Just generalities, there are always exceptions out there.
Another exception is the Military and perhaps local police and fire departments.

The military does also have trouble with fraud sometimes and with people gaming various systems within it but like Medicare it is serving a purpose that could not be adequately accomplished by a smaller state run organization much less a charity.

I know you wanted to paint medicare as the exception that proves the rule but that is not the case. Charities surely do have their place however, when it comes to serving a populace of a nation composed of states it is necessary at times to look toward a federal organization.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Yeah, there are always exceptions to the rule. Medicare's other problem is fraud. though any huge service will have some problem with fraud.

All in all, charities do more will less than a government can ever hope to do. Mostly because charities always have people willing to work for free. If you shift down to religious charities, they are some of the most efficient out there - when you are doing something for your god you are more likely to accept hardships and "make due".

Just generalities, there are always exceptions out there.
Which charity covered all senior citizens before Medicare?

Which charity got 100% of Americans covered with health insurance?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Another exception is the Military and perhaps local police and fire departments.

The military does also have trouble with fraud sometimes and with people gaming various systems within it but like Medicare it is serving a purpose that could not be adequately accomplished by a smaller state run organization much less a charity.
The military is an entirely different system. It is quite rife with overcharges (though I believe this is simply a way to funnel money to undeclared military actions/weapons, etc) - how much did that hammer cost? Also, those in the military are subject to the UCMJ whereas other civilian agencies are not.

Now, if we held the civilians in the other agencies accountable via the UCMJ...well, their unions would go on strike - so I guess it cannot happen...


I know you wanted to paint medicare as the exception that proves the rule but that is not the case. Charities surely do have their place however, when it comes to serving a populace of a nation composed of states it is necessary at times to look toward a federal organization.
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.[4]

Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.[6]

The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.[15]

A Department of Agriculture report concedes that much of the $2.5 billion in "stimulus" funding for broadband Internet will be wasted.[28]

Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their backyards -- subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want. [36]

The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.[49]

Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.[33]

The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.[41]

Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.[45]

Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.[48]
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste


This is just a small sampling of what is out there. Efficiency is not the norm in our government.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Which charity covered all senior citizens before Medicare?

Which charity got 100% of Americans covered with health insurance?
Look! A Red Herring has been spotted to the right. Everyone look to the right and NOT where you previously looking!
 

Dannar26

Senior member
Mar 13, 2012
683
26
91
She's right. I'm sorry she hurt your feelings Gonad. While I'm sure she could have worded it better, rest assured she wasn't targeting *all* barbarians such as yourself. Just the delusional ones that think Obama is somehow helping the economy.

The last thing we would want is honest factual reasoning here. Thankfully, this is politics, where discussion can be thrown out the door because of percieved slights.

Duely blundered from my thunderdolt
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
The military is an entirely different system. It is quite rife with overcharges (though I believe this is simply a way to funnel money to undeclared military actions/weapons, etc) - how much did that hammer cost? Also, those in the military are subject to the UCMJ whereas other civilian agencies are not.
That doesn't change the fact that it also has a socialized medical system in place for its members that is much like the medicare system for people over 65.

Like medicare it also has lower administrative costs than for profit health insurance.

In the context of this thread. About a candidate who has as one of his main planks in his platform the repeal of the ACA these are major considerations...

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...vernment-waste This is just a small sampling of what is out there. Efficiency is not the norm in our government.
Heritage foundation? please I may as well start posting links from www.dasKapital.org

Although they are right about a couple of things... the largest items on their list stem from a particular responses to tragic events.

guess that old saying about a broken clock applies.
 
Last edited:

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
To opine that obama is seriously hurting the economy would not be incorrect in and or itself. But to then turn around and say that Romney is the best thing since Reagan is pretty stupid. Romney = Obama = Obomney = Romneybama. It is never been clearer.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
That doesn't change the fact that it also has a socialized medical system in place for its members that is much like the medicare system for people over 65.
If you want to apply the military society on the rest of the public, then you can add all the benefits as well. Picking one item while ignoring the others is silly.

Heritage foundation? please I may as well start posting links from www.dasKapital.org
Is this your way of saying "wow, that is a lot I did not know about, hmmm...how to make it appear they are not real, oh, I know, I will attack the link even though ever item is sourced"?


guess that old saying about a broken clock applies.
True, eventually you will be right twice in one day. :)
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
The counter-argument is that they became rich due to chance. While this is a favored view of the liberal, it has not been my experience and I reject it accordingly. There are exceptions, but those who get rich by winning the lottery seldom stay rich.
That's not the counterargument. I believe that becoming rich is a function of three things: luck, talent and hard work (not necessarily in that order). In some cases you can compensate for a deficiency in one area by excelling at another. That doesn't guarantee that someone who is extremely rich necessary excels over someone who is not as rich (or even poor) in all three areas, or even on specific area.

For example, I know many people who I am almost sure are smarter and harder working than Paris Hilton who are not rich.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Is this your way of saying "wow, that is a lot I did not know about, hmmm...how to make it appear they are not real, oh, I know, I will attack the link even though ever item is sourced"?
It's my way of saying what a biased source. Too bad private corporations don't have to disclose their documents to the same extent government agencies have to. It would be interesting to see what happens if someone could turn that magnifying glass toward corporations and see how much waste fraud and abuse they could dig up.

Not to mention the fact that fraud by many financial corporations lead to a lot of the government spending that could be considered wasteful.

If you want to apply the military society on the rest of the public, then you can add all the benefits as well. Picking one item while ignoring the others is silly.
No it's not actually. Because of one of the main issues in Governor Romney's campaign platform. The comparison applies.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2004
18,655
65
91
I work harder than the average person on wall street. Don't confuse work ethic with reward systems. I know peopel that own comapnies than make less than the average employee who does not own a busienss on wall street.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
That doesn't change the fact that it also has a socialized medical system in place for its members that is much like the medicare system for people over 65.

Like medicare it also has lower administrative costs than for profit health insurance.
As a military member, I can say with confidence that you wouldn't want a medical system like ours. Just google for some of the forums that military doctors hang out in to see why. It's an awful system in many regards, with far, far more bureaucracy and red tape than the private\insurance amalgam of the private sector.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It's my way of saying what a biased source.
Their listed items are sourced. You keep "forgetting" that part. Is it like using wikipedia - the information is suspect unless that information is gleaned from a reputable source.

No it's not actually. Because of one of the main issues in Governor Romney's campaign platform. The comparison applies.
Romney is not saying anything about the military medical coverage, afaik.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
As a military member, I can say with confidence that you wouldn't want a medical system like ours. Just google for some of the forums that military doctors hang out in to see why. It's an awful system in many regards, with far, far more bureaucracy and red tape than the private\insurance amalgam of the private sector.
Agreed...that was my take on it when I was in back in the late 80s/ early 90s.
 

Dannar26

Senior member
Mar 13, 2012
683
26
91
To opine that obama is seriously hurting the economy would not be incorrect in and or itself. But to then turn around and say that Romney is the best thing since Reagan is pretty stupid. Romney = Obama = Obomney = Romneybama. It is never been clearer.
I agree wholeheartedly about Rommnybama. He's just the lesser of two evils imho.

You're right in that the sole blame doesn't rest on him, or even his entire administration. But crafting laws in the image of European socialism? We see how they're doing...

Duely blundered from my thunderdolt
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
Romney is not saying anything about the military medical coverage, afaik.
The example has merit republicans are saying Obamacare is a takeover of the the medical system. The military health care system is an example of a medical system.

Their listed items are sourced. You keep "forgetting" that part. Is it like using wikipedia - the information is suspect unless that information is gleaned from a reputable source.
You keep forgetting that while they sourced their assertions heritage foundation as a conservative advocacy group would likely leave out sources that provide facts that don't support their aims.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Heaven forbid we face the reality that the hillbillly's opinion on nuclear physics be treated as less important than a leading nuclear physicist's!
Heaven forbid that we face the reality that a non-scientist's opinion on climate change be treated as less important than a leading climatologist's
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY