Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:51 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mitt Romney income calculator
#21
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
I never said that he has to or should give his money away. Tiberius claimed that he wasn't greedy because he gave away $3 million last year, and I was arguing that he's not generous if he makes $21 million a year and only gives away $3 million of it. Don't forget, that's only $21 million last year. That's not to mention all the accumulated wealth he's got in offshore bank accounts. It's easy to look like a humanitarian to people you just gave $3 million to, but when you look at his vast wealth, it's really not that much.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Reply
#22
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
(January 26, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Tiberius Wrote: By that definition Min, almost everyone is "greedy". What is the point of the word if you can apply it to almost everyone at the same time? Romney being greedy shouldn't be news if you can apply that word to 99% of the population, so I say that most people are using a different definition of "greedy"; one which applies only to people who make a large amount of money and keep 70% of it (which is a lot less than most other people).



I don't know what you're smoking, but I don't want it at all.

I'll repeat what DT has said but certain people fail to fucking recognize it:
"It's a hell of a lot easier for someone making $21 million a year to give away $3 million than it is for someone making $21,000 a year to give away $3,000."

That's the problem with Libertarians -- they never fucking recognize that accumulating resources en mass from others has taken resources from others.

It's like there is a double-think going on.

And they never seem to recognize there is a such a thing as having no resources being damaging while keeping the concept of having all the resources.

Both extremes are toxic, yet Libertarians can only seem to recognize the first (while advocating for "private charities" - e.g. people who actually feel bad about those less fortunate).

It never dawns on them that even-handed application on a large scale (e.g. government) of resources for the unemployed, vulnerable and sick is more efficient in that it doesn't depend on people feeling bad just to contribute a small sum.

But hey! We can always look at the calamities (e.g. Katrina) and roundly pat private charities on the back while ignoring the efficacy of our welfare programs in maintaining people who aren't important enough to garner sympathy for some natural disaster except the natural disaster of economics.
(January 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I can never understand why people want the rich to be forced to give away their money. It's a choice, just like getting an education or working hard. As was said earlier, much of his money is invested which provides jobs and upfront capital to growing businesses.

Wow, are you an idiot. To get that wealth, you have to accumulate it from others. How hard is that to understand?

Ergo, you can easily have situations where a set of people has accumulated wealth at the extreme detriment of others. Crony capitalism, for example, enriches the pockets of politically-connected people while preventing another, who by their own hand or merit, from getting it.

If we follow that resources on this planet are finite or the collecting of such resources is fundamentally limited, then it is also self-evident that everything that derives/consumes such resources are limited as well.

Taking into account losses and inefficiencies in the processes that use physical resources, we can note that, under the laws of supply and demand in an assumed equal marketplace, that it is a zero-sum game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero%E2%80%93sum_game ) with a set number of resources that can, in some form or another (e.g. manufacturing), be traded.

There is no "magical wellspring" of wealth -- for example, let's take the case of the banker handling a monetary transaction and 'making money'. Where did that money come from? A source or pool of money that is allocated elsewhere within the institution.

The only "magic" that could be is simply an inaccurate attempt at changing, the distribution of resource acquisition -- for example, increasing the scarcity of physical dollars can help curb inflation, temporarily. That's what the Fed does -- many people don't think they do a great job at it. I, personally, think they are prone to and are corrupt.

(January 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm)Perhaps Wrote: The end goal of society should not be to live off each other, but rather to provide for one's self.

That is an even more idiotic assertion. Looking at our roots and our closest evolutionary cousins, it seems that society is nothing BUT living off each other.

Why the fuck else would a social species for groups, troops and dynasties, if not for the very purpose of living off, in some way, another?

Durrrrrr.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Reply
#23
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
I stand by my reasoning. Almost everyone is desiring of wealth in some way, and why shouldn't they be? Wealth lets you live your life how you want, without many cares about bills or being able to survive. My point was it is a stupid definition for "greedy" when it applies to most of the population, and it is even more stupid to point at someone who is "greedy" and act like they are the anomaly.

Yeah, it may be a hell of a lot easier for Romney to give away 15% of his total income, but that wasn't the point. The point is, he did give away that amount. As I said before, we don't know how much of Romney's money is re-invested, how much of it goes towards creating new jobs for people, etc. At the end of the day, it isn't how much your income is, it's what you do with it that counts. Look at Bill Gates; I doubt many of us would argue he is greedy, when he's pledged to give 99% of his fortune to charity. I did the calculation; that leaves Gates with $590,000,000 left over...far more than Romney will probably make in his entire life. If we're going to throw the greedy card around, why not stick it on Gates as well? By your logic, he's still greedy, despite all his donations to charity.
Reply
#24
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
The fact that Bill Gates accumulated that 99% to give away and you're not wondering how such a system tolerates such extremes makes me question your head more than his.

You've done a wonderful job of illustrating how one man can accumulate whole countries worth of fortunes. Well done.

I love how greedy whacks never consider the whole system and it's effects. Gathering that amount of money certainly had no negative consequences, right? Nope, we all live in a complete void that isolates everyone from each other.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Reply
#25
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
Unless Gates stole the money or obtained it through some illegal means, it was all accumulated perfectly legitimately. People paid his company money for a service which they wanted. Nobody was forced into paying money to Microsoft if they didn't want to; they parted with it of their own free will. How exactly has Gates done anything wrong here?
Reply
#26
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
That's the problem.

Everything he did was legit under the current rules/boundary conditions that we've imposed.

Could it possibly be because the Capitalistic model that we've been using is, *gasp*, incomplete?

There is nothing in Adam Smith's works that I can see that address the issue of a too-successful actor, other than asking said actor to "invest" and other play-nice things.

That's the same crap you're advocating as well.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Reply
#27
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
(January 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Greedy? Not by any definition.

From Dictionary.com

Quote:greedy
[gree-dee]   Origin
greed·y
   [gree-dee] Show IPA
adjective, greed·i·er, greed·i·est.
1.
excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious: the greedy owners of the company.

I submit that "greedy" is exactly the correct word. Turning around and giving money to charity is self-aggrandizing also. I'm sure he thinks his fucking phony god loves him for pissing away a fortune on the mormon church.

In any case, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the acquisition of such wealth.

Clearly the term "greedy" fits EXACTLY with Mitt Romney.
Reply
#28
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
(January 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: That's the problem.

Everything he did was legit under the current rules/boundary conditions that we've imposed.

Still don't see how it is a problem. He created a company, used it to create a product that was used by millions, and created jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Like I said before, people didn't have to buy Microsoft products; there are plenty of alternatives on the free market, but for some reason people keep buying things made by Microsoft.

Heck, didn't the government / EU fine Microsoft ridiculous amounts of money anyway?
Reply
#29
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
Quote:The fact is he gave $3 million and the person making $21,000 didn't give $3,000.
Wrong, the person making $21,000 COULDNT give to charity, and I argue that if capitalism were such a "successful" system, then charity would not be needed now, would it?

Quote:I can never understand why people want the rich to be forced to give away their money.
Hmmm, crony capitalism, buying off politicians, special HALFED tax rate for exactly what Romeny does (Which is stock), insider agreements, buying up of companies in troubled, dividing the assets and firing american workers to move the product creation overseas to pay people $3 a day to do the same work and sell it for the same price in America. Gaining tax payer monies for incentive programs...man, I can keep going with that list.

So gee, why would the poor expect the rich to put back into the society that made them so rich?

Who knows?
Quote: It's a choice, just like getting an education or working hard.
working hard does not make one rich and I am a prime example of that. My father worked so hard his back is now paying for it. It never made him rich.

How do you get rich? Make OTHER people work hard for you.

I learned this from the businesses I ran before. It is quite obvious that in order for you to get rich in America is to stretch the law. Abuse your workers, and generally not care about ANYTHING other than the gaining of wealth.

You dont become rich spending money, you become rich gaining money.

Quote: As was said earlier, much of his money is invested which provides jobs and upfront capital to growing businesses.
..and you are obviously unaware of the aggresive corporate take overs which made him filthy rich. You know, the kind that break up an American corporation and sends it over seas to take advantage of third world countries to pay them pennies on the dollar.

Yeah, he sure is providing jobs in America, and we are all in a debt of gratitude to people like Mitt.

Quote:Giving away money isn't intelligent, investing money in something is.
So then naturally you are for paying someone $1 an hour or less to get them to work for you. Why give away money? Why not just have slaves? Its more intelligent not to pay your workers than to pay them isnt it? invest it in jobs overseas and let the sweatshops generate cash money you can use today! safety codes? Who needs them. funding safety is a waste of money. It is much more "intelligent" to put that money into the stock market (with insider tips from Romneys friends).
Quote:On a forum which celebrates intellectual conversation, I'm amazed at how many people have the socialist mindset.
That cost you my rating. no way will I have my stamp of "open mindedness" on someone who spews garbage like this.
Apparently to you, an "intellectual" is someone who is more involved in accumulating mass amounts of wealth to the detriment of society.

Quote:Being rich isn't bad, and you have no right whatsoever to demean the rich for not giving you their money - which they made.
Of course being rich isnt bad, in fact you are on the top of the pile of shit you leave in your wake. How dare we expect them to care about the society that made them rich.
Quote: How would you like if the rich demeaned you for not giving $3,000 to charity?
I wish i had $3000 of loose money to give to the poor, because I would surely do such a thing. The way the system is there is hardly any cash floating around to survive, much less help others out.
Quote:They could have easily gone on a vacation with their family, but instead they donated.
Yeah...right....you can believe that crap all you want, but dont piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Quote:You could easily give up internet and eat rice instead of luxury foods, but instead you keep it to increase your living conditions.
Are you not merciful?

Quote:The end goal of society should not be to live off each other, but rather to provide for one's self.
The perfect description of greed. What you describe is a leech. Sucking the blood of society to better ones own self at the cost of the host.
Reply
#30
RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
(January 26, 2012 at 6:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
(January 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: That's the problem.

Everything he did was legit under the current rules/boundary conditions that we've imposed.

Still don't see how it is a problem. He created a company, used it to create a product that was used by millions, and created jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. Like I said before, people didn't have to buy Microsoft products; there are plenty of alternatives on the free market, but for some reason people keep buying things made by Microsoft.

Heck, didn't the government / EU fine Microsoft ridiculous amounts of money anyway?

I notice you didn't even address my latter statements. Lovely.

In game design, if you have a system that is unbalanced, you don't blame the top players for that. You simply add in and remove conditions from that system and rebalance accordingly.

I keep on pointing out the massive accumulation of wealth at one of the distribution and you keep ignoring it.

Please, please tell me, what other solution do you have than "do nothing" and "try to reduce the burden on the rich"?

I see a lot of poor people on the other side, most of which who cannot, despite ability, compete effectively to raise out of poverty.

Ability is shit when you don't have the education or training to use it effectively.

However, if we were to reward ability and cultivate that, it would require resources.

And who has all the resources? Not the poor people. The rich, however...

Once again, devout capitalists refuse to admit their system is incomplete...
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Mitt Romney Is Kinda Stupid BrianSoddingBoru4 89 5808 May 3, 2022 at 11:23 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Universal basic income in the future Aegon 63 11132 September 24, 2019 at 1:29 pm
Last Post: Aegon
  Universal Basic Income GrandizerII 84 21980 May 8, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  No Wonder Romney Won't Endorse Him. Minimalist 5 1336 October 7, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Income Inequality and Left Wing Hypocricy Neo-Scholastic 17 3327 September 28, 2016 at 4:02 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Mitt Romney considering a Libertarian Party endorsement? ReptilianPeon 9 1408 August 1, 2016 at 7:03 pm
Last Post: chimp3
  Humans need not apply - the case for the universal basic income Heywood 23 7099 January 22, 2015 at 2:10 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Bill Gate's Solution to Income Inequality Heywood 44 7335 November 15, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Last Post: Ryantology
  Janet Yellin Mentions Income Inequality.... Minimalist 0 861 October 30, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Rich Motherfucker - Is This One Of Romney's 47%? Minimalist 6 1697 October 21, 2014 at 11:49 am
Last Post: Heywood



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)