Please explain. Just calling names is soooo lefty.

What would make you think that? The poor do not pay income tax.

If you do not explain your remarks....clearly you are the one proving ignorance is a healthy chap...in the liberal camp.

914...

Really...

If you are lucky enough to (a) have parents that can open doors for you, (b) a talent that is beyond..far beyond average, (c) access to an excellent education and (d) someone who will mentor you and guide you, then you can make the statements you make. Not all people are that fortunate.

Someone once wrote a short story in which the entire population of the world had increases in IQ of 100%. Everyone was really smart. The problem was, no one wanted to collect the garbage or do the other things that make a society work.

AS much as I hate to say it, Ms. Clinton's statement is true. Talk to the average jamoke trying to make ends meet, with things like $3.00 a gallon gas which will soon flow over to everything that requires transportation. The average "worker's" ability to purchase goods and services has gone DOWN.

So jorian should show there is no truth in the statements? Because the statement(s) argue that an entire large group of Americans think in lockstep and hate to see wealth created. That is an asinine argument, unprovable and so one sided as to be laughable. One could easily turn the argument around to say that there is another large group of Americans that like to see some succeed at the expense of others. Just as asinine.

On a personal level, I do not enjoy arguments that are one-sided and do not take into consideration other contributing factors. Some posters here hate without understanding, unwilling to see anything from other than their own narrow little viewpoint, as if some other concept would somehow destroy their otherwise perfect understanding of how the world works.

It is sad because there is always room for alternate ideas.

We would be happy to see statistics that back these arguments...so we can start hating with understanding like the liberals. We learn nothing from being called ignorant....except that name-calling is the last resort for someone with no argument.

I would think your prerequisites for success are the exception, not the norm. How do you explain the success of the majority of folks who do not enjoy this good fortune?

Depends on your definition of success. Some feel successful if they are promoted to first clerk in a department store. Others feel unfulfilled as the senior VP of a large corporation.

So, how do you define success and how do you claim that the majority is successful when the definition itself varies from individual to individual?

So...the left, at least if I read your statement correctly, considers the right ignorant? Then, on the other hand, some right wingers have posted words like UnAmerican, Traitor, fascist...Am I missing someting, or is there no enough name calling on both sides? The main subject was the assignment to a large group of the population a common hatred for people who make it big, a totally unsupportable opinion. Although not officially "name-calling", it is innuendo and an attempt to establish "guilt by association", sopmething you have reviled against when on the other side.

Changing the tone of the argument and shifting blame is not noble or heroic. There is nothing noble or heroic in that kind of behavior.

As for the point of underemployment rather than unemployment, what say you? Is there a fairly large percentage of the American public that has not been fortunmate enough to keep up with increasing expenses, despite theri diligence andhard work? Can everyone be a vice president? Seems to me that business is a pyramid with very little room at the tippy tippy top. Is it fair to compare a member of the armed forces with guaranteed lifetime health care to someone working in a factory where management just eliminates coverage as a cost saving move?

We are entering into an area of subjective analysis, such as the definition of success, an area in which there are no quantifiable answers, and most of the answers that are posted concerning politics and economics are one-sided, strident, tiring and banal..

anyway....

Cheers!!

Is that not your point here:
"On a personal level, I do not enjoy arguments that are one-sided and do not take into consideration other contributing factors. Some posters here hate without understanding, unwilling to see anything from other than their own narrow little viewpoint, as if some other concept would somehow destroy their otherwise perfect understanding of how the world works."

If Jorian's entire argument is: "Fint proves ignorance is alive and well. "...He probably should show a bit more thought before posting. What exactly are you defending in this post?

Have you beat your wife lately?

LOL!

Bob,

You can have all four of those conditions and still not be successful in life if you're lazy and lack motivation. You can have none, or some, and succeed through hard work and determination. I've seen examples of both. And I can make those statements because I did not have all four.

Also, intelligence does not translate into everyone wanting to be nuclear physicists. Intelligent people like to do a lot of things, and that may even include collecting garbage. And most like to make money. So if nobody is picking up the garbage but there are people willing to pay to get rid of it - that's when someone has the opportunity to step in and make some money. Private enterprise and hard work.

In your context I can see why you think Clinton's statement is true. Energy prices going up will take a bigger bite out of a low wage earner's income. I doubt if that's what was on her mind though. It's much better that the rich are getting richer by growth in the economy and creation of new jobs vs. the rich getting poorer with the stock market tanking and massive layoffs. If she's referring to the rich evading taxes through tax loopholes, she better make sure her own house is in order first. I'm sure she'll soon begin screaming about the high price of gasoline. This coming from the party who aligns with people who say the war was fought over oil and who want to slap the economy with the Kyoto Protocol. These people hate it when the free market raises the price, but love it when the government raises the taxes in a bogus attempt to reduce global warming (or whatever).

If someone is going to call someone else's comments ignorant, then fine. But they could at least back up their claim with some substance. There's a lot of truth to fint's statements. There are a lot of jobs out there, but also a lot of people who won't work because they don't have to and don't want to. They'd rather sit around and blow money on drugs and mooch off someone else. It's a free country and they can do as they please, but I don't want to subsidize it.

914

Ambition and drive are a given. Without these, anyone can fail, no matter how lucky or gifted. But no one has ever become "wealthy" without the approval, either conscious or passive of others. Chew on that notion for awhile.

What bothers me is the generalities such as "...There are a lot of jobs out there, but also a lot of people who won't work because they don't have to and don't want to." Include in those not working dependent children, a darn big percentage of the whole. I ask respectfully, where is the substance? Agreed, there will always be those who abuse the system. Even Christ said "The poor we will always have with us". (just to make mul happy)

fint asked about my defense of jorian. Perhaps I read a bit more into Jorian's comment. Change the word "ignorance" to "partisanship", "bias", or "narrow mindedness" and it makes more sense. Ignorance can be the result of closing ones self off from opposing concepts. would you agree?

I posited questions about those without medical insurance and received no cogent response. Them that has it at employer or government expense, Thems the lucky ones. More and more employers are cutting back on medical coverage and on retirement accounts, sometimes affecting loyal hard working folks nearing retirement and finding out that won't financially be able to make it. Just as an example, once retired, people are urged to put their money into less speculative investments. If you assume a 6% interest rate, it would take one million dollars to generate $60,000 annually. Factor in inflation, and a 30 year old had better have twice to three times that amount at age 60. Three million? What IRA or Keogh will generate that sum in 25 to 30 years with affordable monthly investments? Of course, this assumes not touching the principal, at least at first. But the average individual retireing at, say 60, will probably life another 25 years during which costs will still continue to inflate, and medical costs will become a larger probability. So after a number of years, it is likely the principal will be needed, rather than left for spouse or children.

From an international economic view, yes, part of the result of the situation in the Middle East is a spike in oil prices, along with the effect of growing powerhouses like China and India. One thing to ponder: One of the primary reasons that Nazi Germany ground to a halt was a lack of fuel. In 1943, the Allies decided that depriving Germany of petroleum would shorten the war. Evidence of this is after the Battle of the Bulge, many tanks were left behind, in perfect operating order, but without petrol. Here we sit, dependent on outside sources for our oil. It's beginning to have a chilling similarity.

As far as global warming, I take no stand. But it is a possibility, one of many possibilities. To dismiss it out of hand really makes as much sense as those who say that Iran should be left alone and is not threat.

My stock-in-trade is finance and economics. There are a number of studies and reports out there that do not paint as rosy a picture as some are led to believe. And, as the world population increases, things are simply going to get worse. Too many people, limited resources...Can anyone say "global meltdown"? I give it 40 years, tops.