The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Rockman** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:22 pm

something like 75% of the current millionaires in this country did not inherit their wealth, that would imply that they earned it in their lifetime.

by **ZombieRed** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 pm

Rockman wrote:something like 75% of the current millionaires in this country did not inherit their wealth, that would imply that they earned it in their lifetime.

Earned it = exploiting others, cutting jobs people need, charging people $40 for a product when it costs you 40 cents to make it, had family/family friends that worked in their industry/market?

Also inheritances don't necessarily have to be huge. I'm pretty sure most of those 75% came from an upper-middle class family so they had a comfortable foundation to start with.

by **Cat-Scratch** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:33 pm

ZombieRed wrote:
The cynical old conservative in you is showing

The "barking" can become intelligible if it's planned out better, and they lobby to parliament rather than just staying in one spot.

Hardly.

Even you pointed, repeatedly that they had no coherent message. That is "barking".

If it has no or little intelligence in it to begin with... "barking"... then all the planning won't make it into something more then it is...

Lobbying Parliment/government is always the best way to go while also respecting the laws and others. But if all you're going to do is make rants and barely intelligent ones... "barking".

But yes, I am a cynic. Or as many have said in real life, a cruel pragmatist. :wink:

by **ZombieRed** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:34 pm

What exactly is classified as "inheritance" is also up for debate when it comes to these statistics.

by **MoneyMelon** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:36 pm

Rockman wrote:something like 75% of the current millionaires in this country did not inherit their wealth, that would imply that they earned it in their lifetime.

There's no problem with people earning that kind of money. Not in my opinion, at least.

by **Cat-Scratch** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:38 pm

ZombieRed wrote:
Earned it = exploiting others, cutting jobs people need, charging people $40 for a product when it costs you 40 cents to make it, had family/family friends that worked in their industry/market?

Also inheritances don't necessarily have to be huge. I'm pretty sure most of those 75% came from an upper-middle class family so they had a comfortable foundation to start with.

Steve Jobs and Apple.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:44 pm

I made much longer posts about this in the various threads when it was happening, but the lack of a solid, concrete message is because there is no unified message. The unifying theme here, and with the original tea party protests, is dissatisfaction. People are pissed off and dissatisfied with the way things are run and the way things are. And I think that dissatisfaction is valid, and I think its manifestation in huge ways in the past few years shows it is really growing. And I think the dismissal of it by some people is sad.

by **Rockman** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:54 pm

Well I think that staging protests about how the government is run in locations where our governing bodies don't even meet is a pretty dumb idea.

Of course protesting in general isn't very effective anyways.

by **MoneyMelon** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:59 pm

Rockman wrote:Well I think that staging protests about how the government is run in locations where our governing bodies don't even meet is a pretty dumb idea.

Of course protesting in general isn't very effective anyways.

I think their point (or at least part of it) is that the real power lies in the hands of big banks and the wealthy.

That's the point I actually agreed with them on, at least. The government has basically stopped representing the people and become a tool of a relatively small group of very wealthy people, particularly in the age of "corporations are people too!"

by **Victorian Squid** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:01 pm

The Adbusters Euro-dude credited with starting the whole Occupy thing said back late last year, about the same time the weather was turning chilly and cities were evicting them, that they would sort of "hibernate" over the Winter and work on ideas and return with rejuvenated strength in the Spring. :smt102

by **Chris** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:19 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I made much longer posts about this in the various threads when it was happening, but the lack of a solid, concrete message is because there is no unified message. The unifying theme here, and with the original tea party protests, is dissatisfaction. People are pissed off and dissatisfied with the way things are run and the way things are. And I think that dissatisfaction is valid, and I think its manifestation in huge ways in the past few years shows it is really growing. And I think the dismissal of it by some people is sad.

Someone should stand up and be the voice of the people, IB(endis')O.

by **achilles** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:36 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I made much longer posts about this in the various threads when it was happening, but the lack of a solid, concrete message is because there is no unified message. The unifying theme here, and with the original tea party protests, is dissatisfaction. People are pissed off and dissatisfied with the way things are run and the way things are. And I think that dissatisfaction is valid, and I think its manifestation in huge ways in the past few years shows it is really growing. And I think the dismissal of it by some people is sad.

Dissatisfaction is valid all right, but it helps to have some idea just exactly what you're dissatisfied with, and how to fix it. Unfortunately, the only unified message that came out of the movement vaguely ungarbled was that they wanted free stuff, and that everyone owed them something. Mostly more free stuff.

There are lots of phenomenon going on today in this country that indicated a growing dissatisfaction and even fear about our direction, and this is only one of them.

by **achilles** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:39 pm

MoneyMelon wrote:I think their point (or at least part of it) is that the real power lies in the hands of big banks and the wealthy.

That's the point I actually agreed with them on, at least. The government has basically stopped representing the people and become a tool of a relatively small group of very wealthy people, particularly in the age of "corporations are people too!"

When exactly did the government represent "the people" instead of the wealthy people"? :smt017

A bit of irony is that a lot of their supporters are the very same wealthy people who run things, like Warren "Tax other wealthy people more, but not me" Buffet.

by **achilles** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:43 pm

Rockman wrote:
They were allowed to build a shanty town in that part for like 2 months, and then return to protesting after they cleaned it out. Protesting does not mean you pop a tent down in the middle of a public place and take up shop. That's vagrancy.

They didn't clean up anything in SoCal. The cities involved had to bring in teams in Hazmat outfits to clean these places. The grassy areas all had to be re-sodded, and the hypodermic needled all had to be very carefully removed, along with other drug paraphernalia and used condoms. Los Angles for example had to cut their school and public safety budget even more than they already had to pay for cleaning up after them, and fixing the damage they did.