When do you consider someone "wealthy" or "rich"?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Aug 8, 2019.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Name one in particular to discuss.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Since there is in fact poverty my argument does work, the policies create and sustain it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    I don't think that anyone here has ever argued that America's welfare programs are well-implemented; rather, they're pretty much widely regarded as a colossal failure in many respects. That said, with regards to post-War/New Deal programs (and their subsequent decimation, commencing largely with Reagan), we've got what we've got. The question is: Would you rather we have poorly implemented social safety nets, or would you prefer what Republicans have to offer? That being, everyone pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps, and those who can't will, hopefully? maybe? possibly, be covered by "Christian charity" and suchlike.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I guess you misspoke, then.
     
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I think the change in welfare rules started with Clinton. He set a time limit on able bodied people getting themselves off welfare in an attempt to end generational welfare dependence.
     
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Yes, obviously the "would" was a typo and should have been "wouldn't".
     
  10. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Let's start with countries who have socialized medicine/universal healthcare. Japan and New Zealand. It seems to be working well in these countries, and others as well. Do you think it could work in the US? Why/why not?

    New Zealand has a capitalist economy, but universal healthcare. In your opinion, could that combination work in the states?
     
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    Yes. I'd like to see universal healthcare. Our present system isn't working. It's not a hands off system (a lot of government involvement) and it's not a universal healthcare system so the worst of both worlds.

    I think healthcare should be a universal "right" or fact. Our system is probably the most expensive system so we're not really getting what we should for our money. It's the same with our military. Our prison system is broken as well. Those are the top three things to fix IMO (other than undue corporate influence in campaigns).
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I agree with you - universal healthcare, and our prison system (and justice system in general) needs major improvement, but I'm not entirely up on our military. What needs to change there, do you think?

    Your subtle brag thread is improving.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    By the way, I've decided to vote in this upcoming election. It is a precious right that I shouldn't take for granted, and every vote counts. At least I hope so.
     
    billvon likes this.
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I'm not a bragger. You're from a wealthy family, you own a house and you have a decent job. Maybe you're the bragger. Most others here would have us believe that no one under the age of 80 could have a decent job and a house and you're not even a "white man"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The problem with the military is the budget...$600 billion or so a year. It's pretty much as much as the next 7 largest militaries combined. Of course we also don't need to be in every country on Earth (not literally) and involved in every conflict on Earth.

    Also most on here that would share that sentiment would also say that all that money should be spent on... (pick a favorite cause). I'd argue that some of that could be redirected and some of it just shouldn't be spent period. We can't afford it.

    We can increase taxes to any level that you pick of course but that quickly just shrinks the economy so you have to be careful with that.
     
  14. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Agree with your points except about me lol Most likely, I brought up my family of origin’s wealth in context of a thread topic but, anyway. My comment about subtle bragging was tongue-in-cheek, not meant to condemn you.

    I don’t understand why the US feels the need to get involved in every war around the world, however, if there are humanitarian issues going on - do we have an obligation to intervene? I think so, like with human trafficking etc - do you think so or no?
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    As the joke goes how will Americans learn Geography then?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I don't have any problem with humanitarian missions but we don't have an "obligation" any more than any other country. I think it's a good idea but that's not primarily what our military is about.

    Afghanistan isn't going to be any different after 18 years of intervention nor is Iraq. We didn't help the situation in Iran or Vietnam. We don't need to still be in South Korea or Germany. Above all, we shouldn't be spending over $600 billion a year on the military.

    There just isn't any real leadership or rational legislating. Our spending of money isn't based on how much money we actually take in and it isn't based on what we actually need. It's based on unlimited spending and the decisions are largely political and business related.

    Human trafficking is probably an example of something that we can spend as much as needed but it's like any other program. Can we afford all programs with potentially good results? It can't all be based on emotions.

    Traffic deaths are bad. One is too many. Can we prevent them all? No. Can we correct every "bad" problem in the world. No. That's why it's informative to compare how much other countries spend. It doesn't mean that we have to do what they do but it does provide some benchmark.

    It's the same with our health care costs. It's the same with how many people (per capita) we have in prisons. These are numbers where we are way out of wack with most other countries.
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    As a joke, it's funny. It's not particularly accurate on many levels however. I can name all 194 countries for example. I've also been to quite a few countries.

    It's also not accurate even for the dimmest of Americans if you consider that our states are similar to many other countries, both in size, economy and distance from each other. Most any American can at least name all 50 states.

    Most Europeans can name the countries of Europe. Can most of them name all 50 states and properly locate them? The U.S. is as big as Europe.
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Empire-building is never about what a nation needs. It's about what a nation aspires to. If that's world domination, then, yes, it must establish a military, as well as financial, presence in as many places as possible. (Also, the arms manufacturers need markets. )
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    The U.S. isn't an empire and yes, I mentioned the business reasons (arms) that we are in some many countries.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    To get the thread back on track, heard this morning that $10.3 million in net worth was the threshold for being "the 1%." That seems like a reasonable threshold for the really rich.
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    It is the threshold although I wouldn't call such a person "really rich". It's a small business owner later on in his/her life.

    The threshold for the top 10% is about $1.2 million in assets. That's called a retired homeowner in his markets.
     
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    No, of course not, heaven forefend!! Just, you know, there seem to have been some tiny whiffs of a suggestion in some of their foreign relations from which one might perhaps infer a leaning toward such an aspiration. But, really, all the missile-rattling is just to protect their 'investments'.
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    The British had an empire. The U.S. has "influence".
     

Share This Page