American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;439383]Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.

[URL]http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/07/golden-age-of-capitalism-in-pictures.html[/URL]

Recent corporate shifts to 90 day payment terms now permit the largest companies to further prosper at the expense of smaller companies. These payment term changes free up Billions of dollars for companies like P&G. Of course, this will help P&G build new factories overseas, and sustain it's 57-year record of annual dividend increases to shareholders (AKA Wall Street parasites), at the expense of its suppliers. With a corresponding ripple-down effect on those suppliers, their employees and their hiring decisions. It's not enough to point out that politicians and government have allowed such consolidation of wealth and power. We must elect representatives who will pass legislation that will reverse these damaging trends, and ensure prosperity is shared more equitably.

P&G, Big Companies Pinch Suppliers on Payments
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324010704578418361635041842[/URL][/QUOTE]

"That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat, 1850".

Suggested reading for Esten, et al.

Don B.

[QUOTE=Esten;439383]Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.

[URL]http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/07/golden-age-of-capitalism-in-pictures.html[/URL]

Recent corporate shifts to 90 day payment terms now permit the largest companies to further prosper at the expense of smaller companies. These payment term changes free up Billions of dollars for companies like P&G. Of course, this will help P&G build new factories overseas, and sustain it's 57-year record of annual dividend increases to shareholders (AKA Wall Street parasites), at the expense of its suppliers. With a corresponding ripple-down effect on those suppliers, their employees and their hiring decisions. It's not enough to point out that politicians and government have allowed such consolidation of wealth and power. We must elect representatives who will pass legislation that will reverse these damaging trends, and ensure prosperity is shared more equitably.

P&G, Big Companies Pinch Suppliers on Payments
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324010704578418361635041842[/URL][/QUOTE]
We've had this argument already, several times. You blame all the country's ills on our tax system not being progressive enough, even though it's one of the most progressive in the world. I attribute the changes to globalism, technology, demographics and family structure. And believe the best solution, to provide greater prosperity and opportunity for all lies in better education and improved efficiency in government, the tax system, and regulation. Then I point to examples of countries with these efficiencies, which are among the most prosperous in the world, and you ignore them.

So what do you want to do about P&G? Should government mandate that all companies pay their bills in 30 days? About the "Wall Street parasites" that own P&G and collect "free money" in the form of dividends, the top 4 holders of record are pension and mutual funds managed or represented by Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street, and Fidelity. The fifth is Berkshire Hathaway whose largest shareholder is Warren Buffet. I see your point about Buffet's company being a Wall Street parasite, as Berkshire as a C corporation pays 0% to 10.5% federal tax (depending on its % shareholding) on its dividend income, versus up to a 23.8% rate for individuals.

[QUOTE=Esten;439383]Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.

RL][/QUOTE]You are omitting some key factors here as to why the US middle class was more prosperous in the pre-Reagan days; to begin with, legitimate competition from Korea and Japan in the automotive, industrial equipment, computing and electronic sectors was virtually nonexistent and competition from Germany was only in its infancy. Lack of solid competition allowed US companies to thrive and thus maintain large manufacturing employment bases. This was also before China made the shift from Maoist misery to the Deng Xioping manufacturing-for-export model and before NAFTA made manufacturing south of the border a no brainer. The world economy has simply undergone an enormous structural shift since 1979 that has not boded well for the lower middle / working class in the United States who have not made the adjustment to the new economy. The US tax code is certainly ridiculous and needs reform but outlandish top marginal income tax rates are probably not the answer to the problem.

[I][b]The US tax system is much more progressive than other developed countries. This was written before the Obama tax increases on the top 1% took effect:[/I][/b].

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/[/URL]

Also, please note the comments about how taxes on "free money" (capital gains, savings, dividends) reduce growth. I haven't looked into this research, because the conclusions are so obvious to me, but maybe you should.

Esten seems to need a short history lesson. The rise of American industrial might and the middle class took place after WWII. The American industrial complex thrived during the war producing war material for the European and Pacific theaters of operations through innovative production to meet those needs. After the war they began to apply those same methods to consumer goods, for which there was growing demand after the restrictions on their production during the war, creating jobs and wealth for the middle class.

While the American industrial base remained totally intact during the war due to the buffer of 2 oceans, Europe and the far east's industrial base was in shambles after the war and had to be rebuilt nearly from the ground up. The retooling of their industrial base was with late 1940 and 1950 forward equipment and the technological advances in production from American industry, while our industrial base was still rooted in early 20th century technology. This certainly took it's toll in competition going forward as our base continued to age.

By the way Esten, almost no one paid those absurdly high taxes as numerous methods were available to avoid them. Compared to John Kennedy's tax cutting, Ronald Reagan was a piker.

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/e[/URL]

Tell me it's not true.

Let's try again, link did not work previously. Added a few more in the same vein.

[URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/[/URL]

Let's get that pipeline built, so we can have more of this.

Imagine how bad this would be in the middle of some state in the Mid West with no people around.

[URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27426220[/URL]

This pissed me off because I could not go to my favorite Strip Club!

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439451]Let's get that pipeline built, so we can more of this.

Imagine how bad this would be in the middle of some state with no people around.

[URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27426220[/URL]

This pissed me because I could not go to my favorite Strip Club![/QUOTE]Know that area well. Worked & live there before moving on. Never did go to that strip club, had to play it safe. But once while munching on a hamburger across the street, the bus came to a stop, and happy group of Chinese seniors from Chinatown came spilling out, jostling each other and aiming for the club. Aaah, the early bird specials!

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439451]Let's get that pipeline built, so we can have more of this.

Imagine how bad this would be in the middle of some state in the Mid West with no people around.

[URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27426220[/URL]

This pissed me off because I could not go to my favorite Strip Club![/QUOTE]So what's the alternative? Tankers like the Exxon Valdez? Trains carrying oil, like the one that killed 47 people in Quebec? Or maybe just give up all forms of transportation involving oil products? I'll take you seriously if you do that. I expect to see no more reports from you on hookers in places like El Salvador. Instead you may only bang women in California that you can travel to on your bicycle.

Pipelines are a relatively safe, efficient way to transport oil. You and I share a concern about USA involvement in wars in the Middle East. One of the best ways to prevent that going forward is to make North America self sufficient in oil. The alternative to the Keystone pipeline for the Canadians is to ship the oil to their west coast and sell to the Chinese. That's not good for the United States of America.

But, the Keystone pipeline is not being built to make us independent from buying Oil.

It will be sold to other countries.

Why else would they build a line all the way to Texas? Lower or No Taxes?

Here is a track record list of Pipeline accidents.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439462]So what's the alternative? Tankers like the Exxon Valdez? Trains carrying oil, like the one that killed 47 people in Quebec? Or maybe just give up all forms of transportation involving oil products? I'll take you seriously if you do that. I expect to see no more reports from you on hookers in places like El Salvador. Instead you may only bang women in California that you can travel to on your bicycle.

Pipelines are a relatively safe, efficient way to transport oil. You and I share a concern about USA involvement in wars in the Middle East. One of the best ways to prevent that going forward is to make North America self sufficient in oil. The alternative to the Keystone pipeline for the Canadians is to ship the oil to their west coast and sell to the Chinese. That's not good for the United States of America.[/QUOTE]

Tiny, I loved a report a couple of years back from a group in California citizens who made a point of following a few select Serra Club members from a big protest against the rape of "mother earth" by oil companies and all the other usual suspects.

These folks followed the Serra Club folks as they drove home in their big SUVs and other similar gas hogs to their 4,000 sq ft and up homes in the upper income enclaves where they lived. In one case the offended Serra Club member drove up his drive past the Mexican yard men mowing, trimming and blowing his homes spacious grounds with 2 cycle power tools. I'm sure the mowers were 4 cycle though.

Perfect example of liberals / progressives / ruling elite, do as I say not as I do. The unwashed, ignorant masses are too stupid to know what is good for them so we the liberal / progressive / ruling elite will tell them.

As a Post Scrip.

I noticed on the news Obama is "mad as hell" about the VA scandal. If you go back and listen to the sound bites from Fast & Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS scandals, Obama said almost the same thing expressing his outrage and promise to get to the bottom of the scandal.

Esten how long before the VA scandal becomes another "phony scandal"?

Also noticed another one of those pesky emails linking Washington / White House to the IRS scandal popped up, what happened to the two guys in the broom closet explaination?

Doppelganger, I agree. It's hilarious when people like Al Gore, Michael Moore and George Clooney sound sanctimonious about carbon emissions, all the while flying around in their private jets.

Another peeve of mine are the environmentalists who condemn both fracking and CO2 emissions. The increase in gas production in the United States from fracking has reduced carbon emissions by more than all the solar and wind power in Europe. And solar and wind in Europe are subsidized to the tune of $60 billion a year. The subsidies played a big part in Spain's fiscal disaster. Natural gas production, on the other hand, not only replaces coal, which is dirty and emits more carbon, but also generates income taxes, severance taxes, property taxes, and lots of jobs.

Total CO2 emissions in the USA have actually dropped since 2008, mostly because of natural gas. Chinese emissions exceeded those of the USA in 2007 and will continue to increase. If you believe global warming is a problem, there's not a lot we can do about it. The future is in the hands of countries like China and India.

Finally, still on the subject of natural gas, WT69, please note the deaths in your link are mostly associated with natural gas explosions. Please also note that the number of deaths caused by natural gas pipelines is a very, very small number compared to deaths caused by coal, both in mines and as a result of dirty air. And natural gas replaces coal.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439463]But, the Keystone pipeline is not being built to make us independent from buying Oil.

It will be sold to other countries.

Why else would they build a line all the way to Texas? Lower or No Taxes?

Here is a track record list of Pipeline accidents.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century[/URL][/QUOTE]Or it is being sent to Texas because that is where a lot of the refineries are located.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries[/URL]#Texas.

Most of the refineries are located in the port states of CA, LA & TX.

And the US DOT has determined "Pipelines transport the lion's share of crude oil because they are the safest, most environmentally friendly and least expensive way to transport large volumes of energy products.".

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/pipelines-safer-railroads-carrying-oil-110200452.html[/URL]

My apologies for letting the facts interfere with a liberal agenda.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/politics/economic-recovery-is-leaving-major-democratic-constituencies-behind.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0[/URL]

The article above gets at the root of the problem we've been arguing about. Yes, the official unemployment rate is down. But the jobs aren't there, for women, blacks and others. And apparently support for Obama is dropping as a result.

We need to abandon the Obama platform and start with policies that will actually help the poor and the middle class. Stop pumping more and more money into the federal government and leave more for investment and the private sector, the engines of job growth. This worked during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Obama and Bush did the opposite and look where that's gotten us. And, in addition, we need to cut the umbilical cord between the teacher's unions and the Democrat politicians and start educating our children and young adults in ways that will get them good paying jobs.

The Republican are the ones stopping job growth.

They will not support any job bills. They have not even suggested one! Come on, Name One?

With all the tax breaks business is getting, how come they are not hiring.

There tax breaks have been really cut.

How come they are not hiring.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439503][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/politics/economic-recovery-is-leaving-major-democratic-constituencies-behind.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0[/URL]

The article above gets at the root of the problem we've been arguing about. Yes, the official unemployment rate is down. But the jobs aren't there, for women, blacks and others. And apparently support for Obama is dropping as a result.

We need to abandon the Obama platform and start with policies that will actually help the poor and the middle class. Stop pumping more and more money into the federal government and leave more for investment and the private sector, the engines of job growth. This worked during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Obama and Bush did the opposite and look where that's gotten us. And, in addition, we need to cut the umbilical cord between the teacher's unions and the Democrat politicians and start educating our children and young adults in ways that will get them good paying jobs.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439505]
With all the tax breaks business is getting, how come they are not hiring.
[/QUOTE]1. For those businesses that don't get tax breaks, marginal federal rates of 35% on corporations and 43.4% on unincorporated businesses. Combined with state income taxes the total income tax burden is as high as 47% for C corporations and 56% for other entities. The high tax burden stifles the incentive to invest and take risk in ways that would create jobs. It also means more goes into the pocket of the government, so businesses have less capital to grow and create jobs. WT69, Please note that Dickhead, whose political affiliation is the same as yours and who has studied this closely, would argue that there should be no corporate income tax. Also, see the following table, a comparison of world-wide corporate tax rates: [URL]http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx[/URL]

2. Large expenditures and lots of time and effort to comply with regulations and navigate the tax system.

3. Stupid rules and tax regulations that discourage investment. For example, multinationals headquartered in the USA keep and invest large amounts of cash overseas, because if they brought the money back to the USA, they'd have to pay high taxes on it. So instead of bringing it back to and investing it here in ways that would create jobs, the capital stays overseas. Another example would be the Keystone pipeline. Why aren't people employed building it now? Because Obama, who knows better, has taken advantage of regulations that allow him to delay construction to appease wacko environmentalists. By "wacko", I mean they're not doing anything substantive to improve the environment, they're just killing jobs.

4. An education system ruled over by the teacher's unions and liberal arts types. USA teenagers now rank DEAD LAST in math skills in the OECD. Our education system isn't preparing workers that business wants. Other countries are doing much better.

As to the tax breaks, I think you and I agree. Get rid of them. Institute something like a flat tax.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439505]The Republican are the ones stopping job growth.

They will not support any job bills. They have not even suggested one! Come on, Name One?[/QUOTE]OK, Admittedly, this is partly Republican propaganda, but see the following list:

[URL]http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/[/URL]

I'm curious, exactly what actions have been taken or proposed by Obama and the Democrats that would significantly boost job growth? I can't think of any. In fact, what they've done is stifle growth in employment.

The tax rate is still one of the lowest than most countries.

I had to pay taxes on my Social Security. Why is that?

Trackers:

That depends on which one tells the truth.

[URL]http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/18/house-republicans-blatantly-lie-america-claiming-passed-dozens-jobs-bills.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439506]1. For those businesses that don't get tax breaks, marginal federal rates of 35% on corporations and 43.4% on unincorporated businesses. Combined with state income taxes the total income tax burden is as high as 47% for C corporations and 56% for other entities. The high tax burden stifles the incentive to invest and take risk in ways that would create jobs. It also means more goes into the pocket of the government, so businesses have less capital to grow and create jobs. WT69, Please note that Dickhead, whose political affiliation is the same as yours and who has studied this closely, would argue that there should be no corporate tax. Also, see the following table, a comparison of world-wide corporate tax rates: [URL]http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx[/URL]

2. Large expenditures and lots of time and effort to comply with regulations and navigate the tax system.

3. Stupid rules and tax regulations that discourage investment. For example, multinationals headquartered in the USA keep and invest large amounts of cash overseas, because if they brought the money back to the USA, they'd have to pay high taxes on it. So instead of bringing it back to and investing it here in ways that would create jobs, the capital stays overseas. Another example would be the Keystone pipeline. Why aren't people employed building it now? Because Obama, who knows better, has taken advantage of regulations that allow him to delay construction to appease wacko environmentalists. By "wacko", I mean they're not doing anything substantive to improve the environment, they're just killing jobs.

4. An education system ruled over by the teacher's unions and liberal arts types. USA teenagers now rank DEAD LAST in math skills in the OECD. Our education system isn't preparing workers that business wants. Other countries are doing much better.

As to the tax breaks, I think you and I agree. Get rid of them. Institute something like a flat tax.

OK, Admittedly, this is partly Republican propaganda, but see the following list:

[URL]http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/[/URL]

I'm curious, exactly what actions have been taken or proposed by Obama and the Democrats that would significantly boost job growth? I can't think of any. In fact, what they've done is stifle growth in employment.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439507]The tax rate is still one of the lowest than most countries.
[/QUOTE]Absolutely untrue. The corporate rate is the highest in the developed world. Please see the link in my previous post. And the total income tax rate on unincorporated businesses and individuals is among the higher in the world. See [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates.[/URL] Please note the Wikipedia table doesn't include the 3.8% Obamacare tax, imposed on certain types of income.

As I said, some companies and people take advantage of loopholes to lower their rates. These loopholes should be eliminated and the tax rate should be flattened and lowered. Also, as I said, I'm sure my link included some Republican propaganda. Yours looks like it's 100% Democrat propaganda.

The corporate income tax is a complete fiction, absolutely unnecessary, and is totally irrelevant. Corporations cannot pay taxes. Only shareholders can pay taxes. The corporate income tax collected is only 1.3% of GDP whereas the individual taxes are 8%. The corporate income tax should be abolished, which would, of course, lead to [B]higher[/B] individual rates. This would be offset by huge cost savings from not having to dick around with corporate tax planning, preparation, and record-keeping.

A rare example of bipartisan good news. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) passed 412-4 in the House and 91-7 in the Senate. Boehner and other Republicans claim it will create jobs. Yes, the same guy who said in 2009 "Government doesn't create jobs!" and pronounced the Stimulus a failure before multiple economic assessments proved him dead wrong. Of course government spending creates jobs, and when Republicans deny it you know they are lying through their teeth. But I will give them credit for working with Dems to get this bill passed.

[URL]http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/206655-house-passes-water-projects-bill[/URL]
[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-set-vote-123-billion-water-bill-23820352[/URL]

Esten, did you happen to notice the economy CONTRACTED during the 1st quarter 2014? Could it be poor economic policies by your favorite guy?

Esten, didn't we fix all the infrastructure during the first bailout with all those "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs that were ready to go? What about all those signs they had printed up touting this road or that bridge was being repaired by the bail out?

Only in America!! Donald Sterling made a racist remark to his mistress, was fined 2.5 million, created outrage, and laughs all the way to the bank when a Steve Balmer led group bids 2.0 billion for the Clippers. Meanwhile, black basketball players who are richer than most of us, but not very rich when compared to Sterling, Balmer, et al feel vindicated. They forget that the buyer was another rich white guy. Only in America can a rich white guy be "punished" by being forced to sell a franchise for a huge profit, and it is all perfectly legal.

What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439651]Only in America!! Donald Sterling made a racist remark to his mistress, was fined 2.5 million, created outrage, and laughs all the way to the bank when a Steve Balmer led group bids 2.0 billion for the Clippers. Meanwhile, black basketball players who are richer than most of us, but not very rich when compared to Sterling, Balmer, et al feel vindicated. They forget that the buyer was another rich white guy. Only in America can a rich white guy be "punished" by being forced to sell a franchise for a huge profit, and it is all perfectly legal.

What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]But only in America can you take 600 billion dollar company turn it into a 270 billion company and still become a billionaire. Is Ballmer the worst CEO in history? Further evidence that America is no longer a meritocracy. America mourns for the Los Angeles sports fan.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;439656]But only in America can you take 600 billion dollar company turn it into a 270 billion company and still become a billionaire. Is Ballmer the worst CEO in history? Further evidence that America is no longer a meritocracy. America mourns for the Los Angeles sports fan.[/QUOTE]Dick Fuld is the worst CEO in history; he took a $60 billion dollar company (Lehman Brothers) and steered it into the largest bankruptcy in corporate history.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439651]Only in America!! Donald Sterling made a racist remark to his mistress, was fined 2. 5 million, created outrage, and laughs all the way to the bank when a Steve Balmer led group bids 2. 0 billion for the Clippers. Meanwhile, black basketball players who are richer than most of us, but not very rich when compared to Sterling, Balmer, et al feel vindicated. They forget that the buyer was another rich white guy. Only in America can a rich white guy be "punished" by being forced to sell a franchise for a huge profit, and it is all perfectly legal.

What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]You missed the big picture, there's nothing to be envious for here. To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well ..to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.

Sterling is suing the NBA but if he could, he would pay 3 billion to get that team back. Much like in politics, this is about power not money which is why in the end Sterling loses and his punishment is losing his his prized possession while and the NBA and the lawyers as always are the big winners.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439651]What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him. Tres3. [/QUOTE]You think he is more happy than you are!

[QUOTE=RevBS;439690]You think he is more happy than you are![/QUOTE]I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439688]You missed the big picture, there's nothing to be envious for here. To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well . to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.

Sterling is suing the NBA but if he could, he would pay 3 billion to get that team back. Much like in politics, this is about power not money which is why in the end Sterling loses and his punishment is losing his his prized possession while and the NBA and the lawyers as always are the big winners. [/QUOTE]Au Contraire-The big picture for me and most of the other citizens of the USA is the money, and what it will buy. Why do you think lotteries are so popular? They sell a chance to make a lot of money. They do not sell a chance for power. Some franchise owners buy a franchise, whether it is a sports team, car dealership or McDonalds as an investment, not for the power. They have a certain amount of power, but that is a secondary consideration. The investment comes first. Why do you think two other groups dropped out of the bidding? The numbers simply did not add up. I like to draw attention to Red Mcombs and the Minnesota Vikings. If you do not know who Red McCombs is, you have proven my point.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439693]I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]Maybe not you, but many people confuse conveniences with happiness. Money helps. Like being able to take a taxi over a bus, having a steak over a hamburger, etc. Of course, there is threshold of basic needs that need to be met, and that can differ on an individual basis. Then there is that virus call Upward Mobility that can afflict people until they die. When enough is never enough. I have enough good clothes until I die, yet I find myself reaching for my credit card when something catches my fancy. Why? I ask myself. For consultation, please call Jamie Dimon.

For a good hilarious frivolous read, Crazy Rich Asians by Kevin Kwan, will take you into this world of unrestrained indulgence.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439694]Au Contraire-The big picture for me and most of the other citizens of the USA is the money, and what it will buy. Why do you think lotteries are so popular? They sell a chance to make a lot of money. They do not sell a chance for power. Some franchise owners buy a franchise, whether it is a sports team, car dealership or McDonalds as an investment, not for the power. They have a certain amount of power, but that is a secondary consideration. The investment comes first. Why do you think two other groups dropped out of the bidding? The numbers simply did not add up. I like to draw attention to Red Mcombs and the Minnesota Vikings. If you do not know who Red McCombs is, you have proven my point.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]People buying lotteries are not billionaires and of course those people are buying tickets in hope of striking it rich because they are not, that is a poor comparison you made. Sterling, Ballmer and his peers are already rich. They have money to buy everything they want and need so another billion to someone who has 20 moves them very little. Ballmer overpaid for a product, not because he saw an investment opportunity but because of power, prestige and the conquest so he is willing to lose money to get what he wants. That is not an investment that he will rely on to support his family, he already has that. Your car dealership / McDonalds example is also off the mark as the people making those investments are not billionaires, they want to be. Very few people get to purchase professional sport teams but the ones who do are loaded with dough, they are not middle of the road citizens who need the profits from the team to survive. Billionaires cannot be compared with the common man when it comes to investments and purchases. They can afford to lose money and can and do make some purchases regardless of the ROI. People who purchase sports teams do so more to run the team as a hobby, its not their primary investment.

If you don't think this is about power and prestige, look at and read Mark Cuban, Mickey Arison, James Dolan and Mikhail Prokhorov among others. Prokhorov went way over the salary cap to secure a championship but his team loss in the second round. When he was interviewed about it, he shrugged it off and indicated that he may be willing to do it again next year despite having to pay about 80 million in luxury tax to the NBA. Dolan's team is about 32 million over the salary cap and did not even make the playoffs but he still had 12 million more to hire a GM that may or may not work out. Comparing yourself to Sterling and saying you envy him shows you don't get the big picture. There's comes a time in a man's life when money ceases to be the most important element and that is when he has so many billions he'll never be able to lose it in his lifetime. When that happens, other things become more important to him. Sterling and Ballmer are sterling example of this with Sterling's quest of remaining as and for Ballmer being the owner of a professional sports team.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439700] Sterling, Ballmer and his peers are already rich. . Billionaires cannot be compared with the common man when it comes to investments and purchases.
[/QUOTE]Do you begrudge someone getting rich? With very few exceptions, the rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy. That is, and I hope will always be, the American way. You do not have to be a rich sports team owner to behave obnoxiously and with poor taste. If someone who is wealthy wants to throw his money away, he can do so in America. After all, it is his money, not yours or the government's. Wealthy people have possessed some level of power throughout recorded history, not just since the advent of professional sports teams. Contrary to your assertions, not all sports team owners are wealthy, power hungry assholes. Can you name all of the NFL and NBA team owners, not to mention the many other sports team owners?

I am not a poor person, but at least I admit that I would like more and envy, but do not begrudge, those who have more.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439712] the rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy.

Tres3. [/QUOTE]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof. [/QUOTE]Well I see you are back US bashing and singing the praises of Europe.

Would you happen to have any of that "tremendous amount of research" laying around to prove your point.

After your latest election where the "right" ran riot it would appear the European immigration issue is front and center again. Not so liberal it seams.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof. [/QUOTE]You obviously know very little about American History. I suggest that before you make a further fool of yourself, that you get a rudimentary high school American History book and read it.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.
[/QUOTE]Your second sentence is an exact description of England. Not the USA. Crikey! What rubbish!

[QUOTE=TatuHei;439733]That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.

You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.

The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof.[/QUOTE]Apparently you do chose your facts. Read the attached article that states that 69% of people got their wealth through working vs. 6% who got wealthy through inheritance alone. It took me all of a few seconds to find this article. Why don't you show us where you got your information? You owe Tres3 an apology.

[URL]http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/[/URL]

"Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of "wealthy, and possibly "millionaire" once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by "working. " - See more at: [URL]http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth.[/URL]".

[QUOTE=Dccpa;439747] Read the attached article that states that 69% of people got their wealth through working vs. 6% who got wealthy through inheritance alone. .[/QUOTE]When you add the percentage of inheritors who received the fruits of the labor of someone only a generation removed, the 69% is even larger. Connections and elite schools are a mixed bag. I know many well connected individuals who also went to elite schools who are not wealthy, just as I know many people who went to Community Colleges who are now wealthy.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439688] To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well ..to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/30/steve_ballmer_buys_los_angeles_clippers_why_the_microsoft_billionaire_was.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=RevBS;439786][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/30/steve_ballmer_buys_los_angeles_clippers_why_the_microsoft_billionaire_was.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Nice! I would accuse them of plagiarizing especially for this portion below, but this sentiment was blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer.



[i] Which is why I sincerely doubt Ballmer is making this purchase based purely on economics. Sports teams might be more profitable than in the past. But they are also a status symbol for the global ultra-richa circle of people that, as you might have heard, has expanded in recent years. A basketball team in L.A. as opposed to Milwaukee is an even gaudier status symbol. In that way, the Clippers are a lot more like a famous Warhol than an oil well. And for Ballmera basketball fan who tried and failed to bring the Sacramento Kings to Seattle (which has been without a team since the Sonics left for Oklahoma City in 2008)the joy of owning his very own team is probably worth far more than whatever the returns on that team could add to his vast personal fortune. His bid might be cursed. But he probably doesnt care.[/i]