Since you didn't use quotes or address anyone by name I can only respond to what I believe is directed at me.
4th response. 1st two quotes should have been left together if you want to understand where I am coming from,but you don't, so You cut them up and make fun somehow.
You're right. I should have made the first quote just the "I'm done arguing" bit and then directed you to rule 7 of the
Unofficial Opinion Forums Guide.
My second point still stands. You jumped in to add your two cents, and now ask what's the point. Why did you jump in if you think it is pointless?
3rd quote? Who cares what your Granny thinks. Shes not an expert nor does she matter to anyone but you. Why would I argue with you or her about your opinion.
You are claiming that we have less now than people who lived through The Great Depression. People who had to scrounge just to have paper. The poorest of Americans today have more than my grandparents ever hoped to have.
No my Grandfather didn't have computers ever, so? Somehow he was poorer for it?
I did not say that. You said he was able to buy a home and retire on an average salary much easier than people today. I was pointing out all the consumerism based stuff that people spend money on today. Instead of three game systems and dozens of video games we could invest those hundreds or thousands of dollars a year toward retirement. Heck, Dave Ramsey likes to point out how a pack a day smoker who quits smoking and invests the money saved to only average 10% could retire with millions. My mom is very anti-consumerism, not having cable or satellite, barely even watching TV. I sat in with her meeting with her financial adviser last month and she will retire with enough to pull in $50,000 a year from interest. Your grandfather didn't spend his money frivolously the way we do today. If you only buy the things your grandfather bought you too could easily afford a house and retire in comfort.
That was my point. The simple fact you are using a computer on the Internet to talk on a forum based around a video game tells me your grandfather was far less frivolous than you. If anything, I am saying your grandfather was richer than all of us, because he didn't need to blow money on gadgets and gizmos to be happy or enjoy life.
The rest is just to take shots however you can,
Your comments sounded as if you thought you were better than others in this thread because you were walking away. I merely pointed out that you already participated and any reference to us being lame and self-serving also reflected on you.
Glad you earn single handedly, more than your grand parents. Pretty sure the near 6 figures I pulled down my last full year of construction would dwarf what mine made as well. Does not make us rich though.
Well, my wife earns it, as I am currently unemployed after a corporate bankruptcy left me without a job. And I never claimed any of us were rich.
The rest of us just get crushed under a mountain of debt, failed social security, lousy healthcare, poor job market etc etc etc.
I agree that the mingling of corporatist politicians has led to the social security, health care, and some of the job issues, but personal debt is just that, personal debt. National debt is a different story, and clearly a corporatist politician issue, but I just want to make sure we are clear on that.
You stated an opinion I don't agree with based on the facts that I see. All I did was challenge you to prove yourself, while posting evidence of where I saw things differently. It's called debate. I gave you an opportunity to prove your point, possibly change how I see things. I could have just ignored you as crazy and your post would have zero consequence.
And before you say that you'll never change my mind, I would like to point out that I have, in the 14 years I have been allowed to vote, changed my registered party and regretted how I voted on ballot issues in the past due to ignorance. I used to be a staunch Republican. But once I got out of college and actually started looking into the whys and hows of things I realized there was no difference in the parties and Republicans didn't believe the things that I do.
Less than five examples of punishment for corporate white collar crime? maybe you should try again. LOL trend my ass. Whats more These were probably just fall guys who allowed others to get off scott free.
I would say the percentage of white collar criminals that get caught has to be in the 1% category as well. For the most part, the only ones to investigate it are the people participating in the fraud at high up levels. These White collar criminals that get caught most likely pissed someone off on the inside and got ratted out as your argument supports.
"And the NatWest three got off light with only 37 months in prison, but they also worked out a bargain that likely played a role in catching Lay and Skilling".
Thought it worth mentioning too that these five or so you mention are some very small fish in the grand scheme of things too. No ones ever catching a whopper.
Yes, five. You made the initial accusation. You need to show it to be a trend. I merely showed that in five minutes I could show evidence that is opposed to your accusation. So far you only named one case without any evidence of what you were talking about. The fact that I had already pointed out as evidence against your accusation made it seem even more so that you couldn't back up your claim and were telling me I was wrong without even looking at what I was talking about.
I am still waiting to see your evidence to back up your claims that guys get off all the time. You say it as if it is visibly obvious. If you can't actually point out an example and link us to the story then how can you say it with such confidence?
Also, I should point out that NatWest got investigated because they were found to be linked to Fastow during the investigation into him for laundering and insider trading. They were charged with wire fraud because they helped him setup the entity he used to do it. Fastow didn't get caught because of NatWest, NatWest got caught because of Fastow. The SEC was investigating Fastow and then met with them. A year later they were found to be in it more than they admitted and warrants were issued for their arrest. They weren't even in the US to be investigated at the time. They had to be extradited. The NatWest guys just decided to save their own hides and admit to what they participated in, which got all but one charge dropped. Unless you somehow have evidence that NatWest, not Enron, was responsible for the Enron scandal they were not even in a position to be the big fish.
You're right. But do you give any of the blame to corporations for the extreme wanting people have these days? Cell phones for example, do you blame Apple and AT&T for creating such a weird need to consume things? I do.
Wow, this is on a level with the 1920's magic bullet theory that "media makes you buy what is advertised" and the 1950's conservative Christian notion that "images of Elvis makes women into sexual deviants"
Sorry, I believe in personal responsibility. Before I buy into that someone will have to explain to me why I don't buy into most of the popular stuff. Both my iPods were gifts that I didn't expect. I only got a smart phone after I had a work and health-related need for some form of PDA device to track meetings, appointments, medicines, daily vitals, dietary intake, etc. And I only decided on the iPhone after almost a year of research and time to see how the Android phones would play out. And did I mention that my desktop PC is almost a decade old?
See, consumerism is a problem of personal responsibility. After a few hard lessons learned in college I have personal responsibility. I don't even own a credit card. My stance on personal responsibility is why while I have been out of a job I haven't been out occupying anywhere. I've been busy applying and interviewing for jobs. You may have noticed that lately I tend to disappear from here for days at a time. I wake up at the same time I did for work and spend the majority of my day looking for work until my wife and daughter get home.
I just had an interview for a position to sell AT&T U-Verse. If I get it I hope you are right, because it would be nice to get those commission checks without effort.
But I also do not have a cell phone (no lie!).
And I don't have a home phone. My job required that I be on call 24/7 was the only reason I got a cell phone to begin with and then I dropped the land line. To this day I hate the 24/7 connectivity of my phone. The only calls I answer(ed) regularly are work, doctors, or my wife. If it weren't for the fact that I have to be in 24/7 contact for my doctors now I would probably ditch mine. Friends and family have finally learned that they will get into contact with me quicker via text or email. They don't commit me to a conversation I don't want, or am unavailable to have but I can respond to them on my phone so it will be within a relatively short period of time.
But I do give credit to massive corporations for warping people's perception of what is a need.
Corporations aren't alone in it. Politicians love to say that things like home ownership, computers, tablet PCs, and the Internet are a right. They go beyond need. When you tell someone they have a right to have something whether they can afford it or not they think it has been officially recognized as a need.
And I know Spermin' Herman Cain is out of the race for now,
To paraphrase Adam Carolla (awaiting comments on his OWS position), how awesome is it to spend $15 million dollars just to let your wife know you were a serial philanderer in the most public way possible?
). But I do give credit to massive corporations for warping people's perception of what is a need.
