Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Loyal Opposition

Who is in the 1%?

Advertisement

The NYT has an article that breaks out the professions of those in the top 1%. If it is accurate it shows some surprising and some not surprising things.

  1. College professors are twice as likely to be in the top 1%

  2. K-12 teachers are represented in the top 1% proportionally probably through marriage

  3. Doctors and lawyers are there in spades

  4. Wall Street and the financial services industry are heavily represented

  5. CEOs and public administrators are heavily represented

Take a peak. Things may not be as you see them – or they may!

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/index.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

Comments

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

The LJW is always interesting. My post gets pulled for using the term dumber than a post in response to Alceste calling me stupid and demeaning my military service.

Alceste comments “ .I'm just smarter than you. Envy much? Don't take a whole lot of brains to be a Colonel in the military. Does take a lot of brownnosing, however, I am told. Takes brains to make a master plan and execute."

Is there a subtlety I missed or does the LJW share Alceste's opinions on the military?

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Alex Parker 2 years, 2 months ago

This thread has gotten way out of hand. Move along, folks.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

How often can someone make false accusations against another user before they get shut down?

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

beatrice (anonymous) replies… Red herring? Prove your accusation. That is the only herring happening here. Reprint where it is I supposedly called the Speaker a "racist." Do so, or shut up.

Moderate responds once again":

I did. Your called the Speaker a racist. I did reprint it above (way above) – my burden is met. You know Bea, the definition of insanity has been suggested to include doing the same think over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Have you crossed the threshold, Bea?

Are you in the same category as your supporter, Alceste? He hates military officers as you seem to hate Republicans - that is an opinion Bea – I don’t have to prove it.

If you keep posting I will go to cut and paste. Just who is the wealthy benefactor that pays for your time on here?? Mr. Moore?

0

Alceste 2 years, 2 months ago

As a group, low-income families would see an astronomical tax increase, according to Kansas Department of Revenue figures released by legislators.

The amount of individual income tax revenue would decrease by 12 percent overall, but it would affect different groups of taxpayers differently.

Those Revenue Department figures show there were 564,328 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $25,000 or less in the 2009 tax year. Currently, that group receives a total refund of $1.7 million. Under Brownback’s plan, that group would have a total tax liability of $86.5 million. That is more than a 5,000 percent increase in tax liability and averages $156 more per filer.

Meanwhile, there are 21,158 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or more. Under Brownback’s plan, they would pay an average of $5,239 less in taxes, and as a group $110.8 million less than now, which is a 18.5 percent tax cut.

Well, "blogger" Moderate will certainly be quite joyous over the fact that now the poorest folks in the state shall, as he likes to opine, "....have some skin in the game.....". That'll teach 'em that their poverty is their fault and their responsibility because they don't know how to manipulate the tax code; didn't work hard enough in school or in life; and are, as was said in the film "The Rainmaker": "...stupid stupid stupid."

Meanwhile "blogger" Moderate clips coupons in that $500,000.00 valued house in Douglas County and cries in his collective beer that he's not wealthy. He's going to be paying less in state income taxes. shrug

"Blogger" Moderate's collective tax obligation shall decrease as well it should as he "earned it". Such is life in Kansas.......excellent.....in this best of all possible worlds.....

0

rockchalk1977 2 years, 2 months ago

"Members of the Occupy Wall Street movement urinated on a cross, desecrated a church and threw Bibles at police officers in separate incidents over the weekend."

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/occupiers-urinate-on-cross-throw-bibles.html

If OWS represents the "99%"... I want out.

0

Alceste 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Alceste 2 years, 2 months ago

Moderate assaults Alceste: "Come clean Alceste – .....would that...get you cut off from public assistance?"

Alceste does not receive DIME ONE in any form of public assistance. Alceste DID qualify for the "Cash for Clunker Appliance Program" a couple of years back: "Kansas will receive $2.6 million of the nearly $300 million available nationwide from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)." Why was Alceste eligible? The idiots who designed the program here in Kansas (the money was given to the state and each state designed it's own program. Kansas was the only state that required a "means test" and then just GAVE AWAY brand new appliances.....);had it be INCOME BASED: One was not mandated to report ASSETS. I even asked them: "You mean if I have $35million sitting around the house, buried in the yard, or in safe deposit boxes, I don't have to list that?" "Is it earning any interest income?" was the question I was asked. "Well, if I had that, it sure wouldn't be unless you count the dust and what not as interest". They say back "Ha ha. Naw. Dust ain't income". But that's a story for another day.....these departments are as well run (NOT) as the U.S. Military chalk full of ignorant, arrogant, sense of entitlement, pencil pushing Colonels, Majors, Lt. Gen's.; Gen's, etc. Not to mention all the pimps who sponge off the crumbs.

The focus here is INCOME. TAX INCOME....do NOT tax work. http://www.taxkimk.com

A LOT of good ole boys got greedy.....they wanted MORE so they invested and have income. shrug Some of us were happy and satisifed with what we personally WORKED for and EARNED and already paid taxes on said earnings. shrug

0

Alceste 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Roland Gunslinger 2 years, 2 months ago

Bea... Bea... Bea...

Haven't you learned yet? There is a reason I have stopped attempting to discuss issues with George. One of us always seemed to twist words, made things up, and when called out for such things denied until he was blue in the face.

Feel free to guess which one of us it was...

0

Alceste 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Finally, and I love this, you now say: "Clearly there is racism, homophobia, and xenophobia."

Um, what do you, George Lippencott the non-anonymous, call those people who practice racism? Certainly there must be a precise word to describe such people, don't ya think?

You see, you remind me of that joke about the man who offers a woman a million dollars if she will have sex with him. She says "Yes!." He then says, "Okay, how about twenty bucks?", to which she replies "NO! What do you think I am, a prostitute?" He responds, "Why yes. Now we are just haggling over the price."

George, after all your claims, rants and raves, I should have known all along I was just haggling over your price.

Go ahead. You now have the last word. Make it a good one, although I know by now that it will not be the correct and decent word you should end with. You have shown you just aren't that kind of man.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

Yes, I know people who keep trying to chang the issues into a positive light are called spin masters. You keep trying to change the topic -- adding parameters and new words that still don't have me falling into the scope of your original accusation of frequently calling people racist when the discussion is on government policy, but you aren't really good at it. I wouldn't call you a master.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I did not call Speaker O'Neal a racist. I wouldn't because I don't believe he is. I don't have enough information to make that call.

Why would I be saying this now if I thought it true before? It isn't like I'm one to back off of my opinions, am I?

If you think I am mistaken, then PROVE it. That is all. It isn't just discussing racism in the abstract or anything, but show where I wrote that I think Speaker O'Neal is a racist. It is just that simple. Otherwise, decency asks that you stop making the claim. You are just looking beyond silly at this point.

More importantly, if I accuse people of being a racist frequently over discussions about government policy as you claim I do, then surely it will happen again soon enough. You will obviously be there to jump out from behind the bushes and say "gotcha!" I've not done anything like that in the past year, so you might be waiting for a while.

Seeing as how you think it somehow okay or even desirable to do personal research into others on here ( ! ) is exactly why I will remain anonymous. My being on here gives you zero right to know anything personal about me at all that I don't volunteer. Yes, I have a nice home -- not $450K nice and it is in a metropolitan area where home prices are higher to begin with -- but it is nice. It is because I practice fiscal conservativism (last time I checked, my credit score was 821). If you want to make a deal out of that, go for it.

I'm sorry to now know that you aren't man enough to apologize.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

Bea wrote: Your false attacks against me combined with your questions about my livelihood and concerns with where I live is indicating that you are trying to track me down.

Moderate Responds: Yes, Bea, I am trying to understand from whence you are coming. The LJW make me use my name and smart people can then track down facts about me and us them to counter things I post. I consider that legitimate as long as what is posted is accurate.

When people as out spoken as you trade anomalously I want to have an opportunity to judge their motive as others judge mine. I assure you that you will see comment in the future when you want to tax people who are on fixed incomes and who live less well than you. Not everybody has a good job with lots of spare time, lives in Arizona and has a swimming pool. In an unsupportable generalization it never ceases to amaze me how self interested people really are but how well they will conceal that self interest by wrapping themselves with the blanket of self righteousness and false concern for others.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 2 months ago

I don't owe Bea a damn thing. Now she is making the argument about whether there are racists - nothing to do with my original comment.

In case we have forgotten on another blog I asked if we could disagree without using the terms racist, liar, etc. I addressed the comment to Bea and others. Bea asked why she was included and I responded because she had used the racist term.

Now that was not an idle comment as she and I had wasted a lot of LJW bit stream on still another blog where she tied the Speaker of the Kansas House to making racist comments. Racist comments are made by racists.

Certainly you are all entitled to call anybody anything your little hearts desire. That does not make you accurate and I explained why in the blog on the speaker.

I am not going around the horn again on racism. Clearly there is racism, homophobia, and xenophobia. We show anti Catholic and anti Muslim and anti Jewish feelings. Some people make fun of those who read and believe in the bible. Some people look down on those less educated. The litany is endless. We are human and our nature is that way. We form alliances and attack anything that does not side with us. Thousands of years of an attempt at civilization has led to religious, ethnic and racial ferment all over the place. At least back in the beginning our ability to kill our adversaries was very limited.

Am I to infer that those I am dealing with here are better than all the rest? If so congratulations on your unique accomplishments. However it is my self appointed opinion that many of you are far from the noble characters you claim to be.

You know Bea in the real world people who keep changing the issues to avoid the facts are called spin misters or propagandists. Did 1984 happen and I missed it. Is Bea part of the ministry of truth? And yes this is pertinent because Bea is arguing that the speaker is a racist and there fore her calling him one does not fit my comment. Baloney!

0

pace 2 years, 3 months ago

NYTs should be ashamed of such a bogus chart. Next they will include the people the wealthiest went to grammar school with them or saw across the room. Anyone who takes this chart serious probably watches fox or is just plain ordinary stupid.

0

pace 2 years, 3 months ago

I am with Bea on this. Bea deserves an apology.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

Relentless -- as in "stalker"?

Just so you know, I've already alerted security where I work not to allow anyone by the name of "George Lippencott" beyond the front desk and to call the police immediately. Thanks for the heads up. (I'm not kidding.)

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

Finally George, do you really not believe racism exists in the world? If it does, what do you call the people who do things based on their belief that another race is inferior?

0

tange 2 years, 3 months ago

"George, your pants are indeed on fire."

Clearly something is driving this dialog for George. Do you suppose it's the dominating woman or the cute sock?

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

Ah, now we are quibbling. You called the Speaker of the House a racist.. There is nothing more to say. Why worry about the title of this blog given most of the issue you and I are wasting cycles about were in two other blogs.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

Last word, huh? I don't think so.

You just used the terms "racist" and "liar" in your last post.

If you haven't recognized it, using terms is not the same as calling somebody that term. You NEVER showed evidence of my calling anyone anything of the sort over the past year. Not one time. I also understood what you wrote about 'bull dog" (not "bulldog" as you have it now), but enjoyed taking the "dog" out of context just as you attempt to do to others on a regular basis.

You didn't prove a thing except your inability to accept the fact that you were and are wrong. Instead, you believe it, like a child believes in the Tooth Fairy. (Sorry to break the news, but Mom puts the dollar under the pillow.)

I don't "blog" here. You blog. I write comments. I began when I lived in Lawrence and kept at it after I moved. If you don't like the way the internet keeps people connected over vast distances, too bad. No, I do not have a "job," I have a career. It is quite a good one too. However, it keeps me connected to the computer too many hours a day with plenty of down time, allowing me to comment when I choose to. My salary also affords me a nice living, a great house with a beautiful swimming pool surrounded by palm trees, and it requires me to pay taxes.

Keep believing what you will George. Little green men on Mars, Moon made of cheese, you can use your airline seat as a floatation device or that a Republican will unseat Obama, because, you know, believing in something is soooo much better than having the evidence to support your bogus claims.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

No they are 100% correct Bea. You do use terms such as racist and liar. I provided a reference to the racist term. I am not going to spend cycles finding one using liar - but it is there.

Good old bulldog, Bea. Since you misunderstood the use of that term I am beginning to wonder if when you get all worked up like this your brain gets disconnected and you no longer realize what you have written?

Don't you have someting useful to pursue? Are the taxpayers supporting you? Is the Democratic Party paying you - it is stange that you choose to blog here rather than where you live? Do you have a job - given the frequency of your posts one has to wonder?

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

Oh, and one last thing less anyone charge me with not sticking to the topic -- I believe your claims about me are less than 1% correct.

Can't wait for the next blog entry. Bye

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

I do know I've not called anyone a "dog" as you called me on this thread. But hey, that is picking nits when I've proved you can't support your claims.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

In other words George, it is all about what you believe, not what you can prove or support with evidence. Brilliant.

I have the right to believe the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't actually mean it is. That is the flaw with your "logic."

Oh, and yes, this really does make you exactly the same as someone who actually does call someone else a "liar" or "racist" without any evidence to support that claim.

But I do loooove the way you keep shifting and changing your original accusation It has gone from the original "Is it possible to disagree with government policy, size and costs without being called racist or defined as hating somebody or something?", to include "liar" and now "homophobe," another term I am pretty sure I have not used in the past year. Seeing as how you don't quote my use of it, I guess you couldn't find that one either. (Of course, not using those words doesn't mean people who fit those descriptions don't exist -- but that is another fact I don't expect you to grasp.)

As I said, you are wrong, but I didn't really expect you to apologize. That is something an honorable person would do. I just thought I'd point it out.

Now, believe me laughing at you and you will finally be right about me!

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

Bea, I am so glad you feel as if you have never accused anyone of being a racist or a liar or a homophobe or whatever.

I believe you have. I have a right to believe that. It is kind of like blaming "Bush" for all sorts of things. You believe your notions while I am more skeptical.

No apology as I believe you are guilty.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

George: "I, Bea, have never accused anyone of being racist."

I'm trying to imagine someone who could be alive when Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated, when churches were burned in Alabama killing little girls, when public spaces were segregated, etc... -- and never ONCE called someone a racist.

That just boggles the mind.

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt. It is clearly the boat on which you like to sail.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

I still can't believe you used the word "liar" here, and when I quoted you, you used that as evidence that I use the word "liar." Unbelievable.

Prove it or quit making the accusations.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

Agree to disagree when you say I make statements that I have not made? That isn't a disagreement, that is you making false accusations and not owning up to it.

Are you denying that YOU introduced race into a story about policy, while blaming others of doing so?

You still have never been able to show where I called Speaker O'Neal a "racist." Why? Because you made it up!

I certainly questioned the racial aspects of the "Mrs. YoMama" e-mail, as had many others, but I NEVER called him a "racist" nor have I said it of anyone else this past year. Your continuing to make that statment about me is just not true.

Your inability to differentiate a discussion about racial insensitivity in the world and calling someone a "racist" is your issue, not mine. You don't see racism, as you say so yourself. Why, you have NEVER called anyone a racist. What an amazingly pollyanna world view.

Now, quit saying things about me that are not true.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

Bea

I do not withdraw anything. My version remains:

1, I posted to Bea and others a desire to avoid experiencing unilateral definitions of other posters as liars, raciest, etc. 2. You asked why I included you 3. I noted you use the race card (I could have referenced the frequent use of the word “liar”). 4. You denied you did 5. I provided a reference 6. You are now trying to defend what you wrote while denying you wrote it.

I see no reason to apologize for something you have made up and saddled me with. Just as you protest what you perceive to be me accusing you of something YOU feel you did not do I feel exactly the same.

You know that we have different views of this thread. I am not going to retreat. Clearly neither are you. We can continue to waste the LJWs band width or we can just agree to disagree.

BT

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

High Tange, there are things you may never know about to which I contributed. I am proud of those even if I cannot discuss them. And yes, you are right

A far as this mayhem - enough. Bea is like a bull dog. Once aggravated she will not let go no matter how far from her yard we wander. . I am bleeding profusely (well not really) so I think I am done with this waste of time.

0

thebigspoon 2 years, 3 months ago

In other news, the lion lay down with the lamb...............

0

tange 2 years, 3 months ago

[Lest it be lost to the George and bea Show, I've relocated this down here; sometimes you just have to breach the eddy.]

Yeah, George, I'm sure that if one were to take a lovely sinusoidal wave and sample it at some ungodly minimal bit rate and then serve it as a curve ball, then it would sound like a siren… but... just let me leave you with this, instead…

“Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me.… Going to bed at night, saying we’ve done something wonderful… that’s what matters to me.”

— Steve Jobs, The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1993

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

George, there is a simple way to go through a thread or web page to find the origin of a word. Using your internet tools, go to "find on this page" then type in the word you are looking for.

For example, the word "liar." Type it in, and it shows that the first use of the word on this page was by Moderate (George whatever) at 2:45pm on Jan. 18th. The second use of the word was by Beatrice at 3:23 pm on Jan. 18th, quoting Moderate's use of the word.

See how that works. Now, go through all of my past posts, page after boring page, searching for the words "liar" and "racist." It will let you know when you have a hit. When you find one instance where I have directly called anyone one or the other, I'd like to hear back from you. Since you won't be able to, I anticipate I won't hear back from you, because I know you won't be a big enough person to apologize for spreading false statements about others.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

Oh George, you are just getting comical now.

I did not and have not called Speaker O'Neal a racist, nor have I called anyone a liar. Certainly not in the past year. Discussing racial issues is not the same as calling someone a racist, if you didn't already know this.

My repeating the term YOU used is not the same as calling you or anyone else a "liar." I repeated YOUR use of the word, hence the quotations around the word. YOU accused me of calling others a "liar," and I quoted you. Just like the race issue, you brought in the word "liar." Not me. Your claim here is again false.

This is the last time I will say it. Prove your accusation that I have called anyone a "liar" or a "racist" in the past year. If you can't, you need to be a big enough man to admit you are wrong. Go ahead. Go through all of my posts over the past year and point out where I have initiated calling anyone a "racist" -- especially over government policy, which was your original b.s. accusation -- or a "liar." That does not mean, where I have quoted another's comment, as you just did here.

I discussed my take of the "Mrs. YoMama" already on the story where it was reported. I'm not repeating it just because you apparently aren't willing to read through the posts on the story in which it was covered.

Stop making false accusations about me.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

Bea are you dense or manipulative?

Of course I said that. What has that got to do with you calling the Speaker of the Kansas Legislature a racist for forwarding an e-mail using the term “?YoMama” with respect to Mrs. Obama?

What has that got to do with my request to not use such erms? When I used the sentence it was addressed to you and others on this blog who at that point were throwing around the term “liar”. The comment had nothing to do neither with the speaker nor with what the speaker did.

You asked for an example of your use of the term "racist" and I provided one. You used the term "liar" above in this blog. I did not call you or anyone else a racist or a liar or a "whatever". . You asked for what you got!!!

By the by, you still have not explained to me why you consider that term racist as opposed to the normal mudslinging that goers on during elections season – mudslinging I abhor but mudslinging employed by both parties.

So now what do you want to argue about??

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

George, if your next blog entry makes the same ugly accusation, you better be able to support it.

George: "Is it possible to disagree with government policy, size and costs without being called racist or defined as hating somebody or something?"

After explaining that of course it is possible to disagree without being called a racist, I wrote:

Beatrice: "By the way George, you are the first person on this string to mention race, so I'm not really clear on why you asked the question."

George: "Because you raise it frequently" http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/13/obama-takes-big-government-it-has-change/#c1921812

Yep, that is your accusation. I've asked you to prove your claim and you are unable, for a very good reason. It is because you think you know something, but you are wrong. If you make the same accusation in a blog, I will ask that it be removed. I didn't start this fight, but I will see it through. Count on it.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

George: "Where did the issue of government policy come from?"

Hello!

The issue of government policy was in your original bogus accusation about me. You can't support your accusation against me and instead, you continue to attack. Below is a copy of your words where you raised the issue of government policy and brought race -- the first person to do so, as I've pointed out -- on a thread that had nothing to do with race.

"Moderate(George Lippencott) says… To Bea and others:

Is it possible to disagree with government policy, size and costs without being called racist or defined as hating somebody or something?"

January 16, 2012 at 9:55 a.m. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/13/obama-takes-big-government-it-has-change/#c1921091

It came from you, George, just as the issue about race on a story that had nothing to do with race at all came from you. YOU were the first person to raise the race card, and you used it in what has become a common first line of defense among some conservatives: blame the other person of accusing people of racism as a means of deflecting any actual discussion.

What you are doing is as disgusting as those who accuse another of racism for no good reason. I've asked that you support your claims, and you can't. You are in the wrong George. Period.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

This is exactly like the time you accused me of being a plant from the Democratic Party. Oh, that was rich.

You are big on making ridiculous accusations about me that are nothing but figments of your imagination and which you can't support, aren't you George?

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

George, you provided a reference to a story not at all dealing with policy, and used it as your ... um ... "proof" that I frequently use the race card and actually call people "racist" when they disagree with "government policy." That was your claim, was it not? That I call people "racist" when they disagree with "government policy," was it not?

The story on O'Neal's e-mail has nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with government policy. It is also a story in which race was discussed, but nowhere did I call O'Neal or anyone else a "racist" as you claim I do.

I ask you to provide any other proof -- ANY proof -- and you can't. Now I further ask you to support your claim that I call others "liar" with frequency. Prove it or quit saying it, because you are not being accurate.

PROVE IT!

Otherwise, quit writing things about me that are not true. That is what you are now doing George. You are writing things that you cannot substantiate.

Your attempt to demean me is particularly ugly given that you are doing so in the middle of your obviously bogus call for decency on these boards! Try practicing that yourself by not make false claims about others.

Again, YOU are the one who brought race into the most recent discussion that now is driving this discussion. YOU. You are the one playing the race card.

Even though you can't support your claims about me, somehow I just knew you wouldn't be man enough to apologize for making false claims. Instead, you double down by adding "liar" to your list. Pathetic.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

Bea

Baloney. There is your cute game again.

My perception of this thread is as follows

1, I posted to Bea and others a desire to avoid experiencing unilateral definitions of other posters as liars, raciest, etc. 2. You asked why I included you 3. I noted you use the race card (I copuld have referenced the frequent use of the word “liar”). 4. You denied you did 5. I provided a reference 6. You are now trying to defend what you wrote while denying you wrote it.

The issue remains not demeaning other poster. Period. The rest is your spin and attempts to restate what I wrote so you can attack it – common Bea activities.

Why don’t you just write your truth and leave the heritage, race, honesty, etc. issues out of the discussion.

I would love to see hard data to support your various notions. You could just be right but your negativism conceals your rational.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

Sorry Bea but your little game is beneath contempt. You drag race into things whenever you feel that it will benefit your argument - usually when the alleged perpetrator is a Republican.

I asked you once - exactly what does Mrs. Yomama mean? I have not a clue. You however accused the Speaker of the Kansas House of using racial comments apparently because you see racist intent. Did you have an interview?

I, Bea, have never accused anyone of being racist. I would never use that term lightly and I would need to be certain of intent before I would make such an accusation.

My request of the group to try to avoid such terms in accusing others apparently triggered this exchange. I restate it. Stop demeaning others.

You can defend your beliefs without degrading them. Period!!!

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

(Sorry for this interruption. Everyone else please skip this comment and feel free to continue your 1% discussion.)

George, I left a response to your equating "Mrs. YoMama" with actual government policy. I am making a note of it here to make sure you see it: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/13/obama-takes-big-government-it-has-change/#c1923479

Next time you bring race into a discussion, please don't then accuse others of being the ones to do so. That is worse form than math.

0

tange 2 years, 3 months ago

What tange said... back up there, somewhere ^

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

deec (anonymous) replies… A lot of younger people are occupying because they realize there is no chance they will ever rise above a mediocre, at best, standard of living.”

Moderate Responds: Interesting. Given normal distribution about half of the young people will have less than a mediocre standard of living (Medium income). Half can expect to do better than mediocre. !% can expect to be in the top 1%

Perhaps I misunderstood your point because to me it seems a BFO.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

beatrice (anonymous) replies… Who are the tax and spend crowd?

Hi Bea

You don’t know?? They are anybody that wants more federal participation or investment or control without identifying the source of the money to pay the costs of whatever they want the government to do that it is not already doing (funded), That includes tax cuts unless paid for by spending cuts.

What makes you think that would only be Democrats. I believe Mr. Wills calls it “rent seeking” where business or other goody seeker gets the Congress to fund something of advantage to him/her. (Fund meaning pay for or grant tax exemption for or transfer income for or restrict competition for and so on).

I tend to focus on our dysfunctional social safety net but I am well cognizant of all the goodies to the really rich. Both parties indulge in talking my money and giving it to others while avoiding any requirement for the top 1 or 2% to equitable contribute.

By equitably contribute I mean that we extend the progressivity of the federal income tax beyond the 99%. If the tax take goes up by a factor of five when your income goes from $50K to $100K then it should go up a factor of five for every additional $50K of income until it takes it all.

0

Jane 2 years, 3 months ago

The oldest trick in the book is divide and conquer. Seems to me most people fall for this dirty, but effective, trick. The second oldest and effective trick is one played by people in power at any and all levels, and that is 'looky over here, so you won't look and see how you are getting bent over.'

0

overthemoon 2 years, 3 months ago

The 1% is generally defined by those making more than 350,000 a year or 500,000 a year for couples. I don't know very many people who make that kind of money, especially not college professors or teachers, even when combining their numbers with their spouse's incomes. It can also be calculated as taxable income, which makes the raw numbers even higher.

0

bearded_gnome 2 years, 3 months ago

Bea and George, go look at the current Forbes top 25 richest americans. there, you find that over 20, perhaps 22, got there because they not someone else, invented something, streamlined something, or dramatically expanded a business.

guess what, that means that 23 of the top 25 wealthiest americans are job creators. and to think corrupt democrat Harry Reid says "you can't find them" and they "don't exist" regarding millionaire job creators.

who is among the other three wealthiest who didn't create jobs ... ... wait for it ... George Soros.

We are all americans dam*it!

I'm so tired of the class warfare obama-envy going on now. most of us americans wish we were among the so-called 1%. if you and I were, you can be sure we would not wish to be targetted, publicly shamed, horranged, publicly blamed, just for making our own wealth.

and what sets those at the top apart is: hard work; a good idea (like Steve Jobs and the creators of Google); and the confidence to get there.

the way to fix income so-called inequality inamerica is not to further empower a government that is corrupt (see Solyndra and a dozen other Obama cronied-up money losing firms etc., etc.) but to make the regulators do right as well as get government out of the way.

government does not create actual private sector jobs, it can just diminish its stifling of them. dramatically increasing each american business's costs per employ does not promote job growth; it certainly prevents it or causes people to lose their jobs.

0

Carol Bowen 2 years, 3 months ago

It's really hard to compare without a cost of living factor for different locals. In Lawrence, it looks like some of the non profit CEOs are in the 1%. Our teachers are definitely not.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 3 months ago

If one person is of modest means in terms of money, but comes from a family with a lot of love, then that person is rich. If a person has tons of money, yet comes from a family full of envy and distrust, a family that is dysfunctional, then that person is poor.
I just can't figure out how to tax those rich folks.

0

autie 2 years, 3 months ago

That there is a good point Roe. But I tell you, my not less than 2 percent can fix my own toilet and roof my house and change a tire. My Daddy is a 1 percent guy but he would't call a plumber if the world depended on it...until he done screwed up and broke everything...then and only then, reluctantly...Hell it don't mean much anyway...they all just people. Just gets it all stirred up by them media types....

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

"Eat the rich" to quote a frequent poster

0

RoeDapple 2 years, 3 months ago

The dairy I worked for had two kinds of cottage cheese. "Whole milk" cottage and "Lofat" cottage cheese. Now, . . when I would see them package the cottage cheese they would be filling both cartons out of the same batch. When I mentioned this to the foreman he said "read the label". The whole milk label read "3.2 % butterfat or more". The lofat label read "not less than 2% butterfat"

We're all part of the same batch. Most of us wouldn't know what to do with millions of dollars. The wealthy wouldn't know what to do without it.

0

autie 2 years, 3 months ago

OH...so now it is households, not individuals. Somewhere in those boxes do we find all the janitors in the 1%? I saw hairdressers.

The 1% are those who make more than the 99%. Creative though. Even for the times.

0

thebcman 2 years, 3 months ago

I prefer the 2% ... still tastes like milk, but not too bad for you.

0

labmonkey 2 years, 3 months ago

Too bad we have to worry about what others make instead of working to better our own lives.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

beatrice (anonymous) replies…

Retired and in the top 33%. Really drives home how poor the poor really are, doesn't it? I am soooo not saying how I compare to others.

Moderate Notes::

We define poverty for a family of four at about $22K per year and we don’t count m any of the safety next provisions that family may receive.

Half of the people in this country make less that about $55K. Only 1% makes more than $380K (of $600KI) depending on what you count.

Not exactly sure how you want to play the “poor” issue. If we took half of the income from the top 1% and gave it to the poor we could about double their income. Would that be your goal? How would you implement it? How would that affect the near poor and the middle class as you move more people into equality with them without boosting their income?

0

rockchalker52 2 years, 3 months ago

Who gives a flippin' crap? This is the land of opportunity & free enterprise. Quit whining about the success of others & go out & be successful on your own..

I'm still voting for Obama.

0

George Lippencott 2 years, 3 months ago

beatrice (anonymous) says…

Okay, one more comment and then I'll let others play: Did you check your own income to see where you stand?"

Moderate Responds: Interesting Question Bea. What baseline? Most of the comparisons are to metropolitan areas and KC is not included. More importantly the baseline is the $380K of salaried income. A more accurate income comparison would be the approximately $600K associated with including capital gains, which accrue mostly to the top few percent.

If we use the $600K figure as the more appropriate (and it is) then a $100K income in Douglas County is well down the list. I looked at a senior teacher and a senior sheriff’s deputy here and found that their combine income would be in excess of $115K. Not only is the issue of the 1% geographically complicated it is employment longevity complicated.

It is noteworthy that many of the “occupy” group appear young. Could that reflect that the young earn less than those longer in the work force? Now I do not believe that all long time workers are well off. Data reflects that about half of retired seniors in Kansas live on Medicare alone. Of course, they might have a bunch of accrued capital from the sale of a farm that is not captured as it is not taxed as income.

This whole issue may be a lot more complicated than we let on in this space.

0

deec 2 years, 3 months ago

I think the way the data is compiled is somewhat misleading. Living in a household does not make one a member of the 1%. For example, the average wage nationwide for a nanny (presumably listed under the child care worker) is $41,000. That's a decent salary, but nowhere near 1% status.

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

Okay, one more comment and then I'll let others play: Did you check your own income to see where you stand? It is a pretty cool feature, especially comparing the amount you bring in to other parts of the country. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?hp

0

beatrice 2 years, 3 months ago

It would be interesting to see how many are first generation 1 percenters. How many people really do live "the American dream" and become wealthy if they don't come from money originally, and how that plays out in the different categories? How many are in the 1 % through their pay for the job, compared to rich people who happen to work even though they don't have to?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.