The Reagans

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I cry foul

Lumping all rich together in that boat is like saying all poor people just do not want to work and are content on the govt. tit. While certainly some rich could care a less about the poor, certainly many rich out there give millions away to charity each year. Moreover, most major corporations have vast charity programs. So, while I agree it ain't easy to be poor, the rich similarly are not so generically bad.

Well, it is Ted Kennedy's home state!!!

As I knew you would!

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was not generalizing the rich as in anyone who makes over $80,000. I stated in the previous paragraph that I was speaking about the upper-upper class (the super-rich). There is no denying, IMO, that they run this country and keep the wealth for themselves and try to keep everyone else below them.



PS: I *heart* Ted Kennedy! Luv him!

[strandinthewind]

I have to say although I am still troubled by the whole Chapaquidick (sp.?) thing, I also love ole Teddy. He sort of is the far left's version of the far right's Strom (RIP) - or would that be that hedonist Pelosi or that crazy ACLU loving Diane (love them both)?

I was not talking about the just rich either. I know a few people here in Atlanta and elsewhere who are worth from "just" one million ( ) to over a billion $$$ (at least before the market fell - now they have only about $800 million ) who give millions away each year to medical charities (AID Atlanta, Northside Hospital, etc.). So, think that while yes, they will only get richer IMO mostly by the mathematical certainty of interest on 10,000,000 is about $500,000 a year (about $42,000 a month - sheebus) after taxes before they get out of bed in the morning (oh the life - why the hell don't I have it? ), they are still very philanthropic and many of the poor and/or poor and sick benefit from it.

Also, you are correct, the very, very wealthy rule not only here, but the world - can you say the Rothchild family who used to loan money to nations. I wish "they" would do more good with their money.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Does anyone else find it strange that after I made my Patriot Act comment, I could not log onto The Ledge for most of yesterday!

Doo Doo Doo Doo - Doo Doo Doo Doo

Yes that flipped me out.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I cry foul

Lumping all rich together in that boat is like saying all poor people just do not want to work and are content on the govt. tit. While certainly some rich could care a less about the poor, certainly many rich out there give millions away to charity each year. Moreover, most major corporations have vast charity programs.

Because it's a huge tax write off.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also, you are correct, the very, very wealthy rule not only here, but the world - can you say the Rothchild family who used to loan money to nations. I wish "they" would do more good with their money.

On a side note, the Rothschilds just merged two of their largest European banks. I'm not sure what to make of that.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I was not talking about the just rich either. I know a few people here in Atlanta and elsewhere who are worth from "just" one million ( ) to over a billion $$$ (at least before the market fell - now they have only about $800 million ) who give millions away each year to medical charities (AID Atlanta, Northside Hospital, etc.). So, think that while yes, they will only get richer IMO mostly by the mathematical certainty of interest on 10,000,000 is about $500,000 a year (about $42,000 a month - sheebus) after taxes before they get out of bed in the morning (oh the life - why the hell don't I have it? ), they are still very philanthropic and many of the poor and/or poor and sick benefit from it.

As Goldie pointed out, it's a tax write-off. Also, it reflects on them better when it comes to PR. The charity contributions of the wealthy certainly don't disguise the "law" of society when it comes to the rich and they when compared to our population, the contributions benefit the few.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
As Goldie pointed out, it's a tax write-off. Also, it reflects on them better when it comes to PR. The charity contributions of the wealthy certainly don't disguise the "law" of society when it comes to the rich and they when compared to our population, the contributions benefit the few.

Well, it is and it isn't a tax right off. Personal donations can be written off as a small percentage of the actual donation only up to the point the alternate minimum tax (AMT) is reached. The super rich clearly give more than this as the (AMT) is fairly easily reached with a mortgage and other deductions at about $150,000 in taxable income.


A good example of the super rich donating is the Bill and Melinda Gates AIDS research and help program. Aside from anyone's personal feelings about Bill Gates (there are many believe me and I am not bringing them up), his wife and his donation of a billion dollars did not get him a billion dollar tax break. Granted he probably donated stock which saved him some tax, but nowhere near a billion dollars and he no longer owns the stock. Ted Turner is another example. The Marcus (Home Depot) family here in Atlanta is another example.

I suggest jst these three donators of over 5 billion dollars have helped countless numbers of people.

Also, of course they want to feel good about donating and get P.R. What is wrong with that?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind


Also, of course they want to feel good about donating and get P.R. What is wrong with that?

Nothing.

[strandinthewind]

This showed a lot of class and grace & I give her credit for (hopefully) nipping this shameless bit of pandering in the bud. The article also gives an interesting history of why FDR is on the dime:


GOP: Get off the dime
Nancy Reagan blasts proposal to put Ronald on FDR's ten-cent piece

You've got to love Nancy Reagan for the steadfast way she guards her husband's legacy against opportunistic political poachers. The most recent example being her quick rejection of the boneheaded partisan move by nearly 90 congressional Republicans who signed on to a bill to have Reagan replace Franklin Delano Roosevelt's profile on the dime. "I do not support this proposal, and I'm certain Ronnie would not," was her no-nonsense reply.


http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemID=16116
_______________________________________
Happy Reading!!!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, of course they want to feel good about donating and get P.R. What is wrong with that?

Well, hopefully anyone who donates to a charity feels good about what they're doing. But as for getting good PR because of it, I find that wrong. Using your donation to a charity to get good publicity? I think it's wrong, but that's just me. Do it because you want to and have a heart, don't do it because you want to AND you know it'll give you a good image.

I have more respect for the people who *privately* do charity work than I do for people who go public with it (i.e. donating a million and then informing the papers, going on talk shows, etc). It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Well, hopefully anyone who donates to a charity feels good about what they're doing. But as for getting good PR because of it, I find that wrong. Using your donation to a charity to get good publicity? I think it's wrong, but that's just me. Do it because you want to and have a heart, don't do it because you want to AND you know it'll give you a good image.

I have more respect for the people who *privately* do charity work than I do for people who go public with it (i.e. donating a million and then informing the papers, going on talk shows, etc). It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I agree with you that it would be great if everyone donated without fanfare. But, charities rely of prominent donors to get more money. In essence, they use the name of a prominent person to solicit donations, be it through a concert funcraiser by a big star, or a mailing that annouces a large donation by a well-known person.

Interestingly, the Atlanta AIDS Walk a few years ago hired a company to "produce" the walk. The company took like 25% from the gross donations. But, the gross donations rose far in excess of that fee. I had mixed feelings about it. AID Atlanta on the other hand did not. They readily paid it to get the extra money.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
On a side note, the Rothschilds just merged two of their largest European banks. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Jason says in his best dead pan voice "Did Bush's family underwrite the merger loan"

I know I saw something about that. By everything I have read, the Rothchild family just lives in another world. So, who knows what they are up to. As an interesting aside, I was with my family in Monaco when we say this well heeled guy playing Baccarat (sp.?) and then dice. He was gambling millions of francs at a time. I noticed his signature on the marker - it looked like Baron Blah Blah Blah Rothchild. That was kind of interesting to see - for me at least.

[jwd]

dissention:
On one of my last days at the office, a woman came in and started crying. She sat there, in the waiting room with 20 others, and just sobbed. When it was her turn to come into the office, she was hysterical. For almost an hour, this woman released everything that was on her mind. Her husband had died from cancer, she had three kids to raise, no family, no insurance, no means of transporation, she had been laid off three weeks after her husband died, she couldn't afford her mortgage payments, etc. The way our system works, you cannot have a job where you work more than ten hours and still collect welfare assistance. So, she was collecting welfare but couldn't afford anything on those meager checks. If she worked, she'd have to put the kids in daycare but she couldn't afford it and three of our local Head Starts had closed down. She was in misery. Try telling me that her life wasn't that bad.

Her life was bad no doubt. Although some of these things could not be avoided, I would think that if she and her husband had only purchased a life insurance policy it would have a least given her and her children a little reprieve from the financial burden she was facing. People need to think of what could happen in their lives like this and to be ready for them. Even mortgage insurance would have helped in this particular situation. And I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't Social Security benefits kick in for something like this? No doubt, life can be cruel sometimes, but you can't rely on the government to take care of you. Head Start Programs and the like are all great, but I would rather have them supported more from the private sector than the public one.


Joe

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Jason says in his best dead pan voice "Did Bush's family underwrite the merger loan"

No but there were photos of one of the Rothschilds with little Arnie Schwarzenegger just prior to or during his run for governor.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Her life was bad no doubt. Although some of these things could not be avoided, I would think that if she and her husband had only purchased a life insurance policy it would have a least given her and her children a little reprieve from the financial burden she was facing. People need to think of what could happen in their lives like this and to be ready for them. Even mortgage insurance would have helped in this particular situation. And I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't Social Security benefits kick in for something like this? No doubt, life can be cruel sometimes, but you can't rely on the government to take care of you. Head Start Programs and the like are all great, but I would rather have them supported more from the private sector than the public one.


Joe

MI doesn't make your monthly payment, just covers the investor if the borrower defaults on the mortgage. She'd still lose the house. Since I'm self employed, I pay my own life insurance. It's $65 a month and if you don't pay for a month, just like car insurance, they'll cancel you. No one should depend on the government but if you're down and out they shouldn't tell you to go f**k yourself either.