Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (266407)	12/29/2005 11:43:36 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1573813

RE:"In the U.S., it could be better for the "have nots," so why shouldn't it be?" Ask Clinton, ask Congress...

To: SilentZ who wrote (266407)	12/29/2005 12:05:35 PM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1573813

Elroy, you're totally missing the point... the point is that in the U.S., the "have nots" are getting less while the "haves" are getting more and more, really on the backs of the "have nots." Hey, if one thing is for sure on this board it is that there are plenty of "points". I pointed out that the "have nots" in the US have lives that half the population of the planet dream of. You're claiming that the very rich in the US are getting richer, while the rest of the wealthy (that's what the world thinks of your "have nots") are getting modestly less wealthy (although still vastly more well of than half the population of the planet). I don't know whether your claim is accurate or not, but I'm sure that mine is indisputable. All the laborers here would go be the US "have nots" you describe in a heartbeat if they had the opportunity, but most of them "have not" that opportunity, so they stay.