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: Road Walker who wrote (407485)	8/17/2008 7:47:59 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574849

First I disagree with the premise (requiring dual incomes) and second we used to have a flatter income curve. At no time in history have Americans, or anyone, really, had standards of living as high as ours are today. Never. Except for a very small number who are disadvantaged, America is a place where ANYONE who chooses to can get ahead and become wealthy. Obama is evidence of just that. He claims to have been disadvantaged, even used drugs as a teenager, black, and yet, he is able to make a credible run for the presidency. When it is all overwith, it may be that Obama's greatest claim to fame is that he showed that anyone, no matter how bad they have it in life, can rise from the ashes.

To: Road Walker who wrote (407485)	8/18/2008 11:51:02 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574849

JF, it's all about priorities. You say you want to raise the wages of the bottom 1/3 of society, paid for by the upper 1/3 of society, but that will likely lead to the same slow and stagnant economic growth and high unemployment that currently plagues the EU. I know you and CJ will disagree, but I've heard the argument before. We can have our cake and eat it too. Equalize incomes, and we'll see a happier, more productive society. The promises of idealized socialism, which always works in a vacuum ... Tenchusatsu