View Poll Results: Is $250k a year rich?
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll
Is $250k a year rich?
#81
10-23-2008, 10:23 AM
Is $250k a year rich?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: xFreebirdx
Go after the rich for their money and watch the hammer fall. You think they'll take the loss? Sell vacation homes or tear up their wives credit cards. Hell no, they'll lay off employees, close plants, raise prices and delay or cancel growth to make up the difference. It's so easy to biotch and point fingers at them. It'll make a good conversation piece in the unemployment lines.
It's amazing at how many of you don't see or get the big picture. Yea we all want to screw the rich. I've always said fock the establishment. But watch who has the last laugh. It sure as hell wont be the the lower or middle class. Not to worry tho, there will be more welfare and food stamps to go around, just what this country needs?¿</end quote></div>
To bad it's going to effect everyone, but in a sick way it will almost be funny to see all the people who want "hand me's" and socialism, get what they want and see how good it is.
Go after the rich for their money and watch the hammer fall. You think they'll take the loss? Sell vacation homes or tear up their wives credit cards. Hell no, they'll lay off employees, close plants, raise prices and delay or cancel growth to make up the difference. It's so easy to biotch and point fingers at them. It'll make a good conversation piece in the unemployment lines.
It's amazing at how many of you don't see or get the big picture. Yea we all want to screw the rich. I've always said fock the establishment. But watch who has the last laugh. It sure as hell wont be the the lower or middle class. Not to worry tho, there will be more welfare and food stamps to go around, just what this country needs?¿</end quote></div>
To bad it's going to effect everyone, but in a sick way it will almost be funny to see all the people who want "hand me's" and socialism, get what they want and see how good it is.
#82
10-23-2008, 11:42 AM
Is $250k a year rich?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JustRandy
Another angle...
A list of top paying jobs, as defined by careerbuilder.com:
Physicians and surgeons -- $147,000
Aircraft pilots -- $133,500
Chief executives -- $116,000
Electrical and electronic engineers -- $112,000
Lawyers and judges -- $99,800
Dentists -- $90,000
Pharmacists -- $85,500
Management analysts -- $84,700
Computer and information system managers -- $83,000
Financial analysts, managers and advisors -- $84,000
Marketing and sales managers -- $80,000
Education administrators -- $80,000
There isn't even a job up there that comes close to $250,000. And somehow that's not rich??? [img][/img]</end quote></div>
Exactly. People don't realize you can get rich off a $100k salary. It's all how you save.
BTW you forgot Anesthesiologist, Radiologist, Neurologist---All well over 250k
Anesth - $241-285k average
Radio - $281-962k average
Neuro - 192-515k average
Those are some rich folks if you ask me. I'm going to be rich soon and plan to make under 250k. In laymens terms it's called "being smart with your money."
Another angle...
A list of top paying jobs, as defined by careerbuilder.com:
Physicians and surgeons -- $147,000
Aircraft pilots -- $133,500
Chief executives -- $116,000
Electrical and electronic engineers -- $112,000
Lawyers and judges -- $99,800
Dentists -- $90,000
Pharmacists -- $85,500
Management analysts -- $84,700
Computer and information system managers -- $83,000
Financial analysts, managers and advisors -- $84,000
Marketing and sales managers -- $80,000
Education administrators -- $80,000
There isn't even a job up there that comes close to $250,000. And somehow that's not rich??? [img][/img]</end quote></div>
Exactly. People don't realize you can get rich off a $100k salary. It's all how you save.
BTW you forgot Anesthesiologist, Radiologist, Neurologist---All well over 250k
Anesth - $241-285k average
Radio - $281-962k average
Neuro - 192-515k average
Those are some rich folks if you ask me. I'm going to be rich soon and plan to make under 250k. In laymens terms it's called "being smart with your money."
#83
10-23-2008, 11:46 AM
Is $250k a year rich?
Here is for all of you talking about the economic crisis and housing crisis. This is how it all started. Blame who you want, but I only post facts, so form your own opinion. It's a lot of text, but don't get discouraged
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
">http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
</a>
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
<u>Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.</u>
An open letter to the local daily paper - almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor - which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house - along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign - because that campaign had sought his advice - you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension - so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie - that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad - even bad weather - on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth - even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time - and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter - while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe - and vote as if - President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats - including Barack Obama - and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans - then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
">http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
</a>
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
<u>Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.</u>
An open letter to the local daily paper - almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor - which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house - along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign - because that campaign had sought his advice - you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension - so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie - that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad - even bad weather - on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth - even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time - and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter - while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe - and vote as if - President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats - including Barack Obama - and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans - then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
#85
10-23-2008, 06:46 PM
Shapeshifter Rider
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mishawaka,Indiana
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#86
10-27-2008, 01:20 PM
Is $250k a year rich?
I don't know about those numbers...the lawyer my daughter just went to re: family law charged $275/hour. @40 billable hours per week, two weeks off per year, that comes to $550,000/year. We live well out of the cities, too, where things cost less.
Your $99K comes out to just under $50/hour. I don't know of a lawyer who charges that little.
Your $99K comes out to just under $50/hour. I don't know of a lawyer who charges that little.
#87
10-27-2008, 01:38 PM
Is $250k a year rich?
Hear, hear, Redmoon...but alas, people are really bred these days to not think anymore, so your words fall on many deaf ears. Too many questions about Obama(or my fave,
Obama bin Biden) that are not getting answers. In his favor, his election team is truly magnificent, his oration skills get an A+++, his ability to completely shrug off all the questionable at
best characters in his life who have brought him to this point is just short of amazing. His ability to say what people want to hear is nothing short of miraculous. All McCain has is a mediocre
campaign, a vibrant running mate, and lots of rather blandly delivered truth. Not nearly enough to sway in this high-tech age where we demand star quality charisma in our candidates.
IMO, things in the government would run a lot better if we made Pork Barreling illegal(a bill would have to pass on its own merits, no congressional add-ons), and we made
any money to a member of congress from a lobbyist completely illegal and punishable by losing one's job.
Oh, btw, Obama has taken the second or third most money from Fannie/Freddie in his short term than any other senator over all the years, well into the hundreds of thousands, and
also has added, by himself, around 750 million in pork barrel monies to bills. OTOH, McCain has added zero pork barrel monies in his 22 years. So, yes, I think a McCain
presidency would help to clean things up because he's shown repeatedly that he's doing things for the right reasons.
Obama bin Biden) that are not getting answers. In his favor, his election team is truly magnificent, his oration skills get an A+++, his ability to completely shrug off all the questionable at
best characters in his life who have brought him to this point is just short of amazing. His ability to say what people want to hear is nothing short of miraculous. All McCain has is a mediocre
campaign, a vibrant running mate, and lots of rather blandly delivered truth. Not nearly enough to sway in this high-tech age where we demand star quality charisma in our candidates.
IMO, things in the government would run a lot better if we made Pork Barreling illegal(a bill would have to pass on its own merits, no congressional add-ons), and we made
any money to a member of congress from a lobbyist completely illegal and punishable by losing one's job.
Oh, btw, Obama has taken the second or third most money from Fannie/Freddie in his short term than any other senator over all the years, well into the hundreds of thousands, and
also has added, by himself, around 750 million in pork barrel monies to bills. OTOH, McCain has added zero pork barrel monies in his 22 years. So, yes, I think a McCain
presidency would help to clean things up because he's shown repeatedly that he's doing things for the right reasons.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)