I would like to see a protest against .....

[bush_cheney2004]

If you're looking for a retraction, take it up with Gallup, who found that nearly half of Americans (46%) didn't own stock investments.

...they also found that average holdings were $12,000...not $2,000. Thank you for playing the "I Know All About America, But I Live In Canada Game".

Edited October 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

...they also found that average holdings were $12,000...not $2,000. Thank you for playing the "I Know All About America, But I Live In Canada Game".

Do you understand the difference between mean and median and why the latter is used for income and finances?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you understand the difference between mean and median and why the latter is used for income and finances?

You do understand the difference between 2,000 and 12,000, right? Maybe you don't.

[cybercoma]

Not to mention, I didn't say anything about $12,000 or $2,000 in this post and neither does that Gallup Poll. Can your trolling be any more blatant?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not to mention, I didn't say anything about $12,000 or $2,000 in this post and neither does that Gallup Poll. Can your trolling be any more blatant?

Did you not post such blatant lies in another thread and related topic? (Wherein I posted the Gallup data.)

If trolling be exposing the Canadian liars and the big lies they tell about America...then I am proud to be an American Troll. God Bless America!

Edited October 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Table 5a and 5b: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

68.4% of Americans owned less than $10,000 in investments in 2007. Their measure is much broader than the simple stock question asked by Gallup.

"Both tables' data from Wolff (2007 & 2010). Includes direct ownership of stock shares and indirect ownership through mutual funds, trusts, and IRAs, Keogh plans, 401(k) plans, and other retirement accounts. All figures are in 2007 dollars."

Again, I ask you.... do you know the difference between mean and median? And if you do, do you understand why the latter is used for income and finances?

[bush_cheney2004]

Again, I ask you.... do you know the difference between mean and median? And if you do, do you understand why the latter is used for income and finances?

Yes, and I understand somebody who is trying to save face rather than admit they posted lies about Americans.

[cybercoma]

Prof. Domhoff is born and bred in Murrica too. So you'll have to find some other ad hominem for him.

[bush_cheney2004]

Prof. Domhoff is born and bred in Murrica too. So you'll have to find some other ad hominem for him.

$2,000....$2,000....really? Only a very ignorant person would post that.

Your post, since proven wrong:

50% of Americans don't own any stock whatsoever. Of those that do, the vast majority of them own less than $2000 and that includes 401(k) packages and retirement funds. So, yeah... they're helping themselves to a healthy retirement.

"Vast majority"....LOL!

Edited October 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Your quibbling about something that is very much beside the point. I worded that wrong when I said the vast majority of people holding stocks had less than $2000, when I meant that the vast majority of Americans owned less than $2000 in stock. Nearly 70% own less than $10,000 in stocks, while over 50% own nothing. You can quibble about my wording all you want. That study makes it clear who owns stock in America and how much they own. So bring something to the table about the actual issue at hand or stfu because I'm quite sick of you arguing over minor details that have no bearing on the larger topic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your quibbling about something that is very much beside the point. I worded that wrong when I said the vast majority of people holding stocks had less than $2000, when I meant that the vast majority of Americans owned less than $2000 in stock.

Ya think? The "vast majority" of the world's population, including Canadians don't own much stock either.

Nearly 70% own less than $10,000 in stocks, while over 50% own nothing. You can quibble about my wording all you want. That study makes it clear who owns stock in America and how much they own. So bring something to the table about the actual issue at hand or stfu because I'm quite sick of you arguing over minor details that have no bearing on the larger topic.

You are just pissed because I did bring the actual Gallup poll data and results, exposing your lies. Why do some Canadians lie like that? What purpose does it serve? The data are readily available...America has given you the tools to find the information. What more can we do?

[jacee]

Doctors don't decide....people do. Sometimes can't means won't, facilitated by the usual pity pot vendors (like you).

I guess it must be a lot easier to get disability benefits down there than it is here.

Just show them a few of your posts and you'll be in the money!

Edited October 21, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess it's different down there.

It is different down here...no kidding. We are not all slaves to government funded health care!

[jacee]

Your trolling has become absurd.

Agreed.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess it must be a lot easier to get disability benefits down there than it is here.

Just show them a few of your posts and you'll be in the money!

I'm already in the money, without disability payments. My niece has MS and walks with much difficulty, but she will still kick your ass if you tell her she can't work. Keep your pity to yourself.

[Bob]

I'm already in the money, without disability payments. My niece has MS and walks with much difficulty, but she will still kick your ass if you tell her she can't work. Keep your pity to yourself.

The left has nothing to give but its hollow pity and calls for the "redistribution" of the wealth of others.

[jacee]

Ya think? The "vast majority" of the world's population, including Canadians don't own much stock either.

You are just pissed because I did bring the actual Gallup poll data and results, exposing your lies. Why do some Canadians lie like that? What purpose does it serve? The data are readily available...America has given you the tools to find the information. What more can we do?

Your anti-Canadian bigotry is disgusting. I don't want to see any more of it.

I gather you've been kicked off all the US'n boards.

/ignore

Edited October 21, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Your anti-Canadian bigotry is disgusting.

/ignore

Thank you....another one who like to dish it out but can't take it back. Typical....

[Topaz]

First of all, I'm against breaking any law but in today's global downturn, I heard there's 2 million Canadians and 14 million Americans OUT of work. I don't know how many of them are on EI but when you are force on welfare illegally or legally, life is tough but isn't better then being homeless? If people can't find a job, and no welfare or any money coming in, then breaking the law being stealing or fraud is the only source of bring them money for food or shelter. Of course, doing so will get you food and shelter in jail, and perhaps that why some do it. The protest isn't about ALL rich millionaires and billionaires, it about CEOs and executives who get very high bonuses, while that same company may not being taking care of the workers, who keep that company going, being union or non-union.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If people can't find a job, and no welfare or any money coming in, then breaking the law being stealing or fraud is the only source of bring them money for food or shelter. Of course, doing so will get you food and shelter in jail, and perhaps that why some do it.

This strategy dosn't work as well in Canada, where you have to become a serial killer who steals panties to get any serious prison time!

The protest isn't about ALL rich millionaires and billionaires, it about CEOs and executives who get very high bonuses, while that same company may not being taking care of the workers, who keep that company going, being union or non-union.

Al workers, including CEOs, are expendable and subject to the market demand for their skills and labor, which also sets the price for compensation. Labor is an expense item, not a profit center.

Edited October 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[fellowtraveller]

That would be a wonderful policy, if full employment were possible and there was no such thing as cyclical unemployment. Great for Alberta where there's a labour shortage, horrible policy anywhere else.

Ontario had a fraud line where people could call to report welfare fraud. You know what the best part was about this reporting system? The people that were being ratted out 9 times out of 10 were not even on welfare.

Now I"m not saying fraud doesn't happen, but it's not as rampant as people would like to think. You're not living the good life on $600/month. It's a ridiculous notion to think people go on welfare because they're lazy and don't want to work. You can't live on it. It's more or less enough money to keep you off the street and that's it.

Yet when the policy was implemented, there certainly was no labour shortage in Alberta.

You assume that some people are not just 'lazy and don't want to work'. There are without any doubt people who are just that, and a policy of 'if you are single and employable, you get nothing' sorts them out immediately.

I know that the dream job sometimes is not avail;\able, but I suggest that encouraging people strongly to accept lesser jobs is preferable to paying them to do 'f**k all.

I have no issue at all with helping out those that actually do need help, and there are many in our society.

[cybercoma]

Of course, it's the old deserving/undeserving poor ideology that we were supposed to have crushed with the depression and social policy by the time the 1960s came around. However, people like you keep wanting to bring it back, as though there were any truth to the notion.

[fellowtraveller]

As stated, there is no reason for the state to support those who do not actually require support. There is an obliagtion for the state to support those who cannot overcome their circumstances.

Interesting that you'd mention the Depression, as the children of that era are the ones least likely to be looking for a handout, and most willing to give a hand up.

If you actually believe that there are no lazy people looking for handouts from the state, I'll bet there is a "UIC Ski Team" tshirt in your closet somewhere.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Interesting that you'd mention the Depression, as the children of that era are the ones least likely to be looking for a handout, and most willing to give a hand up.

True...so great was the disdain for those on the government dole that criminals making money were held in higher esteem. The modern welfare state was born soon thereafter and is now eating everything in sight.

[August1991]

Nearly 70% own less than $10,000 in stocks, while over 50% own nothing. You can quibble about my wording all you want. That study makes it clear who owns stock in America and how much they own.

That claim is factually false, cybercoma, and the link you provided above is very biased.

Many Americans (and Canadians) own stocks indirectly through pension plans or insurance policies. In fact, pension/insurance managers are the main players in financial markets.

Moreover, your link excluded the wealth in a house or land. In any discussion of finance, or comparisons of wealth, that makes no sense. North America's financial system largely exists (about 50%) to arrange construction/maintenance of housing. That makes sense. Housing is a large part of people's lives and most young people do not have the means for a good place to live. Our finance system makes good housing possible.

Finally, your link ignores the far greatest wealth that we hold: our human capital.

----

Cybercoma, if you are making the zero-sum argument that the rich are getting rich on the backs of the poor, then I suggest that you stop and take a larger view of the question.

People in North America (including you, me, BC and people on welfare) are the "rich ones". If you want to defend the impoverished of this world, you would want to extend our welfare policies around the world.