View Full Version : Houston, we have a problem
phantom_opera
22-02-13, 07:27
In 1994 entitlements were 50% of federal outlays, up from 28% in 1960, but to my horror under the George Bush administration they went from 50% to 63%. Now at 67% of all federal outlays are entitlements. To put that in perspective, if you look at the actuaries out there, entitlements are scheduled to grow $700 billion in the next four years just due to change in entitlements. That's as the demographics kick in.
Singareans lack of entitlements but Americans are drug addicts on entitlements :doh:
i just feel there is alot of mess during the george bush's era..
what do you think?
i just feel there is alot of mess during the george bush's era..
what do you think?
george bush jr was a joke. in my opinion, the only good he did was galvanizing his people against terrorism, after 911
george bush jr was a joke. in my opinion, the only good he did was galvanizing his people against terrorism, after 911
ok great! your good friend will come in and say.. "what happens if we kenah one joker taking over PAP govt?" :D :D :D
ok great! your good friend will come in and say.. "what happens if we kenah one joker taking over PAP govt?" :D :D :D
huh? you mean the jokers ruling SG now, aren't real clowns?? :scared-5:
oh u mean we need dead wood? :eek: :eek: :eek:
oh u mean we need dead wood? :eek: :eek: :eek:
nah, we need jokers who need spell-checking programs to know the difference beween "MOMENT" and "MONUMENT"
WAHAHAHAHA
nah, we need jokers who need spell-checking programs to know the difference beween "MOMENT" and "MONUMENT"
WAHAHAHAHA
yeah yeah need folks like u ... dead beat :scared-1: :scared-1: :scared-1:
yeah yeah need folks like u ... dead beat :scared-1: :scared-1: :scared-1:
wahahaha
guess you didn't read about household wage declines for the poor and the widening rich-poor gap
wahahaha
guess you didn't read about household wage declines for the poor and the widening rich-poor gap
guess u only focus on the negative part of the stats right. no wonder u are a sad case.:doh:
Fact is low skill low pay. want higher pay have to upgrade. increase the pay without increasing the skill set have no meaning. the inflation generated from that negat the increase in the low skill worker pay in the end.
use ur brain. :doh: :doh: :doh:
Fact is low skill low pay. want higher pay have to upgrade. increase the pay without increasing the skill set have no meaning. the inflation generated from that negat the increase in the low skill worker pay in the end.
WAHAHAHA, rest my case. FYI, if you want to communicate your point well, learn to spell and construct your sentence first. making no sense absolutely
let me burst your bubble with a simple flick,
1. using your assumptions, PAP ministers had dramatic increases in their pay. was it a result of expanding their skill sets? point in case, there are other factors at play
2. even with workfare bonuses, the low wage aren't helped. so as the GINI coefficient increases, SG surpluses boom, there are sectors in society that aren't benefitting. where is the much-heralded 'inclusive growth', as touted by the government?
i think a lot of people here believed they are "capitalist" through and through.
the talented deserved to be rich and the poor well......
i have put some thoughts into division of wealth to my children. And I find out something strange. I always think it is better to live in a capitalist society rather than a communist/socialist country. And yet, when it come to children's inheritance, i am thinking like a socialist.
I think I would say that 99% are "socialist" when dividing wealth to their children.
If child A is earning much more, parents are more likely to give more to their child B who is lousier. After child A is so capable, he doesnt need much help from the parents. Isnt that "socialist" kind of thinking? Take from the rich to give to the poor.
What would a real "capitalist" do? Give more to child A. Why? Because child A can do much with the money rather than child B. Child A deserves it.
But instead, i found that i don't have the heart to give more to the talented child A instead of the untalented child B. Instead, I am giving more to the untalented child B.
I would like to bring up another forummer's case. Daughter is talented, working in bank in HK, already a HNW. Son is poly grad, working as agent. .
Now would the parent give more to talented daughter or to untalented son?
Now the above in context of family. How about larger groups like clans, like country. Should the rich help the poor? Tax more etc, give additional benefits to the poor etc.
How would Minority distribute the wealth to his children?
How would Eng81157 , Regulator distribute the wealth to his children?
Isnt that the proof in the pudding whether one is a "capitalist" or "socialist"?
i agree on hopeful's point on wealth distribution. mentally i would want to give more $$ to the "weaker" child. but in all fairness, i would do it equal share. regardless. that will save the kids from further squabbles and so that they can continue (hopefully) to support each other after we are gone.
phantom_opera
22-02-13, 11:05
i don't think is so simple, if child A is talented and child B is not talented ... would u give more money to child B he he is a gambler?
i don't think is so simple, if child A is talented and child B is not talented ... would u give more money to child B he he is a gambler?
lets not go into the finer details. just assume every child is good character and doing the best they can.
child A is smarter earn more , child B earn lesser, would a parent give more to child A or B ?
and to provide more headaches to parents.
if Lady Luck intervenes.
child C marry a rich husband, child D marry a poor husband, would a parent give more to child C or D ?
phantom_opera
22-02-13, 11:42
lets not go into the finer details. just assume every child is good character and doing the best they can.
child A is smarter earn more , child B earn lesser, would a parent give more to child A or B ?
and to provide more headaches to parents.
if Lady Luck intervenes.
child C marry a rich husband, child D marry a poor husband, would a parent give more to child C or D ?
the best, just have one child :p
WAHAHAHA, rest my case. FYI, if you want to communicate your point well, learn to spell and construct your sentence first. making no sense absolutely
let me burst your bubble with a simple flick,
1. using your assumptions, PAP ministers had dramatic increases in their pay. was it a result of expanding their skill sets? point in case, there are other factors at play
2. even with workfare bonuses, the low wage aren't helped. so as the GINI coefficient increases, SG surpluses boom, there are sectors in society that aren't benefitting. where is the much-heralded 'inclusive growth', as touted by the government?
anyway waste time lah . u are a bubble boy. living in some unrealistic bubble.
i think a lot of people here believed they are "capitalist" through and through.
the talented deserved to be rich and the poor well......
i have put some thoughts into division of wealth to my children. And I find out something strange. I always think it is better to live in a capitalist society rather than a communist/socialist country. And yet, when it come to children's inheritance, i am thinking like a socialist.
I think I would say that 99% are "socialist" when dividing wealth to their children.
If child A is earning much more, parents are more likely to give more to their child B who is lousier. After child A is so capable, he doesnt need much help from the parents. Isnt that "socialist" kind of thinking? Take from the rich to give to the poor.
What would a real "capitalist" do? Give more to child A. Why? Because child A can do much with the money rather than child B. Child A deserves it.
But instead, i found that i don't have the heart to give more to the talented child A instead of the untalented child B. Instead, I am giving more to the untalented child B.
I would like to bring up another forummer's case. Daughter is talented, working in bank in HK, already a HNW. Son is poly grad, working as agent. .
Now would the parent give more to talented daughter or to untalented son?
Now the above in context of family. How about larger groups like clans, like country. Should the rich help the poor? Tax more etc, give additional benefits to the poor etc.
How would Minority distribute the wealth to his children?
How would Eng81157 , Regulator distribute the wealth to his children?
Isnt that the proof in the pudding whether one is a "capitalist" or "socialist"?
Well I would agree from ur parent stand point. I would still try to make it as fair as possible with 1/2 perspective. why?
Before even leaving the wealth have I would have done all I can to help the kid learn a skill set that can sustain himself when I am gone $$ given to him are gone.
Its not just abt leaving the weaker 1 with $$$ but able to know how to use it and further him/herself
The better off kid. might be better off at the point where the wealth is being distributed. what if latter in life things dont turn out well for him/her too?
I would do a 50-50 split. So that there is min friction between the children. Also not to inculcate a Clutch mentality on the less well off child. Also remind the better off child to lookout for the weaker one not just financially but help the weaker child improve survival skills. after all $$$ left behind misused will be gone in a jiffy.
lets not go into the finer details. just assume every child is good character and doing the best they can.
child A is smarter earn more , child B earn lesser, would a parent give more to child A or B ?
and to provide more headaches to parents.
if Lady Luck intervenes.
child C marry a rich husband, child D marry a poor husband, would a parent give more to child C or D ?
Still better to 50-50 split. give less or more either party dont feel good.. Most important is sibling must look out for each other. Coz $$ given will be gone as time goes on.
WAHAHAHA, rest my case. FYI, if you want to communicate your point well, learn to spell and construct your sentence first. making no sense absolutely
let me burst your bubble with a simple flick,
1. using your assumptions, PAP ministers had dramatic increases in their pay. was it a result of expanding their skill sets? point in case, there are other factors at play
2. even with workfare bonuses, the low wage aren't helped. so as the GINI coefficient increases, SG surpluses boom, there are sectors in society that aren't benefitting. where is the much-heralded 'inclusive growth', as touted by the government?
without skill improvement nothing will help. pronto idiot. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
i think a lot of people here believed they are "capitalist" through and through.
the talented deserved to be rich and the poor well......
i have put some thoughts into division of wealth to my children. And I find out something strange. I always think it is better to live in a capitalist society rather than a communist/socialist country. And yet, when it come to children's inheritance, i am thinking like a socialist.
I think I would say that 99% are "socialist" when dividing wealth to their children.
If child A is earning much more, parents are more likely to give more to their child B who is lousier. After child A is so capable, he doesnt need much help from the parents. Isnt that "socialist" kind of thinking? Take from the rich to give to the poor.
What would a real "capitalist" do? Give more to child A. Why? Because child A can do much with the money rather than child B. Child A deserves it.
But instead, i found that i don't have the heart to give more to the talented child A instead of the untalented child B. Instead, I am giving more to the untalented child B.
I would like to bring up another forummer's case. Daughter is talented, working in bank in HK, already a HNW. Son is poly grad, working as agent. .
Now would the parent give more to talented daughter or to untalented son?
Now the above in context of family. How about larger groups like clans, like country. Should the rich help the poor? Tax more etc, give additional benefits to the poor etc.
How would Minority distribute the wealth to his children?
How would Eng81157 , Regulator distribute the wealth to his children?
Isnt that the proof in the pudding whether one is a "capitalist" or "socialist"?
there's more differences between capitalism and socialism than what you have mentioned as example.
personally in the context of estate management, all equal share to avoid squabbles and the possibility of siblings suing each other arses off. in the case of helping a poorer child in the family, i would give the kid a lift but avoid developing a crutch mentality. if he or she's a gambler, con artist or a bum, it will be an empathic NO
let me bring in another aspect. for muslims, the eldest takes the lion share, regardless whether the siblings like it or not. my point is that we must consider the cultural drifts as well.
without skill improvement nothing will help. pronto idiot. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
so did PM and the cabinet ministers have a major skill upgrade when their pay increased??
sigh.....u still don't recognize your fallacies
so did PM and the cabinet ministers have a major skill upgrade when their pay increased??
sigh.....u still don't recognize your fallacies
so u mean they do low skill work? u are like WP flip n flop all over. are u a FISH?
or just plain blind?
guess u only focus on the negative part of the stats right. no wonder u are a sad case.:doh:
Fact is low skill low pay. want higher pay have to upgrade. increase the pay without increasing the skill set have no meaning. the inflation generated from that negat the increase in the low skill worker pay in the end.
use ur brain. :doh: :doh: :doh:
wah piang, hare brained - please read your own statement.
"WANT HIGHER PAY HAVE TO UPGRADE. INCREASE THE PAY WITHOUT INCREASING THE SKILL SET HAVE NO MEANING"
you mean this doesn't apply to those in the higher income bracket??
p.s. please don't make it difficult for me NOT to insult you
wah piang, hare brained - please read your own statement.
"WANT HIGHER PAY HAVE TO UPGRADE. INCREASE THE PAY WITHOUT INCREASING THE SKILL SET HAVE NO MEANING"
you mean this doesn't apply to those in the higher income bracket??
p.s. please don't make it difficult for me NOT to insult you
if u selective read wat can I say. if u want to be blind thats u dumb ass!
Well I would agree from ur parent stand point. I would still try to make it as fair as possible with 1/2 perspective. why?
Before even leaving the wealth have I would have done all I can to help the kid learn a skill set that can sustain himself when I am gone $$ given to him are gone.
Its not just abt leaving the weaker 1 with $$$ but able to know how to use it and further him/herself
The better off kid. might be better off at the point where the wealth is being distributed. what if latter in life things dont turn out well for him/her too?
I would do a 50-50 split. So that there is min friction between the children. Also not to inculcate a Clutch mentality on the less well off child. Also remind the better off child to lookout for the weaker one not just financially but help the weaker child improve survival skills. after all $$$ left behind misused will be gone in a jiffy.
Must also see who is a better person, how he uses the money.
Must also see who is a better person, how he used the money.
true.. the TS assume both same same. just 1 better off one not so successful.
well lifes never fair. sometime the better off 1 later become worst off.
if u selective read wat can I say. if u want to be blind thats u dumb ass!
WAHAHAHAHA
now quoting your own words is equivalent to selective reading??
debate cannot win, shift goalposts. shifting goalposts don't work, change them into smaller ones :doh: :doh:
WAHAHAHAHA
now quoting your own words is equivalent to selective reading??
debate cannot win, shift goalposts. shifting goalposts don't work, change them into smaller ones :doh: :doh:
ignorance can still help. dumb ass like u are beyond help. :doh: :doh: :doh:
ignorance can still help. dumb ass like u are beyond help. :doh: :doh: :doh:
what can ignorance help?! care to shed light? :banghead: :banghead:
can't win a debate in spite of shifting goalposts and cutting them into your fancied size, now resorting to copying quotes.
how about this that personifies you? wahahahaha
"Stupidity and delusion are as thinly divided as a man's inability to see his fallacies" - Sir A.W.
what can ignorance help?! care to shed light? :banghead: :banghead:
can't win a debate in spite of shifting goalposts and cutting them into your fancied size, now resorting to copying quotes.
how about this that personifies you? wahahahaha
"Stupidity and delusion are as thinly divided as a man's inability to see his fallacies" - Sir A.W.
talking abt shifting goal post? hah hah u are the master of flip n flop man. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Allthepies
22-02-13, 19:23
The anti government sentiment is very strong. The main cause I think is jealousy.
Smart people have taken advantage of the situation, a few have seize the chance and increase their pay tremendously to 16K, way beyond their usual capacity. I applaud these few people, they have made their own life and their family better.
Allthepies
22-02-13, 19:42
Using the excuse to help the poor to further your own cause is one of the most effective way. Although it is very effective but I think it is a very despicable method. Beware of bad karma.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.