Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Houston, we have a problem

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default Houston, we have a problem

    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
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    i just feel there is alot of mess during the george bush's era..

    what do you think?
    I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.” - Robert Frost quotes (American poet, 1874-1963)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roly8
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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?"
    There is no good or bad location. There is only good or bad price.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shanhz
    ok great! your good friend will come in and say.. "what happens if we kenah one joker taking over PAP govt?"
    huh? you mean the jokers ruling SG now, aren't real clowns??

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    oh u mean we need dead wood?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    oh u mean we need dead wood?
    nah, we need jokers who need spell-checking programs to know the difference beween "MOMENT" and "MONUMENT"

    WAHAHAHAHA

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    yeah yeah need folks like u ... dead beat
    wahahaha

    guess you didn't read about household wage declines for the poor and the widening rich-poor gap

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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.

    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    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?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    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"?
    Last edited by hopeful; 22-02-13 at 10:47.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,677

    Default

    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.
    There is no good or bad location. There is only good or bad price.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    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?
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom_opera
    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 ?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    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
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    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.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    without skill improvement nothing will help. pronto idiot.
    so did PM and the cabinet ministers have a major skill upgrade when their pay increased??

    sigh.....u still don't recognize your fallacies

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    guess u only focus on the negative part of the stats right. no wonder u are a sad case.

    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.
    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

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    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.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelonguni
    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.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    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

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eng81157
    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

    ignorance can still help. dumb ass like u are beyond help.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority
    ignorance can still help. dumb ass like u are beyond help.

    what can ignorance help?! care to shed light?
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. No Test kit, no problem.
    By Arcachon in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 0
    -: 14-01-22, 11:57
  2. Advice on CashFlow Problem
    By Reisor in forum Finance and Legal
    Replies: 64
    -: 30-07-18, 22:01
  3. Refinancing problem
    By mummy in forum Finance and Legal
    Replies: 28
    -: 14-05-15, 11:08
  4. How is the rental MKT..any bro got problem renting ur apt?
    By radha08 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 105
    -: 10-01-12, 21:57
  5. The problem with envy
    By Makelele in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 5
    -: 11-04-07, 22:57

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •