Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS (Post 3480533)

meh ....

http://nationalinterest.org/files/st...?itok=PD6Ll9ki

Originally Posted by engatwork (Post 3480548)

That could actually be construed as being O's yacht;).

Originally Posted by Txjake (Post 3480677)

just another example of the rich getting richer and the poor...well, they aren't doing so well. Every day, the gap widens

Originally Posted by 97 SL320 (Post 3480999)

So says the guy that makes multiple posts about the latest car he bought / is thinking about buying when there are those that can't even afford a bicycle. To someone that is living below the poverty line, you are the evil rich.

Originally Posted by 97 SL320 (Post 3480999)

So says the guy that makes multiple posts about the latest car he bought / is thinking about buying when there are those that can't even afford a bicycle. To someone that is living below the poverty line, you are the evil rich.

Originally Posted by 97 SL320 (Post 3480999)

So says the guy that makes multiple posts about the latest car he bought / is thinking about buying when there are those that can't even afford a bicycle. To someone that is living below the poverty line, you are the evil rich.

Originally Posted by Txjake (Post 3481080)

Yeah that $3000 car puts me in the 1% :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by 97 SL320 (Post 3481363)

I never said you were in the 1% or even rich according to some elevated level. And I was not referring to driving a MB as you also have a Datsun Z car from what I recall.

I said that a person living below the poverty line is going to consider everyone above them including you "rich". A 3K car to someone that can't afford a bicycle might as well be a 770 Mil boat. It is a matter of perspective.

And before someone says to add a luxury tax to punish those evil rich, this has been done before in the US ( and England from what I recall ). The "rich" stopped buying things and Joe lunch box got laid off at the shipyard / RV factory / aircraft plant as a result.

If you want to punish the rich because they paid $ 50 K for a new kitchen, you better punish 10 Joe lunch boxes when they pay $ 5 K each as both groups generated jobs for other Joe lunch boxes.

Originally Posted by davidmash (Post 3480508)

I have a pretty good imagination but I cannot imagine having enough money to where it makes sense to spend over $700 million dollars for a private yacht. And whats more, I don't want this to ever make sense for me. That's not to say that the other mega yachts make sense because in my mind they don't but I guess if they have the cash ...

World's largest yacht 'Double Century' is size of two football fields and costs $770m - Boston Newstime

It is a pretty sharp looking design in my opinion ...

Originally Posted by 97 SL320 (Post 3481492)

It doesn't even have to be luxury goods, if a guy with $ buys a new lawn tractor every few years because he doesn't want to deal with breakdowns, it keeps the lawn tractor factory going. And, it places used tractors on the market so Joe lunch box can buy one.

If those that could afford a MB bought new and kept it forever not turning it back in 4 years, used market prices would be much higher.

Originally Posted by Air&Road (Post 3481498)

So with your president decimating our military in the midst of an ever threatening world stage, you can't imagine the need for the defense of our country? Unfortunately you are in the majority on this issue. We are rapidly approaching a repeat of the late 1930's. Our leader is creating an isolationist America with a neutered military.

Just as I hope very much to be wrong about my being convinced that hillary will be the next president, I hope that I am wrong when I say that the U.S. is in for an extreme need for a military that we won't have due to your idol in the whitehouse. Not only is our military shrinking, but your idol is removing the officers with actual attitudes and abilities for defending our country and replacing them with a politically correct ineptocracy. A woman running the Air Force who has never flown a plane and another one running the navy who has never sailed a ship. I have no problem with these positions being filled by women, but whoever is in the position should be selected for experience and ability rather than their political correctness.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Originally Posted by Air&Road (Post 3481498)

So with your president decimating our military in the midst of an ever threatening world stage, you can't imagine the need for the defense of our country? Unfortunately you are in the majority on this issue. We are rapidly approaching a repeat of the late 1930's. Our leader is creating an isolationist America with a neutered military.

Just as I hope very much to be wrong about my being convinced that hillary will be the next president, I hope that I am wrong when I say that the U.S. is in for an extreme need for a military that we won't have due to your idol in the whitehouse. Not only is our military shrinking, but your idol is removing the officers with actual attitudes and abilities for defending our country and replacing them with a politically correct ineptocracy. A woman running the Air Force who has never flown a plane and another one running the navy who has never sailed a ship. I have no problem with these positions being filled by women, but whoever is in the position should be selected for experience and ability rather than their political correctness.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Originally Posted by Air&Road (Post 3481498)

So with your president decimating our military in the midst of an ever threatening world stage, you can't imagine the need for the defense of our country? Unfortunately you are in the majority on this issue. We are rapidly approaching a repeat of the late 1930's. Our leader is creating an isolationist America with a neutered military.



Just as I hope very much to be wrong about my being convinced that hillary will be the next president, I hope that I am wrong when I say that the U.S. is in for an extreme need for a military that we won't have due to your idol in the whitehouse. Not only is our military shrinking, but your idol is removing the officers with actual attitudes and abilities for defending our country and replacing them with a politically correct ineptocracy. A woman running the Air Force who has never flown a plane and another one running the navy who has never sailed a ship. I have no problem with these positions being filled by women, but whoever is in the position should be selected for experience and ability rather than their political correctness.



Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

Originally Posted by tbomachines (Post 3481558)

...what?




Sent from an abacus

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS (Post 3481524)

Lawn tractor? Not exactly the average mans game. First off you are a home owner and then one of the small percentage that needs a tractor.

Originally Posted by 97 SL320 (Post 3481665)

Maybe in LA where 300 K buys a postage stamp to park a camping trailer to live in, few will need a tractor. For the rest of the country, mowing 1/2 AC or more is pretty common.

Originally Posted by JB3 (Post 3481564)

2 bucks he saw the pic of an aircraft carrier and thats what he figures this thread is about

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS (Post 3481760)

Chicago, New York city, Houston, Philly, Phoenix to name a few places... "The urban areas of the United States for the 2010 Census contain 249,253,271 people, representing 80.7% of the population, and rural areas contain 59,492,276 people, or 19.3% of the population. " You remain in touch with the common man and the facts of the situation. Carry on.

Originally Posted by 97 SL320 (Post 3481817)

And do you have stats for the maximum land mass owned by urban residents?

Originally Posted by INSIDIOUS (Post 3481760)

Chicago, New York city, Houston, Philly, Phoenix to name a few places... "The urban areas of the United States for the 2010 Census contain 249,253,271 people, representing 80.7% of the population, and rural areas contain 59,492,276 people, or 19.3% of the population. " You remain in touch with the common man and the facts of the situation. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3481910)

How is "urban" defined? We live in the suburbs, and everyone has a riding mower (except us).

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3481910)

How is "urban" defined? We live in the suburbs, and everyone has a riding mower (except us).

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3481910)

How is "urban" defined? We live in the suburbs, and everyone has a riding mower (except us).

Originally Posted by Idle (Post 3482163)

I use a landscaping company to deal with my yard. It is just too big for me to take care of.

But I do keep in touch with the common person, and most of my close friends are unrepentant losers.

Does that count?

Originally Posted by barry12345 (Post 3482679)

If you find you just do not have the time. A riding mower becomes pretty much a necessity. I think back to when we first built the house we are in. I did cut the grass somehow with a gas push mower for the first year.

Hard to believe this now. It takes around an hour with a lawn tractor. Every spring I am always happy the two lawn tractors fire up with out issues so far. Both the house and cottage are on acre lots. The one we purchased new thirty five years ago or so still has the original tires and they are still decent. Only has required a head gasket and belts so far. Plus batteries. I keep thinking it's time is limited but it still runs about the same as new. .

Lots of good lightly used lawn tractors come up if you are not looking for one. I am not very impressed with some of the brand new ones now. They seem to have been cheapened to some extent. One wonders in the past how long it would have taken with a push reel mower. That is about all they had at one time. Of course as I type this I can almost hear the grass growing. There has been a good combination of evening rainfall and sunny days for the last while.