Rich/poor question for you all......

I just had a question. I'm asking this question because I really want to know.

What do you all think of poor people? I don't mean poor people who live off of somebody else. I mean people who do factory/restaurant/store/other low wage jobs and come home every day. Do you all think that they're okay people for making an honest living? Does anybody look down on them for not being anything that makes a higher wage? Does anybody think that they're lazy? Does anybody think that these are hard working people that deserve respect for being hard working and honest workers like other workers?

Also, how do you view rich people? Is there a difference between rich and wealthy? Do you view people like that as somebody who stole it or worked for it from start to finish.

I'm just curious how some of you all look at the poor and rich. I'd really like to know. I've always assumed that people that were financially better off almost always looked down on the poor. I would think that if some of you all grew up poor, that you probably don't look down on them because that would be like looking down on the parents who raised you. Also, do you look up or down on somebody because they are rich?

Not too many people get that rich by being nice.

Depends on how they became poor

:cry:

Kanary

:shrug:

I have been up a lot this week and have not gotten a lot of sleep so I am missing your point. Sorry.

:silly:

Give it a break.

so I can't speak to that, but as far as the rich thing goes I try and judge each individual person on their own merits.

I've known some wealthy people who have worked very hard to get it and some who've been born into it.

Everyone has a different situation.

have that information? It's very hard to know even if you get hold of their tax return if they file one. I can't answer your questions because things aren't always as they appear.

When I see a person working, at either a (presumably) high-wage or low-wage job, I only know they are working. I don't really know what their income is. I can, at best, ballpark guess their wages for the job. Beyond that, I don't know if they have a spouse or what their spouse might do for a living; I don't know if they do the job because they enjoy it, or if they're over-qualified, but it's the only job they can find at present. I don't know if they are working it as a means to get through school and on to a different job. I don't know how hard they worked to get to the position they're currently in.

I figure any honest job is a good job, and the person doing it merits respect until or unless they prove to me they're incompetent at it.

:hi:

You are classifying people according to a non-human economic system.

This question about a caste "value system" is about the same as evaluating the emotions of your pet fish.

This is simply another frame posited under election agitation.

but what about the other questions?

I was poor. Dirt poor. Thankfully, my dad eventually got a union job. When I finished high school, I took out some student loans and went to college. When I got out, I started my own business.

There's alot to be said for hard work, but if it weren't for organized labor, government assistance in the form of student loans, and a fair amount of luck, I would not be where I am today.

So of course I don't look down on the poor. We have to help each other up.

How do I feel about the rich? Depends. If they've got a social conscience, I treat them no differently from anyone else. If they're self centered assholes who want to benefit from the system without contributing to it (Republicans in other words) then I despise them.

How about you, Axiomatization? I'd be interested to hear how you answer your own questions.

it was lucky their hard work paid off. So many people work really really hard for hardly anything.

who inherited their wealth. They've never worked, never been responsible, drink or snort a lot.

There are poor people who have never made an effort. They've never worked, never been responsible, drink or snort a lot.

Then there are poor people who have worked their way up the ladder to being rich. Worked hard, been responsible, built something lasting.

You shouldn't ever automatically condemn rich people, or glorify poor people...or vice versa.

Got a tour from the builder who is a friend of my gf's. Most of the inside was marble including the countertops. 12,000 sq ft. It had a fountain in the back that was fed into a stream that pumped out at full blast 5000 GALLONS OF WATER AN HOUR. In a time of shortages and regular joes only being allowed to wash their cars on certain days, that's a huge waste.

And you wonder what I think of rich people? Thieves, that's what I think. Of course, you can keep hauling the king's gold if you like.

I once thought that a building I saw out in the vineyards was a winery and perhaps a toney hotel. It wasn't. Anyway, there was nothing like signs and open gates invited you in. I finally asked around and, it turned out to be a single family residence with two people living there. I don't think there are castles in Europe as BIG as this single family residence.

It also makes you think how many might have a meal if this person had accepted just a little less. How much does one person need?

TO the stream. Fountains don't create water, nor do they constantly use new water.

There were no streams anywhere near it.

it was pumped into a stream.

Even being pumped in, it was recycled from somewhere.

Rich people don't ever spend money they don't have to.

That's how they got to be rich.

And they needed to spend that much on a house? I rest my case. There's alot of money that "didn't have to be spent".

beyond shelter, food and warmth.

A cave, a campfire and a mammoth are all that's 'vital'

All else is 'frivolous' if you want to be silly about it.

Of course it didn't have to be said. You wanna haul the king's gold, go right ahead. Just don't forget where that gold came from.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And it's no more yours than mine unless you took it from the ground with your own two hands, not someone else's.

Update please.

You can make far more 'gold' from computers and the web.

Or any number of other things.

Being overly literal is not an argument for anything.

What is the source of all wealth?

Missed the memo did you? Or did you think that money grows on trees? Wait, it does. Another of the earth's resources.

I'll not waist my time on Kool-Aid any longer.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're saying that you can get something out of nothing. Kinda goes against the laws of physics. Or is it just magic?

It's called thinking.

Not magic, not unusual, not rare...nothing to do with physics....thought itself.

Faster than the speed of light, doesn't need gravity, even operates upside down, or while the body is being spun.

Whats the the matter with you anyway? Thinking...hardly a new concept.

Everything on earth is the product of thought..yours or someone elses. You decide who.

But if you don't think it...it don't happen.

Sure. I'm not the one not thinking. Or being knowingly deceptive.

But...assuming you're normal...you can recognize wood.

And think of uses for it.

The 'good or bad' is up to you.

Otherwise...just keep sauntering through the jungle, getting attacked by wildlife, and dying of old age at 20.

Your choice.

How to make plastic, from oil.

How to make sinks, from ceramic.

Of course I'm talking to someone who thinks that robots will do everything. Then how will people be fed?

Don't play coy with me.

and using only natural resources.

Who made money from the gold rushs?

Not the miners...the retailers who sold to the miners.

The ones that used their brains, not their backs.

Billions are made everyday from the world without ever touching any 'natural resource' from the earth.

Don't play 'earth mother' with me.

Who gave them starvation wages until someone made them pay more. Yes, I'm playing earth mother. Define ownership. You can't do that until you go back to the beginning.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Get over it yourself.

that hold you in thrall.

The 'thrall' part is what you have to get over.

It was suited to the 19th century...and the 'dark satanic mills' of the Industrial age...it has no meaning in the 21st century of computers, space and quantum physics.

without the working poor? Wealth does not exist in an ethereal bubble because of quantum physics, space and computers. Rich people could not get that way if they didn't have people to help them get there. Even if you inherited your wealth, that wealth came from the backs of the workers of this country. That isn't Marxism. That is fact. If every single blue collar and service industry employee dropped off the face of this earth, then all of the wealth in this country would collapse. Space, Quantum physics and computers aren't magical wealth protectors.

'Workers' is a word from another time and place.

The industrial age of 19th century England in fact.

And I hate to inform you, but yes, blue collar workers could easily be replaced by robots.

So could MacDonald servers.

The world does not depend on some downtrodden socialist prolitariat anymore.

Marx died a couple of centuries ago.

My immigrant father has been a hard working blue collar laborer his entire life, and my world did depend on him. He is of this time and place.

He is a Democrat because of his deeply ingrained compassion and his desire for social fairness.

You can replace him with a robot.

So was mine.

And yes, they could both be replaced with robots. Many people could.

We are not discussing our personal feelings...we are discussing what is possible and likely in this society.

Automation is one of those things.

Or perhaps we could call them lampshades. They work for a living. It doesn't matter what you call them. And the world DOES depend on them. Who will build those robots? Robots to build robots? Then, who builds THOSE robots? Who manufactures the parts for those robots? Who builds the McDonald's? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a booming construction business that relies solely on robots. And the police that protect your wealth. Are they all robots now? And who builds those robots. Who enforces those laws to ensure we can keep our wealth? Do you honestly thing the worlds GNP can be sustained with NO human worker/employee/lampshade force?

Marx died centuries ago. And science fiction books aren't real. Someone wrote those. I know, it's disappointing.

However that won't change the reality of it's shape.

Because belief, and reality are not the same thing.

Many things have changed in the world...manual labor is one of them.

You are making many old assumptions here...robots that need caretakers, a burger joint called McDonalds....police to protect your wealth...a GNP.

Like I said, Marx is dead.

So is his world

This would be hilarious if it weren't actually kind of pitiful.

I'm not making any assumptions here. You are the one who is insisting that the world does not need manual labor in order to maintain GNP. That wealthy people could continue to live the way they do with no help from anyone else. Computers and robots can do it all.

If you think you live in a world where you can maintain your wealth without ANY outside help at all, and that we really don't need all those people who build the cars we drive, or build the houses we live in, then you are believing in something that is just as ludicrous as believing the world is flat. I believe the world is round, and I believe that we need the worker bees in order to sustain the wealth. Some of us get to reap the benefits of that wealth. Those that would do so, and then attribute NONE of it to the infrastructure that is maintained by manual and other labor, are in complete and total denial.

We'll kick start the robots, and then we'll stand back while the AI kicks in and just be the batteries in the Matrix.

Welcome to the Desert of the Real.

we're living in the past. Isn't that hilarious?

I have to say, debating with Maple has been pretty amusing, even if in a somewhat disturbing way.

That is the point of discussing society, no?

Possiblities, challenging scenarios, cause and effect?

Science fiction...yes indeedie.

You are currently living in it.

All the things the good people of the Victorian age also said couldn't happen.

Fantasy, wild imagination, craziness they scoffed.

It'll never happen.

Think about that while you type on your keyboard, and watch satellite TV live from the other side of the planet.

Not real. We don't have robots that build roads and houses. To replace every single labor job with a robot would cost more than the 36 cents a day that peasants in third world countries earn. And much more expensive to maintain.

Oooh, TV and internet. Magical stuff! Who built this computer? Who put up the polls that brings the electricity so I could use it? Was it all robots? And who creates and builds the software that makes this possible? Robots in India that demand less pay? Is the whole outsourcing thing just one giant myth, and it's really just robots that can build and fix themselves? How about the road I drove on when I went and bought this? And the sales person that sold it to me? They were robots! Man, I've been duped! You're so right. We don't need those peons. We can maintain our lifestyles without them!

Some day, maybe those robots will be possible. But, right now, they don't exist. So, we deal with reality. Reality is that many people work themselves to the bone all their lives, including children, and sometimes without pay! To dismiss all of this and say it isn't necessary because the internet exists is laughable. No one says you have to give a shit about the working class. But, you cannot, with any accuracy, assert that they are not necessary.

We do indeed have such robots.

Yes, they are expensive.

Employers haven't invested in them in the US so far, because labor was cheaper. Now that's it's not, jobs are being outsourced to India and China. Soon they'll be too expensive, and the jobs will move to Africa.

China is losing jobs you know...to cheaper labor countries.

Stop the outsourcing, and it'll be worthwhile for employers to invest in the robots.

Car factory in Japan runs solely on robots. Oh..they have a human nightwatchman. One.

Robots indeed make computers, and TVs. You've been watching too many 'tough truck' commercials pretending you're all still a nation of miners, cowboys and construction workers.

The Industrial age is over...I'm sorry but it is.

Play games with it all you want...people made fun of a round earth too, but it was still reality.

Do you know that when the first cars came out...and stalled by the side of the road...people like you laughed and yelled 'get a horse'

Guess who won that round?

Where? The one that can build houses must be HUGE! I want to see those. Are they all just sitting in giant warehouses, built by even bigger robots, for the day when they take over all the jobs?

Car factories in Japan are NOT run solely on robots. Robots have replaced workers, no doubt about it. But nowhere near to the point where autoworkers are no longer needed.

The industrial age is over? What, did all the factories disappear? We're all making our own goods now?

This is insane.

Some Americans are very insular...apparently you are unaware of advances in the rest of the world.

No, you don't need 'giant' robots. Whatever for?

If you need cranes, they operate on computers you know.

I said there is a car factory in Japan run solely by robots.

Others have a lot of, but not all, robots.

Yes, the day of the auto worker is over...even in America

Don't let your kids grow up to be autoworkers. There is no future in it. Or in steel, mining, construction and dozens of other fields.

China is currently the worlds factory. Everyone but you has noticed.

Show me a picture of all those houses and roads being built only by robots, with nary a living, breathing paid human being in sight. Show me the robots that are programming software. If these robots exist, if someone paid the money and resources to build these robots, why aren't they using them?

You said there is a car factory in Japan run solely by robots. But that doesn't make it true. Even so, even if there is ONE plant in Japan run solely by robots, it doesn't change the fact that all of the others aren't. I've toured assembly plants recently. Thousands of living, breathing, human beings. There is no way that an assembly plant could be run with one person in the whole facility. Who cleans the place? Who fixes the machines and robots that break?

The day of the auto worker is NOT over. I personally know some autoworkers. Yes, Virginia, they do exist. There is a demand for cars, and that hasn't shrunk at all. The number of people required to build them hasn't gone down, even with all of those robots. It's just where those workers are located, and how much they're paid, that has changed.

Hardly my fault you aren't even reading your own American magazines like Wired, Popular Science, Discovery, Scientific American, and so on all these years.

Sorry, such places do exist.

How much mess do you think robots make? Spilled coffee? Cut fingers? Litter from burger wrappers?

Robots don't get 'broken'...they may have a rare programming glitch. That means a computer scientist, not a mechanic with a wrench.

You really need to get out more.

Unsold cars btw are parked skyhigh in Detroit...overproduction, predicted since the early 90s. Nobody learns.

There is no future whatever in being an auto worker.

If you are one of them, try to make it till retirement....do NOT, under any circumstances, let your kids into the field.

It's over.

To Wired, Popular Science and Discover, and I regularly read the others.

Robots are machines. They break. They need to be repaired.

You really need to stop assuming things about people based on very little information. Bad debate skills. You should actually read the articles in those magazines you talk about.

Most likely with oil.

No matter who calls themselves king.

Used my brain to get a Master's degree. I don't sell STUFF, I sell ME - my knowledge, my ability to treat people. That's how I get paid.

I don't use rocks and dirt, that's for sure.

Unless you're willing to get your hands dirty.

from building to growing to fixing. We'll be fine, but I really appreciate your concern.

:eyes:

Married into it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You just said your husband would provide. Your post about that actually proved my point. I'd like to see somebody disprove my first point, which was that noone has the right to excessive consumption of said natural resources.

but you have no hatred?

You're so full of hatred it has permeated the whole thread.

If I wanted to express hatred, I would do far more than that.

You'd be standing there in smoking underwear hon.

Cloaked in pseudo-intellectualism.

Shrunken, black little stone heart.

And damned proud of it.

in the lounge where you can discuss falafel, and not serious social concerns.

Nor would you need to make a discussion of sociological issues a personal matter.

but their wealth is not derived from the earth, but from their imagination and talent. Nor do I see their wealth as being derived "on the backs of labor". They make their money from others who choose to pay for their product. No one is forced to buy an album or book, see a movie, or go to a concert. The people they are taking the money from are willingly giving it up, and in most cases they feel like their money was well spent. I would not argue that wealth cannot be derived from natural resources, but I would argue that wealth can be created from one's imagination. The laws of supply and demand do not only apply to natural resources.

the canvas used for paintings, and the electricity required for use of amps all come from the earth. Yes, the laws of supply and demand do apply to natural resources as the price of oil shows.

Geesh, excuses, excuses.

do you pay the same price for an empty journal as you do for a novel? No. A novel is more expensive not because of the paper, but because of it's value to others. While a writer, musician or artist does depend on products of the earth, they apply their talents to those resources to increase their value. I can buy a blank canvas and all the paint for $20 bucks, the Mona Lisa is worth millions, not because of the value of it's components, but because of the value of Da Vinci's talents. As I said, wealth can be created from natural resources, but it also can be created from imagination.

The person couldn't write anything without the wood that the paper is made of or the oil used to make the electricity to operate a computer or TV camera. So at it's most basic, wealth comes from either the earth's resources or the labor to extract those resources.

You can have all the imagination and ingenuity you like. Without a way to spread the imagination, you have nothing.

The means to distribute or utilize imagination comes from the earth's resources, true, but it doesn't stop there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're argument that all wealth comes from natural resources only. A famous writer, for example, has the same access to paper, pens, word processors as almost anyone else. Yet for some reason, he is able to use those resources to create something of value that others are not able to create. He is able to use his ability to increase the value of those resources. He can convert $1000 worth of paper into $1,000,000 worth of sales. Are the people who produced the $1000 worth of paper entitled to a portion of his profits because they produced the paper he used? Since the person who wrote the novel has not created any natural resources, is he also not entitled to any of the profits?

Another example... Health insurance.
Person A pays $100/month for health insurance.
Person B has no insurance.
Both A and B require a $1000 operation. Person A's insurance pays for it, person B has to pay cash. Since both A and B have the same operation at the same price for the same service anyway, why bother to have insurance? The insurance company produces nothing from the earth to benefit person A, and yet it has a service that has value to person A.

If Shaq can't get on TV, he may as well go to the schoolyard because he won't make one red cent. No wood, no money, no wealth. Why is it so hard for you to understand? The paper and pens have to be created in order to write.

Natural resources are used but people can add value to them. Is your argument that all wealth is created on natural resources only?
$100 worth of gold is mined, a jeweler uses his skills (and tools) to create a $300 ring. Since the value of the gold was $100, does that mean that his tools must be worth $200 to account for the $300 ring? If the same jeweler uses the same tools and the same gold to create a $500 ring, has the value of his tools increased? A person who gets paid to speak in public may do so without using any natural resources. He doesn't NEED a microphone, a podium, or even chairs for the audience. He may speak in an open field. He doesn't even NEED to write down what he's going to say. Yet people may still pay to hear him. Unless you're going to count the oxygen required as the "natural resource" he is using no natural resources. If that's the case, then I concede. Oxygen is a natural resource which all people require, without it, they would die. Therefore, anyone who is alive MUST use natural resources to create wealth.

Labor is the creator of wealth. The speaker is the manipulator of wealth. People can't get paid to speak if others have no money to hear him speak. Those who hear him speak also get their money from said natural resources, since the paper to print money comes from trees.

So how do the people who hear the speaker speak get their money from natural resources? Wouldn't they get it from their labor? Their labor may or may not be based on natural resources (a person may be a miner or a psychiatrist) but isn't the money they have, truly generated by their labor? Natural resources have no value (other than "potential value") until someone does something with them. You used the Shaq analogy earlier to say that he is only able to make money based on natural resources. I agree, but I would also argue that the natural resources are only of value if it has someone like Shaq to use them. Would anyone tune in to watch an empty basketball court. Could the wood, Iron and rubber produce wealth on their own?

When the oil runs out, economic growth will cease to be a function of society. The Shaq analogy is because the electricity to run the TV cameras runs from oil, coal, and water. The source of all wealth. Your use of semantics doesn't change that. No natural resources, no wealth.

has provided a service to others, but used no natural resources. In exchange, he receives money. Is your argument that someone, somewhere, must produce something from natural resources, or the economic system will breakdown? That society can never be a 100% service economy? If that is the case, then I agree. From your initial argument, however, I though you were arguing that each persons individual wealth is solely based on natural resources, not that, in general, the wealth of society is based on natural resources. My arguments were all directed to point out how an individual can become wealthy in a way that was not based on natural resources. Since you are arguing that even this person gets money from someone, who gets money from natural resources, than I concede. Natural resources are vital to the economy. Had you said that in the first place (had I correctly interpreted your true argument) then I wouldn't have even bothered posting.

Our economy is too interdependent for it not to be. Directly or indirectly, all wealth comes from natural resources.

Would it also be an accurate statement that all wealth comes from labor as well, since natural resouces in and of themselves have no economic value unless some labor is applied to them? And since someone has to figure out how to get the resources, and what to do with them, would it also be accurate to say that all wealth comes from imagination? If no one knew how to get the resources, or what to do with them, they would be useless. If no one was willing to do the work to get them or to use them, they would also be worthless.

But at it's most basic, wealth comes from the resources of the earth. That brings up a question of ownership, being who owns the earth? Everyone and noone. Ownership in a democratic society is what the people say it is. I'm not saying that imagination doesn't have a place, just that it's not the source.

Natural resources must exist. Someone must know how to get them. Someone must be willing to get them. Someone must know what to do with them. Someone must be willing to do something with them. If any one of these things is missing, then natural resources are useless. You can't take any component out, and still have useable natural resources, therefore, IMHO, all components are equally important.

You're arguing in circles. There can be no wealth without natural resources. It still comes to a question of who owns the earth.

Have a nice day.

I'm arguing that there are SEVERAL things that must be present, not just one. You are trying to reduce this to a single thing, but it's not that simple. You state that there can be no wealth without natural resources. I agree. I also say that there can be no wealth without labor or imagination. You seem to have conceded that they are both important, but less important than natural resources. I disagree. Anyway, since you cannot take any one of the three components out, if you want to make an argument on ownership of natural resources, that's fine, and it's an excellent question.

How else will Atouk steal Lana from Tonda?

500 dollar shoes. Tens of thousands of square feet of living space, and multiple homes of that size. No one needs those things. You can not begrudge them those things, but you can't argue that those are needs.

There are many people who get rich by not spending money. They tend to be the ones that don't spend so lavishly and conspicuously. But, if rich people never spent more than they have to, there wouldn't be a huge luxury goods market.

so don't worry about it

And who says they won't be rich for long? Odds are they'll get even richer.

I was only challenging your assertion that the rich never spend more than they have to.

and the rich NEVER spend more money than they have to.

The flash-in-the-pans do...which is why they are flash-in-the-plans.

Lots of movie stars spend money like crazy...diamonds, houses...go broke, or die broke. Veronica Lake, Mike Tyson....

That is the difference between 'old money'...and nouveau riche.

Nouveau...new...cuz it doesn't hang around long enough to be 'old money'

where I said I was worried about it?

I'm challenging your rich never spend more than they have to argument. An argument that is not based in any fact. Sure, some people squander their wealth. But, that does not mean that no rich people ever spend more then they have to. There is no logical connection or correlation between the two.

Something on your mind obviously.

Yes, people who always spend more than they have to in a conspicuous display of wealth...end up poor.

I believe I mentioned Veronica Lake and Mike Tyson?

Two of thousands.

It's okay. I don't mind. If I had a lapse in consciousness and posted that I was worried about how other people choose to spend their income, then I will heartily apologize.

Yes. Thousands of people squander their wealth. It's because they did so recklessly. There is indeed a way to spend lavishly and maintain their wealth. Thousands of people do it. Bill Gates? Madonna? Oprah Winfrey? Three of thousands.

Lots of 'once rich people' have died poor.

I'm not arguing that. Just the "Rich people never spend more than they have to". That's all. The fact that some rich people die poor doesn't negate that your statement isn't true.

than they have to.

It's not a sign of brains or class you know...it's a statement of fact.

If you want to get rich, and stay rich...you never spend more than you have to.

This is not rocket science.

that poor people often spend more then they have to, but the rich NEVER do? And more to the point, how does that prove your statement "The rich never spend more than they have to?" Where is the logic in any of that?

It is a sign of brains to actually be able to prove your argument and base it on facts rather than obfuscating. Rich people have more money than poor people. Their percentage of disposable income (you have heard of that, haven't you?) far exceeds that of poor people. So, it's simply impossible for all of these people with gobs of disposable income to spend more then they need, but it IS possible for poor people, who do not have that disposable income, to do so? :crazy:

I would pose that your statements are based on prejudices you have about rich people and poor people. Rich people are more skillful at handling money, and poor people are not. Do I have that right?

If you often spend more than you have to...at any time or in any place...you will end up broke.

No matter where you started.

Rich, middle class, or poor.

People skillfull at handling money, will end up rich. No matter where they started.

Poor, middle class, or rich.

Clear now?

Obviously if you're crappy at handling money..you won't have it for long...no matter where you start out.

'Honey, I've been poor and I've been rich, and believe me, rich is better.' Pearl Bailey.

If I have a billion dollars, and I buy a 12,000 ft home for 8 million dollars, then I have just spent more than I need to. And I'm still a billionaire. Is THAT clear now? As long as I stay within my means, I will not go broke. And I can spend buttloads of money that I don't need to. And still stay rich. Comprende?

Cute quote. Has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I'm speaking in plain English..very plain in fact.

If you are a billionaire, an 8 million dollar home is well within your current price range.

However, if you keep spending foolishly like that, on showy homes and other wasteful items...you won't be a billionaire for long.

See cross reference...Conrad Black, Hollinger. Joe Louis, Boxer. Various and assorted former Hollywood stars.

Is THAT clear?

and I think telling people to look up definitions falls neatly in that category.

Just because something is within my price range doesn't make it necessary. I'm extremely wealthy. I want an 8 million dollar home. It is well within affordeable range for me, and I buy it. And it's nice to have. But I didn't NEED it. Your contention is that it is impossible for rich people to spend more then they need, and that if they do so, they will not stay rich. You need a great big bottle of windex, my friend.

You don't really NEED anything other than a cave, a fire, and a mammoth.

Have you enjoyed your circular argument?

Because you aren't one bit better off for it.

But if you ever win a lottery...I know what will happen to it.

Bye bye money. Hello poverty again.

I've been standing by my own argument and haven't wavered one bit. It is indeed possible to spend more than you need to and still be rich.

Anyone who narrowly defines need as living in a natural structure with no controlled climate is a fool. I rather think that controlled climate is a need, since life expectancy goes down drastically without it. So, I would classify indoor shelter as a need. Then there is the complete opposite, where anything you can afford magically becomes a need. Equally as ludicrous.

And I love your assumptions about me. I'm very comfortable thank you. I don't even have to work!

it is entirely possible to spend more than you need to...but if you do it for very long...you will no longer be rich, no matter how much money you think you have.

Many wealthy people have died poor because of such fantasies.

Define YOUR needs as you please...basic human needs are shelter, food, heat.

All else is gravy...you get to pick your own flavor.

All else aside from basic needs is gravy. And millions and millions of people manage to go beyond those basic needs without going broke. Including rich people. As a matter of fact, rich people tend to go much farther beyond that boundary of need, because they can afford to. And many, if not most, do not go broke. So, your contention that rich people NEVER spend more then they need is a false one. You basically just admitted that in this last post I'm now responding to. Wasn't that easy?

Those who spend more money then they can afford aren't going broke because they're buying things they don't need. It is because they are buying TOO MANY things they don't need.

Without gravy..life is short savage and brutish.

And you have no source whatever for your statement that rich people rarely go broke. Certainly not any history class.

The opposite is true in fact. Giving rise to the old proverb...and every country has some version of it...'shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in 3 generations'

There now...wasn't that easy? I was right all along.

In spite of numerous posts with you playing semantics. :D

Never said it. Not once. And you're absolutely right. Without gravy, life is short and brutish. Never argued that! But you are the one who said, and I quote: "Rich people never spend more than they need".

You weren't right all along. It is indeed possible to spend more than you need, and not go broke. Not only is it possible, but people do it all the time.

'rich people never spend more than they need to'

Or...they aren't rich anymore. Simple cause and effect.

'Old money' gets to be old...because they do not spend lavishly or for show. They live quietly. They don't need to 'flaunt it'

Anyone flaunting it...hasn't had it for long...and won't have it for much longer.

No...people don't do it all the time. The world is littered with those who were once rich, and couldn't contain themselves or manage money. It's legendary in fact. Even the stuff of folk tales, because it's so common.

Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations.

Or less.

You've conceded just about every point I've made, and yet you still keep going back to "If the rich spend what they don't need, then they'll no longer be rich". If everything beyond need (which you defined as a cave, earlier) is gravy, and rich people never spend more than they need, then only rich people live in a cave? Anything more, and someday you will no longer be rich?

I've seen old rich. I've known old rich. And believe me, they aren't living in caves.

that someone else has conceded the argument, or 'made your point for you' when they haven't. But it's just a gimmick. It doesn't work

Yes, I still keep going back to my original point...because I haven't and I'm not conceding it.

You can live somewhere nice...but you don't need to have walls covered in diamonds.

Old money becomes old money because they don't overspend.

Overspend, and all the money in the world won't help you. You'll never be 'old money'. You'll be broke.

As I said in the beginning....

Aren't the same thing. I have high speed internet access. It is not a need. But, I can afford it. Therefor, I've spent money I didn't need to, and it has had no impact on my wealth. It is possible for rich people to spend money they don't need to and still maintain their wealth. It's not that hard to grasp. Wugh.

We don't NEED a lot of things...anything beyond the cave in fact...but we can afford them, so we get them.

However, should you buy diamond covered cars, 20 houses, fur coats for everyone including your 30 pets...you will soon run out of money, no matter how much you start out with.

Ask Elton John.

It is quite possible to be fabulously wealthy...wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice as they say...and broke again...in the same lifetime.

Many people have done it.

That's my point!

You are the one who is talking about absurd levels of spending. I'm talking about anything outside of need. Your contention, several times, was that NO rich person EVER buys ANYTHING they don't need. I was arguing that that is not true. You can say few rich people spend beyond their means and still maintain their wealth. THAT, indeed, would be true. But, spending beyond one's means, and buying things they don't need, are two entirely separate things.

Even so, if someone can afford diamond covered cars, then they won't go broke. There are people so absurdly rich that they can buy those things. And not lose their wealth, because they keep getting more money to replace the money they spent. Wealth is NOT a static thing. In other words, something that isn't needed doesn't automatically become needed JUST because you can afford it. You can keep making money to replace the money you spent.

You are insisting that it is impossible to buy things you don't need and still maintain your wealth. That is absurd. It's very difficult to spend beyond your means and stay rich, true. But, it is possible to stay well within your means, and still buy things you don't need. Those extra gravy things don't become needs when you can afford them.

See? I'm not being circular. You are, by asserting that anything magically becomes a need because you can afford it.

So for the LAST time, because it's silly to keep having to repeat not only the same thing but something simple and obvious over and over again....you will not be a rich person for long if you overspend.

How hard can this be? Surely this is not rocket science!

Construction worker or Bill Gates...you still can't go nuts and overspend...or you will be broke.

With wealth you may buy within a wider field, and enjoy things beyond the middle class lifestyle to be sure...but overspend and you will still be broke.

Have one billion, spend 5...it still equals toast.

You cannot continually spend more than you make...however much that is... without eventually ending up in the ditch.

Dance around it all you want...claim it's magic, voodoo, transporter beams or even moon beams if you like....it's a simple basic truth.

Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations.

Or less.

Buy what you don't need. Two different things. How many times do I have to say it?

Buy what you can afford but don't need: Stay rich. Overspend: Don't stay rich.

Rich can buy things they DON'T NEED and stay rich. Rich people can OVERSPEND and not stay rich.

Really. This has been fun. But there are people on DU who are actually stimulating to debate with.

What are the chances of hearing those two names paired together in a lineup? :evilgrin:

I believe it was the original hippy (a fellow named Jesus) who answered this way:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to get into heaven."

Geuss that sums it up pretty well

"blessed are the poor..."

First post, huh? Welcome to DU.

The name of the game is still survival.

Anyone who forgets that...doesn't survive.

It's just too haphazard and I think selects those who want to feel good, are guilty, or both to do the giving. I prefer good government programs that poor people and others who are caught up in situations they didn't ask for can rely on to get reliable help instead of having to do the humiliating stretching of their hands out.

That segment is the one that is discounted from the get-go in the original post as "living off of others".

that's the segment to be wiped out.

the only segment that counts, and that's very dubious, is the ones who work low-paying jobs.

Never mind the rest of the society couldn't function without those low-paid workers, they're still objects of scorn.

I'm waiting for the day I see a CEO cleaning the office toilets.

Kanary

Class warfare, and snobbishness.

'Make the rich pay'...a surefire motto for oblivion.

It's the 'politics of envy.' Doesn't work.

Of course.

How stooooooopid of me.

Shit.

May the Dems rot in hell along with the RW.

Kanary

Pay for yourself, stop blaming everyone else for having to work for a living.

We all do, ya know.

A sucker being born every minute.

That and a couple of bucks will buy you a coffee.

When thier selfishness is responsible for other's suffering. Envy would include me wanting wealth. Good luck with that.

Whom do you envy? Oh, I have plenty of coffee. I'll pour you a cup. Just whom do you envy? What do you think they are going to take away from you?

I don't mean to pry, but I am curious. Every person I've ever met who had your attitude was from the same background. Upper middle class, college education paid for by their parents, not pampered, but comfortable.

Am I far off? I actually hope I am- it'd be refreshing.

Working class, worked my way up, blood sweat and tears...yada yada.

NOW I'm comfortable.

So I have little sympathy for whining, and outdated ideology from the 19th century.

It's the Information age..the Industrial age,and it's capitalism and socialism offshoots are long since dead.

Ride the wave, or drown as they say.

Congratulations. I disagree with you, but I'm glad you're so comfortable.

What do you mean when you say "working class", by the way? Not Bill O'Reilly working class, I assume. Paid for your own education, then?

C'mon Maple. O'Reilly never hesitates to lie, and people can check him out and call him on his lies.

As long as you keep your story straight, you can make up a yarn about your youth in the cabrini green projects and how your mom made your jackets out of Glad bags®, and we won't be able to disprove it.

Knock yourself out!

Whom did you have to support or take care of while you did it? Did you have to cross a race, gender or handicap barrier while you clawed your way up into comfort? Just asking?

Oh since you call yourself Maple, I am assuming you live north of us in a country that takes care of a few of the problems we down here in the lower forty eight have to pay for ourselves, like health care.

So be thankful, and move on.

PS...I grew up long before there was public health care. Sorry.

You have no idea what I have had to cope with in my lifetime. And I have never had public health care, ever. I have had to spend my youth and life surviving through the most despicable Presidencies of the last century other than Bill Clinton. Being a woman and a Hispanic gave me double indemnity.

Yes, I was tough and got "comfortable" as you say, but I certainly don't wish what I have had to go through on anyone else when it's only a matter of fixing our system to accommodate everyone and not those who think they are privileged to be first because for some reason they believe they worked harder than anyone.

Hard work only gets you in the door. You know as well as I do that a lot of luck happens after that.

You have no idea of my life either. I am also female, and around long before there was any public health.

You make your own luck.

You gonna keep saying 'pity me'...or get on with your life?

eighty hour weeks in USA restaurants, hotels, fields and rich peoples homes are "making their own luck" while doing back breaking labor, for often less than minimum wage, and no health care and benefits.

Or, how about all those outsourced American jobs, which here were once union jobs? Now, some twelve year old in Bangladesh, making your sneakers, isn't getting paid enough to eat after a ten or twelve hour day and he has no health care benefits either. I guess that's making your own luck.

People like you need to be hit over the head with a big disaster for the meaness of your attitudes hit home with all of you. I would not wish it on you, but you are certainly overdue a karmic lesson.

former working class person who, in Shakespeare's words, "scorns the base degrees by which he did ascend."

Their attitude is, "I was able to make it. The fact that the rest of you haven't proves that you're losers."

They tend to end up as libertarians.

I'll check back later.

From doing the chores before dawn, with only a huge old electric radio with a cloth speaker for tech, to a global business on the web.

Female, working class, middle of the last century...usual story of discrimination, oppression, yada yada...Horatio Alger and all that rot.

but did you pay for your own education?

when we say that a multimillionaire shoulnd't deny his workers a living wage or healthcare coverage.

I used to think like you, Maple, until I spent three years working as a temp during the Reagan recession. That's when I saw how well some employers perfectly fit the Marxist stereotype.

So allow others who also work for a living be well paid, but remember that we, as a people, have to make sure that everyone is looked after.

so you won't have to waste your hate on me.

:puke:

Kanary

everybody hates me...goin' to the garden to eat worms.'

Well...go ahead.

Anyone that paranoid looks for any sort of an excuse.

So, whatever turns your crank, luv.

It's this level of sociopathology and dumping on your own that is killing any chance of bringing sanity to the nation.

Keep going.

The narcissism is winning.

Kanary

You are a strictly local political ideology.

Don't mistake yourself for the world

Same mind set as the RW.

There is no 'them' and 'us'

There is no 'they'

There is no 'enemy'

All phantoms in your own mind.

Tribalism and it's leftovers.

Hey, you don't like the poor, too bad.

As I said, give us the pills and we'll get out of your precious way.

Same old RW shit.

hey...the capitalist pigs are coming to getcha...run!

Jeepers..you been asleep the last half century or what?

"Left wing paranoia" is what the RW calls the Dems.

Your room is down the hall and to the RIGHT

buhbye now......

take your RW hate and scoot......

Off with ya.......and tell all your friends just how much fun it is to shit on the poor

Just Canadian...so save the persecution theories for another night.

Down the hall and take a hard RIGHT

Think you could stick to the topic, and stop trying to distract from the subject at hand?

The hatred is rife!

Hate the poor! Hate the poor! Hate the poor! That's the topic, sweetie.

Shit.

on some topic, automatically hates you?

What a sad life you must have.

Because...there will always be people who disagree with you.

Everyone has an opinion you know, and they won't always be the same as yours.

You can always agree to disagree...and still be friends.

Why are you always assuming people hate you?? Sheesh.

And from my perspective, being indifferent is much, much worse. It allows one to characterize another as unimportant, as a triviality to their life -- as opposed to recognizing them as another human being.

Trust me, don't waste your time or energies on Maple. Maple's only interest is butressing the status quo with quick catchphrases, flamebaiting, and extremely little in the way of actual substance.

I think she's been very cordial with you guys.

What she's saying, and I agree. Is that not everyone who's made money in life has made it off the backs of someone else.

My impressions of Maple go much further back than this thread. Every time I have dealt with her, I have found her to be nothing but obstinate, condescending, and just a plain asshat. When I have approached her in the spirit of a meaningful dialogue, her reponses have been consistently empty on substance but overflowing with pomposity.

Maple has basically said that she doesn't care about that poor, and that she shouldn't worry about them. She has also claimed that the global labor movement is "dead", and that we should all just deal with it -- without citing evidence to back up her suspect claim.

Maple is FAR from cordial toward anyone who disagrees with her. Personally, I don't bother to respond to her anymore, because it's about as productive as masturbating with a cheese grater. But I still will not stop to discourage others from dealing with her, because she has little interest in meaningful exchange (outside of someone affirming the righteousness of her suspect opinions).

And for the record, I don't think that all people who are rich made all their money off the backs of others. But I do know that they share the same planet with me, and that so long as they believe that their wealth affords them the right to consume an inordinate amount of resources and cause an excessive amount of pollution, then I'm going to continue to question their excesses -- just as I continue to question and work on my own.

That with automation, the world will still go round. Her conclusion is that it will only be a world for the wealthy with a huge underclass of people scraping out an existance. Robots will take care of their every need and those who can't afford robots will die.

The distribution of food, shelter, and warmth will only be for the wealthy. Not a world I want to live in. Even then, for the wealthy to keep making money, some socialist solution will have to be found to avoid mass revolution and a mass die-off, since there will be a huge underclass.

It's only just beginning, since there is only one plant in Japan using robotics at the moment.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1384

the Social Darwinist bullshit that all rich people are like that because they worked hard, and all poor people are that way because they're lazy.

Maybe YOU would be more happy with the libertarians...

with people that use their heads for more than hat racks and outdated ideology.

All you've done is insult and be rude.

How the hell did you last so long here with such an inability to be civil?

I don't even care where you go, I just wish you'd go there.

That changes everything! There's no excuse to be poor when we have computers! Modern technology renders poverty obsolete, so whoever is poor now must not be working hard enough, or is too weak. Survival of the fittest. Get with the 21st century, man! </sarcasm>

The Industrial age is dead...so are all ideologies connected with it.

Why do you act as though you're in the 1930's trying to get a union movement going?

Haven't you looked outside your window lately?

The world is completely different now...different problems that need different solutions.

Living in the past isn't one of them.

And I can't push a button and get an instant meal.

Ahem. And ignoring the social issues that still exist, and dismissing them with a wave of the hand while gawping at the modern marvels of today changes nothing. If you think that we live in magic happy future land where no one has to be poor if they don't want to be, then you are living in a time that does not exist as of yet.

That's not civil or pleasant. "We have technology" does NOT refute the labor movement. And I'm starting to bore of your empty non-points.

for more than a hatrack.

Another way of saying 'think'

And 'the labor movement' is dead.

Has been for years.

Ever considered the possibility that Kanary learned something in her station in life that you haven't? Or that she's put a lot of thought into her ideology? No, from your vantage point, you see all, and there isn't a perspective you've failed to consider. Wow. Must be great to be you.

Labor movement dead? Not quite. Down, but not for good. That's one thing you're right about - it's a global era now, and technology will eventually facilitate the development of a global labor movement, with solidarity between countries. Like when the Japanese dockworkers union refused to handle all cargo from Liverpool, Sheerness, or Thamesport in solidarity with the cdockworkers there.

http://www.infoshop.org/news2/dockers3.html

These kind of actions may become the seed of a new global movement, but somehow I bet you wouldn't favor such a thing.

Ever considered the possibility that Kanary learned something in her station in life that you haven't? Or that she's put a lot of thought into her ideology? No, from your vantage point, you see all, and there isn't a perspective you've failed to consider. Wow. Must be great to be you.

Labor movement dead? Not quite. Down, but not for good. That's one thing you're right about - it's a global era now, and technology will eventually facilitate the development of a global labor movement, with solidarity between countries. Like when the Japanese dockworkers union refused to handle all cargo from Liverpool, Sheerness, or Thamesport in solidarity with the cdockworkers there.

http://www.infoshop.org/news2/dockers3.html

These kind of actions may become the seed of a new global movement, but somehow I bet you wouldn't favor such a thing.

Ever consider I've learned something in MY life that neither you nor Kanary have? Or that others find 'ideologies' as outdated as the rest of it?

There is no grand global labor movement anymore. It's been around for years, and is dribbling away because it's no longer viable.

It doesn't matter what you or I 'favor' or 'don't favor'...what matters is reality.

You've made no effort to share it here.

Just insults and smug little quips about how the inevitability of the race to the bottom, and the idiocy off anybody who dares to be concerned about it.

If you've got something positive to impart, please do so. If not, go insult somebody who gives a crap about your opinion.

to have interesting and challenging conversations about anything, if your basic position is...nothing ever changes? Life has always been this way, and always will be. A thousand years from now, life will be the same as it is now.

History teaches us otherwise.

We are living in the 'science fiction' of the 18th and 19th century.

Fantasy, they said. It'll never happen.

But here we are, all the same.

If you don't want your assumptions challenged, why do you get involved in these conversations?

If you want things to always be the same as they were the day you were born, you're living on the wrong planet.

For some reason, the only changes you're comfortable with are the ones that are caused by "market forces" and that destroy the most jobs.

You haven't challenged anything because you haven't said anything.

You consistently attack the ideology that is one of the foundations of the democratic party, and yet you offer no alternative.

You joined this thread by attacking poor people as a group. Do you agree with the democratic party on anything? If not, why do you post here?

The last thing I'm interested in is the 'status quo'....I said the world is changing rapidly, and the only thing you can count on is change.

Where do see 'status quo' in any of that???

I also said 'market forces' is an ideology of the past.

No one 'attacked' anything...I said rich or poor depends on the individual at the moment.

And if all this socialism mantra from a long dead guy is your only foundation...you're as doomed as the Republicans.

You need a centrist position...no leftwing/rightwing Cold War stuff.

No 'ideology'. Practical solutions to problems that have nothing to do with long dead last-century quarrels.

When you come on these kinds of threads, do you want comforting...reassurance...affirmation...or challenge and new ideas?

Still waiting for you to offer any.

My "obsolete, outdated, socialist" ones are better than the whole lotta nothing you've offered.

We're done.

Your emotional problems, or the economy?

High tech if you're talking about the economy.

Do what they cannot yet do in China or India.

As to your emotional problems...take a valium.

I had a college friend who was guarenteed a high paying investment banking job when he graduated colllege because of his family's connections. We had a discussion where he suggested that nothing be made in the U.S. and that the U.S. economy would be run by technology. He insisted that everyone would be employed in this.
That will not be the case for a couple of reasons: many companies try to get by with as few engineers as possible so there simply won't be that many jobs especially with outsourcing and not everyone is employable as an engineer or similiar tech position.
People with no hope of employment are more likely to turn to crime. Even people who do not care about the less fortunate should at least be concerned from that point of view.

Like your I've seen.

What's your problem?

Your posts just reek of hostility and bitterness. I feel sorry for you. Honestly.

And I didn't see her blaming anybody for anything.

And the democratic party does not practice "the politics of envy".

Asking the super-rich to pay a higher share of their income in taxes is not "class warfare", it is JUST. It was fine by Franklin Roosevelt, it was fine by John F. Kennedy, and it's fine by me.

The wealthy make much more use of the US government that the poor do, anyway, whether they are transporting the products they sell on our highways, or their interests abroad are protected by our military They often get interest-free loans -that don't have to be paid back, for starting businesses in "enterprise zones" .

Check out Miami's Parrot Jungle, a typical example. It's millionaire owner got a $25 mil loan to relocate hit theme park to Watson Island, a prime location with ten times the tourist traffic as the previous one. It's an enterprise zone, even though it's a beautiful Island across the bay from $10 mil homes with a knockout view of the skyline, and it will provide fairly few jobs to the community, and even fewer to the poor minority communities the enterprise zones wwere intended to help. But the rich ALWAYS get their cut, even of LIBERAL programs. The list of corporate welfare is too long to list, but you choose to rag on working people who have to live in sec 8 housing? The rich should pay more, since their interests are looked after more.

The party doesn't advocate "punishing success" (one of the standard RW phrases you forgot to include). It advocates those who have benefitted most giving a bit more back so that everybody can be a little better off.

very rich people. No they didn't pass it on. I am working on a post about what really rich is and it isn't wages. People seem to not have an understanding of this. Also, what is bad is that much of the wealth of our nation has and is being moved elsewhere. It's taking me a long time to get it together though.

The poor already do pay for the rich.

If a person does not work but has riches, who provides them? Who makes the gold shower curtains, carves the ice statues? Who grows the food, cleans the toilets, makes the cars, plumbs the fountains?

Labor creates all wealth. Those who do not create their own wealth are parasites.

I just about puke listening to KXXT, the AAR/Jones affiliate in Phoenix, when they run their ads for commodity and options "investing" schemes, especially the ones that promote making money off the predicted high cost of home heating oil. In other words, poor people should pay more to heat their homes so some fat rich bastard (you have to be rich to begin with to "invest" in this shit) who listens to AAR can make even more money.

And yes, I include the George Soroses, Bill Gateses, Warren Buffets, and even Teresa Heinz Kerrys in this group.

Like I said, :puke:

Don't get me started. It's late and I'm tired and I still have work to do.


Tansy Gold, poor person (but only by U.S. standards)

the toilets become unionized and get some decent wages and benefits. These are the jobs they can't outsource.:evilgrin:

Also, there are guys (and girls) in my area who are running their own businesses doing the scut work but charging for it. They need small business help though to help their employees and they aren't getting it from either Schwarzenegger or Boosch.

The poor folk suffer like hell, getting unionized, to have the companies bust their union, and put 'em out in the street again.

But, that's just self-pity, y'know, "eating worms". They should just buck up and take it like "men".

SHit.

I see the people you're talking about working like HELL to form their own companies against all odds, pull together into unions, which the higher and mightier Merkins can't do because they're so absorbed in their "me, my, mine" rugged individualism. They're treated like crap, and we have to ask if we "look down" on them.

But, they're only into all that "self pity", doncha know. They're only deserving of a smirk and a haughty, hateful dismissal.

Let the CEOs have a go at cleaning their own damned toilets. Let 'em be treated like shit. that's the only way they're going to regain any of the humanity they have so easily dispensed with.

Kanary

I lost my Manolo Blahniks! How will I ever survive! I can't be seen in last year's Prada! I will die of embarrassment.

Seriously, you buy that social Darwin crap? That only the weak are poor, and the strong are rich? You want to bait all of the bleeding heart liberals and their high falutin ideals, yet you believe in that fantasy land?

This intellectually challenged asshole states:

"Nobel and high flown rhetoric aside"

and then goes on to write some rhetorical bullshit...

Your true colors are shining through (as well as your intellectual deficiencies)

Try not surviving...see how noble THAT is

has no right to be question the intellectual capabilites of their opponent.

I'm in the working class, always have been. I think of them as the backbone of the country. I have nothing but respect for someone who puts in a hard day's work to earn a living.

Now I have ranged from working poor all the way to solidly middle class, but I never remember looking down on anyone just because I have more. Just makes me more appreciative of what we have actually.

Rich people, I think it just depends. I can't help but be a little disgusted at the over-indulgence of the super wealthy, but then again if I was wealthy I wouldn't exactly live like a peasant. But the really over the top stuff, it just so vividly points out how dramatically the classes are being separated now. I view over-indulgence as tacky and showy, both turn-offs.

But really, good people come with all sorts of income, so I don't view either group with any kind of sweeping generalization.

about "looking down" on others.

Something is *very* wrong.

Do we have to think about "looking down" on blacks, hispanics, Jews?

I won't add women to that, because it's obvious from DU that we haven't grown past that "looking down" yet.

Imagine wondering if we should be looking down on gays.

This is very depressing.

VERY.

Depressing.

:cry:

Kanary

A great many of them don't see themselves as such because they have a car, a roof over their head, a TV and a microwave, but they don't make enough to save, and would be on the street if they lost their job for more than a couple of weeks. They don't own property.

If EVERY SINGLE ONE of these people voted, we could win every election, but they don't, In fact a huge number of them are more interested in the game on monday night than in NAFTA and the fact that it may destroy their jobs.

So we are forced to rely on people in the middle classes for votes, and the upper classes and corporations for funding to get our candidates in office.

Most of these wealthier democrats are extremely nice, good-hearted people, but some of them would strike you as snobs if you went into their homes.

Some of them vote dem strictly because they are pro-choice, or because they want to preserve the environment, but regardless, we need their votes and their support.

So we are a loose coalition of different interest groups. That doesn't depress me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I have a feeling that this year, it will.

Are we now back to blaming the poor on votes?

Cuz if that's it, I have nothing more to say.

I'm sick of fighting sexism, and I'm sick of fighting the blaming of the poor.

I've been told to get lost because I'm too far left, and I'm ready to say to hell with it, if I'm that worthless then fuck voting.

I'm really sick of all this.

Kanary

There are myriad reasons why the poor don't vote. Much of it is well-founded disillusionment (a feeling which I'm sorry if I provoked in you) I'm just saying we need the votes if we are ever going to get things done. I don't think you're too far left (although I haven't seen your position paper)

Haven't you heard the expression "politics makes strange bedfellows"?

Don't let it get to you, I'm totally on your side. But I think the original poster brought up an interesting subject, and if it does make at least one or two wealthy dems look at poor & working people a little bit more as humans, isn't that a good thing?

I grew up much as you did..... solidly muddle-class.

I have learned so much about how poor people see the world, and the hopelessness and the grinding disrespect. ("Go eat worms").

I understand at a very deep level how the hatred and contempt destroys a person. I now know that somehow, from whatever source, Robert Kennedy understood it, also, which is why he enjoyed so much support from poor people. That leadership is dead and gone, and shows no sign of resurrection within the party.

Unfortunately, it's my muddle-class upbringing, and values, and education that make me know at a deep level that NONE of this is necessary. All the contempt, and I don't mean from RWers, I mean from Dems and DUers themselves, is just one more sign of the rot that has taken over where Dem hearts used to be. Of *COURSE* it gets to me!! I'd be a zombie not to be affected by what I see, and what I have to live with. The only thing I have left is my sensitivity to what the situation really is, and what people are suffering with. I refuse to cement over my heart, just to survive, like the rest of the society. I just won't do that.

"if it does make at least one or two wealthy dems look at poor & working people a little bit
more as humans, isn't that a good thing?"

IF they were willing to soften their hearts in the first place, there wouldn't be this divide. What happens is that their "looking a little bit" becomes one more burden for poor people to try to pry open their hearts. Is it any wonder that so many poor people just give up and retreat to their small world and find whatever escape they can in drink, or mindless TV, or whatever? I can sure relate to that need for escape!!!

Kanary

And a lot of people never do it, because we no longer have to. It's socially acceptable to live a life where you live in your suburban house bubble, travel to work in your car bubble, work and converse with only people of the same class at work bubble, go back to the house bubble and watch corporate entertainment that does EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER to keep you from really thinking about the social problems in this country, while also presenting scary stereotypes of the "others" you see outside your bubble on the way to work, whether it be the homeless guy at the onramp or the black lady with the long jeweled nails at the register at the 7-11. We are taught by "Cops", "Springer" etc. that thses people are scum, and if we hang around them it might rub off on us and make us poor too.

It's very sccary and difficult to break out of that bubble. Do you think many people during the depression could adequately shield themselves from the bread lines and labor unrest? It was RIGHT THERE in the streets, everywhere.

I don't know if I'm making sense, but I'm just saying that many people have an extremely warped view of what our society is thanks to the media. They are essentially on Huxley's Soma, and they don't want to give it up. It's too scary.

The best you can do is reach them one at a time, bit by bit. My stepmom has been a repuke for 40 years, but she just registed democrat for the first time this year, in part due to the influence of my father and me, and in part because she can no longer find decent-paying work anymore. Sure, self-interest factored into her conversion, but that's how it is. No revolution has ever succeeded without the backing of the middle classes.

I wish I could say something more comforting, but you'll find even less sloace with the Greens. Their rhetoric is pure and right but they'll never be a relevant party.

For now, I hope this will do. :pals:

Since DUers pride themselves on being so much more aware, and not in a "bubble" (good description, BTW), what accounts for the lack of concern, compassion and awareness in our own midst? *THAT'S* what's depressing to me. THat's what has hurt me deeply. *THAT'S* what has made me realize there's very little hope. Most poor folk already knew that, and don't try to keep hope kindled. THey know it's a useless effort. It was painful for me to come to that realization that they have known most of their lives.

It's not the RW ignorance and contempt that hurts........ it's right here.

I understand about the one at a time. What I'm saying is that I'm empty...... I don't have the energy to expend on resistnat people anymore. My bank account is shot. For which they rejoice, I'm sure.

And, what you said about the self-interest is what has led me and others to figure that if * wins, it isn't all bad. Maybe that's the only way the sleeping masses can "get it". Maybe that's all that will reach them. Being slammed flat on their noses.

As for the Greens.......... I have no illusions that they give anymore of a rip about poor folk than the Dems do. their focus is the environment, and poor folk don't register on that landscape. Maybe the socialists are a bit more caring, but I rather doubt even that.

And, thanks for your last.

:pals: back atcha.......

Kanary

I'd mucch rrather go back to the Clinton years, as flawed as they were, than let our country get to a point where the only way to fix things is violent revolution, and I'm afraid that's where it would go. I love my kids too mucch to possibly sacrifice them to that.

We are a binational family. My wife is a citizen of a country with a MUCH smaller rich/poor gap and national health care. If things got that bad, we'd move back there. It's sad, but you know - self-interest...

Clinton shafted the poor, but that doesn't matter to the muddle-class.

You offered me the :pals:, but when it comes down to it, it's better for you to have Clinton, and turn your back as I and thousands like me silently disappear.

So, my self-interest is, as long as I'm gonna be gone, the rest of the society can damned well learn the lesson they need to learn, and suffer along.

That's what I'm learning. As long as others are gonna harden their hearts, then I gotta too. Quite a nice lesson to learn.

Makes for a hard-hearted society, y'know?

Oh well..... what the shit.

Kanary

You cannot honestly expect people to sacrifice their children's lives for a theoretical better future. Revolution is a young man's game.

Is Clinton the ideal? Hell no, but it was MUCH better than today. Working class folks saw their incomes improve for the first time in 12+ years, now that has reverse, and gotten even worse than before, factoring in inflation. If we got back to where we were in 2000, we'd be in a better position to start working towards the social justice goals we were aiming for 30 years ago, especially if we had a successful president NOT hobbled by repeated sex scandals.

Another problem I've noticed is that many liberals get all bent out of shape about trivial things like non-PC speech by some politician or by some ballot initiative to ban illegal aliens from getting a driver license or even some celebrity sex harrassment case, when we should NEVER lose sight of the goals of an egalitarian society that provides enough food, shelter, and medical care for all.

We're basically on the same side, but my children's survival is tantamount to me. I think most parents would feel the same.

Since never the twain shall meet, then ........

Yeah, it's a F_U.

I don't know what all that shit about speech and ballot initiatives is....... I never brought up that shit, and I ain't gonna go there.

and what' sthis shit about "the problem with liberals is........" ??????????????? We're now back to liberals being a bad name?

Shit.

I no longer expect anything. that's what I started with saying, and we've just gone full circle.

You're out for you, and I'm out for me.

And as long as that's it, they've won.

One of these days you may realize that you also need *us*. Until then, just dismiss me, and pretend nothing matters.

Afterall, in your mind, I'm just one of those "problem liberals"


I'm done.

You have yours, and don't need the likes of me for anything. Including conversation. I'm sure you'll find much better elsewhere.

Kanary

And I'm not calling you a hatrack.

Do you think there are no problems with liberals? I'm not blaming you for it, but In contrast to the right, who are singlemindedly dedicated to establishing a theocracy and destroying the public sector, we as a group are much more easily distracted by straw men as they continue to dismantle our country.

I'm sorry if you take that as a slap in the face. I genuinely am. You're clearly a very sensitive person. I don't feel the least bit of hostility to you or your viewpoint. In fact, I like everything you've had to say. I'm really sorry I've rubbed you the wrong way.

If you do ever feel like talking to a jerk like me again, I'll be around. No hard feelings. I'll always have your back against Maple anyway.