Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

I hate the rich. I just cannot wait for total anarchy so we can bar-b-que the bastards and eat them. You know they must be tender and tasty. I'll eat their livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti. Paris Hilton is too skinny to eat. Make jerky out of her.

---

Some of the riches started as poor then they work really hard to achieve their wealth so don't judge them based on their income level. You never know,maybe those rich do charity helping others and have a lot of responsibility for his/her family. Not all riches are materialistic, some of them live frugally, and sending money to their family relatives who need it more than she does. :)
I hate the rich who don't work hard, like the spoiled rich kids, who don't understand the dollar value of money.

Even the so-called "idle rich" give value added to society.

The Hiltons are a perfect example. If not for their wealth, for their family's hotel empire, how many people would be unemployed in the hotel services industry? The Hilton companies have tens of thousands of employees. Take away the Hilton companies, and tens of thousands of people go unemployed. Plus think of all the others that are supported by the Hilton companies: outside contactors that do repairs and maintenance to the hotels that the in-house staff can't, elevator companies, computer providers, internet companies, telecom providers and maintenance people, restaurants, electricians, lighbulb manufacturers, glass and window companies, food wholesalers, toiletries manufacturers, key-card manufacturers, etc.

Being angry at or hating the rich is unproductive. The rich are the ones who provide jobs to everyone else. Not to mention the fact that they foot 80%+ of the tax bill of the US government.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Even the so-called "idle rich" give value added to society.

The Hiltons are a perfect example. If not for their wealth, for their family's hotel empire, how many people would be unemployed in the hotel services industry? The Hilton companies have tens of thousands of employees. Take away the Hilton companies, and tens of thousands of people go unemployed. Plus think of all the others that are supported by the Hilton companies: outside contactors that do repairs and maintenance to the hotels that the in-house staff can't, elevator companies, computer providers, internet companies, telecom providers and maintenance people, restaurants, electricians, lighbulb manufacturers, glass and window companies, food wholesalers, toiletries manufacturers, key-card manufacturers, etc.

Being angry at or hating the rich is unproductive. The rich are the ones who provide jobs to everyone else. Not to mention the fact that they foot 80%+ of the tax bill of the US government.

Elliot

---

That's a terrible argument, Elliot; supply and demand would have provided the hotel space needed. Instead of one owner there may have been been its place twenty or thirty separate owners, whatever the case, demand for hotel space would have been supplied by someone.

I wonder who would gather the food if not for the poor?

DC,

By who? If thee were no rich people to buy the space, develop the hotel and run the hotel, who would provide the hotel space? Yeah, their names may have been Smith, Jones and Williams instead of Hilton. Yeah, none of them may have been quite as big as hilton. But they would still be rich from operating the business, and they would still need to have capital (investment wealth) to start the business, and continued cash-flow (available income) in order to run the business. They would still be the ones employing thousands of people. And they would still be rich. You can't escape wealth in a capitalist society. Being angry at rich people for being rich is pointless.

Tell me... how many people are supported by jobs created by the poor? That's not a reason to dislike the poor. But we need to understand where jobs to help the poor come from.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

DC,

By who? If thee were no rich people to buy the space, develop the hotel and run the hotel, who would provide the hotel space? Yeah, their names may have been Smith, Jones and Williams instead of Hilton. Yeah, none of them may have been quite as big as hilton. But they would still be rich from operating the business, and they would still need to have capital (investment wealth) to start the business, and continued cash-flow (available income) in order to run the business. They would still be the ones employing thousands of people. And they would still be rich. You can't escape wealth in a capitalist society. Being angry at rich people for being rich is pointless.

Tell me... how many people are supported by jobs created by the poor? That's not a reason to dislike the poor. But we need to understand where jobs to help the poor come from.

Elliot

---

There are not just two classes of people, Elliot. There are all sorts of adjectives you can place in front of each of those nouns. What you have said here does not change the terrible argument in the previous post…now come on…:rolleyes:

My post stating that I hate the rich was simply an illustration to show how very moronic it is to pick any scocio-economic class and choose to hate them. To hate anyone is really a useless, nonproductive endeavor. Especially when one should be utilizing one's time building wealth or dumpster diving. Take your choice because it really is YOUR choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

There are not just two classes of people, Elliot. There are all sorts of adjectives you can place in front of each of those nouns. What you have said here does not change the terrible argument in the previous post…now come on…:rolleyes:

---

Don't you see, DC, in a world where anyone earning more than $80,000 is considered "rich" and anyone earning less than $40,000 is considered poor, there's no room for a middle class. In that scenario, which is the one presented by the liberals, there really is only a two-class system of "rich" and "poor".

The point is that rich people create jobs. Poor people do not. Eliminate some of the rich, and they will indeed be replaced by others who will also be rich. But if you eliminate the entire rich class, the result will not be more people who become rich. The result will instead be a single class of unemployed poor people.

So the so-called "idle rich" who own the businesses are the majo source of jobs in this country. Period. There is no denying that fact. Eliminating them will eliminate those jobs they created. Ergo, we need the rich. Railing against them is pointless and detrimental.

Elliot

Ahhh yes but, if Hilary creates a socialistic health care system, thousands of politicians and bureaucrats will become rich. Now that's spreading it around or, the trickle down effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Don't you see, DC, in a world where anyone earning more than $80,000 is considered "rich" and anyone earning less than $40,000 is considered poor, there's no room for a middle class. In that scenario, which is the one presented by the liberals, there really is only a two-class system of "rich" and "poor".

The point is that rich people create jobs. Poor people do not. Eliminate some of the rich, and they will indeed be replaced by others who will also be rich. But if you eliminate the entire rich class, the result will not be more people who become rich. The result will instead be a single class of unemployed poor people.

So the so-called "idle rich" who own the businesses are the majo source of jobs in this country. Period. There is no denying that fact. Eliminating them will eliminate those jobs they created. Ergo, we need the rich. Railing against them is pointless and detrimental.

Elliot

---

Poor and rich are relative terms and to make a distinction between them as you have negates the whole history surrounding the meaning of the terms.
Anatole France, one of my favorite authors, wrote in the Red Lily:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
There is an example of poor and $40,000 a year requires no begging in the streets, stealing bread or sleeping under bridges.
And an income of $80,000 won’t get you into your own home in most places in the U.S.
The idle rich is not a requirement for providing employment; supply and demand in a free market is what creates jobs…period. :)

The fact that this debate is allowed on this forum has absolutely floored me. This is utterly disgusting. If you look at the original post, it looks like that of a white supremest from 60 years ago. The fact that after all these years people are still putting a value on everyone else, whether it be their race, size, or how big their wallet is. You should be completely ashamed of yourselves for being so narrow-minded as to classify one group of people and hate them and want to abolish them. For the ones that feel the same way as the original poster, I hope with everything in me you were born in a ghetto, broke free of all temptations of the easy ways out, and are now a multi-millionaire. If not, may God, Allah, or whatever you believe, have mercy on your soul for being so cruel. Hasn't anyone ever told you that it doesn't matter how much money someone makes or how big their house is, truly bad people exist in every part of the world, in every social status. And being poor does not make some one bad. I'm glad to see that none of you have ever made a choice or mistake that lead you down the wrong path in your life, because you should feel very lucky. I'm sure it's very easy to sit behind your computer and feel like a big person by bringing others down. I have read a lot of these posts and frankly, I hope those of you (you know who you are) who sit there and quarrel over how bad society is with people on the internet, that when you finally log off, you actually go down to your local homeless shelter or battered women's center and spend the rest of your days there. I hope you find that those people made choices that you easily could have made. You could be sitting right there with them. And you should not feel better or smarter than them, you should count your blessings and help them with everything you can. Pretty much what I'm saying here is get off your arrogant arses and actually do something with all this energy you waste on complaining. After all, no matter how rich or well off you are, when you die, you can't take any of it with you. The only thing you can take is your pride in knowing that YOU helped make the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Dark_crow disagrees: You obviously have not read enough of the post…go back to go and start again

---

No, kind Sir, I read everything. Even the horrible things that come out of your head.

Quote:

---

There are far too many people who have nothing to lose. They go through generations with no decent jobs, no decent education, and no prospect of anything better. Is it any wonder they lack motivation and self worth.

Who created the urban ghettos, maybe that is the place to start?

---

Yes, and there are far too many people like you who like to put themselves on a pedestal because they have excessive self worth.

Quote:

---

I make my distinction between the working class and the underclass (poor). I prefer a world in which everybody is given a fair chance to make something of themselves. Where everybody has got something to lose. The poor can never be the engine of their own social change because they have nothing to lose. They never have been, they never will be. Only the rich can be the engine of social change.

---

Do you feel this way because the only thing you think you can lose is material things? Do you think poor people never felt the heartache of losing a loved-one? Do you feel that losing your car or house causes the same feelings as losing a person you care about?
I'm not sure how to solve your problem that you have with poor people. Maybe you should move to Antarctica. I hear there are no poor people there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashleysb

No, kind Sir, I read everything. Even the horrible things that come out of your head.

Yes, and there are far too many people like you who like to put themselves on a pedestal because they have excessive self worth.

Do you feel this way because the only thing you think you can lose is material things? Do you think poor people never felt the heartache of losing a loved-one? Do you feel that losing your car or house causes the same feelings as losing a person you care about?
I'm not sure how to solve your problem that you have with poor people. Maybe you should move to Antarctica. I hear there are no poor people there.

---

Look who dropped in and started attacking who; you're the one climbing up a pedestal and ripped into me. My position has been that there should not be a poor person in America, and if you had bothered to find out anything about me you would know that. You just began making assumptions without even so much as asking me for clarification on points you felt were somehow 'Bad' in your mind.

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those that have much: it is whether we provide enough to those who have too little.
Franklin D Roosevelt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

If the poor is as large a percentage of the population as many say, think of the tremendous power in their hands if they all simply register to vote and DO IT. That in itself could be tremendously constructive.

On the flip side, if we handed them all copies of some Karl Marx reading material.....

---

You’ve taken us to the larger problem and that is ‘Illiteracy’; so many of the poor are just plain illiterate, to illiterate to vote.

As I have said before, I am surrounded by poor day in and day out and no matter how messed up they are I have only known 3 illiterate people in my life.
It is not a problem of being illiterate as much as being dumbed down by the schools.
Have you ever watched Jay Leno's Jay walking? He asks questions that anybody with an education should be able to answer and they can't! AND they DO NOT even look like poor America!
I AM poor and more intelligent than most of the middle to upper class that can't even tell you whether the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the West Coast or what state the Golden Gate Bridge is in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

You’ve taken us to the larger problem and that is ‘Illiteracy’; so many of the poor are just plain illiterate, to illiterate to vote.

---

Not sure about the stats on that, but there are other reasons the poor don't vote. Americans don't value their right to vote - we treat it like a chore. I have several South African friends who get so angry at election time that people don't go vote. In SA people would literally walk for miles (uphill, both ways!) and stand in long lines for the opportunity to vote. One of the most political people at my last job wasn't even registered (he was in his 40's). Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count, or that it doesn't make a difference. Also, because of the education and governmental experiences many poor people have had, they think the govt is too big to take on, there's a sense of defeat. That's one problem that plagues much of Africa as to why the govts in most of the countries are so screwed up - for generations you are taught you can't make a difference, they have power, you don't. You don't think or realize you can TAKE that power from someone and GIVE it to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

As I have said before, I am surrounded by poor day in and day out and no matter how messed up they are I have only known 3 illiterate people in my life.
It is not a problem of being illiterate as much as being dumbed down by the schools.
Have you ever watched Jay Leno's Jay walking? He asks questions that anybody with an education should be able to answer and they can't! AND they DO NOT even look like poor America!
I AM poor and more intelligent than most of the middle to upper class that can't even tell you whether the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the West Coast or what state the Golden Gate Bridge is in.

---

You're probably going by the 'read and write' definition of Illiteracy and that is not the definition I'm using. “There are various definitions of literacy. Governments may label individuals who can read a couple of thousand simple words they learned by sight in the first four grades in school as literate. But the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government proves that such adults are functionally illiterate--they cannot read well enough to hold a good job. Several studies have shown that millions of Americans never read another book after leaving school.”

Literacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I didn't imply nor mean Illiteracy' was the only reason people don't vote, some probably do.

Jillian I believe a case could be made that the percentages of eligible voters exercising the franchise began to decline as the right to the franchise increased.

Voter turnout in the presidential election of 1916 was 61.9 percent. Then, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving the vote to women. Voter turnout in that year's presidential election was 49.2 percent. The Voting Rights Act, ensuring access to the polls for blacks, was passed in 1965. Voter turnout went from 63.3 percent in 1964 to 62.5 percent in 1968. And after the voting age was lowered to 18, in 1971, voter turnout took a further dip, to 56.4 percent in the 1972 presidential election.

"Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count"

In a dem. State that I live in,with Chicago votes(and Springfield for that matter)How much does my piddly vote really count?

I am in the remote areas,"We" are few,THEY are many,Please explain my motivation to go vote for someone who isn't going to make office,and I still have to put up with the Dem,thought processes.

Help Me If You Can,

Ken