Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are the rich good for us?

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
May 15, 2012 12:05:48 AM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154619/americans-having-rich...
Theres a clear divide
What drives this divide?
Most think its stupid to resent or dislike the rich, why are some so...envious?

More about : rich good

May 15, 2012 1:54:28 AM

the question jay really is:

Why...So...Serious...

I'm a dishwasher on the weekend. I get minimum wadge. I make enough to put gas in the car, get some basic care products, maybe a taco at Taco Bell once in a while' yet, I want to have the waiting job. I want to collect tip...get paid more. Have flexible hours. It is a social stigma we have that money equals success. That is true; however, we place too much emphasis on the amount...rather than the work. I can have someone work the grounds on a farm and only make 60,000 each year. Then, I can have someone give me several million to invest. All they do is watch the market and collect dividend and about 40-50 thousand a year. Which is the most successful one? The answer will be said later. Please post away your ideas.
May 15, 2012 2:46:25 AM

Success is where you find it, and I always caution when anyone is worried about my, or anyone elses, money.
You can be happy placing Canadian bacon on frozen pizzas, or you can be happy getting a raise, or climbing that ladder.
Some things are harder these days because the economy sucks, which then is used by certain people on others weaknesses.
What I find interesting is, those whos dynamic is self reliance have a much less care for others monies, while those who want crutches for many a reason are worried about other peoples monies.
It gets to the point where the ones that want a crutch accuse those that dont that they want them all gone, which is a lie, once again, perpetuated by those who take advantage of those worried about someone elses money.
If we demand we have goose for dinner, dont then complain theres no more gold
Related resources
May 15, 2012 2:59:44 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154619/americans-having-rich...
Theres a clear divide
What drives this divide?
Most think its stupid to resent or dislike the rich, why are some so...envious?
I hate the rich because they flaunt it to much and always boast about what they have. They are greedy and have not iota of being really poor and what it is like. Regarding Romney an asshole with no feelings at all!
May 15, 2012 3:11:33 AM

You mean those in Hollywood?
Or certain athletes?
Or certain artists?
All supporters of Obama

Or who do you mean?
May 15, 2012 3:38:56 AM

dogman_1234 said:

I'm a dishwasher on the weekend. I get minimum wadge.

Minimum wage jobs are intended for entry level positions. No one (even "the rich") truly expects you to work for minimum wages your entire life.

The usual progression for you in your present position is dishwasher, bus boy, waiter. Been there. Done that. And moved on.
May 15, 2012 5:30:25 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Success is where you find it, and I always caution when anyone is worried about my, or anyone elses, money.
You can be happy placing Canadian bacon on frozen pizzas, or you can be happy getting a raise, or climbing that ladder.
Some things are harder these days because the economy sucks, which then is used by certain people on others weaknesses.
What I find interesting is, those whos dynamic is self reliance have a much less care for others monies, while those who want crutches for many a reason are worried about other peoples monies.
It gets to the point where the ones that want a crutch accuse those that dont that they want them all gone, which is a lie, once again, perpetuated by those who take advantage of those worried about someone elses money.
If we demand we have goose for dinner, dont then complain theres no more gold

I can say that I agree with you John. We place money as the ultimate measuring tool when in fact it is character that makes success.

musical marv said:
I hate the rich because they flaunt it to much and always boast about what they have. They are greedy and have not iota of being really poor and what it is like. Regarding Romney an asshole with no feelings at all!

I have to disagree. I think there are those who are rich that have a general respect for those in lower socioeconomic status. Take the CEO of Costco. He had, and still does, have a love and respect for those who work for him. Then, there are guys who are all about money. I hate actions and intentions that are not of benefit for others but for oneself...
JAYDEEJOHN said:
You mean those in Hollywood?
Or certain athletes?
Or certain artists?
All supporters of Obama

Or who do you mean?

Those who may seem apparent that they have abused thier own charm to manipulate those into letting others allocate their own fortuen at the expense of others well-being...*cough* Madoff *cough*

jsc said:
Minimum wage jobs are intended for entry level positions. No one (even "the rich") truly expects you to work for minimum wages your entire life.

The usual progression for you in your present position is dishwasher, bus boy, waiter. Been there. Done that. And moved on.

I was just expressing my current economic status. I understand that I must start out low. I was not complaining at all. Just a reference for an explanation I will do later.

Currently a dishwasher...wannabe wait staffer this summer...pray!
May 15, 2012 5:50:21 AM

Whos telling us money makes the man?
The MSM?
Hollywood?
Certain athletes?
Certain artists?

Almost everyone thats rich has become rich, and werent born into it.
Maybe some resent how becoming rich has changed them.
Some rich arent welcomed back in their old lives, some cant go back, and some would never go back.
But a few havnt changed, still keep close to those things and people who really made them what they are.
Now, does this make a rich person different from you or I?
No, it speaks only to how it can change you, if you let it.

Ive said many a time, with all the greed in this world, when I hear someone complaining the rich only marry the rich, how are they to tell if that significant other really loves them and not their money?
If the SO has money, no need to wonder, no more than anyone else.
Also, since it does change people, some can and some cant handle that change.
So, its not like theyre trying to keep all their money to themselves, its more than that, something more, like what we would want, but is taken away by those who are jealous
May 15, 2012 5:59:45 AM

^ Money sounds like a handful.

Perhaps it would be wise to give it to me.

:) 

On a serious note I believe money after a certain 'saturation' point proves little or nothing. Must certainly be different in different societies.

If I wanted money I wouldn't be applying for an Arts degree (creative writing major)
May 15, 2012 6:45:39 AM

Future Engineer of the united States and future President, CEO, and Founder of Canis Lupus...

That's my dream...don't steal it.

May 15, 2012 12:10:36 PM

jsc said:
Minimum wage jobs are intended for entry level positions. No one (even "the rich") truly expects you to work for minimum wages your entire life.

The usual progression for you in your present position is dishwasher, bus boy, waiter. Been there. Done that. And moved on.


Bus boy, dishwasher with a gap to waiter. Dishwasher could go to be a prep cook, or a waiter. Lowest level is the bus boy though.
May 15, 2012 7:29:06 PM

That is...if the dishwasher is also the bus boy...
May 15, 2012 7:37:07 PM

Might as well be the waiter too then eh?
May 15, 2012 8:11:41 PM

The people who hate the rich are obviously not rich. In fact, if given the chance to be rich, the poor would take that shot at any time.

This proves the very definition of jealousy. The poor hate the rich, but if given the chance would be one of the very people they hate. Quite hilarious.

In the United States...its not "hard" to become rich. It requires a good education, logic, creativity, and effort.

Poor people are the ones who slept during class in middle school, they are the ones who did not do their homework and got bad grades in high school, they are ones who dropped out or did drugs/parties in college when they should be studying, poor people are the ones who are lazy.

Then...these poor people demand unions so they can be lazier without being fired, and demand higher wages for doing nothing. These poor people then condemn the rich people who studied and put in the effort earlier in their lives that the poor people were never willing to do. Then these poor people realize they have nothing to lose and they do not care about anybody or anything except for themselves, because the poor are extremely greedy. So then they demand higher taxes and vote Democrat so that they can receive more handouts for doing...well...NOTHING.

That is how the system works and that is the reason for the divide.

In modern day society, its the brains that count, not the manual labor skill. This rule will apply even more so the further we advance through time. Those are smart enough to adapt will succeed, those who do not or refuse to will face their own demise and rightfully so.
May 15, 2012 10:28:39 PM

Unions movement brought along higher wages and better safety measures, but I agree (to an extent) that some modern unions are money sucking leeches :p .

Like the health services union here in Australia.

There are times that unions have a fair point.

Like when our teacher's union weren't having pay rises in line with inflation.
May 15, 2012 10:44:00 PM

I agree, theres a time and a place for unions and non union work.
But since often its given only 1 side, or POV, and then to say the rich hate unions, again just isnt so.
The MSM, the Hollywooders, the elite artists etc, all give this distorted image, and it convinces many.
My grandfather started unions, had been shot at, litterally bled for them, and yes, they were needed.
My great grand father was local union #1 while working on the statue of liberty.
But if theyre not needed, theyre not needed.
If they bring better by far returns to their clients, thats great until you find out its usually the government workers that get those extras, all the while the unions send millions to the elected official allowing for those better deals.
Thats not a good union, thats collusion.
Ive known several owners of companies that wouldnt consider unions, and only because if they werent doing enough to keep them out, they ended up doing more, to keep a competitive edge for the people they had working for them, and thus, no need for a union.
Do we hear of such things?
Who controls telling the story?
May 15, 2012 11:14:45 PM

I used to work in manufacturing. Our C-level had an unspoken rule. If a plant went union, we closed it. The plant could not operate at a profit when it was unionized. The company had 3 union plants in significant locations mainly for visibility but most of the work was done at different plants and trucked to the location.
May 18, 2012 3:08:59 AM

Who are they?
Are THEY different?
70% of all millionaires are first time millionaires.
This is a great thing, meaning new money in the millionaire club outnumbers old money more than 2 to 1, this is good to hear.
Then why this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-T5S-sXKH4
May 18, 2012 4:00:38 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
You mean those in Hollywood?
Or certain athletes?
Or certain artists?
All supporters of Obama

Or who do you mean?
I am talking about those who boast about their wealth like movie stars, greedy corporate executives and bankers.Not all are supporters of Obama . Stp putting a label on him already! The republicans are noted for this!
May 18, 2012 4:19:00 AM

My list is wrong then?
Who above all else has portrayed the greedy rich than Hollywood?
This isnt about 1 man, as many have come out and said alot of things.
Its a mindset, and its sometimes forced to one side, as you said, but who is doing the forcing?
The rich Hollywood Moguls, movie stars, athletes with their big show of high money.
The millionaires who support such people arent on one side here.

Believe it or not, they are as diverse and thoughtful and caring as you and I.
Are all of them?
No.
Are all the bad ones of one political brand? Hardly.
May 18, 2012 4:25:17 AM

musical marv said:
I hate the rich because they flaunt it to much and always boast about what they have. They are greedy and have not iota of being really poor and what it is like. Regarding Romney an asshole with no feelings at all!

I was showing the contrary to what you said at first, mentioning Romney, as you did label him.
I said it goes both ways
May 18, 2012 5:13:39 AM

I personally believe this is about a general sense of entitlement. We fell, as humans, that certain unalienable rights are that of resources,( land, labor, capital entrepreneurship.) That said, only one is guaranteed.

We need, as a society, to get off the dollar signs and get on with getting each and every hand paired with a shovel at least! We have too many iduviduals who have the resources to do things great for this nation, but everyone feels like money is the main motivator. If you have no money, you can't:

Buy food
Buy a car
Buy gasoline
Buy a house
Build a business
Bake brownies

Basically, if you have no capital to invest into other resources, you are seen as a 'failure'. Let me put it this way, who is least successful:

The young couple who's small business went under
OR
The guy with a 4 year degree working at a fast food joint?

Circumstances play out,and that is why both are not successful! Okay, now who is most successful:

The couple who have a multimillion dollar business
OR
The guy who invested heavily into the fast food joint?

Again, circumstances play out, both are successful.

***

Now, here is the situation. Both of these scenario's use both parties: The couple and the guy.

The couple owned a multimillion dollar store in their town! They were the top, the best, highly respected by the community for the extensive commerce they brought in. However, in 2008, they lost everything. The business had outstanding debt that the bank called back on. They had the money, just not all of it. Are they successful now that they had money but lost it all to unwilling circumstance?

The guy, as we shall call him, has a 4 year degree in whatever you want him to have. He works at a fast food joint called The Clogger. This joint has been busy ever since. His job is to take orders as a cashier. no one know this but, he has invested heavily into a venture plan he heard of that the company was doing. They are starting to go overseas and introduce their establishment internationally. Investors of The Clogger are excited and have the market value of the company stock triple form 2.35 a share to 7.05 a share. His investment of 300,000 over the last 10 years has now grown from the initial principle to a net worth of 1.2 million USD after tax. He is successful right?

Tell me, what is the difference between people who work their hard earned time and money to lose it all, while someone who does minimal work get higher resource allocation via a network transaction in the economy?

This is where politics comes in. Who is is successful, who is rich?
May 19, 2012 3:03:07 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
My list is wrong then?
Who above all else has portrayed the greedy rich than Hollywood?
This isnt about 1 man, as many have come out and said alot of things.
Its a mindset, and its sometimes forced to one side, as you said, but who is doing the forcing?
The rich Hollywood Moguls, movie stars, athletes with their big show of high money.
The millionaires who support such people arent on one side here.

Believe it or not, they are as diverse and thoughtful and caring as you and I.
Are all of them?
No.
Are all the bad ones of one political brand? Hardly.
What about the Koch brothers greedy and for money and power and they hate the Liberals completely.
May 19, 2012 4:13:03 AM

I posted an earlier thread where theyve given millions of dollars to the arts, and to a science driven mainly by a liberal mindset.
This goes against them being greedy, and it goes against the liberal mindset, sported mainly by the MSM, as its them who hate the Koch brothers, and they shouldnt have a say in it anyways, and shows how worthless they are, complete crap they are the MSM, as they didnt report on the Kochs giving, no, they instead twist their way so others would dislike them.
So, being fair and balanced the MSM should have run this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/david-koc...
But, since theyve already shown their commitment to a side, which there shouldnt be in our news, they cant, it would make them look the fools they are
May 19, 2012 5:12:15 AM

The obsession people in the US have with being rich is not necessarily shared by the rest of the world.

The history of the union movement around the world reflects the poor standing up and saying together "while you may try to expliot us individually, you will not exploit us as a group".

Unions are the only answer to the rich simply treading all over the poor.

Unions gave us:

Minimum wages
Collective bargaining
Working hours / overtime
Basic conditions of service
Paid leave, sick leave, parental leave
Legal Representation for disputes
Representation on peak government groups

and other rights etc ..

Sometimes unions get it wrong too.

During the GFC Unions should have been more flexible in supporting changes to awards to make it easier for employers to adjust to the economic downturn.

Unions feed off the employers so they shoudl be there to work closely ... and positively with them.

Unions need to modernise their principles in order to stay relevant to younger workers.

I have spoken to a number of union officials about this recently.

I think the message is getting through.



May 19, 2012 5:47:54 AM

Understand, the US has been the land of opportunity for a very long time, as we enjoy assets like no other country.
As I said earlier, 70% of all millionaires in this country are new ones.
Having a more centrist and or regulated and taxed government has held back many countries.
Using the European ideal is what many here consider this very thing, controlled, watered down, regulated.
Our GDP is set to grow at double what most countries usually do.
This is no lucky streak, its by design, and many have gained off of it.
The reasons why many here want riches is because its within our grasp.
Name one man within any countries history in the last 20 years whos had the opportunity to raise himself up to the highest position within his country like Obama, or Jimmy Carter, or Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton etc etc
Same goes for business
May 20, 2012 2:33:36 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Understand, the US has been the land of opportunity for a very long time, as we enjoy assets like no other country.
As I said earlier, 70% of all millionaires in this country are new ones.
Having a more centrist and or regulated and taxed government has held back many countries.
Using the European ideal is what many here consider this very thing, controlled, watered down, regulated.
Our GDP is set to grow at double what most countries usually do.
This is no lucky streak, its by design, and many have gained off of it.
The reasons why many here want riches is because its within our grasp.
Name one man within any countries history in the last 20 years whos had the opportunity to raise himself up to the highest position within his country like Obama, or Jimmy Carter, or Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton etc etc
Same goes for business
America is the land of opportunity I agree with you on this.Unfortunately to many are coming in this country taking away our jobs which we need to exist and some go back and enrich their countries with our giving them education and sending our money back so they can gain more income for them and we lose in the long run.Pathetic indeed.
May 20, 2012 4:54:30 AM

H1B ... we have a similar thing here with the 457 Visa.
May 20, 2012 5:58:39 AM

So, should we restrict our education system then? How about immigration? Too many social issues tied into economic issues.
May 20, 2012 7:13:10 AM

The jobs always brought up are citrus picking jobs.
The facts are that the building trades are swamped with illegals.
Those jobs have traditionally paid well, those trade jobs.

Paying to educate illegals, it would seem they should have to pay slightly more, and it would then stop the non fairness, if you will, also, make sure each worker is paying taxes as well.

I dont want people to quit coming, but I do believe they owe this country something extra, somehow, some way.
Be it taxation, volunteer work, something
May 20, 2012 9:17:37 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
How is it fair that someone from across the oceans who wants to immigrate the US has to wait years and pay thousands in fees/taxes but someone who just walks across a line on a map gets so called "amnesty"? Or free education? Or free healthcare?


"But, but...they had a hard life in ______ country. We should be nice to them and allow them to be citizens!"
:pfff: 

This is where the liberal side of me crawls out. i can't stand this that we give illegals a free ride, but a guy form china, india, or germany has to bust his/her/ their ass(es) to get into this country just to get a degree! And, the wait period, if I am not mistaken, is almost 10 years! 10!

I also disagree with the law that says you must have x% of 'minorities'. Look, I know race is an issue, but if someone cannot perform college level work, then they should not go into the institution at all. let it be for someone else who has the skills...not because they are a 'minority'.
May 21, 2012 2:49:25 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The jobs always brought up are citrus picking jobs.
The facts are that the building trades are swamped with illegals.
Those jobs have traditionally paid well, those trade jobs.

Paying to educate illegals, it would seem they should have to pay slightly more, and it would then stop the non fairness, if you will, also, make sure each worker is paying taxes as well.

I dont want people to quit coming, but I do believe they owe this country something extra, somehow, some way.
Be it taxation, volunteer work, something
At least you agree with me partially i see.If you want to stay in the states pay your share like the rest of us do. NO FREE RIDES! They think everything is coming to them free and their attitude stinks as I see this myself everywhere.
May 21, 2012 2:59:55 AM

Now, take their attitude about the "rich" (people who come from poor countries), and apply it to most people.
Dont the poor or middle class sometimes expect the same?
And arent those attitudes wrong?
Especially about people with money? But also the government?

They dont understand how it works, but they assume theres money, and they deserve some of it as well.
Much like here, and attitudes about the rich and government.

I will say this, if I was in their position, Id be heading for a new border as well, so I dont blame them, but I find it hard to tolerate those who champion for these people, and want to change our language, such as illegal alien etc.
May 21, 2012 12:43:43 PM

musical marv said:
What about the Koch brothers greedy and for money and power and they hate the Liberals completely.


Show me some liberals who have donated more money than the Koch brothers to charity.
May 21, 2012 1:38:40 PM

dogman_1234 said:
I personally believe this is about a general sense of entitlement.
I couldn't agree more. It seems to me that years ago, one man would look at a "rich person" and ask "How do I achieve what he has?", whereas today the attitude seems to be "I do not have what he has, someone should give it to me!" or, "How do take what he has?" or worse yet, "Government is responsible for giving me the same lifestyle!".

dogman_1234 said:
This is where politics comes in. Who is is successful, who is rich?
The politics of wealth is a wedge issue and ploy used by progressives in American politics to further socialist/marxist ideologies. Progressives in America have successfully used the Alinksy paradigm of "pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" to turn hard work and personal wealth accumulation into the cause of and reason for economic disparity. When approximately 50% of American tax payers have a 0% tax liability, only the useful idiots readily believe that taxing the "rich" would equalize economic disparity. Only useful idiots have bought into the progressive and Marxist ideology inundating social thought as any kind of solution facing America today. However, anyone who can think for themselves and are not easily manipulated readily recognizes that wealth is not measured by money, that economic disparity is not solved by wealth redistribution, and that the progressive narrative of the "evil rich people" is a failure.
May 21, 2012 2:24:40 PM

My neighbors think I'm rich. I'm single and living on my own. They're married, both working and paying less in rent than I am. They have two incomes compared to my one. They only have one car as well. Combined, they make more than I do.

Yet, they see me as being rich. They have a newer vehicle, they're going on vacation later this week and then going on another one at the end of summer, they just bought a few hundred dollars in flowers, and a lot of summer clothes.. like hundreds of dollars worth.

I'm the rich one though. I suppose this it he case because I'm not spending all my free cash right now. Sure, they're broke now because all their money for the next couple months is already tied up.

I just put tires on my vehicle and bought a new computer.

Again, I'm the rich one.
May 21, 2012 6:05:31 PM

Until we live in a society that equally distributes 100% of wealth (hopefully never) there will always be "wealthy" people. The degree may be different in different locales, but the gap will exist. Those that are the "have's" will have to put up with the complaining of the "have not's." It's just the way it is. Unfortunately it is easier to complain, make excuses, and get a free hand out than to work hard and earn your way.
May 21, 2012 6:17:36 PM

I refuse to tell people to work hard. Work smart instead. Just because you work hard doesn't mean you're going to earn more money.
May 21, 2012 7:13:35 PM

A few quick things before I slowly back away from the news and leisure forum.

@ chunky - When you say 50% of Americans didn't pay taxes, I assume you mean federal taxes? I think it would be interesting to see how many people were too poor to pay federal income tax....

Also the corporate tax rate is closer to 39% when you include state taxes. But when we look at their receipts from paying taxes it only comes to about 12% - 25% of their profits, mainly because of tax havens, loopholes, credits, deductions, foreign accounts you know the drill. Now I know what the next step is, you say "well its the politicians that were voted into office that created the loop-holes!". Or that as a % of GDP corporate taxes are the lowest they have been since 1972.

So how can you close loopholes when a company can spend an unlimited amount of money to elect a politician, and then you have conservative groups calling for less regulation and smaller gov?

I also don't think this debate is about jealousy or entitlement, my personal feeling is why should I be punished for the decisions of large banks (The housing crisis)? And then you have people saying the only way to fix the problem(with a lagging economy) is with lower corporate taxes, and lower taxes for the wealthiest people? I also hate that we have to tell companies its going to be OK, you can start hiring again, and like children the yell back NO! we don't feel comfortable doing that yet, maybe cutting my taxes will put me in a better mood to make some jobs.
May 21, 2012 7:20:49 PM

riser said:
Show me some liberals who have donated more money than the Koch brothers to charity.


Ummm......... Bill Gates, maybe you have heard of him? Or maybe the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
May 21, 2012 9:18:49 PM

wanamingo said:
A few quick things before I slowly back away from the news and leisure forum.

@ chunky - When you say 50% of Americans didn't pay taxes, I assume you mean federal taxes? I think it would be interesting to see how many people were too poor to pay federal income tax....

Also the corporate tax rate is closer to 39% when you include state taxes. But when we look at their receipts from paying taxes it only comes to about 12% - 25% of their profits, mainly because of tax havens, loopholes, credits, deductions, foreign accounts you know the drill. Now I know what the next step is, you say "well its the politicians that were voted into office that created the loop-holes!". Or that as a % of GDP corporate taxes are the lowest they have been since 1972.

So how can you close loopholes when a company can spend an unlimited amount of money to elect a politician, and then you have conservative groups calling for less regulation and smaller gov?

I also don't think this debate is about jealousy or entitlement, my personal feeling is why should I be punished for the decisions of large banks (The housing crisis)? And then you have people saying the only way to fix the problem(with a lagging economy) is with lower corporate taxes, and lower taxes for the wealthiest people? I also hate that we have to tell companies its going to be OK, you can start hiring again, and like children the yell back NO! we don't feel comfortable doing that yet, maybe cutting my taxes will put me in a better mood to make some jobs.

mingo, the philosophy is distinct and contrasting.
These profits keep
investment going, people being hired, wages decent etc.
Giving the government the authority to pick and choose where this money goes means theyd better be as good or better than the business people we have.
As for % of GDP, what about sales % of GDP, have they gone up or down, as Im curious, because if sales have gone down, then its no wonder % on taxes are as well.
The reasoning Im hearing for cutting corporate taxes are, to keep jobs here, where imported jobs cant compete with cost of making product here is cheaper due to lowered taxes, and competing abroad, where a slight edge can help.
May 22, 2012 3:08:12 AM

riser said:
I refuse to tell people to work hard. Work smart instead. Just because you work hard doesn't mean you're going to earn more money.
Work honestly and you will rewarded right.
May 22, 2012 1:40:11 PM

wanamingo said:
Ummm......... Bill Gates, maybe you have heard of him? Or maybe the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?


First, A liberal he is not. Second, he is donating his money after he dies. He's sitting on tens of billions of dollars and won't give it up until he's dead. That speaks volumes. Though, he has donated plenty of money when he was up in the $80 billion range.

The Koch Brothers donate $12 million a year on average. Bill Gates has donated plenty, but he started a charity asking others to donate their money and he's using that as a basis for philantrophy. Again, other people's money. What's the difference in lifestyle between $10 billion and $30 billion?

Then you take Buffet. He's not donating money, he's donating stock which he controls. One of the richest guys in the world. Also won't give up his fortune until he's dead. Interesting again. How much 'assistance' could he see in his waning years if he donated $40 billion? You do not ask yourself why these people wait until they're dead to donate their money? Wouldn't you want to live to see the changes you were making?

No, there is something else being done here. It doesn't make sense. The Kock brothers and their $11 billion are donating a far greater precent of their money per year than Gates or Buffet. Chew on that.
May 23, 2012 12:28:17 AM

Heres a good question:
If this is a verdict on the rich here, and its goes into all walks of life, do people then have the same attitudes towards the Kerrys or Kennedys?
Ask yourself, when Kerry ran for president, the MSM brought up his money 2 times in a 4 month period, where we see 27 times in the same time period for the same amount of time for Romney.
This in itself is wrong, and is the main thing driving this entire conversation, because some have decided it makes a difference, yet those same people never said a word when it was one of theirs.
May 23, 2012 2:24:16 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Heres a good question:
If this is a verdict on the rich here, and its goes into all walks of life, do people then have the same attitudes towards the Kerrys or Kennedys?
Ask yourself, when Kerry ran for president, the MSM brought up his money 2 times in a 4 month period, where we see 27 times in the same time period for the same amount of time for Romney.
This in itself is wrong, and is the main thing driving this entire conversation, because some have decided it makes a difference, yet those same people never said a word when it was one of theirs.

Are you suggesting that the American people make it a deal about a conservatives wealth over a liberals wealth?
May 23, 2012 2:30:09 AM

To some extent, yes.
The MSM, definately, the dems, definately, to inbetween, some, some dont, and even some repubs do as well, just regarding all rich
May 23, 2012 2:32:25 AM

Could it be the general ideology of conservative thinking and those with greater resource allocation be at the from of the conversation due to the idea of how the allocation was come to be!?
May 23, 2012 2:34:20 AM

Are you suggesting theres almost all rich conservatives, and very few rich libs?
May 23, 2012 2:42:47 AM

No.

What I am suggesting is that many view conservatives as pro-allocative...meaning take as much as you want. Not like robbery,( some liberals see it as robbery :pfff:  ), but the fact that the conservative ideology is to embrace capitalism to the fullest. Many people see this as a possible route to exploitation...deregulation, lower taxes, end to minimum wages, etc...

This is not me speaking. This is the general synopsis of your fellow American; conservative or not.
May 23, 2012 2:54:29 AM

Well, its been expanded, it doesnt include the work or the worth of such things, and is usually looked upon as a bad thing in todays society, which the hippies held dear in the 60s.
When you focus upon a certain group of people, you never allow for a boxed presentation of them.
Unfortunately, this is exactly whats been happening for awhile.

No one acknowledges the good acts, the hard work, the overall value and contributions to society these people and their hard work, plus their ideas have created.
1 example would be, if not for a bunch of successful millionaires, we wouldnt even consider free health care.
The MSM is extremely guilty of all this, as well as Hollywood and some of our artists.
Whats worse is when they turn a blind eye from those who are of the same mind as them.
Basically, if you play the race card, if you play the sex card, you still have room for the rich card, where it transcends from manys ideological mindset.
It gets votes, it boxes people, and as usual, anything easy isnt worth doing, but playing on prejudice has rewards, as often seen within this group
!