That's a really loaded question, and any time someone is trying to force you to answer something exactly within the confines of how they asked it usually means that they know it.
You have presented a false choice. I know what you are going at is "If you have to put blind faith in someone, wouldn't you rather put it in someone rich instead of someone poor?" My answer to that of course would be that you don't have to put blind faith in anyone. If you put too much towards poor people you end up with soviet russia. Too much towards rich people and you end up with the robber barons and italian fascism.
She trumpets that world view in a book full of characters that honestly man, woman, young, old, no matter what all sound exactly the same. (try it! Read some quotations but cover who is saying them. then try to guess! I bet you can't.) That's why her book sucks.
Being of high social status does not imply that one is competent to govern. In fact, I would argue that successful people do not pay attention to news or politics. They are concerned with neither history, nor the welfare of the state. They are concerned with one thing, and one thing only: eating other dogs. If you want to vote for Brittany Spears for president (she's worth $100 mill), go ahead. I doubt that she would f'up as much as the current administration.
Often times I play the devil's advocate. I do, however, disagree with your opinion.
Often times I play the devil's advocate. I do, however, disagree with your opinion.
We have a BINGO! :thumbsup:
He generally posts like a modern day slave owner. I think he is a child of a wealthy family
Most of congress is or has been corrupted by the 32k lobbyists on K St. Washington, DC. It seems as though the citizens of this country need to hire thier own lobbyists to influence, with bribes, the ppl we elect
...Galvanized
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Hey now, that's a loaded question.
If you changed it to stockbroker (or any highly paid white collar job) and garbage man, people would still pick the stockbroker, and you know it.
The world is a fair place. Most good people in this world succeed and most bad people fail. Despite all the bad things in the world, it's a surprisingly just place. In high school, the smartest people were always the nicest, and most of them went on to good colleges and are on their way to getting high paying jobs (doctors, researchers, lawyers etc).
I didn't say you didn't consider police officer a "blue collar" job, I said (correctly) that police officers are people we tend to think fairly highly of in society, yet they are not paid very much. One of my exceptions, as I mentioned before.
My apologies, I did NOT intend to generalize all libertarians, I intended to question JLGatsby's interpretation of the idea. That's why I put libertarianism in quotes, HE might consider it real libertarianism, but I don't. I actually LIKE libertarian ideas and find that it fits my worldview pretty well. But I think a lot of people have missed the point..
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Quite true. Our poorest citizens have it a lot better than the middle class in many third world countries. Retail stores throw away much higher quality food than what is available normally to some of the world's poorest people.
My sister pointed out something about this. She's a feminist, and apparently so am I. The thing is, who do you tend to hear about on the media? The people with extreme views. Extremism is almost always a bad thing. Feminism means supporting equal rights between the sexes. It doesn't mean a forceful reversal of traditional sex roles. It means that the option to do so should be available.
If a woman chooses to stay home and raise kids, fine. Heck, I wouldn't mind being a stay-at-home husband. The idea of getting up and going to work every day really doesn't appeal to me. Staying at home, working at my own pace, in a familiar, comfortable environment - I can handle that.
I would say most of them do it for power and notoriety.
JLGatsby is worthless little troll that will amount to nothing in this world with an attitude like his. You focus on certain professions that are intended to make money. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc do what they do for the MONEY. The training they receive is professional--geared to a specific profession. I spent a lot of time in school (i have a phd and 3 years of postdoctoral experience) and i make SH!T. Next to nothing for Boston. However, the work i do and the people i work with will be known for finding the cure for cancer and numerous other not-so-nice diseases. I could probably find a job at a big pharma firm, but those places are souless and entirely focused on money--not the community of science.
As someone who will inherit more money than most senators, I am not "jealous". That said, I have no problem with rich Senators. I have a problem with Senators who use their seats to enrich their friends and families. I also have a problem with the ones who have forgotten that most people are NOT as well off as the average millionaire.
Gatsby has some valid points. First he didn't mean all rich people, he certainly meant those who got rich from business... etc. So no Britney for Prez. In some ways this is a good thing. Government is largely about managing money and people, and so a businessman would be more likely then your average joe to be good at doing this. Definitely a plus.
The downside is all that "other stuff". Congress is supposed to be representative of the people. A whole load of millionaires, no matter how good their intentions, are not representative of America. It doesn't even matter if they are intentionally corrupt (well, it does... but not in relation to this)... someone who is a millionaire will not have the same understanding of the wants and needs of the desperately poor as someone who has been there. This leads to insufficient and ineffective representation for vast swaths of the people that Congress is specifically supposed to represent and is an affront to the idea of representative democracy. This is bad. This is why the bar for entry into Congress (specifically the Senate) should not be so high that only the extremely wealthy can do it.
The downside is all that "other stuff". Congress is supposed to be representative of the people. A whole load of millionaires, no matter how good their intentions, are not representative of America. It doesn't even matter if they are intentionally corrupt (well, it does... but not in relation to this)... someone who is a millionaire will not have the same understanding of the wants and needs of the desperately poor as someone who has been there. This leads to insufficient and ineffective representation for vast swaths of the people that Congress is specifically supposed to represent and is an affront to the idea of representative democracy. This is bad. This is why the bar for entry into Congress (specifically the Senate) should not be so high that only the extremely wealthy can do it.
Ironically most of the laws that unfairly benefit corporations are passed by Democrats in the name of the "people." Corporate welfare, tariffs, and other similar laws meant to keep US jobs are the ones that unfair benefit established corporations.
But then you could be talking about other laws, but in that case you could also say that not allowing communism has a negative effect on working people. But does anyone really want that?
You are completely in another dimension. Wealthier pay attention to news and politics far more than working class people, simply because they understand it better and have a natural curiosity for the world.
I mean seriously, look at the demographics of political, business, science, or any other sort of magazines, the average incomes are usually very high.
Working class people do not pay attention to news as much, that is a fact.
And to even bring up Britney Spears in my argument is retarded. That's like saying the average wealthy person in America is a lottery winner. Entertainers or athletes are in now way representative of the average wealthy person.
Yeah, everyone who makes more than you is just a money hungry elitist driving to show off. :roll:
I've never met anyone who was in the process of becoming a doctor or lawyer who was doing it "for the money." I'm sure they exist, but most are not like that. They do it to help people. Your post reeks of bitterness towards anyone who makes more than you.
I'm not saying ALL average people should not be in politics, but what I have said a million times before is that MOST people in America are far far far too stupid to ever have a accurate representative in office.
Imagine if our politicians accurately represented our citizens in terms of income intelligence.
Seriously, think about what a Senate like that would look like.
We'd have out garbage man Senator, our Senator who doesn't speak English, our gangster rap Senator, our meth addict trailer park Senator, and 30 Senators wearing Wrangler blue jeans with pocket TVs not paying attention to the actual Senate session, but trying to watch the football game, and don't forget the dozen or so other Senators named "Debra" who collect jelly jars and porcelain dolls.
The average person is pathetic. People need to elect their better not their peers into office to represent them.
funboy6942
Lifer
- Nov 13, 2001
- 15,368
- 418
- 126
I have met more rich people who were dumber then a box of hammers then a poor person with no smarts. I find that most rich people are some of the non street smart people on this earth and amazes me just how the fvck they are rich, or even stay rich.
Yeah a poor person may not know the "news" or "politics" because they know and understand its all bull sh!t. You throw that rich person in the real world having to fend for themselves, do things on their own, comprehend mechanics, Get a job and support a family on minimum wage, and how things really work to stay alive with out having it all handed to you on a silver spoon and 99% of them would be fvcked. Give me a poor person that understands a working wage and what it means to support a family on a budget to go run
for office and I will go vote for the first time.
Being rich in no way automaticaly makes you a smart person. Paris Hilton is rich, you want someone like that in office? Fvck that.
Yeah a poor person may not know the "news" or "politics" because they know and understand its all bull sh!t. You throw that rich person in the real world having to fend for themselves, do things on their own, comprehend mechanics, Get a job and support a family on minimum wage, and how things really work to stay alive with out having it all handed to you on a silver spoon and 99% of them would be fvcked. Give me a poor person that understands a working wage and what it means to support a family on a budget to go run
for office and I will go vote for the first time.
Being rich in no way automaticaly makes you a smart person. Paris Hilton is rich, you want someone like that in office? Fvck that.
Are you serious?! I'm a 2L in law school, and I'm doing it for the money. My best friend is a 2L, and he's doing it for the money. My other friend graduated about 5 years ago, he did it for the money. I would say about 60% of the people in law school are there for the money.
I agree with some of your points, but that one is foolish.
Also, while democrats pass laws that benefit corporations as well... the amount of help they give them is much, much smaller then republicans. The easiest way to tell is check who various corporations donate the most money to, they aren't dumb... it's almost always republicans.
Most rich people were not born rich, so they do know what it's like to get by on a normal wage. The last thing we need in office are a bunch of bitter poor people who are angry that they did not do well enough in school to go to college and get a decent job.
Poor people are far more likely to be bias, in my opinion, than rich people, because they have an ax to grind. That's why unions, which extort honest corporations into paying unreasonable and unsustainable wages exist. That's also why you don't hear of too many "rich socialists" or "rich communists."
And you know what, I had originally intended to go to law school, and I intended to do it for the money. I later quit and started a business...for the freedom...and the money.
Ok, I'll reason with you and say 50% of lawyers do it for the money, but don't try me on doctors, most doctors don't, I would say that's a fact.
We aren't electing comical stereotypes here. That's a dumb generalization. You know how it's annoying when people tried to say that you wanted Britney Spears to be in Congress? Well that's what you just did to my post.
You know as well as I do that 95 rich white guys and a few token minorities do not accurately represent the interests of all americans. You don't need someone in parachute pants to represent the trashy stuck in the 80's ghetto people, but you would be doing them a service to have someone from a similar socioeconomic background to advance issues that would help them. There are plenty of smart people in poorer income brackets that could fill that role well... and yet I see very few of them in congress. That is bad.
Also, people should not simply elect their betters, they should elect the most capable person who accurately represents their interests. Call it a free market of democracy. Everyone should compete for their agenda to be advanced... not the agenda of a rich white guy who does not represent what they want.
Of Senators? I think most are millionaires. I could be wrong, but I think most are.
I mean, having one million bucks for the average intelligent 50 or 60 year old is almost expected. A teacher making $40k/year could retire a millionaire, there is no excuse for a higher paid intelligent person not to.
But as far as my stereotypes about the guy watching football or the lady named Debra, those are not as "comical" as you might think. They're shockingly accurate.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter