I guess that's one of the faults of democracy. When one group of people learns how to work the system, they use that power to take advantage and infringe upon the rights of another.
I guess that's one of the faults of democracy. When one group of people learns how to work the system, they use that power to take advantage and infringe upon the rights of another.
Well it is a problem with democracy... but to be fair people shouldn't just sit there and accept it.
funboy6942
Lifer
- Nov 13, 2001
- 15,368
- 418
- 126
OH STFU, Poor people who get elected will be angry and bis and do a bad job because they did poor in school or didnt go to college????? You just pull that out of your ass? You think poor and middle class are they way they are because they didnt go to school? How can you even say all of them wanted or could afford to go to school?
You dont think a rich person wouldnt be bias. A rich person only thinks of themself, just like you. if you got rich you would think of your self and your rich ass friends and not of the poor or the middle class because you yourself is being bias., This I would want somelike you like you running in office. HELL NO. I would want someone off the street running in office because they have something rich people dont and thats is street smarts. Something no matter how many fvckign schools you go to a person would never lear unless they lived it and went though it for themselves. A poor person would want to do better for the people because they been there, done it, got the t-shirt. Had the rich person. Hell no, it was given to them. They didnt learn or earn it. It was fvcking handed to them. You sir are bias, a snob, and a ass hat that needs to get thrown onto the streets to see how a real person lives. A poor person dost run for office just so they can take it out on people because they didnt get to go to school or get a good job, your an idiot for even thinking a poor persons only reason for running for office it to get back at a rich person for being rich. Thats completly stupid and I am done talking with an idiot such as yourself in your little ass world. God your dumb. Im not even going to bother going back through this to fix my spelling errors, your not worth it.
I think Gatsby is one of the most confused people we've had here in a very long time.
I wouldn't know where to start, all his basic orientations seem off. I'll randomly pick a couple examples.
For one, his view of corruption regarding bribery. He looks at it only in the context of personal enrichment, rather than the issue of soliciting funds for the party, and in a second mistake he practically exempts wealthy people from being bribable.
His views about the poor are analgous to the old southern slave owners' views about their slaves, when they were shocked, SHOCKED, that the slaves didn't actually have great affection for them and were willing to go and fight for the north in the civil war. Slavery is for their own good, don't they understand? Well I guess they make bad choices.
Let's consider one example: the governor of California. Arnold Schwarzeneggar ran against the former governor by accusing him of taking too much special interest money, and said that because he's independantly wealthy - the better part of a billionare - he would not need any special interest money at all.
That sells well to the people like Gatsby, who lack the understanding of how it works. Schwarzeneggar then went on to take more special interest donations than the former governor.
Let's consider another of his fallacies, the use of Bill Gates for drawing conclusions about wealthy people. Bill Gates is not typical; the relevant thing about Gates is his unusual decision to give away 90% of his wealth for charitable causes. You won't see the Waltons, the Campbells, or many other ultra-wealthy people/families do that. Bill Gates' father speaks out against repealing the estate tax, in the public interest; most ultra wealthy, including the families I mentioned, donate heavily to political groups to try to get it repealed out of a selfish interest.
He fails to even exhibit any awareness of the idea that people in low and middle wealth groups have different economic interests, and ones which are usually better aligned with the good of the nation, than the ultra wealthy. So he accuses any non-wealthy representative - who just happens to be more like his constituents than a milllionare representative - of being 'bitter' and apparently unable to pass good laws. He fails to show any awareness of basic economic and wealth issues such as the role in the contentration of wealth being key to the ultra wealthy people's advantage. He speaks as if everyone can become in the 'top 5%'. Shocking ignorance. The man is frankly a menace to our society in his views, IMO, the sort of fantasyland policies that lead to great harm and the undoing of the institutions on which the middle class is built.
There's a reason why 95% of Americans have seen their share of the total wealth of America shrink over 30 years from 50% to under 25%, even while they went from one-income to two-income families lowering their home quality of life, and while productivity shot up, while their real incomes are flat over those decades.
But you won't hear the reason from Gatsby. He lives in the gilded age, the roaring 20's, where the masses are poor because of their own fault; he fails to understand the key role unions played in the creation of the middle class out of poverty (a century ago the average American made $10,000/year adjusted) and sees them as only 'overpaying' workers.
There's too much wrong to try to address in his statements. But it's clear why he's an Ayn Rand fan, given his level of 'a little knowledge' that's so dangerous. It's not that he's completely wrong in all his facts - that's why it's a 'little knowledge', which validates his errors. It's his fundamental errors, missing huge issues, that are the problem.
I wouldn't know where to start, all his basic orientations seem off. I'll randomly pick a couple examples.
For one, his view of corruption regarding bribery. He looks at it only in the context of personal enrichment, rather than the issue of soliciting funds for the party, and in a second mistake he practically exempts wealthy people from being bribable.
His views about the poor are analgous to the old southern slave owners' views about their slaves, when they were shocked, SHOCKED, that the slaves didn't actually have great affection for them and were willing to go and fight for the north in the civil war. Slavery is for their own good, don't they understand? Well I guess they make bad choices.
Let's consider one example: the governor of California. Arnold Schwarzeneggar ran against the former governor by accusing him of taking too much special interest money, and said that because he's independantly wealthy - the better part of a billionare - he would not need any special interest money at all.
That sells well to the people like Gatsby, who lack the understanding of how it works. Schwarzeneggar then went on to take more special interest donations than the former governor.
Let's consider another of his fallacies, the use of Bill Gates for drawing conclusions about wealthy people. Bill Gates is not typical; the relevant thing about Gates is his unusual decision to give away 90% of his wealth for charitable causes. You won't see the Waltons, the Campbells, or many other ultra-wealthy people/families do that. Bill Gates' father speaks out against repealing the estate tax, in the public interest; most ultra wealthy, including the families I mentioned, donate heavily to political groups to try to get it repealed out of a selfish interest.
He fails to even exhibit any awareness of the idea that people in low and middle wealth groups have different economic interests, and ones which are usually better aligned with the good of the nation, than the ultra wealthy. So he accuses any non-wealthy representative - who just happens to be more like his constituents than a milllionare representative - of being 'bitter' and apparently unable to pass good laws. He fails to show any awareness of basic economic and wealth issues such as the role in the contentration of wealth being key to the ultra wealthy people's advantage. He speaks as if everyone can become in the 'top 5%'. Shocking ignorance. The man is frankly a menace to our society in his views, IMO, the sort of fantasyland policies that lead to great harm and the undoing of the institutions on which the middle class is built.
There's a reason why 95% of Americans have seen their share of the total wealth of America shrink over 30 years from 50% to under 25%, even while they went from one-income to two-income families lowering their home quality of life, and while productivity shot up, while their real incomes are flat over those decades.
But you won't hear the reason from Gatsby. He lives in the gilded age, the roaring 20's, where the masses are poor because of their own fault; he fails to understand the key role unions played in the creation of the middle class out of poverty (a century ago the average American made $10,000/year adjusted) and sees them as only 'overpaying' workers.
There's too much wrong to try to address in his statements. But it's clear why he's an Ayn Rand fan, given his level of 'a little knowledge' that's so dangerous. It's not that he's completely wrong in all his facts - that's why it's a 'little knowledge', which validates his errors. It's his fundamental errors, missing huge issues, that are the problem.
If wealthy people are so immune from bribery than why is lobbying so effective? Shouldn't our politicians work for the people and not the company that happens to donate the most money to their campaign?
Personal bribery is the exception and not the problem. The problem is the role that money plays in campaigns, allowing 'special interests' to get far more power than their numbers over 'average citizens'.The whole point of democracy was to redistribute the power in society to 'one man, one vote', and the money undermines democracy.
Politicians who want nothing but to serve the public are forced to participate in the money issues in order to get elected. It's up to we the people to push for campaign finance reform and we've yet to do so.
Part of the problem is that the very laws people count on to 'catch corruption' can be altered by the same politicians.
Intelligence has NOTHING to do with worth. If it did I'd be wealthier than 99.999% of the world. As long as you're average to about 1-2 sd's above average you're perfect for getting rich. Intelligences over that tend not to be super wealthy most of the time. Yes, there are exceptions, but they're just that. Extreme intellect doesn't lend itself to the endeavors that make one truly rich very often.
The argument against millionaires as leaders is that they have lost touch with the common man. Such an extremely small percentage of people can be truly wealthy in our society that to have so many in government is disproportionate. Many feel our representatives should be representative OF us, and not just FOR us.I would have no problem with congress being statistically representative. Sure you'd have about 4 millionaires in there...heck, maybe even a few more, but the rest would make average wages like the average American and would therefore act in the INTERESTS of the people in that income bracket (ie 75% of the country).
Anecdotal evidence will get you no where fast. Hell, i have never met a doctor or lawyer who wasnt doing it for the money. So there you go, were back to ground zero. When i was in grad school i used to hangout with a TON of MD students from UCSF. They were all either rich and doing it because its what their family does or because they dont have money and want to make a lot.
Also, its nice that you snipped part of my post that says i COULD go work for a big pharma company and make a sh!t load of money. I would rather be underpaid doing something that IS going to make a difference than overpaid for doing sh!t work because i can attach a few acronyms behind my name. According to your principle i am not worthy of holding office. Your attitude is sh!t and i know you are going to amount to nothing in your life. Enjoy.
As some of you might have noticed, I defended the idea of rich folks leading the country, on the principle that how much money you have was pretty far down the list of things that would indicate you are or are not a good leader. But after 3 pages of this thread, and reading JLGatsby's posts, I'm starting to really understand the people who object to the idea of the Senate being the millionaires' club. Again, it has nothing to do with how much money you may or may not have, but how you treat people who DON'T have it. For all the similarities between running a business and running the government, they are NOT the same thing, we elect people who are supposed to represent us and do what's best for us, not run the country like a business where the people are expendable assets. President Bush is President, not CEO, and the difference is pretty important. JLGatsby's attitude is a terrible one for a leader to have, viewing the people "under" you as a bunch of cheap-beer swilling morons is not exactly going to bring out the ideal democratic attitude. In fact, I wonder just how much of Washington's problems have to do with elected representatives holding the exact same view, that they alone are smart enough to know what's good for the people and that everyone they are SUPPOSED to be fighting for is a half-sentient ape who barely deserves the air he's breathing.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
OK, sorry then. You said "a lot of the libertarians" and I jumped on that part. His type in the minority in my experience. Most libertarians I know understand that making value judgments about the choice in which people choose to use their freedom is inherently unlibertarian. Making judgments and telling people the way they should live is what the extreme right and left thrive and, and is in direct opposition to "live and let live."
True enough, I suppose part of the problem is that my sample size of libertarians is pretty small. Most people, whatever their politics, seem to be DEEPLY concerned with what other people are doing with their lives. Some people may object to the vehicle you drive, while others might object to your religious views or whether or not you say "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays". Finding someone who really supports the idea of "live and let live" seems to be pretty rare.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
It was evident early on that JL uses wealth as the metric by which all are judged. Since he believes that all people crave wealth, those with more money are superior. It's an objective Darwinian measure of the superiority and fitness of a person to be in politics. That's patently absurd, but hey he doesn't get to call the shots any more than anyone else. In the food chain of politics, he's plankton just like the rest of us. It was an amusing read if one approached it with the right attitude.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Well, let's make a list of senate millionaires and how they got their wealth since the question was posed in this thread:
Senate millionaires
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399 - married into Heinz ketchup family
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016 - he inherited Kohl's grocery stores which were not worth megabucks. Eventually, kohls got bought out and the Kohls family left the business. Then Kohls went on to be the huge chain that it is now thus earning Kohls megabucks through stock he still retained.
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018 - inherited from the famous rockefellers
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025 - earned at Goldman Sachs where he rose through the ranks to become CEO.
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109 - inherited/married into most of it
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013 - inherited and grew his families wealth a lot.
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018 - earned. Founder of ADP
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042 - ? cardiac surgeon
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029 - earned himself as a famous trial lawyer
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009 - inherited as a scion of the famous kennedy family
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015 - earned as lawyer
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052 - ? lawyer
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012 - ? lawyer
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011
Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037 - inherited as a scion of the Dayton family which founded Dayton's department stores and Target
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024
Senate millionaires
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399 - married into Heinz ketchup family
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016 - he inherited Kohl's grocery stores which were not worth megabucks. Eventually, kohls got bought out and the Kohls family left the business. Then Kohls went on to be the huge chain that it is now thus earning Kohls megabucks through stock he still retained.
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018 - inherited from the famous rockefellers
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025 - earned at Goldman Sachs where he rose through the ranks to become CEO.
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109 - inherited/married into most of it
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013 - inherited and grew his families wealth a lot.
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018 - earned. Founder of ADP
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042 - ? cardiac surgeon
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029 - earned himself as a famous trial lawyer
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009 - inherited as a scion of the famous kennedy family
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015 - earned as lawyer
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052 - ? lawyer
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012 - ? lawyer
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011
Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037 - inherited as a scion of the Dayton family which founded Dayton's department stores and Target
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
*has not read thread beyond OP*
The net worth of my Senators is not a serious concern for me, rich or poor(although I've never seen poor one). If my Senators must be rich, however, I would greatly prefer that they be self-made successful as opposed to Old Money.
The net worth of my Senators is not a serious concern for me, rich or poor(although I've never seen poor one). If my Senators must be rich, however, I would greatly prefer that they be self-made successful as opposed to Old Money.
JLGatsby, I agree with some of the things you've said, but I have to respond to two things.
You said that everyone wants to be wealthy and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Of course everyone wants to have money, but some people don't consider it the most important thing in their life. A lot of people put their family, or other things, ahead of wealth.
Second, money and wealth do not bring contentedness. Most people think they would be happy if they had something like 10% more money. This includes people making 20k a year and people making 500k a year. Simply having a lot of money doesn't automatically make you content. If you can't be content with a little money you won't be content with a lot.
And finally, this isn't in response to a statement, my friend's father is one of the most intelligent people I know. He went to college and earned a degree in theology I believe. I don't often meet people as smart as he is. Do you know what he does for a living? He is a carpenter in construction. He installs windows on new houses. He could have easily gotten a white-collar job but he enjoys construction. What do you have to say to that?
You said that everyone wants to be wealthy and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Of course everyone wants to have money, but some people don't consider it the most important thing in their life. A lot of people put their family, or other things, ahead of wealth.
Second, money and wealth do not bring contentedness. Most people think they would be happy if they had something like 10% more money. This includes people making 20k a year and people making 500k a year. Simply having a lot of money doesn't automatically make you content. If you can't be content with a little money you won't be content with a lot.
And finally, this isn't in response to a statement, my friend's father is one of the most intelligent people I know. He went to college and earned a degree in theology I believe. I don't often meet people as smart as he is. Do you know what he does for a living? He is a carpenter in construction. He installs windows on new houses. He could have easily gotten a white-collar job but he enjoys construction. What do you have to say to that?
eits
Lifer
Thats the one thing I've noticed where American society is really going... Its really turning into the 20's over again where you keep seeing promotions for ultra luxury goods and partys that 99% of Americans dont participate or can buy into but the media promotes those lifestyles like its common place!
(I'm not sure what is meant by magazine demographics)
Successful people, in general, do not follow news. I've known many double and triple majors. Many of them study 98+ hours per week. It is people like this that are simply too busy to do anything else. I'm not sure about the working class, but I would say this about the middle class.
I don't think bringing up Britney Spears is at all retarded. She has worked much harder than you give her credit for. The same goes for other entertainers and athletes. It is no more a lottery than is being a millionaire businessman. It is something most people don't so much as try to become.
Successful people, in general, do not follow news. I've known many double and triple majors. Many of them study 98+ hours per week. It is people like this that are simply too busy to do anything else. I'm not sure about the working class, but I would say this about the middle class.
I don't think bringing up Britney Spears is at all retarded. She has worked much harder than you give her credit for. The same goes for other entertainers and athletes. It is no more a lottery than is being a millionaire businessman. It is something most people don't so much as try to become.
That's actually not true. By and large the more wealthy you are, the more likely you are to be aware of events around you, watch the news, etc.
I refute that. The more likely you are to be aware of news that affects you, or is created for you. Just like everyone else. You'll know more about business news, and things that could affect markets, but less about other things. I have experienced this time and time again with fairly wealthy people. There's a sweet spot though, say between 75k and 150k per year maybe (around here anyway) where people seem to be able to spend more time learning and still not lose touch with the common man.
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