Republican = millionaire wannabe

[Zebo]

Cert:

Of course eventually, these guy realize that not only are they not millionaires, they?re not making much progress toward that noble goal. That?s when they get ugly. You see, they see themselves as capable, intelligent, hard working people - and they are for the most part - who ?have what it takes? to ?make it?. They believe that the difference between those who ?make it? and those who don?t is being ?capable, intelligent and hardworking?. Things like ?having rich parents?, ?getting just plain lucky? or ?being a crook? don?t factor into the equation anywhere. No, American society is a natural hierarchy where the most capable are ?rich beyond their wildest dreams?, and the non-rich are chumps that just don?t measure up.

Only they are capable - some of them actually are - and they?re not rich. Clearly, something is broken, preventing these wannabes who ?have what it takes? from reaching materialist heaven. Now here?s where it gets interesting. Since they ?have what it takes?, there must be somebody else to blame. This from the people who accuse the poor of ?blaming everybody but themselves?. The dittoheads do the very same thing. Its ?tax and spend liberals?. It?s ?big government?. For the more crude among them, it?s ?the awesome people?. Only they don?t use that word in public. Instead, they call them ?minorities?.

It can?t be the rich to blame. That?s what they wannabe. And it can?t be them, they work hard, they?re smart. They?re playing the game ?by the rules? - and they aren?t getting anywhere. Something must be holding them back. It must be all of those taxes they pay. You know, taxes for ?social programs? for ?minorities?. Not one of them has ever looked at the federal budget to see just how much of their taxes goes for ?social programs?. We?re talking maybe five cents on the dollar. They don?t realize that 20 cents of every income tax dollar goes for interest payments to rich bond holders. They don?t realize that stealth fighters, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and the guys to maintain and operate all of that Frankenstein military hardware cost a lot of money. To the tune of another 25 cents out of every tax dollar. They never go into the part of town where the ?minorities? live and ask where that five cents on the dollar is going. They sure aren?t building ?Don LaPre style? mansions with it. And I haven?t seen one Rolls in that part of town, though I have seen a few fifteen year old Lincoln?s - without a large breasted white woman lounging on them.

Oh and there's much more... Has a familiar ring to it eh? Much much more, enjoy

 

[Bowfinger]

Good post Zebo. I'm surprised nobody else has picked up on it. I think they've nailed it on the head, at least for a lot of the people who delude themselves into believing the Republican party is looking out for their interests. They aren't, of course. They are looking out for the wealthiest corporations and individuals, the folks who can afford those $10,000 watches and those monthly $1000+ a plate dinners. They couldn't care less about the wannabes because they know most of them have a better chance of winning Powerball than actually striking it rich due to hard work and playing by the rules.

Speaking of which, I thought this part was also insightful:

But here?s something I?ll bet the dittoheads haven?t thought of. Maybe they?re the chumps. Maybe they?ve been sold a bogus ?American dream? that never existed. Maybe ?the rules? they play by were written by the people who have ?made it? - not by the people who haven?t. And maybe - just maybe - the people who have ?made it? wrote those rules to keep the wannabes chasing a dream that?s a mirage.

Gee, you think?

 

[miguel]

I read the link yesterday (I think), but it was kind of a rant, so I didn't post in this thread. Kinda one-sided I think, but I have a problem with the following that you quoted, Bow:

Maybe ?the rules? they play by were written by the people who have ?made it? - not by the people who haven?t. And maybe - just maybe - the people who have ?made it? wrote those rules to keep the wannabes chasing a dream that?s a mirage.

Yes, maybe that's true. But how can people who haven't made it possibly give guidance to others who haven't "made it"?

 

[KenGr]

A pretty worthless rant, IMHO. This combines two classic invalid argument techniques, Ad Hominem and Straw Man. Interestingly enough, I've seen the same argument forwarded for why the "educated elite" strike out against capitalism and favor government control. I.E. they see themselves as much more intelligent and worthy than most people and blame the "system" for holding them down.

Also, what's with that web page format. Why the impossibly narrow columns. It gave me eyestrain reading it.

 

[alchemize]

It must be all of those taxes they pay. You know, taxes for ?social programs? for ?minorities?. Not one of them has ever looked at the federal budget to see just how much of their taxes goes for ?social programs?. We?re talking maybe five cents on the dollar. They don?t realize that 20 cents of every income tax dollar goes for interest payments to rich bond holders. They don?t realize that stealth fighters, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and the guys to maintain and operate all of that Frankenstein military hardware cost a lot of money. To the tune of another 25 cents out of every tax dollar. They never go into the part of town where the ?minorities? live and ask where that five cents on the dollar is going.

How quaint, if untrue. I guess the author never looked at the federal budget either. The $.05 on social programs is a hair off.

Interest $.26 ($.06 to finance military, $.20 to finance the rest...basically social programs such as social security and medicare)
Military $.22

"Social Programs"
Health $.18
Soc. Sec $.06
Vet's benefits, housing education, Nutrion, other = $.32
So only $.56 is spent on social programs with another $.20 to finance the interest on them. $.76 of every dollar spent roughly for social programs.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: miguel
I read the link yesterday (I think), but it was kind of a rant, so I didn't post in this thread. Kinda one-sided I think, but I have a problem with the following that you quoted, Bow:

Maybe ?the rules? they play by were written by the people who have ?made it? - not by the people who haven?t. And maybe - just maybe - the people who have ?made it? wrote those rules to keep the wannabes chasing a dream that?s a mirage.

Yes, maybe that's true. But how can people who haven't made it possibly give guidance to others who haven't "made it"?

I assume the first 'haven't' should be 'have'.. with that, I'd suggest.. it is in front of us all the time. First they put on the TV program named "The lifestyles of the rich and famous" followed by "Hannity and Colms" interviewing Ann Coulter regarding the Minimum Wage bill before congress.. It becomes easy to see why the wannabe can't visit Tahiti this year.. cuz he has to pay so much in taxes to the goof off who won't work or medicare and medical (or what ever it is, locally) and all because the bums are lazy.. and poor.. Them liberal cry babies.. comes uttered as Ann finishes her speech..

Edit: if you meant it as stated.. it is simple... Like minds think alike and both blame the someone else.. certain they won't blame what they aspire to or themselves so they are always guided by the 'haves'. The havenot but aspire to be a have just follow..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: miguel
I read the link yesterday (I think), but it was kind of a rant, so I didn't post in this thread. Kinda one-sided I think, but I have a problem with the following that you quoted, Bow:

Maybe ?the rules? they play by were written by the people who have ?made it? - not by the people who haven?t. And maybe - just maybe - the people who have ?made it? wrote those rules to keep the wannabes chasing a dream that?s a mirage.

Yes, maybe that's true. But how can people who haven't made it possibly give guidance to others who haven't "made it"?

I think maybe you've missed the point. His premise is that the "have's", i.e., the wealthy and powerful make the rules, the "have's" enjoy being wealthy and powerful, and the "have's" realize that the more they share the wealth and power, the less they have. They therefore rig the game to make sure they continue to be the "have's" and that the "have nots" continue to get only leftovers.

However, if the "have nots" ever realize how badly the system is stacked against them, they might revolt. Revolts are bad for business, thus reducing what the "have's" have. They therefore create the illusion that the "have nots" can become "have's" someday too, if only they work a little harder ... making the "have's" even wealthier in the process. There are just enough rags-to-riches success stories to serve as the carrot, dangled just out of reach to keep the "have nots" on the treadmill.

Whether you agree or not, do you understand his premise?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: KenGr
A pretty worthless rant, IMHO. This combines two classic invalid argument techniques, Ad Hominem and Straw Man. Interestingly enough, I've seen the same argument forwarded for why the "educated elite" strike out against capitalism and favor government control. I.E. they see themselves as much more intelligent and worthy than most people and blame the "system" for holding them down.

Also, what's with that web page format. Why the impossibly narrow columns. It gave me eyestrain reading it.

I don't think this is intended to be an objective analysis. It is intended to provoke thought, to open a discussion about whether the opportunities for success are as real as we think.

 

[Zebo]

I.E. they see themselves as much more intelligent and worthy than most people and blame the "system" for holding them down.

First part- Can you blame them? Over 50% of "people" think saddam was responsible for 9-11? Americans arn't quiet as astute as you'd think..

Second_ They don't "blame" anything, Most progressives understand the "system" has brought the overwhleming amount of americans the benefits we see today (see below) and without these progressive ideas (all opossed by right)most would still be dirty little surfs scraping to get by..while those on the right blame this very system for keeping them down. IE millionaire wannbes...and buy into cheap slogans like "less governemnt" and "less regualtion"for thier not making it and stay right. Talk about biting the hands that feed. (of course this excludes hier to fortunes and other elite lIke GWB)

Just read it with an open mind...I used to be right of limbaugh in my teens and early 20's...till I realized everything comes from the bottom up spending..not the other way around.

Text and Text

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: KenGr
A pretty worthless rant, IMHO. This combines two classic invalid argument techniques, Ad Hominem and Straw Man. Interestingly enough, I've seen the same argument forwarded for why the "educated elite" strike out against capitalism and favor government control. I.E. they see themselves as much more intelligent and worthy than most people and blame the "system" for holding them down.

Also, what's with that web page format. Why the impossibly narrow columns. It gave me eyestrain reading it.

I don't think this is intended to be an objective analysis. It is intended to provoke thought, to open a discussion about whether the opportunities for success are as real as we think.

I certainly didn't take it as that benign. The way you put it is a much more interesting question. Try this take on it:

The great strength of America is that most people think their opportunities are greater than they statistically are. As a result they are willing to put in the effort to improve themselves. The snide tone of the article suggests that anyone who doesn't end up a millionaire is a failure. I think someone who starts with very little and works himself up to a secure and contributing position in society qualifies as a great success.

I recently attended a 35 year high school reunion. I'm sure there were many people there who lost opportunities and who thought they could have been more "successful". However what impressed me was that almost everyone seemed very happy with their lives and, compared with what one might have predicted 35 years ago, most people had achieved much more.