Rich in the United States

[Stunt]

In 1890, 48% of the US's total wealth was held by the Richest 1% of Americans.
In 2006, 33% of the US's total weath is held by the Richest 1% of Americans.

Among the richest 1% of Americans, inherited wealth accounts for 9% of these people.
In 1989, inherited wealth represented 23% of the top 1% richest Americans.


There are 7.5million people with a net worth of $1m-$10m; most of them voted for George W Bush because they thought he would be best for their personal financial situation.

There are 2million people with a net worth of $10m-$100m+; most of them voted for John Kerry even though they acknowledged GWB would be better for their financial situation, they place a higher emphasis on education, envronment and technology.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
There are 7.5million people with a net worth of $1m-$10m; most of them voted for George W Bush because they thought he would be best for their personal financial situation.

One can only hope they learned a lesson that maybe just maybe the integrity of the country they supposedly love should trump an even larger personal gain when they already have more money than one can possibly need before destroying the country.

Have you learned anything from all these statistics from a foriegn land that you apparently love better than your own yet seem to like seeing it destroyed by the rich people you envy?

 

[Idontcare]

I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

All information above came from a book I am currently reading; all sources are referenced although I don't have specific literature for the exact information above. The footnoting is rather sparse and there's over 300 sources referenced.

But shooting the messenger is far more convenient I'm sure...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

All information above came from a book I am currently reading; all sources are referenced although I don't have specific literature for the exact information above. The footnoting is rather sparse and there's over 300 sources referenced.

But shooting the messenger is far more convenient I'm sure...

He's not refuting the statistics, but the reasons why people voted in that manner. For example, if these super-rich are so kind and giving, why are they that rich? Why haven't they thrown a ton of money at a charity (and I don't mean $100k if you're worth $50M, either)?

Maybe they're big company owners and with a democrat there is a greater chance of universal healthcare, which means they'll get richer by not paying for their employees?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

All information above came from a book I am currently reading; all sources are referenced although I don't have specific literature for the exact information above. The footnoting is rather sparse and there's over 300 sources referenced.

But shooting the messenger is far more convenient I'm sure...

He's not refuting the statistics, but the reasons why people voted in that manner. For example, if these super-rich are so kind and giving, why are they that rich? Why haven't they thrown a ton of money at a charity (and I don't mean $100k if you're worth $50M, either)?

Maybe they're big company owners and with a democrat there is a greater chance of universal healthcare, which means they'll get richer by not paying for their employees?

Many rich do, for example Bill Gates created the worlds biggest charity with a 17 billion dollar donation.

However as for the reasons why the super rich dont give all of their money away? I think they may donate but it is the classic human syndrome of everybody should think like me. They love charity and feel everybody should give, even if they dont want. Thus they vote for candidates who like to give away public money for votes. They feel noble for supporting such causes and dont have to feel the sting of the legislations costs. It helps them cover up whatever guilt they have of being super rich but not wanting to share all of their proceeds.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

All information above came from a book I am currently reading; all sources are referenced although I don't have specific literature for the exact information above. The footnoting is rather sparse and there's over 300 sources referenced.

But shooting the messenger is far more convenient I'm sure...

What's the message?

What is your agenda for the U.S. that you don't even live in???

 

[dullard]

I don't know the facts for the first two paragraphs. But the last two paragraphs are common knowledge. The rich almost always vote republican, the very rich almost always vote democrat. Stunt's reasons are the commonly given reasons. The rich want to be richer, and vote for their pocket book. The very rich care more about the common man than their own pocket book because they are so rich that they have reached the point of diminishing returns. Having lower top tax brackets won't make the very rich any happier. But, helping others will.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

All information above came from a book I am currently reading; all sources are referenced although I don't have specific literature for the exact information above. The footnoting is rather sparse and there's over 300 sources referenced.

But shooting the messenger is far more convenient I'm sure...

not citing sources is the same as talking out your ass.

besides, its not like books are free from agenda

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Stunt
There are 7.5million people with a net worth of $1m-$10m; most of them voted for George W Bush because they thought he would be best for their personal financial situation.

There are 2million people with a net worth of $10m-$100m+; most of them voted for John Kerry even though they acknowledged GWB would be better for their financial situation, they place a higher emphasis on education, envronment and technology.

There's a lesson for you Stunt. Now go emulate the mega rich that you adore so much.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

So you dont think people vote with their wallets?

 

[Lemon law]

Bad social policy bites the rich and poor alike. And that planet busting asteroid that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs got the base of the food chain first. And one fine day the top predictors ran out of starved plant eaters to feast on---and they went last.

The lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Lemon lawThe lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

We cannot afford to lose either the top or the bottom. They feed off each other. One without the other leads to stagnation.

Urban and GOVERNMENT dependant is more like it. Far too many people rely on the government to take care of them. The government will never try to make you do better, it will simply keep you where you are. Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Bad social policy bites the rich and poor alike. And that planet busting asteroid that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs got the base of the food chain first. And one fine day the top predictors ran out of starved plant eaters to feast on---and they went last.

The lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

Your analogy is wrong. If the top of the food chain is knocked off (predators) then the population of the plant eaters goes unchecked and they end up destroying themselves through famine and disease.

It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

[Hacp]

Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Back in the 1800s, slavery still existed. In the 50s-70s, government did help blacks. Its called the Civil Rights movemenent. It was a good change overall.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I love the generalizations made by the OP regarding "why" people voted one way or another.

History serves its master best when completely made up and has no sources or references.

All information above came from a book I am currently reading; all sources are referenced although I don't have specific literature for the exact information above. The footnoting is rather sparse and there's over 300 sources referenced.

But shooting the messenger is far more convenient I'm sure...

What's the message?

What is your agenda for the U.S. that you don't even live in???

I'd create a charity to provide mental health services free of charge for all who need it.......

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Back in the 1800s, slavery still existed. In the 50s-70s, government did help blacks. Its called the Civil Rights movemenent. It was a good change overall.

yeah, hence the explosion of single parent families, explosion in percentage of pop in jail...


yeah, from one slavedriver to another... real help.


Also, I referred to 1890 - notice that date, like 30 years after the Civil War and Emacipation? As in, slavery has no bearing on this discussion.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Hacp

Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Back in the 1800s, slavery still existed. In the 50s-70s, government did help blacks. Its called the Civil Rights movemenent. It was a good change overall.

yeah, hence the explosion of single parent families, explosion in percentage of pop in jail...


yeah, from one slavedriver to another... real help.


Also, I referred to 1890 - notice that date, like 30 years after the Civil War and Emacipation? As in, slavery has no bearing on this discussion.

You didn't say anything about the 1890s. If you meant 1890s, you would have said 1890, not 1800s.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Hacp

Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Back in the 1800s, slavery still existed. In the 50s-70s, government did help blacks. Its called the Civil Rights movemenent. It was a good change overall.

yeah, hence the explosion of single parent families, explosion in percentage of pop in jail...


yeah, from one slavedriver to another... real help.


Also, I referred to 1890 - notice that date, like 30 years after the Civil War and Emacipation? As in, slavery has no bearing on this discussion.

You didn't say anything about the 1890s. If you meant 1890s, you would have said 1890, not 1800s.

Well, the whole thread is about comparing the 1890s to now, and the post that Shivetya was replying to was talking about the 1890s, it seems pretty obvious to me what time period Shivetya was referring to...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Lemon lawThe lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

We cannot afford to lose either the top or the bottom. They feed off each other. One without the other leads to stagnation.

Urban and GOVERNMENT dependant is more like it. Far too many people rely on the government to take care of them. The government will never try to make you do better, it will simply keep you where you are. Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Youre exactly right. In a free society there will ALWAYS be rich and poor. It's the nature of a republic. Unfortunately, alot in here think its injustice. They seem to think when we say everyone is equal, they seem to think that means financially. Naivity on their part I guess.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Hacp

Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Back in the 1800s, slavery still existed. In the 50s-70s, government did help blacks. Its called the Civil Rights movemenent. It was a good change overall.

yeah, hence the explosion of single parent families, explosion in percentage of pop in jail...


yeah, from one slavedriver to another... real help.


Also, I referred to 1890 - notice that date, like 30 years after the Civil War and Emacipation? As in, slavery has no bearing on this discussion.

You didn't say anything about the 1890s. If you meant 1890s, you would have said 1890, not 1800s.

Well, the whole thread is about comparing the 1890s to now, and the post that Shivetya was replying to was talking about the 1890s, it seems pretty obvious to me what time period Shivetya was referring to...

Yes, the thread was talking about the 1890s and 2006. He mentioned 1800s and 50s-70s. Two different things.

But lets get back on topic. Why should we give most of our tax cut money to the richest 1%?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Lemon lawThe lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

We cannot afford to lose either the top or the bottom. They feed off each other. One without the other leads to stagnation.

Urban and GOVERNMENT dependant is more like it. Far too many people rely on the government to take care of them. The government will never try to make you do better, it will simply keep you where you are. Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Youre exactly right. In a free society there will ALWAYS be rich and poor. It's the nature of a republic. Unfortunately, alot in here think its injustice. They seem to think when we say everyone is equal, they seem to think that means financially. Naivity on their part I guess.

IIRC, there are still rich and poor people in France/Germany. Its just that the poor can live a life that isn't out on the street, and the rich get taxed more.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Lemon lawThe lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

We cannot afford to lose either the top or the bottom. They feed off each other. One without the other leads to stagnation.

Urban and GOVERNMENT dependant is more like it. Far too many people rely on the government to take care of them. The government will never try to make you do better, it will simply keep you where you are. Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Youre exactly right. In a free society there will ALWAYS be rich and poor. It's the nature of a republic. Unfortunately, alot in here think its injustice. They seem to think when we say everyone is equal, they seem to think that means financially. Naivity on their part I guess.

IIRC, there are still rich and poor people in France/Germany. Its just that the poor can live a life that isn't out on the street, and the rich get taxed more.

Im not trying to stir the pot...but are you implying your bolded part isnt true in America?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Lemon lawThe lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

We cannot afford to lose either the top or the bottom. They feed off each other. One without the other leads to stagnation.

Urban and GOVERNMENT dependant is more like it. Far too many people rely on the government to take care of them. The government will never try to make you do better, it will simply keep you where you are. Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Youre exactly right. In a free society there will ALWAYS be rich and poor. It's the nature of a republic. Unfortunately, alot in here think its injustice. They seem to think when we say everyone is equal, they seem to think that means financially. Naivity on their part I guess.

IIRC, there are still rich and poor people in France/Germany. Its just that the poor can live a life that isn't out on the street, and the rich get taxed more.

Speaking of being naive. The poor in the United States on avg have 2 cars, a house comparable to middle class Europe, cable TV, and more than 1 tv set.

The idea the poor in the United States are all on the street is silly.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Lemon lawThe lesson being, we can afford to lose the top of the food chain but when the base of the food chain goes, nothing is left. And our public policy is invested in the top of the food chain and it must inevitably poison the base of our food chain. And to a certain extent the stats cited miss something, in 1890, much of the poor were in farming and at least could raise their own food. Now we are far more urban and dependent.

As long as the pie gets ever bigger we can afford some real piggishness. But when the overall economic pie starts getting smaller, pigs get far less socially affordable.

We cannot afford to lose either the top or the bottom. They feed off each other. One without the other leads to stagnation.

Urban and GOVERNMENT dependant is more like it. Far too many people rely on the government to take care of them. The government will never try to make you do better, it will simply keep you where you are. Back in the 1800s people relied on relatives for most emergencies and help. You also had a stronger desire to succeed because there wasn't the "government" or such to fall back on.

Hell, you could look at inner city blacks and see the family unit, which included extended family, disintergrate more and more as the government stepped in and "helped" them in the late 50s to 70s.

Youre exactly right. In a free society there will ALWAYS be rich and poor. It's the nature of a republic. Unfortunately, alot in here think its injustice. They seem to think when we say everyone is equal, they seem to think that means financially. Naivity on their part I guess.

IIRC, there are still rich and poor people in France/Germany. Its just that the poor can live a life that isn't out on the street, and the rich get taxed more.

Speaking of being naive. The poor in the United States on avg have 2 cars, a house comparable to middle class Europe, cable TV, and more than 1 tv set.

The idea the poor in the United States are all on the street is silly.

I don't know where you live, but in NYC, 50,000 people are homeless. Where are the cars? What house?