Not all rich people suck.

[cali]

With all the ranting and raving here about how the wealthy are, one and all, evil bloodsuckers, I thought I'd take the unpopular position of noting that not all people who are wealthy are leeches who drain the life blood out of the poor and middle classes.

FDR was a rich man. The Kennedys are a wealthy family. And there are more than a few rich people who advocate against their own narrow self-interests, including Bill Gates Sr and Chuck Collins (Collins is coauthor, with William H. Gates, Sr., of the book Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes, which argues that the estate tax is both fair and necessary. He is also coauthor of Robin Hood Was Right and several other books.) Not to mention Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. These are just a notable few. There are more.

Of course the Madoff's and the Wall Street thugs are despicable. Of course we need greater regulation and higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy, but all people with money aren't monsters who do nothing but exploit the poor.

[datasuspect]

1. make sure you hug a rich person today

and thank them for all the greatness that they are.

[GCP]

15. Snarky answer to a well-made point

Well done :sarcasm:

[datasuspect]

38. i know, rich people are so hard done by

it is incumbent upon all of us to realize how nice so many of them really are. we need to be collectively ashamed because we average folk don't take the time to truly understand how wonderful some wealthy people are.

they are practically victims what with all this class warfare and stuff.

some of them even get their expensive items delivered in plain brown wrappers from high end boutiques to their mansions, because they feel guilty about having so much money. i mean, really, who wants to be seen carrying a tiffany bag around in this economic climate.

[TZ]

79. and your attitude is different from the attitude

that all poor people are stupid and lazy how? Prejudice is prejudice.

[Township75]

23. So what do you think of these rich people

Barack Obama
Joe Biden
The Clintons
John Edwards
John Kerry
Mikey Moore
Keith Olbermann
The list could go on.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Obama and Biden are simply not rich

Biden, in fact, was the least wealthy Senator when he was in the Senate. Almost all his "wealth" is in the value of his house and his government pension.

[Political Heretic]

74. ummm Obama's tax release says otherewise

[Stinky The Clown]

110. What's he worth? A few measly million?

That's not rich.

Jack Welch is rich.

John Thain is rich.

Obama is not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4950564

[JI7]

111. "few measly million" ?

they are still wealthier than most americans.

[Stinky The Clown]

148. Yeah, "A Few Measley Million"

Sorry, but that's just not rich.

It is comfortable. It is upper middle class. It is well off.

It is NOT rich.

A Hundred Million is rich.

Ten Million **might** be rich.

Two or three million?

Sorry.

Not Rich.

[JI7]

156. compared to most americans it's rich

there are far more who don't have nearly that amount than there are who have more than that.

[Political Heretic]

122. "A few measley million" ? He is in the top 1% of Americans.

That makes him "rich."

[SammyWinstonJack]

140. No wonder he won't rescind the bu$h tax. Just let them expire in two yrs.

x( So much for that campaign "promise". x(

[dana_b]

149. and probably the top 0.5% in the world

it's scary what we think of as rich. Although - back to the argument - I do think there are rich people who give a lot and I won't fault them for their status. It's not my place.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. I Would Literally Amputate A Toe Or A Digit For A Measley Few Million Dollars

As long as I was given an anesthetic and I'd even thinl of waiving that condition.

[BlueCaliDem]

154. Obama made $6 mil last year correct? And ALL from his books sales

from books HE wrote himself (and read, for the audio books).

Before that, he wasn't rich by any measure. He still had his and Michelle's student loans they were paying off and were only able to pay these off when his books were selling by the truck load. Yes, he is now considered rich, though.

Biden is reportedly worth $300,000 all tied up in his home's equity. Biden, a congress critter for nearly 40 years not a millionaire?? That's a rare thing these days.

[.... callchet ....]

138. I think they don't pay enough taxes !

[Radical Activist]

63. And when you do

grab their wallet.

[stray cat]

2. Absolutely, if it wasn't with wealthy dems the democrats would never win national elections

Like low income voters who vote GOP seemingly against their interests, many people with solid finances vote against their financial interests by voting dem. Poverty doesn't make any one a good person nor does wealth make one bad.

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. The exceptions prove that it doesn't have to be that way.

Exploiters do it by choice. When our government can't even stand up to them in the interest of a level playing field for the people, they are too wealthy, and toxic.

[Donnachaidh]

4. ....

:eyes:

[cali]

6. yes, yes, wholesale hate is so much easier.

[Bjorn Against]

64. "Wholesale hate"?

Did you ever think that someone rolling their eyes at one of your lectures might mean something aside from "they hate all rich people"? The problem with your post is that few if any people here have ever said that all rich people were bad people, they may think that a system that allows people to become so rich is a bad system but that is very different than a condemnation of all rich people. Your post is based on a strawman argument, which seems to be a type of argument that you have been very fond of lately.

Don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of wholesale hate, because I have found that the people who reflexively accuse others of being haters usually do not have much of an argument.

[Elidor]

114. Ah, the old false dichotomy

It's amazing that someone so ignorant of the fallacies of their own thought processes presumes to lecture the rest of us.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. Ah cali's daily scolding

I haven't been in GD for over a month but it's good to know some things never change.

How did this site ever manage before she came along and straightened us all out? :eyes:

[donco6]

11. Somehow we did OK.

It was a golden age.

[cali]

12. My goodness. I really get under your skin.

pull it together. I'm just a poster expressing an opinion. That's what the board is for.

[brentspeak]

25. More like a poster expressing flamebait

[Posteritatis]

45. I notice "flamebait" usually equals "opinion I disagree with" around here (nt)

[Runcible Spoon]

69. It's a direct continuation of another thread which blew up...

it is against DU posting rules, Cali knows this DAMN WELL considering she does it constantly and people call her on it constantly. So yeah, it's textbook flamebait.

[L0oniX]

29. ...

:hi:

[arcadian]

142. You mean Gilded Age.

Oh wait, "gilded age", that might be a slam against rich people and we wouldn't to offend them.

[Malikshah]

143. At least wooden rulers are not involved. I do agree, though.

Nothing like 1) Being on the wrong side of history 2) defending the largely indefensible and 3) being contrary for attentions' sake.

The argument in the OP is simplistic, vacuous, and appears only to make a point in order to obfuscate... (yet another tried an true tactic)

[Warpy]

5. Even the wealthy who know they need to pay back their good

fortune have been sidetracked by excess the past 28 years.

Higher taxes are a great disincentive to greed as the only way to avoid them is reinvesting the money in the society at large.

[FreakinDJ]

7. No - Some of them Blow

[jgraz]

32. bastard -- stole my line.

:P

[Hello_Kitty]

8. No shit Sherlock.

[onehandle]

9. No! Here at DU, we Live and Die by the stereotype!

You see! Even my subject line was a stereotype!

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Absolutely true. My husband's boss is very wealthy although he runs a "small business"

with less than 500 employers (actually only has 75), but he gives Christmas bonuses (always handy), gave my husband two cars consecutively (both newer models Toyota Camry with the last one the most outfitted Camry with leather seats for that year - 1996) and pays for our health insurance premiums.

Then there's the CEO of Costco that pays his people well, gives shares, works with his own people on the floor, and has a rep of being a warm, caring man that even helps pay outrageous medical bills of some of his employees when they can't.

But you have to admit, they're in the minority.

[dana_b]

150. Costco

I got tires put on my car the other day at Costco. The guy running the place was excited that they were going to have larger hot dogs for the same price sometime soon. He said the CEO loves their hot dogs and wants to make them bigger. For some reason this made me laugh. :D

[BlueCaliDem]

153. Refreshing isn't it? Hubby and I have decided to become members of Costco

and were going to do that last Tuesday (his day off), but didn't get around doing it so we've rescheduled for this Tuesday.

I normally just shop for all I need at grocery stores even if it means paying a little (sometimes a LOT) more than should we buy at Walmart. I try to support the unions as best I can and do with less, but I believe that's a good thing.

What an enchanting story about the hot dogs! I like that man more and more. Thanks for sharing. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

14. Yeah, but MANY of them do suck PONDWATER.

;)

[Time for change]

16. I think there are very few people who wouldn't agree with that --

on DU or anywhere else.

[FLAprogressive]

17. Agreed...there are a lot of people who have made / make their money honestly and do good for the

community. Maybe those people deserve to be rich.

The anarcho-communist faction of DU is a loud bunch but I don't think they speak for all of DU.

[AnneD]

26. All you have to do....

Is go to a GOP fundraiser and a DEM fundraiser. Ther is a difference in the attitudes of the wealthy. Dem's don't mind the taxes and with the GOP, it's all about them.

[Captain Hilts]

18. True!

FDR: Bloodsucker!
ER: Bloodsucker!

[FLAprogressive]

21. don't forget Warren Buffett...the biggest bloodsucker of them all

lol

[Captain Hilts]

30. That bastard!

ER: We should invite Mr. Buffett over...
FDR: Yes, that's a capital idea!

[Hannah Bell]

124. who was spitzer investigating when he got nicked?

[asdjrocky]

19. There are times when I've had money, and times when I haven't.

I don't hate the rich, I do however have little regard for people with much that do little. Are all of the rich this way? Not at all. It's the ones with all the money and little concience that get all of the press though.

We'll never do anything about poverty untill it's just as cool to be poor as it is to be rich.

[AnneD]

20. What's that quaint phrase......

noblesse obligi.....which means nobility obligates. Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobily. Or as Mom taught us-to whom much has been given, much is expected (and we are far from rich). There is always someone less fortunant than your self so be kind because, there but for the grace of God, go I.

[inthebrain]

22. FDR did what he did not because he was a great guy

His hand was forced and wanted to save the capitalist system.

Kennedy was responsible for the vietnam war. A war that benefitted the wealthy and resulted in the the deaths of countless innocent people.

[anonymous171]

37. Every president since Truman was responsible.

Support for the French Empire is what got us involved in the first place. FDR would never have supported any Empire unless serious concessions were made.

[1776Forever]

24. This isn't about vilifying the rich - It is about them paying their fair share!

Read this post I have on about Think Progress reporting 400 richest Americans’ incomes doubled under Bush

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4949853&mesg_id=4949853

They just need to at least go back to paying the % they paid under the Clinton years! Got it?

It is crap that the Repub's think cutting taxes is going to get us out of this recession! :argh:

[L0oniX]

28. I choose to hate them first unless I get to know them and find them to be good people.

I highly doubt that rich people have any concern for those who are not. I don't see rich people showing up at the homeless feedings to help out with me and others.

[stray cat]

31. Thats the answer for any bigotry toward a group

[L0oniX]

33. Yea ...I am also a bigot toward criminals ...pffft ...smell it

[nichomachus]

34. Behind every great fortune there is a crime -- Balzac

[jgraz]

35. The problem is not wealthy people, it's what wealth does to people

Here in Silicon Valley, I've had the opportunity to watch many of my raging lefty friends deal with sudden wealth. Without exception, it's made them more isolated and less concerned about the welfare of society as a whole.

Sad to say, I have to include myself in that group. At the end of the Clinton administration, we were all riding high on the dot.com bubble. Many of us had been politically active in the past but for some reason, once those stock options started rolling in, we all adopted an attitude of "well, we tried -- if they want to fuck themselves over by electing Bush, let 'em".

It really wasn't until Kerry's "loss" that some of us started to wake up (note the start date on my DU membership). And again, it was those of us who had merely done OK who started getting involved again. My friends who had made tens of millions (or more) stayed in their Woodside mansions and just stopped caring.

Having gone through that, it's easy to see how multiple generations of immense wealth can bring about the kind of sociopathic behavior we're seeing now. That's why the founding fathers were worried about creating a permanent aristocracy in this country. And that's why, now that we have a permanent (and growing) aristocracy, we have to do anything we can to bring it down.

[anonymous171]

36. There should be no "Economic Royalty" in Capitalism.

That is why a 90% Estate Tax must be implemented. Otherwise you get the Bushes and their ilk owning and running everything.

[MadHound]

39. Scratch a rich person and you will find either a moral crime, a legal crime or both

Either in their family's past or their own past.

You don't make obscene amounts of money without performing illegal or immoral acts. And generally, the richer you are, the more of these acts you or your family members have performed. Sure, JFK was a good guy, but look at what his father Joe did. Gates is now deep into philanthropy, but look at how he ripped off his best "ideas" from others and squashed his competition.

Sure, these people might be doing good works now, but generally it is to atone for their own sins or the sins of their family.

[cali]

48. oh please. scratch nearly anyone and you'll find a "moral crime"

or a legal crime in their family's past or their own past. And what's your idea of an obscene amount of money? Ben and Jerry sure made a shitload of bucks off ice cream. And lots of folks here at DU consider anyone with assets over $500,000 to be part of the evil rich.

[StreetKnowledge]

102. All of my family has more than 500,000 in assets save me and my brother.

Who are a little below it. :)

And all of those are hard-earned, and not earned by screwing with people. One member of my family has assets of $70 million. That same family member last year delivered a five-ton truck full of food to a food bank in Los Angeles, at a cost of $11,500.

Any blasts on the rich should be aimed at those who deserve it. A person who has worked their lives at a local union job can have assets far about $500,000. The rich are not all pricks.

[Hannah Bell]

109. why do you think $500K in total assets = "rich"? someone who inherited a

small dirt-scrabble farm could have that if property values went up between generations.

To put your relative's kindness in perspective: though i'm sure he's a nice person, the pain of the donation is equivalent to me donating $11 from a net worth of $70K.

[.... callchet ....]

134. That is ..00016 of his assets. Is he picking aluminum cans now.

Or is he framing his "Certificate of Generosity". He could have sent a thousand trucks of food like that and still have $58,500,000 left.
Or should I shut my mouth because he might quit giving altogether?

[Dreamer Tatum]

62. In other words, scratch a rich person and find an ordinary person nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. I must call BS.

My brother got his degree through an ROTC program. Left the military, worked as an IT consultant, quit, started his own company that is now worth over $20,000,000. He had a great idea and spent years and his life savings to write a program that would put his great idea into practice and now his company is worth millions. He didn't commit any moral or legal crimes. You paint with to broad a brush my friend.

David

[lunatica]

40. Painting with a broad brush again aren't you.

I see you're making a sweeping stereotypical rant and rave about ranting and raving on the part of all the evil DUers again. You are really one of the most condescending posters here.

[earth mom]

42. ....

:applause:

[blindpig]

41. laughable

It's not about individuals, it's about class. That some handful of the rich might be peachy keen does not change the fact that as a class they rob the working class blind and are the primary source of organized violence in this world. Their pursuit of wealth is destroying the biosphere. We can afford to suffer them no longer.

[bread_and_roses]

46. Exactly! That some individuals are "nice" deserves a big "so what?"

The relentless focus on the personal instead of the systemic/structural does nothing but muddle the issues. Which is why our media so constantly focus on it.

[Fly by night]

43. Eat the rich

[SammyWinstonJack]

141. !

:thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

44. If you look closely at where their wealth came from & how it's sustained,

you might come to a different conclusion.

[cali]

49. I grew up among

some of the wealthiest people in this country. Most of them were entitled and horrid but there were plenty of exceptions.

[Hannah Bell]

52. Individual personalities are beside the point.

The Roosevelt fortune originated in sugar grown with slave labor, then banking/finance with the usual admixture of dirty deals.

Delanos & aspinwalls = opium traders.

Bullochs (Eleanor/Teddy side of family) = southern plantation owners

etc.

[mainer]

70. Oh, c'mon. I know people who got rich writing novels.

And they keep earning their income by writing more books. They have no employees to exploit, and no consumer is forced to buy their books. Do you include rich authors in that category?

[Runcible Spoon]

72. No, but their publishers are resposible for some outrageously greedy shenanigans...

It's like that in all entertainment industries...a very tiny percentage of the artists may get rich but the real power and wealth are the ones that control the process.

[mainer]

73. So the authors should be punished because of their publishers?

I don't get it. The author isn't doing anything but writing the books -- and hopefully making a living. Why should the successful author be considered a bloodsucker?

I'm thoroughly familiar with the publishing business, being on the creative end. Publishing deals from major houses work on the advance against royalties system. The author gets an advance, and if the book sells really well, the author gets royalties in addition. Yes, the publishing house can, to some degree, help a book be successful. But publishers are working on a razor thin margin of profit, the lowest profit margin of almost any business in America.

[Runcible Spoon]

78. Where did I say anything about punishing authors?

I merely said that there are a lot of less than savory practices in the business and this actually hurts a lot of authors. Don't get me started on the scams run in academic publishing!

For someone in the literary world, your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired.

[mainer]

81. I said rich authors aren't bloodsuckers. You changed the subject...

to their publishers, implying that somehow the acts of the publishers make the authors' wealth suspect.

For someone trying to make a point, your tendency to rely on insults is quite off-putting and not at all likely to change anyone's mind.

[Runcible Spoon]

84. I don't think I implied that...

I was merely pointing out that the publishing world is not immune, and my original point was that entertainment industries as a whole get a pass on being labeled "greedy". This is because the most visible people are the artists/athletes and not the business people behind them who are the real power brokers.

I discarded the naive notion that anyone changes anyone else's mind on DU quite some time ago. This was around the time that I suspected some of the most vocal DUers were in fact paid to push certain agendas here.

Anyway, I apologize for the barb. I don't really have a beef with you. :hug:

[Hannah Bell]

90. "vocal DUers were in fact paid to push certain agendas here" heh - noticed that, did you?

back in the day, there was a certain poster whose essays inevitably garnered a series of like 50 adulatory (nauseatingly so) responses. i'm reading the essays going "wtf?", because i can't see what's so freaking wonderful, either in the writing or the content.

later i learned a bit more of the background of said writer & respondents & got wise.

"buzz" like that created daily in the real world too. it's pitiful when you think of the implications for ordinary people - living, breathing & sleeping other people's programs. creeepy.

[Runcible Spoon]

92. PM me ;)

I'm curious to see if our suspicions match!

[Hannah Bell]

93. well, the site owners can no doubt read site mail if they chose to, & i don't name names in private

i can't name in public.

but little happens by accident in politics or business; if you have suspicions, 90% chance there's something to them.

[Hannah Bell]

89. i think your idea of "rich" & mine are different.

an author is a contract employee. a best-selling author is a highly-paid contract employee.

look at the publishers, & see where the capital for those businesses came from.

difference between most basketball players & the franchise owners.

however, some authors do get their contracts because they're connected, that's for certain.

and some best-selling authors don't write their own books.

[mainer]

98. I'm talking about authors with net worth of 10 - 50 million dollars

I think most of us would consider that "rich." And I'm only talking about novelists, not celebrities who "wrote" their own biographies. (You're right that the latter almost never write their own books. Ghost writers do it for them.) Novelists don't get published because of "who they know." That's a fallacy spread by unpublished, frustrated novelists who can't get anyone to buy their manuscript. Most of the big sellers I know got started the old fashioned way -- by writing a good manuscript, attracting an agent, and building a readership over the years.

Bestselling novelists would be considered self-employed business owners. Almost all are incorporated -- or at least they should be, for business purposes.

[Hannah Bell]

103. 10 million's a lot of money, but it will be gone in a generation or two

unless the author invests it in something other than his/her writing. no economic dynasty i've heard of was ever founded on writing, & when i say "rich," i mean fortunes enduring over generations.

as for your contention that writers don't get published through connections, that would make publishing a very unusual business. i've researched the backgrounds of a few writers i was interested in, & i've satisfied myself that connections do indeed play a role.

some best-selling authors may indeed be incorporated, but most writers don't begin as best-selling authors, they begin under contract to someone else. and most end under contract to someone else, i.e. as labor for hire, however well-paid.

[mainer]

104. you mind mentioning which authors had "connections"?

While it's true that getting a referral from a mutual friend may make an agent move your manuscript higher on her pile, if the book's no good, she still won't take you.

That said, meeting authors and agents at writers' conferences never hurts. It puts a name to a face, and can get your manuscript read a little quicker. But I honestly believe that a terrific manuscript will find a home eventually, even if you have to approach agents the old-fashioned way -- by writing a query letter. I see success stories happen again and again in this business.

[Hannah Bell]

108. nope, won't name names, only do that with the dead & political figures.

i'll give you true hypothetical: writer's name is same as famous wealthy family. writer's background is prep school & ivy league. writer marries person with similar background. writer's parents have influential positions.

conclusion: writer is likely to be more connected than someone from podunksville, georgia sending a blind ms. i don't know for a certainty that writer is from branch of famous wealthy family, but it's a strong possibility.

certainly the person from podunksville has a shot with the blind ms. but, you know, the same was true under the chinese imperium.

[mainer]

130. Under the chinese imperium, beggars could become scholars

Everyone got a chance to take the national exams, and the rich who failed it lost out to the beggars who did well. So that doesn't seem like a good system to compare it to.

I could name quite a few unknown authors who got published by sending agents unsolicited manuscripts. I read many galleys of such authors all the time.

Whom did Stephen King know? Whom did JK Rowling know?

In a way, publishing is quite a democratic process -- they judge you by the words on your manuscript. They can't see your face or where you live or who your family is.

[Hannah Bell]

133. exactly my point, except regardless of the theoretical "chance,"

beggars rarely became scholars. a few did, & even worked their way high into the chinese bureaucracy, but most never took the exams, let alone passed them.

[mainer]

105. Okay. I think your definition of "rich" is quite a bit richer!

and I agree that few economic dynasties were based on writing. Although the estates of Roald Dahl and VC Andrews seem to continue earning out for their heirs.

[Hannah Bell]

126. i don't really have a problem with some writer who earns a bunch of $$

& conspicuously consumes it in a generation or two. i don't care much about who's got a big house.

i have a problem with dynastic power & control over other people's lives & destinies, war-mongering, large-scale theft, murder, fraud, psychological manipulation, etc.

Our present economic situation is the perfect example. Lots of people going to suffer a lot so some sick fucks can accumulate more money & power. Cause every time this happens, that's the result.

In a crash, "money returns to its rightful owners."

I think it was a mellon who said that.

[Cleita]

47. Yet they still often don't have a clue.

I know a liberal council woman in my area who comes from old money, like she never has to worry about need or want even if she's out of a job. She's really liberal in most ways but she still doesn't get why people become poor. She believes that it probably is their fault somewhere along the way. Tightening the belt buckle to her is letting the pool guy and gardener go.

[leftstreet]

50. Leave Rich People ALONE !!!111!!!!!11

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Runcible Spoon]

68. WONDERFUL post for the last day of Poverty Awareness month, eh?

LEAVE BILL GATES ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111!111111111

[Hannah Bell]

129. like bill gates cares if some people on a chatboard diss him.

he's much too busy plotting to take over the world.

we are mere mosquitoes which his billions can swat away.

[Runcible Spoon]

146. hahaha nope he doesn't care at all.

But his little neoliberal fan club seems to take all this awfully personal.

[Greyhound]

51. Hitler was a vegetarian and loved dogs. He also turned his country's economy around

brought the German people out from under the suffering imposed by the Treaty of Versailles.

An overwhelming majority of Germans thought he was a wonderful leader and a great man.

[Ikonoklast]

60. But he was never 'wealthy'.

Hitler used those that aspired to, or controlled great wealth; he used their greed and avarice to his own political benefit.

Including the wealthy Brahmins in this country so enamored of his anti-Semitic ranting.


But I understand your point.

Great wealth is like a magnifying glass of enormous proportion that focuses simultaneously on both the great ideals and faults of the person possessing it.

All of us would be changed if given a huge fortune, but each in different ways.

[Greyhound]

65. We would indeed.

One thing, I would say that the very wealthy used him to further their own goals rather than the way you put it. He did exactly what they wanted him to do and very nearly succeeded. The only thing that screwed it up then was their failure to adequately control him. He went too far, too fast.

Notice however, that after the war most of those that made his reign possible were never punished and the few that were did not get anything close to the punishment meted out to the rest of the participants. Just as we see today, when the peers are busted nothing much happens to them, they protect their own.

[BlooInBloo]

53. It's true - not every last one of them suck. I freely grant that most-minimal of concessions.

[SOS]

54. The ones on Wall Street do.

nt

[fishnfla]

55. Warren Buffet tried to warn about mortgage backed 'securities'

some rich wall street types get rich on smarts, not greed

[Hannah Bell]

59. nah, warren's money buys him better PR is all.

[RadiationTherapy]

56. The process of acquiring wealth is nefarious and requires blood-sucking.

I am unsure what they do with the money is very significant in light of where it came from. At most, they are returning or redistributing their ill gained dollars.

[fchurch66]

57. Matters why they are rich

Are they rich from sweat and hard work or are they rich from being Hedge fund idiots or stock brokers. And the main thing with money is, what do you do with it once you make it. Do you give some away? Do you help other people? In the end it is all about what's in someones heart.

[ljm2002]

58. So what?

Not all poor people are wonderful, either. In fact some of them are real low-lifes.

That does not address the issues of policies that favor the rich over the poor, or that continue to funnel money towards the rich and the super-rich while grinding the middle class out of existence.

You sound like someone who is afraid of the "class warfare" meme.

Sorry, that's bunko. Class warfare has been going on for a long time, of course, and it is not exclusive to our time and place. However, in our time and place, we have seen the most massive transfer of wealth from bottom to top, all the while the plutocrat ruling class has instilled in an ignorant population the notions that being on the lower rungs is merely a matter of "personal responsibility," while being on the higher rungs is a sign of good character, divine favor, and devoutly to be admired. What they are really doing, of course, is justifying theft on a grand scale, and continuing to manipulate public opinion to foster ignorance of what is really going on, as well as fostering hatred of one other based on various wedge issues so we will blame our worsening status on anyone but those who are really responsible.

Sorry. I don't give a rat's ass if "not all rich people suck". Right now, that is irrelevant. Let the ones who don't suck, come down on the right side of the issues of the day. A "by their fruit shall ye know them" kinda thing. In the meantime, any rich people -- whether they suck or not -- certainly don't need my approval / or don't care about my disapproval, anyway. They'll do just fine, compared to those who are in dire straits and who continue to be stepped on and who are expected to finance the assholes who stole money on a grand scale and crashed the world's markets while doing so.

[devilgrrl]

61. Thank you for informing me of that. Had you not started this thread, I'd never know otherwise.

:sarcasm::eyes:

Your sanctimony is really getting old.

[Runcible Spoon]

66. OK....Bill Gates?! You just lost ALL credibility with that one

:rofl: Yeah, he creates the world's biggest monopoly and throws a few crumbs to philanthropies, which are just fucking tax shelters anyway. Woooo.

[Political Heretic]

76. A few crumbs?

I think you need to get a little informed before you go on making a fool of yourself.

He's given more of his net worth to charity than just about anyone else.

Far beyond what his "tax burden" is.

[Runcible Spoon]

88. He is worth BILLIONS and BILLIONS.

More money than he or the next 100 generations of Gates could ever use. And that fortune was amassed in vile ways. Nobody on this fucking planet "deserves" to be that rich.

It is not I who need be informed, I know how much that man is worth and how he came across it. And do a bit of research about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's investments in industrial polluters like Shell and Exxon. These foundations MAKE money. It's disgusting.

[Political Heretic]

119. You keep talking yourself into a hole.

He is worth billions and billions, yes.

And in 2005, Forbes estimated that well over 30% of his worth has gone to Charity - billions. This is also the same person who does not plan to "pass on" his fortune to future generations, but to donate it when he dies.

Spare me your arrogant condescension. I don't know who made you God and determined that you were the official judge of how everyone else makes or spends their money. How about you just do what you think is right with what you have and stay the fuck out of everyone else's business.

[Runcible Spoon]

144. Hahahaha you're a trip.

Nobody made me "God" but unfortunately it seems that I have to educate people like you when it comes to cancers like Bill Gates. What I think is "right" is to point out greed and corruption. You can't address any of the FACTS I have posted, so you decide to go off on some insolent, childish tirade. That's just sad. Do you really think I'm out on some evil crusade? Lol.

For some reason you take this personally. hmmm.

[Hannah Bell]

91. it's not charity when you get most of it back through a different door.

give computers (gotten at cost) to libraries & schools, train kids to use your programs.

fund monsanto's research agenda, get back patents.

fund a foundation, get no taxes on billions of dollars, get to invest the principle in whatever you like (driving investments generally up or down), get a tax-free pool of capital you & your heirs can use to push whatever agendas you like in perpetuity (like scaife pushes winger politics, like gates pushes genetic engineering, etc.), highly-paid jobs for your heirs, business associates, & anyone whose loyalty you'd like to buy...

IT'S NOT ABOUT CHARITY. He gives none of his net worth to charity. He gives *some* of the interest on a portion of his principle to ventures he himself selects for reasons of his own.

Meanwhile, he's undercutting US labor, building back-door spy windows into his software, charging monopoly prices, & investing the foundation's money in corps killing people in the third world.

F--k Gates & his so-called "charity".

and F--k if gates built his fortune from nothing. his great/grandpa was a banker, forward agent of money trust railroad bankers, setting up shop ahead of the railroads to monopolize the business they brought. it's no accident he just happened to get a near-monopoly in an emerging technology.

[Political Heretic]

120. This is not even remotely accurate.

First of all,

I'm not here to defend Bill Gate's sainthood. The reason I commented in the first place is because I am sick and tired of the knee-jerk, condescending "hate rich people" stereotypical bullshit that passes as intelligent commentary on DU these days.

I'm sure Gates has plenty of problems. But a simple review of Gate's donations - there was an in depth listing published in Forbes - I believe it was September issue, 2005 - will reveal much more than the quid pro quo you suggest.

His rate of giving exceeds what he makes back. Forbes estimates he has LOST something like 36 billion dollars over the years, and that if he had not spend the money he has on charity, his net worth would be over a third higher that it currently is.

And besides all that, no one appointed you judge of who other people spend their money. The more you bitch about it, the more you just sound petty and envious.

[Hannah Bell]

125. I've reviewed more about BG & his foundation than you'll find in a puff piece in Forbes,

"capitalist tool".

I suggest you haven't done enough reading if you think BG is giving away his principal.

Bill Gates: currently world's richest man once again.

http://www.billgatesmicrosoft.com/networth.htm


Envious? No more than I'm envious of mafioso.

I don't like concentrated, non-democratic power: based on finance, heredity, religious mystification, guns or whatever else you got going.

[Runcible Spoon]

145. This is the height of irony...."UNION YES" in your sig line and you're defending a pig like Gates

Microsoft has to be one of the most anti-labor companies that this planet has ever seen. They are almost single-handedly responsible for preventing software developers from forming unions, are leading outsourcers and employers of H1-B visa holders.

Yes, yes we're all "petty and envious" that we also can't make billions by forming MONOPOLIES and then maintain profit-generating "philanthropies" which invest in the world's biggest industrial polluters. Fantastic. :eyes:

[book_worm]

67. of course not and not all poor people are good. There are quite a few a-holes among the middle

classes too.

[Hannah Bell]

95. yes, but here's the difference. poor & middle-class a-holes can only hurt

& maim a few people at a time.

rich a-holes can hire surrogates to kill & maim millions.

& their work reverberates 1000-fold.

[mainer]

71. People here can't even agree on the definition of "rich"

I know two people I'd consider rich (net worth over $50 million) who made their money through their music or their writing. I can't figure out how they could be considered bloodsuckers since they both started off dirt poor and earned their wealth through sales of their intellectual property. They certainly didn't exploit anyone. The public just liked their creations and bought them.

JK Rowling, who's richer than the queen, can't be considered a bloodsucker.

In Ireland, they don't even tax poets, writers, and musicians.

[Runcible Spoon]

75. Rowling is a piss-poor example

She went after that guy who tried to publish a lexicon of Harry Potter characters/etc. The original free website contributed to her popularity and god forbid she share some of the fruits with people who spent countless hours researching and worshiping her work. It's not much different than somebody who tries to publish an analysis of any other literary work, IMHO. That was disgustingly greedy.

[mainer]

77. Not greedy. Protecting her intellectual property

She has a right to do that. I highly doubt she did it for the money, only to protect her creation.

From what I"ve read of Rowling, she was very, very protective of the film rights as well and held out her permission until she could find a producer who'd do it the way she envisioned.

It's a bit like sending your baby out into the world. You want the world to treat it right.

[Runcible Spoon]

80. She may have a right, but it's still greedy. Most greed is "legal".

I think it's a tad bit disingenuous to suggest she doesn't care about the money. She had NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the lexicon when it was online and free.

[mainer]

82. Precisely. Online and FREE didn't bother her.

It's when someone tried to PROFIT off it -- and her -- that she got pissed off. I think she was perfectly justified in feeling annoyed.

Wouldn't it bother you if someone tried to profit off your work?

[Runcible Spoon]

85. If I was insanely rich and millions of people loved my work, I would be honored to share my fortune

with those who helped make it possible. My fiance created a pretty popular video game for handheld PC's and let it go free source after a few years. He still made money. I thought that was really cool of him.

[mainer]

99. I doubt it's the idea of sharing her fortune that riled her

Again, it's back to control of her intellectual property. Harry Potter and company are probably very much like her own children, and she doesn't want anyone messing with her creations. It's a bit like asking Picasso if it's okay to dab a little extra paint on one of his paintings. It was nice of your fiance to let his video game go free source after a few years, but how would he feel if someone got their hands on the program and then altered his video game?

I know a number of authors who are incredibly generous, but they are quick to clamp a lid on fan fiction based on their creations.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Just the ones with kids, the ones who eat at Olive Garden, or the ones who like porn.

:patriot:

[KoKo]

86. FIRST...What is YOUR & Their's Definition of RICH...What Is Rich?

How much money does one need to LIVE?..have a Second Home and SEND their kids to Harvard or Yale?

:shrug: HOW MUCH do YOU think YOU would need for your kids to "SWIM with the SHARKS?" Do you REALLY want your kids TO DO THAT? :shrug:

[depakid]

94. Good question

and the answer likely depends on how poor or modestly well off the poster is.

[dana_b]

152. excellent point

most here don't consider them selves rich yet in another's view, they may be very wealthy. It's all perspective.

[Orsino]

87. Uh, you might not want to use the Kennedys as an example...

...but no, not all rich people suck. Inherited wealth, however, with effects compounded over generations, seems to generate a heckuva lot of suck.

It's partly our fault, though, for allowing money to remain as political power.

[Better Believe It]

96. You're right. Only a majority of the Wall Street sharks and banksters suck

[spanone]

97. very true

[StreetKnowledge]

100. Quite true.

My uncle is one of those rich stockbroker types (lives in Los Angeles), and most of my family is well-off. He's not an a-hole, and I'm not an A-hole. Seriously, this is a very good point to be made.

We don't need to paint with broad brushes. We'll leave that to the Rush Limbaugh GOP. :)

[asdjrocky]

101. True, some blow.

Sorry, I've been resisting that joke all day.

[KoKo]

106. It's TRUE...what you say "Cali" ...NOT ALL RICH PEOPLE SUCK...

:eyes:

[pipi_k]

107. I suppose that's true...

I have some neighbors who are relatively wealthy, and they don't suck at all. In fact, they're really nice people. Down to earth, not pretentious or stuck up.



And the best part about them...

they absolutely despised Bush.

:7

[Juche]

112. Ned Lamont, FDR, The Kennedy family, George Soros, Warren Buffett, most hollywood celebrities

There are decent rich people out there.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848.html

Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks
Aim Is to Compete With Conservatives

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 7, 2005; Page A01

At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent




Oprah, Bill Cosby, Robert L. Johnson, Michael Jordan, etc and various other billionaires were Obama supporters. People who made over $250k a year were more likely to support Obama than McCain 52 vs 46

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1


Rich people aren't all bad. But in the last 30 years about 90% of the economic growth has gone to them while their taxes (capital gains, federal income, dividend, estate) have been cut in half or more. At the same time middle class incomes have stagnated, the tax system become more regressive (higher property, sales, fuel, sin & FICA taxes) and middle class expenses through the roof (housing, healthcare, food, energy). So we need a more balanced economy that works for everyone, but not all rich people are bad. Ned Lamont is like the non-evil Mitt Romney. He is also a child of wealth who started a company that earned him a 9 figure net worth, but he would've made a great senator to replace Lieberman.

If you feel like bashing all rich people try to remember Ned Lamont, Warren Buffett and George Soros. They aren't all bad.

Hell even Stephen King, who is probably a billionaire by now with his movies and books has tried to elect democratic candidates in state & federal office. Not all rich people are bad.

[JI7]

113. Nixon and Reagan were poor unlike FDR and Kennedy

i always come to that point when people want to assume things about people based on their financial background .

and lets not forget the Joe the Plumbers who wish they were in the upper classes and vote for them while people like WArren Buffet and Gates Sr vote for working people.

[Two Americas]

115. that's good to know

Let's give them more money, then.

Straw men are becoming like an endangered species around here.

I think I will start a "not all straw men suck" campaign before they are all gone.

[AnnieBW]

116. Warren Buffett. George Soros.

Two multi-millionaires who are the "good guys". Brad Pitt - he may suck as an actor, but he's doing good for NOLA.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

118. Ouch

You might want to give the Buffet-Soros as good guys a deeper look.

[Skittles]

117. yes they do

[Political Heretic]

121. DU has become such a hyperbolic farce -- stereotyping reactionary underground!

SRU! SRU!

"Rich" people come in all dispositions, some wonderful, some downright horrible.

Financial success is not enough to determine whether or not someone is a "good" or "bad" person.

Of course, reading DU you would not see that kind of nuance.

[RedEmpress]

123. The Obamas are a rich couple, yet they care for the poor

Selfish rich people are the ones who should be targeted.

[Lucian]

128. So, there's like five on the list that are okay for rich people.

:eyes:

I may just go find one of those five and hug him/her today!

[GeorgeGist]

131. Nonetheless, the rich still suck the most ...

money from the economy.

[sendero]

132. I don't hate the rich....

... but I don't think too highly of their general inability to share.

They like to talk about "entitlements", but the rich are the most "entitlement grasping" class of people in our society. Look no further than a wall street company paying out billions in bonuses while sucking at the government teat. It's frankly pathetic, and as this crisis grows Americans are going to get plenty angry at this bunch and deservedly so.

These "rich", in their greedy grasping for ever-larger profits, have now hamstrung America. They should be bearing the brunt of the pain, not handing out self-assessed bonuses.

[.... callchet ....]

137. Don't worry about their inability to share

do it for them. Tax them.

[sendero]

147. Don't worry...

... they hated the New Deal and they are REALLY going to hate the New New Deal :)

[.... callchet ....]

136. Is this op what they call flame baiting ?

[DailyGrind51]

139. Some blow?

[varelse]

151. Good point

We'd be much better off proclaiming disdain for all greedy and selfish people. That approach would leave the non-greedy, selfless super-wealthy out of the fray and above criticism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

155. You call it hate. I call it self-interest.

The pie is only so big and some people are going cold and hungry for want of a slice.

The US GDP per capita is $44,000 each. If your family of four isn't getting $176,000, then someone else is getting your share.

We can argue about how much socialism is appropriate, but it's unseemly to both get the lion's share and demand empathy from those who got only a sniff.

[Mike 03]

157. Cali, thank you for authoring this post. It IS an unpopular decision to take, but

I'm so happy that you are stimulating discussion on this.

What is rich?

That is my question.

Some people think it is one million. Others think it is five, or ten, or fifty, or one billion.