Who's to blame - the rich or the poor?

[serrano2008]

The "rich" are approx 2% of the population (household income above $250,000 year) while the poor are approx 28% of the population (household income under $25,000 year).

The Democrats blame everything on the "rich"

The Repubes blame everything on the "poor"

There are a few things here that are misguided. The most obvious being that 70% of the country therefore - the middle class - are not to blame for anything.

Also, the only reason 2% of the population are "rich" is because the other 98% of the population made them rich by buying/using their services.

I'll be the last to blame the "poor" for anything but blaming the "rich" for anything doesn't help to solve anything either. Don't you all think we'd be better served trying to figure out and solve the root of these problems than just ranting about how the rich are to blame for everything?

Rich and poor are not cause and effect. Rich people aren't rich BECAUSE other people are poor. Likewise, poor people aren't poor BECAUSE other people are rich.

[BlooInBloo]

1. (facepalm)

[TahitiNut]

18. Ditto

[inna]

32. LOL! totally. i'm so stealing this. :) nt

[bread_and_roses]

45. ROFL. Ditto here too. (n/t)

[Wickerman]

2. So, if it's not the rich's fault, why are the poor poor?

:shrug:

[handmade34]

3. exactly!

[serrano2008]

8. I don't know...blaming the rich for the other 98% of the population not being rich...

doesn't make any sense though.

Obviously, if the rich are to blame for the poor being poor then they would be to blame for the middle class being middle class also.

[Wickerman]

10. I'll accept I don't know

But I won't accept the rich being responsible for the middle class. I'll accept labor unions for $300.00, though, Serrano.

[Warpy]

14. Well, it's like this

Think of a game. In the first round, some people are going to grab more tokens/chips/Monopoly money than the rest will. Second round, they change the rules so that nobody who hasn't grabbed more than their share in the first round can grab any in the second round. As the game progresses, the grabbers can only grab from each other and their numbers become fewer.

That's why some people are rich and the rest of us are poor. The grabbers changed the rules to favor themselves at our expense.

That's why Warren Buffett pays a much lower percentage of his huge income than his secretary pays on her very small income in taxes.

Are you getting the correlation yet, or do I have to dumb it down even more?

[serrano2008]

16. So it's the politicians who are to blame for changing the rules...

...or the rich to blame for following them?

It seems like your example is pretty clear that Warren Buffet isn't the problem, it's those who change the rules, i.e. politicans.

So you're agreeing that people being rich isn't the cause of others being poor.

[Warpy]

17. Who do you think pays them to change the rules?

Try THINKING.

[serrano2008]

21. Oh my....so the rich are to blame because politicans take bribes to change the laws?

This still seems like the politicans are at fault.

[inna]

29. +1 to Warpy; great analogy; i'll remember to use it! :) nt

[Warpy]

30. Not that it penetrates solid cement

Apologists for the sainted rich will never get it and will always lick the hand that snatches their food away.

Thanks anyway.

[TahitiNut]

33. Fleas are stupid for having dinner with an elephant ...

... and agreeing to split the check. :dunce:

[truedelphi]

11. Wickerman, are you aware that until recently, half of all bankruptcies were on account

Of our country's ridiculous notions of what a health care system is.

The medical model of health care in this Country has taken apart and destroyed many an American household.

[Wickerman]

13. Quite aware; the fallacy of being middle class in this country belies

the fact that we are almost all one layoff, one car accident, one slip down the stairs or one divorce away from financial ruin.

Most live paycheck to paycheck. Simple shortfalls in income can devastate a family or an individual. Even those who live frugally and who have "good" health insurance are lucky to survive major medical trouble. Its all a joke, a big, fat, expensive, and horribly unfunny joke.

[begin_within]

4. I disagree.

The rich create poverty by taking more than their fair share. Capitalism is essentially a purposeful distortion of the flow of money to cause it to accumulate in one spot. The poor did not create their poverty - the rich did by taking too much.

[serrano2008]

19. See, this is the kind of argument I'm not understanding.

So, let's say a guy creates a candle company and sells a million candles for $10 each and after expenses he has $1,000,000 and is now rich.

I agree that the poor did not create their poverty, but this candle guy didn't create their poverty either.

[begin_within]

20. He got rich because he took the bulk of the loot and underpaid the people working for him

The essence of capitalism is shortchanging the people you are working with, so that you get ahead of them.

[serrano2008]

22. Actually, his employees think their compensation is fair or else...

they would go work at the other candle place across town or go on strike.

See, blaming the rich doesn't work because poor/middle class have the numbers to overrule the rich.

[wellst0nev0ter]

24. "Go On Strike"

:rofl:

cf: Wal-Mart, doofus.

[readmoreoften]

48. Question: are you under the age of 18?

If so, I forgive you.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. Maybe he is one of the wealthy class.

:evilgrin:

[emilyg]

23. Maybe he didn' t underpay anyone.

[Marr]

40. The relevant step occurs after this metaphorical business man makes his billions.

When he starts using his wealth to lobby government, making life harder for the people working for him with anti-union laws, gutted social programs, etc.

[Birthmark]

5. The Democrats blame everything on the "rich"??

Where'd that come from?

That said, very few poor people were trading CDOs and selling other crappy mortgage derivatives to their friends. In fact, probably NO poor people did such things. They were too busy trying to earn a frigging living, you know?

[Stellabella]

6. Republicans.

If you don't think so, you haven't been paying attention for the last 29 years.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. how about we define the rich as making more than 1 million a year and the poor making less than 10K

play with those numbers a while and think about what a small increase in taxes to the rich could do to help the poor.

Honestly, 25K a year isn't really poor. You can still afford food and lodging. Modest though it may be.

And 250K a year isn't really that rich. You are comfortable beyond any doubt. But you are not so rich as to powerful also.

[serrano2008]

12. I agree, lets say that 1% are rich are 10% are poor based on your numbers.

Still, that 1% of households are the CAUSE of 10% of households being "poor" is still misguided.

[truedelphi]

9. Uh, it's all dependent up on who you are talking about

I and many others are indeed poorer because our tax system is regressive due to the constant lobbying of those in power for the right of the rich to have tax cuts.

I and many others are indeed poorer because of the constant lobbying of many in government for America to become a total War Machine - thus using huge piles of money that only go to entities like Halliburton and BlackWater, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin etc, and not really trickling down much to the rest of us.

I and many others are indeed poorer because the health care system is allowed to be so very expensive. As Americans, we pay double and sometime fifty to hundred times more than what others pay for their prescription medicines. We pay monthly premiums to obscene HMO's, who charge an arm and leg yet do not have sufficient numbers of doctors employed, so when a visit is needed, you still wait up to six weeks (Or more!).

Universal Single Payer Health Care is available in every country that has more than two dominant political parties. But here isn the USA we have lobbyists that keep this valuable and wanted idea from becoming reality. Half of all bankruptcies in the USA are due to medical bills skyrocketing out of belief. And so, if you are a rich person, who isa CEo at HMO, yes your being rich means that many of us are that much poorer.


I have nothing against people who are wealthy. If they inherited it, if they somehow took their family business, worked night and day and created a fortune. I don't even care if you were lucky and won the lottery. Or if Ganmama paid for you to go to a fancy IvyLeague school and you made friends with people and learned to sell them things that are expensive and that allowed you to enjoy fancy commissions. Good for you!

But I absolutely HATE those who are rich because of war and because of the weird and blood sucking system of health care that operates in this country.

[iamjoy]

15. We Must Share Any "Blame"

For the most part, any blame for this current financial mess must be shared amongst people of most classes. I am hesitant to blame the very poor, though. Even the ones who made dumb decisions (you know, like buying more house than they could afford) had "help" in getting there. And it is hard to blame them for wanting to share in the American dream that is constantly being hawked.

So, the rich sold the lower middle class and poor a bill of goods - this idea that we could have it all and not pay for it. You know, pay less at Wal-Mart. All of a sudden, the question is how cheaply can you get Item X, not whether or not you really need it in the first place. Wal-Mart is just an example, it's a whole culture thing. The corporations did this to increase their own profits, but the middle class and poor bought into it. Some of the middle class even invested in these corporations to increase their own wealth. This was often just a desire to save a little nest egg to send the kids to college and have a secure retirement.

It was a idea sold to us by Republicans, unchallenged by weak Democrats - that we could have it all without paying taxes. Too few people said, "wait, if you cut my taxes, how are you going to fund schools, build roads, keep police officers and fire fighters available?"

So, the poor were foolish, the middle class blind. The rich were selfish and thoughtless. But then, weren't many of us?

Maybe ranting and blaming doesn't solve things, but it's human nature. There is nothing new about people who are scared about feeding their families looking at people who have it easy and becoming frustrated or enraged. If this were not the case, Marie Antoinette would have died with her head attached to her body and there would have been no Russian Revolution.

Oh, and I do think rich and poor are cause and affect. If so much money wasn't going to CEOs, maybe companies could pay their entry level employees higher wages, or hire more people - reducing poverty in this country. If they weren't so concerned about their own bonus maybe they wouldn't have shipped all of our manufacturing jobs overseas. Maybe insurance companies wouldn't be so concerned that they scheme to avoid paying big claims - because when this happens, the "insured" are forced into debt (or worse) by huge medical bills.

[iamjoy]

42. I Felt A Need To Clarify

I felt a need to clarify on my above post. Not all poor were foolish, and not all middle class blind. I just meant there were people from all classes who contributed to the mess. Some were buying houses or other things they couldn't afford. Many poor could barely afford their rent on what they were making and were just trying to keep food on the table.

It's debatable when it comes to the middle class. Like the poor, some are just trying to get by - they live modestly and within their means. They live on one income and save the other. But not all. Look at how we lived in the 1950s (no, I'm not waxing nostalgic). Middle class lived in three bedroom, sometimes one bathroom houses (even with more than two kids). The houses had one living/family room and a one-car garage - they only had one car. The average house size was less than 1000 square feet. Now, middle class have two kids (or fewer), and live in four and five bedroom houses often with multiple "common" rooms such as family room, living room, den/office, bonus room, game room, etc. We have three car garages. Oh, and some or all of our garage is used as storage for all the junk we had to buy (most of it made overseas). We go out to eat several times a week. In the 1950's middle class could do it on one income, not two. But is that a reflection of wages or this "need" to have a 2500 square foot house for three people and take annual vacations to places too far away to drive? Many middle class are a single disaster away from being poor - a job loss, a severe illness, etc. But is that because they have the 2000+ square foot house and ran up credit card debt in those good years?

It was blind pursuit of the American Dream that did it. What an irony that pursuing our dream has turned into a nightmare for all.

Oh, and healthcare, but that's another story.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[angrycarpenter]

26. Generalizations are easy

But the rich are responsible for the Neo-Cons. They bought political leaders who were all too happy to rewrite any laws or regulation that might restrict their wealth gathering. They have gathered power into themselves that rival kings and emperors. They broke the labor unions. They eroded our social safety nets. So many of the ills in our society are directly attributable the rich wanting all political power for themselves. They sell us drugs and alcohol and cable TV to keep us quiet. They sit in their ivory towers secure in the knowledge that they own us.

The lower classes are at fault only because we buy into the lie that hard work and dedication is a road to prosperity. We allowed them to become our unchallenged masters in return for bread and circuses.

In short poor people are poor because the rich want them that way. Don't believe me? The best a poor person can do is work like a slave, get through a state university and earn a degree that might get you $100,000 a year after 15 years. Compare that to a rich kid coasting through an ivy league school graduating to a $250,000 a year job to start at daddy's law firm. It gets better, that poor person who worked like a dog to reach middle management is now laid-off and junior is still taking month long vacations in the south of France.

There are two Americas, the middle class is being killed off and the aristocracy has no problem with the fact that their prosperity was bought with our hard work and dedication to the lie that used to be the American dream.

[.... callchet ....]

27. Rich people are rich . Good ! Rich people need to pay taxes to the

great country that let them get rich. Pay for their roads and parks and sea shores that they get to use more than the rest. Do taxes hurt ? No, they make the country better.

[.... callchet ....]

28. You are the Platinum Member of the Club. Pay your Platinum member dues.

[underpants]

31. see my sig line

[exboyfil]

34. Both

No doubt many of the rich have engaged in a rigged game to increase their wealth immensely. These folks run the gammit from ex government to CEOs of companies. All the paper wealth generated by these folks to enhance their compensation packages is the primary reason for the crash we are seeing now. That is why the bailouts are so galling to average Americans. They have done far greater damage in a short time than poor can do. The moral hazard of bailing out these vultures is sickening. Remember Geithner was in the middle of shovelling money at AIG. AIG basically received our national payment to the Social Security "Trust Fund" for 2008.

These individuals have the potential to kill our society because it is obvious both major political parties are co-opted into this rigged game. Look at the list of Democrats at the center of this financial mess. It is easy to blame Republicans, but we have Clinton, Rubin, Frank, and Dodd in the center of this mess. If you look back most of the legislation that made the financial crisis possible was passed during Clinton's watch with the urging of Rubin and the active participation by the Democrats in Congress. These folks also cheered on Greenspan's easy money line that also served to pump up the asset bubble. Both parties crowed as we continued to point to the home ownership society as a measure of our society's success.

Bush and his administration also deserve much of the blame. Bush's lowering of the top marginal rates finally demonstrated we have moved well beyond Laffer's point. Bush's GDP growth is anemic at best even before the crash. With the marginal rates 5% higher, Clinton's growth was superior to Bush II and even Bush I. 40% is not too high. 70% is too high. The debate begins somewhere between those two extremes.

We have not handled globalization well as a society. While we have certain select manufacturing industries that have benefitted from globalization (in particular aircraft and heavy equipment), overall our manufacturing base has been crashed by it. What we are now seeing is some of these crown jewels in our manufacturing export crown being taken away (Boeing, Cummins and Caterpillar as three examples with Deere to soon follow).

I do not hold out much hope that unionization is going to make a difference unless we are talking about a level of unionization in which cargo ships with imported goods are met with folks with crow bars, torches, and explosives.

On the other hand those entrepreneurs that have started new businesses that satisfy a market need while generating wealth and jobs for others are to be commended. To say they are taking too big a slice of the pie is to miss the point. Our capitalistic system rewards those individuals, and it is the primary reason we live the lifestyles we do today. A command economy in which the compensation is decided by some higher authority has been tried in the past and it has had two results, those making the decisions still get the opportunity to feather their own nests and the regular workers lifestyles do not nearly match the level seen in more market driven countries (their average is our poor).

Obama's recent appointments and their tax issues demonstrate the old maxim, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Everyone is for someone else to pay more taxes. Another way to put it is "that only the little people pay taxes". Why do you think Rose Kennedy's estate was probated in Florida?

If you wish to tax and cap the rich out of existence, you will eventually get a society in which that is the case (except for the animals on the top who will find their way to have their private drivers and dachas). Investment bankers and their ilk can access our economy from a variety of other countries in which their compensation cannot be taxed. In fact many of the rich professions can easily move offshore to avoid confiscatory taxes (doctors, lawyers, entertainers, CEOs and high level executives of corporations once they move their headquarters offshore). We should think about this fact before we start talking about 70% marginal rates.

I view what is going on with the poor in a variety of ways. Many of the poor are recent immigrants to this country, and I don't expect that they realistically should be at some non-poor stage in the first generation. I suspect if we were able to stop the flow of these individuals we would be seeing fewer poor in this country (or we would continue to define poor further upwards). Of course expenses for the middle class would increase - in particular in food, construction, personal services, and entertainment.

The second group, multigenerational single parent families in which the non-present partner does not participate in the financial care of the children is a cancer in our society which is ultimately going to kill it. These folks need to pick up shovels and get to work. In particular they need to also stay engaged in the lives of their children otherwise the cycle will repeat once again. I know what my response, when older boys whose only interest is sex come sniffing around my girls, will be. Families without a male presence in this role will continue the cycle for another generation.

Finally the middle class is to blame in that we access more services than can be realistically expected given our current tax structure. The availability of Title 19 Medicaid is a clasic example. No society is going to be able to sustain its continued growth. We are talking about spending $70,000/year for multiple years at the end of life for individuals (even before drugs are counted). You don't neeed very many of these individuals for the system to entirely collapse.

[leftstreet]

35. The 'middle' class is to blame

They carry the water for the tiny elite Ruling Class, identifying with them and advancing their agenda. They dehumanize the poor and worship the very richest, then engage in bitch and moan sessions trying to figure out who's to blame - the rich or the poor.

[enuegii]

36. And Rash pulls down what, $50 million/yr because...

98% of the population buy/use his services?
He broadcasts over public airwaves, and I figure the bulk of his income derives from advertising fees, which the adverisers make up for in the price of their products. He serves the interests of his paymasters, while nickel and diming the rest of us.
He's not making candles, and he provides employment for literally a handfull of people.
But he's a "hard-working American" that needs him some tax cuts.
Nobody in this country makes money except the U.S. Mint; everyone else takes money.
Damn! I had a point here somewhere, but I lost it... please ignore.

[Greyhound]

37. The problem is a system that makes less than 2% of the population rich at the expense

of about 60% of the rest. The more you look at the numbers, and you picked about the least obvious choice possible, it is clear exactly what the problem is and who is to blame.

Break your example down further; If top 2% makes more than $250,000 per year, how much does the top 1%? The top .5%? The top .001%?

You see, most of the wealth of that top 2% you talk about is concentrated in the top .1%, so the example is deceptive. Next you declare the bottom 28% as poor and falsely label the remaining 70% as middle class. You imply that the family making $26,000 per year and the family making $225,000 per year are in the same class, and therefore, bear the burden of the rich equally.

The point of this is that this is, and always has been a class war and the parasite class has been waging it for 30 years in earnest, while most of us have been ignoring it.

[Marr]

38. *edit*

doublepost

[JVS]

39. The rich

[Two Americas]

41. that is nonsensical

You may as well say "the murderer blames the victim, the victim blames the murderer. I will take the middle ground and say they are both to blame." In your little shared blame scenario, one of the people is dead and the other one walks.

[readmoreoften]

47. "Bush blames Iraqi kids, Iraqi kids blame Bush"

6 or one-half dozen, right? Iraqi babies musta done something to piss Bush off...

[tekisui]

43. What drivel. 70% of the country 'middle class'?

:eyes:

EAT THE RICH!

[Fla_Democrat]

44. This could be interesting

at the very least, it's worth a few hoots till it 'goes to the country to live with a family, where it has room to run and play'

:popcorn:

[readmoreoften]

46. Wrong. Rich people are rich because poor people are poor.

Read Das Kapital. No wait, forget it. WIkipedia surplus labor value.

[Xenotime]

49. The rich are rich because they steal from the poor.

They give nothing back. That's why we need law to limit this. That's what Obama is doing.

[Earth_First]

50. I believe that you meant " 70%of the country is working-class poor " n/t

[anonymous171]

51. The Rich. /thread. nt