In light of the "bitter towards the rich" - I was struck by how backwards the thread was IMO- the real PALPABLE bitterness in this country is towards the poor- like they are sitting around, having babies and reveling in the fact they can barely make ends meet. In my experiance, the poor work 10 times harder than the rich just to survive. Welfare is almost exclusively for women, and then they are usually victims of a bad marriage. Why are we so resentful of keeping women and children from starving? In my experiance, getting ahead, wealthy, has as much to do with luck as hard work, being in the right place at the right time with the right product. Even Bill Gates had a great deal of luck in the start up of his business, one of them being a bad business decision by IBM in not purchasing his windows program outright, like Bill Gates offered.

On a number of threads on this site, it is pretty well recognized that the poor, lower middle class in earnings donate far more to the poor than the rich do. Why do the rich hate the poor so much? Why are they so bitter to those that simply, through no fault of thier own, not succeeded?

I agree with your post. The problem is that in order to make
money you have to have money. Investment opportunities
are gotten by those who have the funds to get them.
If you are constantly working just to make ends meet you'll never
get ahead. That's why, by and large, the poor are staying
poor, and the rich are getting richer.

I guess I do not know any rich people(who are they) but how do you know any of them hate poor people?

How do you know most welfare women are victims of a bad marriage? What are you defining as a bad marriage? Why are they victims? Did these women have any input into these marriages?

It would be interesting to see how many lottery winners who had been poor now became successful entrepreneurs once they had the funds. Will most of them fit the stereo-type of the rich getting richer? I really do not know but for some reason I had always guessed the lottery funds were used up at varying rates. I wonder if there is a way to find out?

How does one determine/define hard work? I see people from all economic strata of society. Most of the people who work long hours are not poor. Poorer people seem to spend more time at home than most, not to imply those at home are not working. How did you determine poor people work ten times harder than the rich?

I have heard statements such as you both are putting forth before but have dismissed them as vague political cliches. Please educate me as to the basis for your opinions as you have stated them.

Let's take the example of Dick Grasso and his hundred plus million bonus for running the NY Stock Exchange. Now, I doubt Mr. Grasso hates the poor, but I bet he's afraid of them (us).

Just what did Mr. Grasso do to earn all that bonus money? Anything? Or was he, as has been stated, in the right place at the right time? What if those who actually do the grunt work of keeping the NYSE running had failed at their jobs? Would Mr. Grasso have been *penalized* a hundred plus million?

We all know the answer to that. Even failing CEOs get bonuses. It's a racket.

Remembering back to the 1960s, we got the Great Society from LBJ. Why?

Well, there was rioting in the streets. I bet fear caused more social welfare legislation to be made.

I understand the arguments about taking responsibility for your own lot in life, and I subscribe to that philosophy. But I am also quite aware of how the rich have a little monarchy of their own and keep the big bucks within their circles.

So at what point do the poor rise up and take heads?

It has happened before, you know. Our history is shot full of worker rebellions and counter attacks, riots in the streets, political turnovers. So fear is a rational reaction within the rich for the poor.

Another side to this is self-image. I suspect that deep down, Mr. Grasso knows he is a phoney and doesn't deserve a hundred thousand for his work, let alone millions. After all, he only has 24 hours in a day like the rest of us, and does he really think his wheeling and dealing made the NYSE a success? And just how is this success measured? Well, it's done by those wheelers and dealers out on the golf courses with Mr. Grasso. But when it comes to objectivity, any NYSE success is accomplished by those below Mr. Grasso.

So what we have is the good old boy/girl system of enormous rewards while many of us struggle to make a buck in an economy that can't create jobs for us. But it seems to do very well for the inner circles.

I think there is a great deal to fear. Hopefully, the next round of rebalancing the fly wheel will be done through peaceful political means.

I live in a town that has a lot of rich people (maybe not WEALTHY but definitely rich) I am comparatively poor. I have maybe a few pairs of jeans, 10 tee-shirts, (mostly gifts,) a few pairs of boxers, a few pairs of socks, and boots that are about 4 years old. my transportation is a bicycle that was "given" () to me most people I run into tend to act like they are better then I am as the have more money or a nice car. they scowl at you if you're poor (I've seen this attitude toward my brother as well) working at taxic hell I saw this a lot as well. (the people that tend to treat taco bell employees as dirt usually are where real nice clothes or driving a brand new car)

from MY experience with rich people, yes they do look down on you, and tend to treat you like dirt. I don't know if it is the same with wealthy people (rich defined as makingmore then 100,000/yr but less then 1,000,000 a year, wealthy over a 1,000,000/yr) perhaps it is fear that drives these people to act like this (as in being afraid to be in that posisition) or maybe it is contempt for poor people because "well I got rich, so it's YOUR fault you're poor" (yeah, couldn't be I have no post high school education, and couldn't afford it .)

Low and middle income earners may give a higher proportion of their income but that doesn't equate to low and middle income earners donating more than high income earners.



This doesn't even include the money that businesses contribute.

Realistically, there are far less high income earners in the US than there are poor and middle income earners but the amount of money donated by higher income earners is far greater than the donations of low and middle income earners. Furthermore. let's not forget those who are categorized as "high income earners" pay FAR more in taxes than low and middle income earners combined. A good portion of those taxes go to social/welfare programs.

QUOTE (CruisingRam @ Sep 20 2003, 01:26 AM)


Talk about baiting the class warfare card. What a broad statement to make. Do you have any proof that the rich hate the poor? Do you have any proof indicating that the reason people don't succeed is through no fault of their own?

The poor need to start taking responsibility for themselves and then people might treat them with respect. Respect has to be earned. No one respects a parasite.

Who said anything about parasites, here? That's exactly the kind of attitude that CruisingRam was talking about, I think.

There are a lot of low income people in this country who have plenty of self respect, and work long, hard hours at honest work, but just can't get ahead. And yet you lump them all together as lazy and not deserving of respect.

That may not be what you meant, but it's sure how it sounded to me, and to a lot of others, I'll bet.

Huge, like CR, back your claims up. How are poor people parasites, is it because they work minimum wage jobs? And citing welfare doesnt make it true, there are plenty of people who are poor who arent on welfare. Where is the proof that the poor need to take responsibility? What defines their lack of responsibility? Not making any money? And why is it the poor are seen as parasites, but not the rich? The rich get plenty of tax breaks from the government, and no one ever complains about them "helping themselves" or being "responsible". Almost all the strikes that were carried during the beginning of the 20th century depended on government interference to break them, if the rich really subscribed to not being parasites, they would not have asked for military intervention. The land for railroads were GIVEN to businesses for free, while the Irish and Chinese died in droves to build them. Yup, just another example of the rich "helping themselves", while the poor are just lazy and parasitic.

From Howard Zinn's Declarations of Independance



While that quote doesnt state the financial status of the blacks, I am going to place money on the fact that in those 19 cases, all the blacks were poor. Why are the property rights of corporations more important than that of black people?

More from Zinn



And my own anecdotal story, I used to work in the most affluent part of Denver, Cherry Creek. We had customers that would pay a few hundred dollars for their film processing or buying the same amount on frames, and it wouldnt even phase them. There have been plenty of times where I, or my co-workers, would be treated with scorn by these people. And if not with fullblown scorn, with contempt that we werent being fast enough, or we werent competent in our jobs. I had someone complain because my hair was purple, like that affected the quality of my work. People who park their cars in the lot across from ours, where it CLEARLY says "Unauthorized vehicles will be booted." And those same people would complain to us when their Benz got booted, like they were above the rules, or that they were "just running in", but it wasnt our parking lot, so we had no say in the booting or not. People that couldnt read the sign on the door that says we closed at seven pm, and then would bang on the door for us to help them, or harass on their cell phones, or complain the manager that we closed on time.

Well, in my experience some of the poor work very hard and some don't. The same goes for the wealthy people that I know. Some were born with it and some worked their butts off to make their fortunes.

Each person's scenario and set of skills and problems is different. People should not be judged by the amount of money that they have, whether they are rich, poor, or middle-class.



I don't think, as a general rule, that they do. Do you have any evidence to show that they do?



Why is it of no fault of their own? There are so many resources in this country to help people succeed monetarily if that is the kind of success they desire.



I'm not asking this to be insulting in any way, but do you think that they are scowling at you because of the fact that you're poor or because of the manner in which you present yourself to the world?

It is well recognized that lower middle class earnings donate far more ot the poor than the rich do?

Where on earth did you get that idea? Lower middle class barely pay taxes at all, as they pay a lower percentage of their already lower income. I've been 'poor' enough to pay no tax at all after deductions, and I most certainly wasn't donating more than the rich during that time.

Yes, there are. And those people get respect

I see a lot of anecdotal "evidence" here that does not make any sense. Let me explain something, if you are in a customer service position and have purple hair, or a bone in your nose, some people of all socio-economic backgrounds will scowl at you. If someone has their car booted they are quite likely to complain about it, once again regardless of their socio-economic status.

What most of you have is built in prejudices against the rich. When a wealthy person does something to reinforce these prejudices you note it. When Bill Gates gives away a billion dollars you note it as an exception that proves your rule.

Bottom line, there are jerks at all socio-economic levels. There are also a large majority of good people at all socio-economic levels.

A tax break is simply the government letting you keep the money that was yours to start with. Welfare is government stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Paul should be embarrassed.

What experience is that? How exactly did you get rich without working hard? It's becoming very tiring to hear all these people complain that they work harder and have nothing to show for it. I have known several rich people in my life and none of them worked less than 10 hours a day in an office and then didn't go home and keep working from there. Nor do they lounge around on the weekends, usually they spend their weekends on the road conducting business. It's a terrible task to do all that and still raise proper children. Nor have I met a rich person that wasn't thankful for what they had, nor have I met a rich person that wasn't charitable.

I once read a poll and the question was, What is more important in being successful
school or hard work.
About 20% said - hard work
about 80% said - school
of those 20% - 90% made over $150,000/year
of those 80% - 90% made less than $50,000/year
Interesting that the "rich" seem to think that hard work is what put them there, but the "poor" believe school will take them out of their hardship.

On a final note.....Just because you're not rich doesn't make you poor.

Taxes aren't donations. I think CR was talking about donations to charity, and even beladonna - who mostly disagreed with his conclusions - conceded that the statement is true in percentage terms. The ultra-rich who can set up foundations and have university buildings named for them donate a lot to charity, but giving rates among the "merely well off" who still work for a living are appallingly low. I know plenty of people making from $100K to several million per year whose annual contribitions to charity are in the low hundreds. The number of people who spend more per year on latte than on charity is staggering.



Most of whom? The rabble? The riff-raff, the hoi-polloi? Oh no, we can't let them have an opinion.



I've noticed.

One important difference, though, is that when a poor person is a jerk it's not likely to affect very many people, or very much. A rich person can be a jerk on an international scale, using their resources to affect millions of people in tangible ways (e.g. by affecting state policy). Just as beladonna pointed out the rich give more in dollars despite giving at a lower rate, the rich contribute more total jerkiness even if the percentage of rich people who are jerks is no different.

Prejudice, rather it be against a race, or a socioeconomic class, I find is usually founded on ignorance.

The rich aren't like us, they got more money. While hard work and education are no guarantees of success, there sure is a strong positive correlation.

I misunderstood.
Still, I disagree that this is the case. My income isn't quite that high, but our neighborhood isn't lower middle class...it's more middle to upper range. Every month, many houses stack boxes full of items to be donated to the indigent. A truck comes by to get them. Usually, people do not take deductions for these items, as an itemized deduction would have to be several thousand dollars to take in leu of the standard one. That doesn't mean they don't contribute, but it isn't recorded on their returns. I contributed about 3000 so far (and we don't quite make six figures) this year, and have never taken a deduction myself.

I tend to keep to myself in public. but my jeans have a hole or two in them, my shirts are fairly clean, and I assume I don't smell that bad. I tended to notice this behavior ESPECIALLY when I worked a taco bell, where I was ALWAYS polite to the customer. (I noticed it a quite a bit when I was a cashier at wal-mart 4-5 years ago) my bike I have now is fairly nice, but when I rode around on my old bike (20 year old girls road bike (hey it was free) I had people laugh at me more then once while riding through a "middle class" section of town.

I admit, not ALL rich types I run into treat me with disrepect, but many I've met seem to. I am NEVER rude to people (and perfer to remain quite and withdrawn) so that isn't it. but I am OBVIOUSLY poor and broke.



your numbers say that those that make under 50,000 accounted for nearly $21.7 billion in charitable deductions, 50-100,000 accounted for nearly $37.8 billion in charitable deductions, and those that make 100-200,000 accounted for more than $25.8 billion in charitable deductions. now it would appear that the middle class gives more combine then those who can really afford it. if you combine low and middle class donations you have a total 59.5 billion in donations, likely more then they can afford really. (granted there are more of them) so I am curious how you arrive at the notion that higher income earners donate more? is it reached by assuming that if there were 16 million high income earners they would donate more the the other two classes? that is a fallible argument if that is so, as we don't know WHAT the other 10-20 million hypothetical earners would donate.

to me at least it seems that the low and middle earners give more then they probably can actually afford, where as the high income earners give less then they could. also, I'm curious to know, what do people that make 200-500,000 donate. or people that make 500,000-1,000,000, or what 1,000,000-5,000,000 earners donate, or how much Bill Gates, each walton (family of sam walton, founder of wal-mart, each is worth 20 someodd billion) or ted turner. people that have WAY more money then they need.

You seem to know that, I know that.....now go tell the Federal government
No one still has hard evidence to suggest that middle class give more than teh wealthy, no matter what Belladonna says.

I can't speak for other people, but my wife and I combined earn enough to be considered "rich" by some. We worked very hard to arrive at this station in life. We both went to college part time, and worked part time at various small jobs to pay for it. At times it sucked. It took us what seemed forever to graduate. But that day came and I now write software and she is a nurse. Recognizing our duty to assist those who cannot or even will not improve their situation in life, we donate time and thousands of dollars every year to charity in addition to thousands of dollars in taxes. I am living proof that just about anybody can 'make it' and that the above stereotypes are invalid. To end another stereotype, we don't live in a mansion nor drive an expensive car. We live in a 2 bedroom condo and drive a Toyota Camry.

Read this article (which describes my life) and break the stereotypes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49908,00.html

(Hugo @ Sep 20 2003, 11:42 AM)


I know you didn’t mean this the way it came across. I have to agree with NiteGuy, this sounded awful.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unabomber,

The stats I provided could be interpreted different ways, so I see your point and believe this wasn’t the best example. I have always considered a person making $50K to be upper middle class but I also understand that depends on WHERE you live. $50K in California and $50K in WV can mean two totally different lifestyles.

I have performed a little more research and bring this example to the discussion. As you can see, those making $200,000K and more make an average yearly donation to charity of $17,842, a significant percentage higher than the previous category.

Average Deduction Tables and Notes:
Average Deductions Claimed, 2001
By Common Adjusted Gross Income Levels (in thousands)
AGI------------$0-15---$15-30-----$30-50----$50-100---$100-200---$200 & Up
Contributions--1,329----1,875-------1,906------2,429------3,761--------17,842
Data provided by RIA.


I also want to reiterate that this chart contains information on “individual” contributions and NOT business contributions. Those in the highest tax bracket, which starts around $350K, are mostly comprised of small businesses NOT major corporations. Small businesses run by the Moms and Pops of this world.

Those small business contribute greatly to our community by doing more than just providing everyday retail, commercial services and employment opportunities, but in other smaller yet significant ways like sponsoring the little league baseball and football teams, supporting charitable organizations like women’s shelters, boys and girls clubs, Ronald McDonald house, etc.

You may think that Mom and Pop have WAY more money then they need but I think your wrong. I KNOW Mom and Pop pay more in taxes than those in a lower tax bracket and yet still give on average more than anyone else as is indicated in the chart I provided above. Next time you visit your local hardware store, vets office, or local bar look the owner in the eye and tell him he isn’t doing enough for his community. I think he/she might have a very different view.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johnlocke,

I am not sure how you interpreted my post to say that the middle class contribute more than the wealthy. May I suggest rereading my post?

With all due respect, DJD, one anecdote does not constitute much of a statistical sample. I also am considered wealthy, I also worked really hard to get there, I also do not live in a mansion and I also do give back to my community. Does any of that prove that there aren't people who are wealthy because of sheer luck (usually the luck of being born to the right parents) or do live in mansions or don't give back to their community? Of course not. There are many who do fit the stereotype, even if there are millions more who do not. They're the ones who annoy people. They're the ones we're talking about. Can you honestly say you've never met anyone like that?

I have been on a number of sites, quite a few actually, and have seen a very common anger towards the poor among conservatives, a kind of group psychosis that makes them think that somehow the poor are the ones dragging them and society down. Here is a couple quotes from a couple other sites I post on:


"I guess I should say if you were a drug addict, achoholic or have aids. I too know quite a few people who were really disabled and could not get SS. If you were the child of a drug dealer shot in a driveby you would be home free. My wife works for the county and she deals with mostly people who get their money from the government. The stories she tells me about how they get over would curl your hair.
I know that I will hear from the left about his but to me if you got addicted to drugs or achohol and due to risky behavior got aids it is not up to me to support you. People make choices and if they are wrong they have to take the responsibility."

I diagree with the thinking it is easy to get SS. My wife has a brain tumor, a stroke and numerous other health problems...she cannot work(let alone drive or do anything like standing.)..turned down...get lawyer, and 2.5 years later, Judge rules against us. Wrong color I guess..."

(the above is not copyrighted material)


There is an undercurrent in alot of conservative thinking that if you are poor and need a hand, you are drug addicted and certainly not white- of course, on this site, everyone will quickly post all the actual stats on welfare and color and whatnot-

So I think the question is valid- why do those that have hate the have nots so much? Is it fear of being a have not?

I think you're attempting to lump the thinking/bitterness of a FEW into the political position of many. I did that once here at AD and was quickly put in my place.

I do not believe that most conservatives hate the poor. Many conservatives ARE poor. I DO believe that many conservatives believe that welfare and Affirmative Action reform is needed. The two shouldn't be confused.

I wasnt in a customer service position, I worked in the back making prints.



I cited examples OTHER than tax breaks, I cited examples where corporations or the rich were given priority with government funds.. Want more?


If they cant have survive without government help, perhaps they should be doing something else. Why does none of that get any comment from you Hugo? Why does it only seem to be that welfare and poor people are what gets your goat, but when the rich are helped more than generously by the government, its perfectly OK?

And I still have yet to see you giving any examples that the majority of poor people are parasitic and lazy, living off welfare.

CR,



Seems like a valid point to me. Fear and hatred are shades of the same feeling: insecurity.

Why might some with relative wealth fear those with next to nothing? Good question, and one for the therapist, eh?

A good symbol of that these days is the Hummer. I liked unabomber's tale about riding bicycle as a good symbol for the other side. Envisioning a Hummer coming up alongside the bicycle, the click of auto door locks, rolling up windows, perhaps the flash of a handgun.

The guy on the bicycle looks over, mildly astonished. What? I'm gonna beat you up with my fanny pack?

Whatever. Irrational fear does seem to play a roll in all this, and I suspect that it is a major motivation for amassing wealth in the first place. In any case, a barking dog is a frightened dog.

So far this entire conversation has been hypothetical rhetoric. Someone, please provide some PROOF that the rich HATE the poor - that the rich FEAR the poor.

Well, it's not like anyone's going to come right out and say "I hate poor people" is it? No, the statements are less direct than that. If you want to see how deep the fear and loathing of poor people can run among rich people and their toadies, you could probably do no better than to check out Capitalism Magazine. "Capitalism" has become one of those words like "patriotism" that's more rhetorical than descriptive; the laissez-dérober types are constantly trying to limit the term to only those forms of capitalism that Ayn Rand would approve. Here are a few gems from that particular source:

• The Alleged Harm Done By Tax Havens
• Slavery By Taxation
• Tax Slaves Existing for Government
• Merit, Money, and the Death Tax

The common thread here is the fear that the more numerous poor are trying to use the gummint to steal all of our (rich folks') money instead of earning a decent living. Here are a couple more perspectives on that basic theme:

• Why I'm intolerant and proud
• Taxes--Limited to Safeguard Liberty

You see, it all comes down to portraying the government and/or the poor people who supposedly receive all this "redistributed wealth" (even when the tax revenues are not in any realistic way redistributed to anyone in particular) as thieves, and of course we all hate thieves. The Bill of no Rights posted here pretty much echoes the same sentiments. This is the same as my earlier point about (some) rich people thinking that their wealth indicates morally superior. If they're superior, obviously the non-rich must be inferior. Perhaps that's more contempt than hate or fear, but it's still unjustified and reprehensible.

Thanks Platypus- this is exactly the theme I was talking about- this scapegoating of the poor- like all the countries problems are a conspiracy being perpetrated by welfare moms and trailer park dwellers instead of powerful white men in three piece suits and large portfolios LOL

Like all this nations problems can be blamed on white men in three piece suits when it is the poor that commit more than their share of crime and murders-LOL.

It is not so much the legalized theft of the transfer of wealth as the negative consequences that ensue when you give someone something for nothing. Subsidizing poverty simply increases poverty.

You can have equality of income, unfortunately it means everyone will be dirt poor. I guess that eliminates socioeconomic prejudices, at a pretty high cost.

kimpossible's rant:
I cited examples OTHER than tax breaks, I cited examples where corporations or the rich were given priority with government funds.. Want more?

QUOTE
In 1946 a secret air force guideline (which became public knowledge when it was declassified in 1960) said that the aircradft companies would go out of business unless the government made sure they got contracts. Since that timecertian major aircraft companies have depended solely on government contracts: Lockheed, North America, and Aero-jet.



If they cant have survive without government help, perhaps they should be doing something else. Why does none of that get any comment from you Hugo? Why does it only seem to be that welfare and poor people are what gets your goat, but when the rich are helped more than generously by the government, its perfectly OK? (end of rant)



I don't see people defending corporate welfare. Though there is one legitimate reason for subsidizing a corporation and that is if it is in the interest of national defense to do so. It is in the interest of national defense to be able to make military aircraft at home. The Chrysler bailout would have been a better example. Start a post decrying corporate welfare, subsidies, etc, and I will agree with you. The contempt for the poor is naturally greater in a country where representatives purchase their votes by promising them they will steal from others and transfer their wealth to those who won't work.

I am not talking about illegal crime ( as opposed to the legal stuff CEOs and such get away with)- and besides, the rich also decide what is illegal, from thier super access to politicians, they are not going to make thier own immoral and unethical behavior illegal- but I was talking about the actual leadership of this country, no matter which political persuasion you are of, it is white men in three piece suits that are the leaders of those persuasion, so good or bad leadership and the running of this country and therefore the blame of why the country is not doing well lies upon thier shoulders.

There is no robbing of the rich in this country, and as evidenced by the CEO scandals that we hear about seems like daily now, it goes the other direction.

I am sure you are referencing the incredibly small amount of the federal budget spent on the truly poor. The bulk of the US budget, the largest single area expenditures are on medicare, medicaid and soc sec. None of these are programs exclusively for the poor, more for the elderly which have contributed to these programs for most of thier lives, and are really owed these benefits by nature of thier contribution.

It is the comment that somehow the poor are robbing the rich that I am talking about when I say bitterness towards the poor.

Platy,

This is a very good point. I would agree that (some) rich people feel a superiority. Of course, this attitude makes one question who really is inferior.

I think we would all agree that money does not the person make. People with a core of good values - no matter their social standing - are the richest of all.

As to the points made about the ultra rich having influence on policy - no one can argue with that.

Any individual receiving welfare, any corporation receiving subsidies is robbing the taxpayer. Social Security is basically a poorly run disability and retirement pension fund. The government would shut down any similar Ponzi scheme run by private enterprise.

The fact is most of the class welfare rhetoric emanates from the left. To not expect some blowback would be absurd.

I really don't see the "rich" as hating the poor just because they are poor.

What I do see is the frustration by some who are tried of paying for the bad personal decisions made by others which PUT them in situations whereby their awful decisions become a drain on society. Bad life choices such as becoming addicted to drugs and alcohol for instance. Serial pregnancies by unwed mothers with no means of support, unsafe sexual practices which (may) lead to HIV/AIDs are other examples where someone right to do whatever they choose do, inadvertently, affect another person's right not to pay for the former's mistakes.

These are different certainly than a family doing their best to make ends meet, or poverty due to the loss of a jobs and death of a sole provider. Circumstances beyond the control of the individual which put them in a poverty situation is an entirely different thing. These people deserve our help, the others...get it begrudgingly.

Yes, i do see that welfare or any for of taxing people as taking away money that they had worked for. One problem with charity is that it can be bias, or only in certain locations, why i am not against charity, but there needs to be something regulated by some non private body to insure that individuals of society can be reached by something that is not bias or only in certain areas. Welfare shares some of the bias part, but anywhere in America you can reach it. To statistically try and cover all the reasons someone my need some form of aid would be a very broad task, it could range from war veterans to crack addicted people from various parts of America.

Its more or less trying to eliminate the extremist in such issues. When politicians or such speak on an issue it is an extremist point of view, on the right you have leave my money alone the poor are lazy, on the left they want your money to give to these people even if some are lazy.

Such stereotypes i imagine will not help anything. Such as a person who uses old shoes as his/her shoes. Again i would like to point out that black and white thinking will most likely not aid in the constructive end of such a problem, but will strangle itself out to something that is much more like a band aid that has no stability.

When ford shut a majority of its plants down during some kind of restructuring that came with a new commercial flow on t.v and in car production, what happened to all of those workers, some may have been paying for their children’s education and so on. Workers benefits only last so long, and the unions were being slowly taken apart. What happens to the majority of working society when the owners of these peoples lives decide to do something else, there is nothing for them, maybe a savings account and a small period of time in workers comp, in hopes to find a new job that had established a home and a million other economic responsibilities the person then may not be able to cope with or rebound back into running.

Then comes the black and white thinking on the poor, that is more often or not shown on t.v, or in specific bias studies that is used to house all the poor, or people in transitions or whatever you want to call it.

Times change and with the new patriotic fashion statement people tend to wear theses days, maybe veterans with mental issues and such will receive more intention, then tomorrow it will be something else, the bottom line of it all to me is still just that, we discern away from dealing with the issue because it is large and complex, most likely has deep roots, and will cost a pretty penny at a consistent rate for who knows how long. The war on poverty is really fought to keep that class there because no one wants to end up there, i just feel sorry for those that do regardless of cause, for society really has some kind of way to mentally defend from caring, or some form of copeing that i don’t want to think about, either way, current welfare is not going to solve it, neither will this horrible economy, and neither will people hording money.

And how does one know a victim of circumstance from someone who merely made bad choices? How are their numbers broken down? You seem to suggest that disease and other 'trappings' of poverty are causes of desitution; when entire schools of thought argue that they are rather the effect. How then can you be so sure that you would fair better?

UltimateJoe,

could you please give some examples of what in your opinion would be "victims of circumstances."

I gave some examples of bad life choices where free will was the factor in making these decisions. Are you suggesting the individuals in these examples had no choice?

Good point SoCal. I was wondering the same.

How is deciding to smoke that crack pipe being a 'victim of circumstance'?

Both you and SoCaliente_1 are guilty of the fallacy known as Hasty Generalization. Sure, there are some people whose plight is nobody's doing but their own. There might even be millions of such people. Does that prove that there are no people who are poor or need assistance for reasons beyond their control? Of course not. What about the person who gets laid off in a bad economy, and doesn't have enough reserves to tide them over? I have enough to last for a good long time, maybe you do too, but 90% of Americans don't. Most Americans, in fact, are already swimming in credit-card debt.

What about someone whose house turns out to be worthless because of mold, and the insurance company says that's not covered? What about unreimbursed medical expenses? Many people don't have insurance at all (what do you suggest they give up to pay for it?) and you'd be surprised what even supposedly-good insurance companies will refuse to pay for. I knew of a case where a husband and wife both got laid off (from different companies) right after they'd made a down payment on a new house...and then she found out she was pregnant. If they struggle financially, is that their fault? Maybe these are the less common cases, but they exist in numbers too great to be just written off as irrelevant. I know some people like to look down their noses at others because it distracts from their own enormous failings, but here on this planet the reality is that sometimes perfectly good, moral, hard-working people find themselves in dire financial straits. Class hatred doesn't change reality.

and these are precisely the people I am talking about, Playpus.

You've implied something in what I have written to fit your description of me that is unwarranted.

"""""Bad life choices such as becoming addicted to drugs and alcohol for instance. Serial pregnancies by unwed mothers with no means of support, unsafe sexual practices which (may) lead to HIV/AIDs""""

this is what I posted. are these NOT things that can be prevented? If they cannot be prevented please illustrate how?

Yes, it is your assumption that most poeple are poor because they are crack addicted HIV carrying baby factories that actually make my point of bitterness towards the poor.

First describe poor- 20thou a year is poor perhaps? That won't allow you to buy a house, buy health insurance if you are not insured, but may allow you a crappy apartment and a crappy car, and maybe even one crappy vacation. You work hard, but just haven't caught a break. Are you poor? Are you drug addicted, or just numb the pain every weekend because of your crappy life? Did you catch aids trying to find solace in the arms of a one night stand? Were you married with kids and your spouse just left you because he/she is not as good at commitment as they thought they were, and left you with kids and a low paying job that won't even cover daycare?

What do you consider poor?

I have been poor, and am not by any means poor now, and might be even defined as wealthy by some, but I know that the majority of the poor are there but for the grace of god!

Oh yay, so that's who you are talking about. Who appointed you moderator, to narrow the topic for everyone? Some people here are talking about the poor in general, some are talking about those who are poor through no fault of their own. You're trying to refute their points, but doing so by reference to a different sample than what they were considering is invalid. Why are the rich afraid of or bitter toward the poor in general, as opposed to the particular poor you've referred to?

I am gonna say it again - no one here has proven that the rich are afraid of or bitter toward the poor. This statement keeps being made as if it's fact. It's just not.

Broad brushing the rich is just as hasty as broad brushing the poor.

good point beladonna.

It's extremely "broad-brushed" to assume that ALL rich are bitter towards ALL poor people.

Platy,
I'm not sure how I am "moderating" what this thread is about. The topic is general. Bitterness towards the poor. If I were to answer this question on face value I could simply say "No, the Rich are not bitter towards the poor" but would that suffice as an answer though?

Here, I will add to that by saying that the "Rich" the VERY Rich, have trusts set up primarily to give to charitable organizations. the Rich set up scholarship foundations, the Rich donate dollars towards homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and rehab centers.

How Rich are we talking? And what constitutes Rich? A family of 4 able to pay their bills on time as opposed to a man living in a cardboard box? THAT person might appear "rich" to the man in the box. The topic is quite general.

No, the rich are not bitter towards the poor.

and THAT's my final answer.

This time your fallacy is the excluded middle. I (and others) have said that some rich seem to harbor ill will toward the poor. We have provided links to examples of such ill will. You (and others) claim that some are not, as though that's a refutation. Do you see the error? You're the one refusing to concede an in-between possibility that some rich are resentful toward the poor and some aren't, or toward some of the poor and not others.

Lastly, lest anyone remain confused about which poor we're talking about, here's a quote:



The crack-head example has nothing to do with that question. It's merely an irrelevant appeal to emotion. Why are the people at Capitalism Magazine so inimical toward the poor? Why are the people posting to our own "Bill of no Rights" thread? Why is Hugo? Why are you? If the answer is because "I assume they're all deserving of their status, and thus morally inferior" let's just get that out in the open, but simply denying what has been proven in lieu of answering the debate question is not much of an option.

The current definition of "wealthy" and by association "rich" was defined in Forbes as "sixty thousand dollars a year in unearned income"- sorry, no link, read it a year and a half ago or so, and you can give me another definition if you wish, but most would agree that getting sixty thou a year without having to work at all is pretty good, right? It is my personal goal by the way, every since reading that article, I have determined that once I reach that plateu, I can quit working, live off my investments, and home school my children or travel or do whatever the heck I want LOL-

So socal- I have answered your question about what I think is "rich"- and have even given what I thought "poor" was- 20 thou a year and no health care bennies from work- and having a job, maybe only one dependent. I think this definately defines "poverty" easily and therefore, "poor"- and this would be a great majority of poeple defined as "poor" as opposed to your "crackhead" poor person.

The definition of "poor" that I see reiterated on this site and this thread is the definition of "crackhead on welfare"- and this makes my point about bitterness towards the poor!

Some rich men wear dresses, some rich men are pedophiles and some rich men eat twinkies for breakfeast. So what? We are at a political debate site if only a few rich people despise the poor it has no political effect. Now if class warfare, usually initiated by the left, is having a residual effect on the attitudes of the rich toward the poor, then we have something political to debate.

Let us look at the question again, "Why are the rich so bitter toward the poor.". The obvious answer is some are not and others have their individual reasons for whatever bitterness they may feel. I don't see widespread bitterness toward the poor.

Are you trying to say that the opinions expressed via outlets like Capitalism Magazine are held only by a statistically insignificant percentage of rich people? That's garbage. How many websites are there devoted to the interests of rich crossdressers, pedophiles, or twinkie-eaters? Practically none, because those groups really are statistically irrelevant. By contrast, sites like CapMag, and talk shows spouting similar rhetoric, are everywhere precisely because there is a large audience for them. The rich class-warrior demographic is large enough to have a tangible effect on national policy, unlike your frivolous rich twinkie-eater non-example.

Strike three: false analogy. It would be nice if the poor-haters would try to make a point just once without a fallacy.



There are many possible explanations for that, and non-existence of such bitterness is the only one we've ruled out.

Maybe it's me but I am still having a hard time with which RICH? We all have ideas of WHAT constitutes RICH.

To some, RICH might mean just being able to go out to dinner twice a week and STILL be able to afford rent and car payments.

Would I be RICH if my annual income tax payment has to be written in the amount of $30,000? If my house is worth $800,000 with mortage payments of 5,000 per month? If I drive an S-Type and manage to pay ALL my bills on time yet can't afford even a trip to Disney. Would I be considered RICH?

Or is the RICH the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of the world? Are they the RICH who are being referred to in this thread?

SoCal- once again you have sidestepped the question, I provided you with pretty good, pretty concrete definitions of poor and rich, both fairly recognized standards of povert and wealth- so why not answer the question? Platy provided you with some mags and sites that regularly rag on the poor, not to mention right wing radio and TV- so are you just going to keep spouting "well, they are not bitter" when your own posts define poor as crackheads? If you don't like my definition of poor and rich, give me a tangible, concrete one like I provided and I will answer to that, but come on man, don't ignore the question!

Platy provided a magazine. He didn't provide proof of anything.

This question, as far as I'm concerned cannot be answered. There are TOO many variables to have a definitive "yes" ALL RICH ARE BITTER TOWARDS ALL POOR" or "no', THEY AREN'T.

That being said, I am at a lost as to where to go with this.

Sorry but Good luck anyway.