What privilege does the rich have and how do they screw the rest 99%?

It's about 'lobbyists' (money).

 

That is a standard EXCUSE for failure. Not a fact, an EXCUSE. Excuses are what failures can do. Results are what successful people DO.

I was born poor. I determined to correct that condition and did. No law impeded me in any way. And no law helped me in any way. Unless you count EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.. Opportunity, not outcome. The law says we all have the opportunity. WE, each of us, either uses that opportunity or wastes it. The poor, with a miniscule few exceptions, wasted their opportunities and continue to do so. And liberals enable and encourage them to continue to waste opportunity.

There is no more vicious, ruthless, horrendous, torturer/enslaver of the poor than a "caring" liberal.

 

You are being a little tough.

That's as brilliant and deep as liberal thinking gets.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time," is the liberal's life work.

 

Wealth is not finite, and the 1% do not keep the less wealthy from increasing their wealth. Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/

 

No, it's definitely a fact.

Blaming the victim is not much of a trick.

Others can't.

That is certainly false, as by law you had to pay a landowner just for access to economic opportunity.

That is probably false.

When the poor have to pay the rich for opportunity that would otherwise be available, that's not equal opportunity.

No, the law says we don't get any opportunity unless we pay a landowner for it.

Blaming the victim. Disgraceful.

Liberals are what gave you opportunities that would otherwise have been owned by an English lord.

Yet somehow, in countries like Norway or Switzerland where there are lots of caring liberals, the poor are notably better off than in countries where there aren't any to speak of, like Bangladesh or Guatemala. Such a mystery.

To you, that is.

 

Since Johnny didn't want to touch my post with even a 10 foot pole, I now open it to the liberal floor, who - to date - have likewise not touched this with a 10 foot pole, but may be goaded into so doing now that I've reposted it in an alliterative rubbing of their noses in it.

What say ye, liberals?

 

At this time 3 out of 4 black babies are born and "raised" such as it is, by single mothers. 2 out of 4 Hispanic babies SUFFER the same fate. And 1 out of 4 white babies are born to single mothers.

What kind of jobs can those single mothers look for, find and keep that have a high paying future? NONE. They cannot move, they cannot work odd hours, they cannot work odd schedules, they have a priority that does not include upwardly mobile employment. So there HAS to be income equality. Just the 25% of single mother white households would cause a huge pay gap. But with nearly half of all babies born to single mothers, there cannot not be income gaps.

The mothers and the children are slaves to the bad choices they made. The bad choices that liberals insist the mothers have a right to make. And that successful people that made good choices have an OBLIGATION to support.

 

What do you mean by rich?

 

I'm unfamiliar with the strange and weird world you think you live in.

It seems your head is so filled with fallacies, there is no room for reality.

There is no more I can say to you as you are 100% wrong and comp[letely unaware of how wrong your are.

 

Your understanding of this problem is misguided.

It's an economical issue, not a 'rich people are bad people'. The last time we had a huge disparity of wealth in this country, the stock market crashed into the great depression.

No one in their right mind is against someone getting rich. But when it wrecks an economy and drains taxpayer money to pay the rich's gambling debts, that's when the fit hits the shan. The message has been muddied on the conservative banter, which is nice since they can keep their buddies from being brought to justice for grand theft.

 

Wealth is absolutely finite. Even the Earth itself, is not "infinite".

What the hell are you saying?!

 

I was thinking yesterday about this...and it COULD be infinite, but is deliberately made FINITE by placing wealth onto THINGS and not ENERGY, which is what is truly what benefits someone...Think of it like this...

Gold was for a long time used as a tool to represent wealth. However, gold in and of itself isn't worth anything to anyone. You can't eat it, it does nothing for you...unless you expend energy to convert it to something that IS valuable to someone such as circuitry paths in a computer or jewelry or any other useful application. In and of itself, you can't give someone a bar of gold and say 'congrats, you're wealthy' on an energy-based economy. As well, this energy theory I have is almost deliberate as it removes worth from work itself! It puts things at greater value than the energy expended by someone in order to actually transform raw material into products of worth to people.

In an energy-based economy, work would be the most valueable thing, people's expended energy would have real value whether through labor or thought.

But instead, a bucket of crude oil is valuable, something you can't even put in your car without first expending energy to refine it.

 

yep, they have too much money, and that IS the problem, as vast sums can only be had by a few, whilst many others have to go hungry

 

I agree!

Some can't!

Everyone has to pay rent or a mortgage payment.

The poor don't have to pay the rich for opportunity. They may have to work for the rich as everyone has to work for their living to some degree or another.

All you pay to a landowner is rent, or you pay a mortgage lender.

Yes

Not for the last 230 years in the US.

Not a mystery to me. GB was a big part of the poverty of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. But now the Indian economy is starting to build and they have a growing middle class of over 300 million. In fact, if you recall, India was the first place I rant into LVT. After the partition in 1947 the Indian government created resettlement farms called colonization projects on which refugees from Pakistan were settled. They created communities with farms and community owned tractors and wells. I lived on one part of the winter 1952/53 working with a friend of my father. In addition to operating a cleat track pushing stumps and hunted for meat for the workers. The idea was for the farmers to pay land tax on their share of the land. The experiment failed. As some did well and others did not, the ones who did paid off the low producers to have their share and they became joint venture farms for the few instead of a community farm organization for the many.

 

What has that to do with my comment?

Of course there are income gaps, and there are some people who will never be able to take care of themselves or their families, but we need to care for them. I prefer we do so in "kind."

Yes, we do have that obligation.

 

They have the privilege to buy politicians and media spokesholes.

 

The resources of the earth are finite, but I personally believe technology will make that less of or no problem at all. But wealth is not finite. I can make $100K a year and that does not reduce the wealth you can acquire by 1 cent. That is the point, not how much gold or silver or oil or coal or natural gas etc etc etc there is. No matter how you cut it, you can't blame the 1% for the inequality of income. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/

 

No one denies it is easier for the wealthy and they do have many advantages. But that does not keep others from acquiring wealth. Most wealthy people today did not inherit their wealth, they earned.

 

Becoming very wealthy takes investments rather than work, seems to me, with some high-earning, highly skilled professions being a an exception. The way I see it, though, wages are depressed while markets take ridiculous amounts of money and gamble with it for the benefit of those who choose to play that game.

 

For now, I prefer not to "believe" what you do.

Sorry.

 

That is unfortunate, but think about it. Lets presume I make $100,000 a year. Can you explain to me how that would reduce your opportunity to increase your income, thus wealth?

 

The current imbalance (speaking ratio, not total quantity) of wealth is a HUGE problem.

If you can't see and accept that; so be it.

 

Why don't you answer the simple question I asked instead of repeating your rhetoric? " Lets presume I make $100,000 a year. Can you explain to me how that would reduce your opportunity to increase your income, thus wealth?" Until you answer that question honestly, to yourself as well as to me, you will never understand economics. It will always be about envy.

 

You say,

" but we need to care for them. "

And,

"Yes, we do have that obligation."

Then you are against Freedom of choice. Freedom of expression. Freedom of opportunity.

If YOU want to take care of people that made horrendous choices and suffer for that. Then YOU go ahead and take care of them. I won't encourage you or try to stop you. You would be exercising YOUR free choice.

My free choice is to let them suffer the consequences of their poor choices. Perhaps others will observe the punishments associated with poor choices and decide to make wise choices. Your SUPPORT of poor choices only causes others to make equally poor choices.

You are forcing slavery on people under the guise of "taking care3 of them." I can imagine no worse hell that being dependent on some do gooder desperately seeking their own aggrandizement.

And I did not go for some walk in the park and become successful. I worked extremely hard to be worth much to an employer. So much that I could become my own employer.

And life is tough. But you conduct yourself as an adult of make the best of whatever life throws at you. What government agency do I contact for compensation? A many time drunk with no license, no insurance, no nothing, killed my my oldest son. And my wife lost all will to live and died 2 years after. Do I spend the rest of life whining about poor me, or soldier on? I never saw the whine as a choice. Suck it up and get on with life was the only viable choice.

 

I'm not going off on some obfuscatory-tangent of YOUR choice.

You have my views; deal with them or just leave me be. (There are your choices.)