Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 153

Thread: The Rich Are Not Superior!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35

    The Rich Are Not Superior!

    "If the very rich are naturally so much more capable than the rest of us, why must they be provided with so many artificial privileges under the law, so many bailouts, subsidies, and other special considerations---at our expense? Their "naturally superior talents" include unprincipled and illegal subterfuges such as price fixing, stock manipulation, insider trading, fraud, tax evasion, the legal enforcement of unfair competition, ecological spoliation, harmful products, and unsafe work conditions. One might expect naturally superior people not to act in such rapacious and venal ways. Differences in talent and capacity as might exist between individuals do not excuse the crimes and injustices that are endemic to the corporate business system."

    Dr. Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds
    Behold I will corrupt thy seed and smear feces upon your faces. Malachi 2:3

    “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

    Deuteronomy 25: 11-12

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    7,822
    But the rich are God's chosen.

    You see, God believes that his people should be rich so the proof of God's blessing lies totally in whether or not a person is rich.
    Brother, you can believe in stones as long as you do not hurl them at me. Wafa Sultan

    “War is an American way to teach geography,” British soldier

    War is sweet to those who have not tasted it, but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach. – Pindar

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In the nightmares of right wingers.
    Posts
    2,290

    Thumbs down Capitalism - take from the needy and give to the greedy!

    Quote Originally Posted by simone View Post
    But the rich are God's chosen.

    You see, God believes that his people should be rich so the proof of God's blessing lies totally in whether or not a person is rich.
    John Calvin and Andrew Carnegie certainly thought so.

    Anyone doubting this should read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,485
    *Starts trying to find bible quote on how its harder for the rich to get into heaven than a camel to pass through a needle or something of that sort*
    "They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years, and [heck], we're not using it anymore."
    -Jay Leno

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by Shooterandproud View Post
    *Starts trying to find bible quote on how its harder for the rich to get into heaven than a camel to pass through a needle or something of that sort*
    Those who are jealous of success have little desire to exert themselves. They would rather live off the fruits of the labor of others.

    Here's a well put description of what will eventually happen when sloth is rewarded and work is not.


    STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LATE DR. ADRIAN ROGERS OF BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS , TENNESSEE :

    YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE THE POOR INTO FREEDOM BY LEGISLATING THE WEALTHY OUT OF FREEDOM. WHAT ONE PERSON RECEIVES WITHOUT WORKING FOR, ANOTHER PERSON MUST WORK FOR WITHOUT RECEIVING.

    THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE TO ANYBODY ANYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT FIRST TAKE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. WHEN HALF OF THE PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO WORK BECAUSE THE OTHER HALF IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THEM, AND WHEN THE OTHER HALF GETS THE IDEA THAT IT DOES NO GOOD TO WORK BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO GET WHAT THEY WORK FOR, THAT MY DEAR FRIEND, IS ABOUT THE END OF ANY NATION.

    YOU CANNOT MULTIPLY WEALTH BY DIVIDING IT.
    It is the collectivism mentality of socialism and communism that will eventually destroy the incentive to succeed by way of your own struggle. Among the healthy, it is the socialist rats that insist upon being fed from the labor of others. We have plenty of them on this site...as seen above...lazy, jealous, self righteous moochers of today's society.

    Even though history has repeatedly shown that socialism does not work, these who favor rewards to the lazy from the efforts of others will continue to cry that it is cruel to make someone work for their keep.

    This thread is in the wrong forum.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In the nightmares of right wingers.
    Posts
    2,290

    Thumbs up Live simply, that others may simply live!

    Quote Originally Posted by isly ilwott View Post
    It is the collectivism mentality of socialism and communism that will eventually destroy the incentive to succeed by way of your own struggle. Among the healthy, it is the socialist rats that insist upon being fed from the labor of others. We have plenty of them on this site...as seen above...lazy, jealous, self righteous moochers of today's society.
    You are quite correct - as long as you define success as the accumulation of things, whether the things be the things money can buy or simply the money itself.

    I truly pity those who define success in that manner. What empty lives they must have. What has the most recent Wall Street swindler have to show for his ill-gotten $50B besides $50B?

    If and when he is convicted, he should be sentenced to serve his time in a mirrored cell so that h will have to look at himself all day long.

    In the words of the old song, "Gold won't buy you happiness when you're growing old."

    As to these, "Among the healthy, it is the socialist rats that insist upon being fed from the labor of others. We have plenty of them on this site," care to name any?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dept. Homeland Security
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Shooterandproud View Post
    *Starts trying to find bible quote on how its harder for the rich to get into heaven than a camel to pass through a needle or something of that sort*
    The Word of Faith movement (televangelists) can counter that verse with 10 that preach the opposite.

    Personally, the bible is more along the lines of 'you can be wealthy and a god Christian but, if your LOVE money (an often easy thing to do), you're probably doomed. Abundance of wealth means you can help others abundantly. Bringing charity and prosperity to others with your 'material blessings.'
    -God couldn't be everywhere, that's why we have America.
    -Use the Force...because prayer doesn't work.
    -If I mock you on a forum board...and you're too stupid to know...are you really being mocked?
    -Joseph of Nazareth said: "Healthy White baby, 5 year wait? What else you got?" to which the adoption agency replied "A Norse kid born with his heart on the outside. Hey, Zeus come 'er!"
    -"The only way to win is not to pray." - WOPR

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by isly ilwott View Post
    Those who are jealous of success have little desire to exert themselves. They would rather live off the fruits of the labor of others.
    ...
    It is the collectivism mentality of socialism and communism that will eventually destroy the incentive to succeed by way of your own struggle. Among the healthy, it is the socialist rats that insist upon being fed from the labor of others. We have plenty of them on this site...as seen above...lazy, jealous, self righteous moochers of today's society.
    ...
    Even though history has repeatedly shown that socialism does not work, these who favor rewards to the lazy from the efforts of others will continue to cry that it is cruel to make someone work for their keep.
    Your arguements only apply to the small minority who hold extreme opinions of socialism, etc. They do not apply to the great majority of Americans who, despite working hard and responsibly, nevertheless will never achieve certain levels of success.

    The main criticism that many, including myself, have of the wealthy is that so many did not acheive their wealth out of any extraordinary effort or brilliance on their own part, but because they were either born into priviledge (and therefore either inherited wealth or were automatically given opportunities due to their family contacts that nobody of lesser family connections could get, despite often mediocre skills), or were simply skilled at manipulating a financial system that is less based on merit than on skills at manipulation. Think of the disproportionately high salaries of CEOs in the US - disproportionate to any other CEO salaries around the world. Do you seriously think that American CEOs are so brilliant at their jobs that they deserve salaries that are many times greater than their contemporaries abroad? They would like you to think so. It is especially frustrating to see failed CEOs get "golden parachutes" despite their failure. In comparison, many CEOs of troubled companies in Japan voluntarily take pay cuts.

    With most jobs, salaries are kept down by competition - in that, no matter how skilled and brilliant, employees who are not on the highest management levels can still be told to accept the salary they are offered or leave. There seems to be much less of a merit competition among top managers and CEOs. Loyalty, internal politics, and ability to manipulate others often are much stronger determining factors in upper management promotion than actual merit in decision making and business skills. Once in positions of power, it is also much harder to dislodge underperforming CEOs, and pre-negotiated contracts often leave poor performing CEOs with hefty salaries and bonuses or with "golden parachutes".

    Certainly, besides all the mediocre and poor CEOs and financial managers that are wealthy, there are many who do deserve their wealth and are admired by society (the Bill Gates of the world, etc.) However, it is largely the undeserving (such as all of those who have put the US economy at risk with their irresponsible financial dealings) that cause the resentment of wealth that is reflected in many sections of this society.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In the nightmares of right wingers.
    Posts
    2,290

    Thumbs down Capitalism - take from the needy and give to the greedy!

    Isly,

    The quote you posted:

    STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LATE DR. ADRIAN ROGERS OF BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS , TENNESSEE :

    YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE THE POOR INTO FREEDOM BY LEGISLATING THE WEALTHY OUT OF FREEDOM. WHAT ONE PERSON RECEIVES WITHOUT WORKING FOR, ANOTHER PERSON MUST WORK FOR WITHOUT RECEIVING.

    THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE TO ANYBODY ANYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT FIRST TAKE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. WHEN HALF OF THE PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO WORK BECAUSE THE OTHER HALF IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THEM, AND WHEN THE OTHER HALF GETS THE IDEA THAT IT DOES NO GOOD TO WORK BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO GET WHAT THEY WORK FOR, THAT MY DEAR FRIEND, IS ABOUT THE END OF ANY NATION.

    YOU CANNOT MULTIPLY WEALTH BY DIVIDING IT.

    is sheer nonsense.

    By dividing wealth, you may be redistributing it to some brilliant person who, but for lack of a grubstake, might produce a world changing idea, product, or process.

    Be that as it may, why weren't you complaining for the last eight years, during which the nation saw the greatest UPWARD redistribution of wealth in its history?

    Or is concentration of wealth in the hands of the few just a part of the natural order of things for you?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by chester View Post
    Isly,

    The quote you posted:

    STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LATE DR. ADRIAN ROGERS OF BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS , TENNESSEE :

    YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE THE POOR INTO FREEDOM BY LEGISLATING THE WEALTHY OUT OF FREEDOM. WHAT ONE PERSON RECEIVES WITHOUT WORKING FOR, ANOTHER PERSON MUST WORK FOR WITHOUT RECEIVING.

    THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT GIVE TO ANYBODY ANYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT FIRST TAKE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE. WHEN HALF OF THE PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO WORK BECAUSE THE OTHER HALF IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THEM, AND WHEN THE OTHER HALF GETS THE IDEA THAT IT DOES NO GOOD TO WORK BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO GET WHAT THEY WORK FOR, THAT MY DEAR FRIEND, IS ABOUT THE END OF ANY NATION.

    YOU CANNOT MULTIPLY WEALTH BY DIVIDING IT.

    is sheer nonsense.

    By dividing wealth, you may be redistributing it to some brilliant person who, but for lack of a grubstake, might produce a world changing idea, product, or process.

    Be that as it may, why weren't you complaining for the last eight years, during which the nation saw the greatest UPWARD redistribution of wealth in its history?

    Or is concentration of wealth in the hands of the few just a part of the natural order of things for you?
    Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. Get that through your thick head and we'll be alright for a while.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In the nightmares of right wingers.
    Posts
    2,290

    Thumbs down Capitalism - take from the needy and give to the greedy!

    Quote Originally Posted by isly ilwott View Post
    Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. Get that through your thick head and we'll be alright for a while.
    Since neither has really been tried in the USA, the best we can say is, "We don't know whether or not they work."

    Hypothesis neither confirmed nor denied.

    Be that as it may, where is your criticism of the upward redistribution of wealth that has occurred in the USA since the Son-of-a-Bush has been President?

    Your continued silence on the subject is beginning to speak volumes.

    BTW, I'm not opposed to either capitalism or capitalists. I simply believe that both need to be kept on a VERY tight government leash, attached to a choke collar if it should prove necessary.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by chester View Post
    Since neither has really been tried in the USA, the best we can say is, "We don't know whether or not they work."
    They have been tried elsewhere...and did not work.


    Hypothesis neither confirmed nor denied.
    History speaks for itself.


    Be that as it may, where is your criticism of the upward redistribution of wealth that has occurred in the USA since the Son-of-a-Bush has been President?
    Get a clue. The accumulation of wealth by hard working people has been going on for hundreds of years, not just since Bush took office.
    Your continued silence on the subject is beginning to speak volumes.
    As I pointed out several moons ago, you are not worth the effort. I am surprised I have typed this much here already.
    BTW, I'm not opposed to either capitalism or capitalists. I simply believe that both need to be kept on a VERY tight government leash, attached to a choke collar if it should prove necessary.
    Capitalism and a working tax system, both of which require regulation by the government, can work to everybody's benefit, increasing the living standards for workers and owners of businesses. Investments in the businesses must not be stiffled by over taxing profits just so free money can go to lazy bums that expect to be taken care of by others.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by isly ilwott View Post
    Capitalism and a working tax system, both of which require regulation by the government, can work to everybody's benefit, increasing the living standards for workers and owners of businesses. Investments in the businesses must not be stiffled by over taxing profits just so free money can go to lazy bums that expect to be taken care of by others.
    I agree with you that communism / socialism is highly unlikely to work in this country. However, you have not addressed my post concerning the fact that much of the wealth that is accrued in this country is not accrued because of superior merit but because of either inherited priviledge or non-merit based manipulation of financial systems. In other words, though there are some that certainly earned their wealth and deserve it, many or most of the wealthy are not wealthy because they deserve to be so by some extraordinary effort or brilliance on their part. Bad financial managers such as those who misused investment and mortgage funds, leading to a destabilized US economy, are just the most extreme examples of such undeserving rich.

    Given that we both agree that capitalism is superior to communism / socialism as an economic growth engine, how much regulation, if any, would you agree to in order to help control the very disproportionate and unjustified (often independent of merit) growth of the top-end salaries in industry?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by Another opinion View Post
    I agree with you that communism / socialism is highly unlikely to work in this country. However, you have not addressed my post concerning the fact that much of the wealth that is accrued in this country is not accrued because of superior merit but because of either inherited priviledge or non-merit based manipulation of financial systems. In other words, though there are some that certainly earned their wealth and deserve it, many or most of the wealthy are not wealthy because they deserve to be so by some extraordinary effort or brilliance on their part. Bad financial managers such as those who misused investment and mortgage funds, leading to a destabilized US economy, are just the most extreme examples of such undeserving rich.

    Given that we both agree that capitalism is superior to communism / socialism as an economic growth engine, how much regulation, if any, would you agree to in order to help control the very disproportionate and unjustified (often independent of merit) growth of the top-end salaries in industry?
    Inherited wealth is perfectly legitimate. A person should be able to do what he pleases with his wealth, whether it is to pass it on to his offspring, will it to a pet, will it to charity, pass it out to strangers, bury it before dying or whatever comes to mind. It is that person's property to dispose of as desired.

    As much as I detest overpayment of jocks, actors, rock stars, CEOs and filthy-rich televangelists, I believe their pay should be restrained by the market only. I do think the bonuses and parachutes whereby the CEOs extract additional millions upon reaching certain goals or just by retirement should be cut to zero. One objection I have to the ultra-high salaries is the encouragement given to young people that think they have a dog's chance of getting to the top, causing them to ignore a more sensible struggle to exceed in academics or trade related talents.

    I think taxes should be on consumption, not income. I think a reasonable amount of money (sufficient to cover the consumption taxes for basic necessities of survival) should be given (from the treasury) to each citizen according to age, starting from zero. I do not think that those who are able to work should be given the cost of the basic necessities...just the taxes on them. Those that cannot work should be provided for.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by isly ilwott View Post
    Inherited wealth is perfectly legitimate. A person should be able to do what he pleases with his wealth, whether it is to pass it on to his offspring, will it to a pet, will it to charity, pass it out to strangers, bury it before dying or whatever comes to mind. It is that person's property to dispose of as desired.
    Inherited wealth is perfectly fine but, in my view, it should be taxed more than earned wealth since earned wealth holds much more merit (in that something of benefit to the country was probably done in the earning) compared to inherited wealth.
    Quote Originally Posted by isly ilwott
    As much as I detest overpayment of jocks, actors, rock stars, CEOs and filthy-rich televangelists, I believe their pay should be restrained by the market only. I do think the bonuses and parachutes whereby the CEOs extract additional millions upon reaching certain goals or just by retirement should be cut to zero. One objection I have to the ultra-high salaries is the encouragement given to young people that think they have a dog's chance of getting to the top, causing them to ignore a more sensible struggle to exceed in academics or trade related talents.
    That is the trouble, though. The market and an actual evaluation of merit does not seem to be limiting these corporate salaries. Though I am not familiar with the intricacies of the dynamics which determine executive salaries, I am sure that, once in power, it is not mainly merit that determines their salaries but political manipulations. I simply see no clear countering market force to executive salaries. Indeed, I hear that the board of directors that would otherwise control their salaries are often picked by these same CEOs - a clear conflict of interest. How, specifically, do you imagine the market limiting CEO salaries without external government regulation?
    Quote Originally Posted by isly ilwott
    I think taxes should be on consumption, not income. I think a reasonable amount of money (sufficient to cover the consumption taxes for basic necessities of survival) should be given (from the treasury) to each citizen according to age, starting from zero. I do not think that those who are able to work should be given the cost of the basic necessities...just the taxes on them. Those that cannot work should be provided for.
    I disagree - I think both should be taxed. The rich benefit far more from a capitalist system than do the poor, so they should be taxed disproportionately. I apply the same rules to myself. My salary lies at around the 94th percentile (~94% earn less), so I have benefited far more from the capitalist system than, say, a burger flipper. Therefore, it makes sense for me to have to pay more in taxes for that benefit. The burger flipper would be just as happy, if not happier, in a socialist system. I would not. Furthermore, if not for progressive taxes, then we would have to significantly scale down the size of our government (including not only social programs but a severe degredation of our military), and we would risk having large portions of our population in such dire economic states that it would risk revolt.
    Last edited by Another opinion; 12-15-2008 at 04:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •