Al Swearengen

Agreed.

'Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.'
--- Roman philosopher Seneca

MotorHead

I would not blame the average Corvette owner who grew up liking Corvettes and got a good job and saved up for the car of his dreams. This owner is merely a hard working middle class persoN.

What I don't like is the 1%'ers with more money than they know what to do with. They breath different air than we do. These people tend to pray on the poor rather than help and could care less if somone lived or died in some third world country.

Kent1999

Not sure I understand your position.

Even if the "1%" class you have identified have "more money than they know what do do with", what possible business is that of anyone else?

The rest -- Any evidence that that the clearly negative traits you ascribe are in any way representative of the entire class of people that you are accusing? Or is it just the actions of a few?

The few 1%'ers I actually know (and its a VERY small number) are extremely generous, and contribute heavily to charity. It's quite possible that my experience is not representative either.

(BTW -- I'm entirely middle-class, and definitely NOT a 1%'er, but I would like to be! )

defaria

That's where you're wrong. They do know what to do with it or they pay people to help them decide what to do with it. That's why they're in the 1%.

No they don't.

And you're evidence for this is what?

Do they pray on the poor by producing goods and services that those poor people decide is worth it to purchase?

I could say that you could care less about if somebody lived or died in some third world country. My proof? Do you make more than $365/year? I'd venture to guess as a Corvette owner you do. Why $365/year? Because the number of people living on less than $1 day are more than a billion! If you really cared you'd give them your money up until you were living on $1 day. But you don't care that much now do you.

That said what products have you developed? What businesses have you started? How many people do you employ? How much of your net worth is being invested in other businesses providing jobs, goods and services for thousands of people? My guess is not that much.

I'm getting really tired of people just trashing the rich as if they actively seek out and prey upon poor people trying to make them suffer. Building wealth does not do that - it does the opposite - as this thread here about how many people could be fed for the price of a Corvette. All of the rich people I know are hard working, detailed oriented and care about their customers and the work they do. I know of none of them who intentionally seek out to actively punish poor people (as if they could do that legally anyway).

As I've often said - If I see a homeless man on the street and I pass him by without giving him money it is not the equivalent of going over and physically kicking him. I have not oppressed him nor harmed him in any way. What I did was decide not to help him (at this time).

Perhaps you should be a little more detailed oriented and not misspell simple terms like "pray", "breathe" or "someone" or at least try a little proofreading. People assign positive value to good communication skills and subtract value for poor skills. But they often don't tell you.

I find that people who openly despise people for the fact that they have wealth are usually jealous because they don't have wealth.

TyBoo

Actually, he spelled pray correctly. The word he meant to use is prey. I guess you missed that.

Also, what does it mean to be "detailed oriented"? You could use some help with your grammar.

Oh, and the bit about breathing different air was an unmistakable metaphor.

Whoosh!

bobs-z51

I agree 100% By the way I have 2 Greyhounds

LT1 Z51

While I don't entirely agree. I do feel a more measured approach is needed, and I think that's what you're trying to get at.

People born into the 1%, or trust fund kids as I call them, are people who unless taught (by their parents) don't really ever see the real world.

I think the problem with class warfare is that people want to have war on the entire class. There are rich people who earned their money and I have no problem with. There are also those who didn't earn it and don't appreciate what they have versus others and therefore are douchebags. Likewise there are poorer people who go to work every day and try to better themselves but have external factors which make upward mobility difficult I again have no issue with these people and think those who have more should help them. There are also poorer people who are lazy and want a handout, again like in the rich case I don't like these people and they are douchebags.

So basically to recap, some rich people good, some poor people help; but dislike douchebags regardless of rich or poor.

defaria

Why call them trust fund kids when you don't know if they are or aren't? According to https://time.com/money/3925308/rich-...s-lose-wealth/

So how much "old money" (i.e. trust fund kids) are there really? Clearly the majority of the rich build their wealth in their own lifetimes.

The problem with class warfare is that it's inevitably the poor committing warfare on the rich (the have nots wanting the haves to relinquish their possessions). Like I said before, I don't know anybody who is rich who wants to sock it to the poor people. Again, not giving to a homeless man is not equal to physically kicking them. The poor use their Uncle Sam to extract funds from the rich by the point of a gun.

Which is the vast majority.

To borrow from Thomas Jefferson, such douchebags as you call them "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". So clearly they are not committing warfare.

Of course upward mobility is difficult! Otherwise everybody would do it.

Perhaps but should they be forced to at the point of a gun? Because when you engage the government to do wealth redistribution that's what's happening.

It never ceases to amaze me how people cannot understand that being lazy and wanting a hangout is immensely easier than hard work. Why then would it not be the common case?

But I don't have a problem with poor people who are douchebags either. What I have a problem with is them having the power to engage government to "pick my pocket".

To recap, most rich worked hard to become rich, some didn't, there are douchebags in both camps. Finally stop using force to unfairly take stuff from people that belongs to them. There is no virtue in that.

LT1 Z51

I see you don't believe in compromise, based on the above opinions, which is sad. Limited wealth redistribution works. Key word is LIMITED. You need to at some point pay for people because you're already doing it indirectly (great example healthcare, the insured pay for the uninsured even if they don't want to).

Granted, is the government efficient, no, but could it be, if done right, yes. My favorite example of a social country that has fervent capitalism is Germany. They've been a little weird the last 5-7 years but from 1990-2010 good example of attempting a happy medium.

defaria

Why is it sad? Andrew Carnegie said: "The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised".

The principle of property rights and ownership, upon which all other rights rest, should not be compromised.

Yeah but for who? And why is it needed? Try reading .

People say income inequality is bad and we must do something about it but when asked why they think income inequality is bad they cannot articulate good reasons aside from "Well the have-nots will rise up against the rich". So then we're supposed to compromise and pay them off?!? Sounds sort of like the mafia to me.

The limited part I whole heartedly agree. Such things should be limited to that which is the government's job, it's purpose. What is the government's job, it's purpose? Luckily we have a document that described that and it's called the Constitution. And nowhere in the Constitution is the government charged with the tasks of income redistribution nor healthcare. The insured should not be forced to pay for the uninsured, period. It is not their job nor their responsibility.

So you admit the government isn't efficient. So then why use them? Why not simply allow the private market to do it themselves? Right, because you need to use force. Using force is wrong! When you must resort to the use of force to institute your favorite altruistic policies you have lost all virtue in my book.

And this is way off topic here so it's time to stop...

patentcad

This thread is full of greedy Corvette driving global warming capitalist dogs.

I feel right at home.

Carry on.

360Lemans

Now what does compromise get you????? Sorry but after a statement using Germany as great example for happy medium, you have no clue whatsoever. And yes I can make that statement. I lived in Germany for 12 years.

What's sad is people like you trying to change our GREAT USA into the failed state of socialism.

"Make America Great Again",

Mordeth

Defaria, you are 100% correct in literally every word you write. I, for one, sincerely appreciate the time you took to write it (by the way, you are also 100% correct in the other thread regarding people hiding license plate information).

What you state is fundamentally the guiding principles and assertions of objectivism. It's founding principle is to protect the rights of each individual by placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control. This is (or should be) the governments primary purpose - to protect our inalienable rights and to prevent their violation (rights cannot be removed, as they inherent and intrinsic - they can only be protected or violated). This allows men and business to negotiate freely, without compulsion. And no person or government may initiate force against another, which is up to and including forcing someone to "help" someone else, an arbitrary measure that has never once worked properly in all of history (in addition to simply being fundamentally wrong). The greatest virtue of mankind is our compassion, but our greatest vice is the use of force in a misguided and often times sinister attempt to forcibly compel others - by effectively creating slaves (which is a far deeper violation than not helping someone). This slave-making of men is one of the greatest evils that can be perpetuated.

This is my first, last and only post in this thread, as it is off-topic and I apologize to Vette owners who don't come here to read this.

LT1 Z51

I'll raise your living in Germany to my mom IS German, and I have and entire side of my family that lives there.

What I'll never get is why we here in America so worship our money. It's just money. It's a tool. You use it to get things. That's it.

What I find hilarious about this thread is I'm not even liberal. I'm a moderate conservative and the fact that so many of you disagree with me just means you are actually fervent conservatives. Or extremists. Extremism is bad, just ask the people who lived under Stalin or Hitler.

I don't even dislike the current (or even the past) presidents. Politicians never do what I want. It's either wacko right or wacko left. The ability of people to compromise is gone.

To defaria, that Andrew Carnegie quote is bunk. The man is only remember fondly because of his charitable work (which he did late in life). Personally he was a horrible human willing to do anything to make a dollar. Most of the "robber barons" were. I wish people knew their history better. They'd see that we haven't been great in a while, and won't be unless we fix things. On of those things is that Constitution. It needs a rewrite.

defaria

MAKE SPELL CHECKERS GREAT AGIAN!

TyBoo

...says the guy who never made a typo in his life and just wants to hangout.

Al Swearengen

I see some of your points in previous posts in this thread and a number have merit from a philosophical standpoint.

You lost me, however, on The Constitution opinion.

It might help if the executive, judicial and legislatives branches actually followed it, and not use the federal government as a weapon to enforce ideology.

The United States Constitution is the greatest governing document created by man.

The rewrite? Those would be called the amendments.

mschuyler

Yours doesn't work. It's AGAIN.

defaria

That sir was deliberate! It was part of the joke.

LT1 Z51

I guess my thinking is, at some point a document written by guys who lived in a time when an agrarian society was dominate might be a bit out of touch. The amendments have done a fine job, but at some point you need to rewrite things.

States have done it from time to time, Michigan is on its 3rd constitution (the current one I think was done in 1963). The reason, at some point the amendments (or as I call them the band aids), make the original document look a bit messy.

Read a copy of the constitution with the relevant sections crossed out, and the amendments stuck in (not tacked onto the end) and you get my drift. It gets disjointed and doesn't have the flow of a document anymore. Plus words change meaning overtime making literal interpretation nearly impossible.

The basic premise of the document (separation of defined powers) is probably the best idea of the document, and the pliability of it is the only reason how it survived. Remember though, lawyers did write it, so they knew what they were doing.

It's just a document, like anything else, it need not be worshiped or held as untouchable. If that was the case we'd still be using the Articles of Confederation (people forget the Constitution was the 2nd try). And right now, our constitution looks pretty bad, like a shirt with all sorts of different patches and stitching fixes on it.

Organizations rewrite bylaws and constitutions all the time (usually at a convention). No reason the "original" can't go through that as well.

The only reasonable argument to avoid a total rewrite would be, who do you trust to do it?