To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21595
21594  |  21596
Subject: 
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:58:51 GMT
Viewed: 
584 times
  
I wasn’t overly impressed with the nature of the rhetoric or information at those links either. And while I can’t speak for the specifics of what Mr. P was referring to, something similar to it can be found here:

We Have Met the Wealthy, and They Are Us

http://www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=2002_12_9_23_38_17

Who are these people? Who are “the wealthy,” that group so often derided by the Democrats and liberals? If you try to get a Democrat or a liberal to define “the wealthy,” you’re in for a frustrating experience. Because as soon as you define wealth in America, a certain uncomfortable something becomes clear. The wealthy are not Bill Gates and Jack Welch and Leona Helmsley and Oprah Winfrey. You could round up those people in one good-sized train. No, the wealthy are us, ordinary Americans.

snip!

Second thing: While the most common route to wealth involves owning and developing your own business, regular wage earners can get rich, too, by following the example of the millionaires next door. The two most important factors in getting rich are (1) living cheap and (2) investing 15 percent or more of your net income. A cop and a nurse can do it. Starting with nothing, saving $1,000 a month, presuming an average yearly return of 8 percent and inflation at 2 percent, that policeman and nurse will be millionaires in 26 years. In reality, given raises and the ability to invest more as the years go by, they’ll reach their goal a lot quicker.

My problem with my source is that the link between what the Democrats or liberals define as the “wealthy” is never actually made, it is merely assumed -- somewhat blithely, I might add. There’s no quote, no source, no nuthin!

Just for the record, a million just doesn’t go as far as it once did. So no arguments from me about households with a total worth of $1 million being exceptionally favored -- heck, you could get that with just one well chosen real estate deal (given enough time). But the reality is that worrying about what the Dems or liberals define as the wealthy is to ignore the far bigger problem of the super-wealthy. That’s where everyone’s money is getting sucked into as if it were a black hole. Extreme wealth is like heavy gravity, you cannot stand against it just as you cannot stand against another player in a game of monopoly if he has multiple “grand” hotels on several properties and you have none. Eventually you will go bankrupt.

In the real world this plays out as the tension between being a renter and a home owner -- getting over the hump where you have enough to both rent and still make that whopping down payment for a home is a very difficult gap for many to negotiate. Most people come to the big city to make their moolah, but once gotten they have to get out of Dodge to spend it because Dodge is already largely owned and for far more than the average person can afford to buy into -- the buy out price is just too steep. This is why people like me consider doing stupid things like buying swampland in Florida -- hey, at least it’s affordable!

And as you so well pointed out, Dave! -- the other and closely related issue is the pork and etc. for the multinational corporatocracy. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

I honestly do not believe that most americans understand how little their votes matter to the average politician. The federal and state governments are absolutely for sale.

Hmmm, maybe we should measure the distance from D.C. to the Cayman Islands...

-- Hop-Frog (I might have more to add later -- the issues, as further refined, are ethically worthy of closer scrutiny)



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
 
(...) *snip* (...) Most sharply-biased (in either direction) media sources hope that the audience never makes the connection that you point out, and all too often thats exactly what happens. It's interesting that a common conservative tactic is to (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
 
(...) I dispute that statistic as non-representative of reality. Do you have a citation? Alternatively, if you're just making a rhetorical specultion, that's fine, but you need to disclaim it as such. And again, let's distinguish Federal assistance (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

81 Messages in This Thread:



























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR