Have the Rich Gone to War Against the Poor and Middle Class in America?

[Kathryn]

Dustin said he wants to live comfortably and doesn't think that's unreasonable. It's not. This nonsense about it not being an inherent right to own that stuff has no place here.

It does have a place here - this is a debate forum and if you can't see how the topic of a "right" to "comfortable" living ties in, I'm sorry.

It's not everyone's inherent right to have a nice house - sorry. Some people do not deserve a nice place to live and do you know why I can say that with certainty? It's because some people do not take care of the things that are given to them. If you don't believe me, take a walk through subsidized housing sometime.

It's not everyone's inherent right to live comfortably - not when they make themselves and those around them uncomfortable by their consistently irresponsible behavior or unrealistic expectations.

This reminds me of watching those real estate shows where the young couples buying their first house buy something at the very top of their pre approval level and they have zero down and want to roll in the closing costs. Is it their right to do so? Hmmm, seems like it would be - till we all have to pay for a slew of foreclosures. They just wanted out of a crappy apartment and into a comfortable house - but maybe they weren't ready or responsible enough yet. Maybe they needed to live in the crappy apartment for a few more years and save some money.

 

[Magic Man]

I never said a day off should be rare, or that we should work six or seven days a week for an employer.

Face it - the vast majority of humans have to work a significant ratio of their waking hours in exchange for food, clothing and shelter. Anything else is a luxury and in my opinion any day that you don't work at SOMETHING at least 8 hours is a day off and a true rarity - you're lucky to get one day of rest a week.

So, you didn't say this? Did someone log in as you and post in your place?

And did I ever say that you did say we should work six or seven days a week for an employer? I already explained to you that I knew all along that that's not what you meant. However, being lucky to get one day of rest a week (from anything you want to consider work) doesn't really make life worth living.

 

[Magic Man]

It does have a place here - this is a debate forum and if you can't see how the topic of a "right" to "comfortable" living ties in, I'm sorry.

It's not everyone's inherent right to have a nice house - sorry. Some people do not deserve a nice place to live and do you know why I can say that with certainty? It's because some people do not take care of the things that are given to them. If you don't believe me, take a walk through subsidized housing sometime.

It's not everyone's inherent right to live comfortably - not when they make themselves and those around them uncomfortable by their consistently irresponsible behavior or unrealistic expectations.

This reminds me of watching those real estate shows where the young couples buying their first house buy something at the very top of their pre approval level and they have zero down and want to roll in the closing costs. Is it their right to do so? Hmmm, seems like it would be - till we all have to pay for a slew of foreclosures. They just wanted out of a crappy apartment and into a comfortable house - but maybe they weren't ready or responsible enough yet. Maybe they needed to live in the crappy apartment for a few more years and save some money.

If you're going to spend the time to write such long posts, can you at least keep them relevant? I'll be happy to respond more, if you want to respond to what I've said rather than to a strawman.

 

[Kathryn]

So, you didn't say this? Did someone log in as you and post in your place?

And did I ever say that you did say we should work six or seven days a week for an employer? I already explained to you that I knew all along that that's not what you meant. However, being lucky to get one day of rest a week (from anything you want to consider work) doesn't really make life worth living.

I don't know about you - but even when I am off - I am doing laundry, or cooking, or cleaning the house, or building a fence - something. Even if it's enjoyable, it's still work.

By WORK - I mean maintenance of life. Taking care of kids is work - even if you're playing with them. Building a deck with your spouse is work. Cleaning up the kitchen is work. Studying is work. Helping your neighbor move his pool table is work. Refinishing the table you found at a garage sale is work. Volunteering at the food pantry is work.

So - maybe people are right when they say I am a workaholic - because much of my week IS spent "working." I rarely have a full day when I do absolutely nothing but play. Nor do most of the people I know. We tend to spend our evenings with our families - portions of the weekend playing - but we're always doing something productive on the side.

But maybe...maybe...that's why I have a comfortable and rewarding lifestyle...I don't know. I do like the nice things in life and don't mind working hard for them. Good thing I'm hooked up with someone with the same set of priorities.

To each his own, I guess.

 

[Kathryn]

If you're going to spend the time to write such long posts, can you at least keep them relevant? I'll be happy to respond more, if you want to respond to what I've said rather than to a strawman.

I type and think fast. But you're under no obligation to respond.

 

[Watchmen]

This reminds me of watching those real estate shows where the young couples buying their first house buy something at the very top of their pre approval level and they have zero down and want to roll in the closing costs. Is it their right to do so? Hmmm, seems like it would be - till we all have to pay for a slew of foreclosures. They just wanted out of a crappy apartment and into a comfortable house - but maybe they weren't ready or responsible enough yet. Maybe they needed to live in the crappy apartment for a few more years and save some money.

Or, maybe the predatory lenders should have told them they could not afford the house they were seeking. After all, the banks are the experts, right?

 

[Kathryn]

Or, maybe the predatory lenders should have told them they could not afford the house they were seeking. After all, the banks are the experts, right?

Oh COME ON. People know what their house payments are going to be before they go to the closing table.

Anyone with any common sense should know that if their house payment eats up a huge chunk of their salary, they may need to scale down a bit. But they see that game room and that big kitchen and the jacuzzi tub and suddenly the modest cottage in a working class neighborhood doesn't seem very sexy - especially when their friends are all over extending themselves as well.

They ought to know that when their first house is nicer than either set of parents' current houses - they may be off track a bit.

 

[Kathryn]

By the way - I can't waste any more time with this. I have work to do. I'm moving in to my new house with the game room and the big kitchen and the jacuzzi tub so I need to pack.

Note - I had to work 30 years to be able to afford this house. Also - my husband and I were pre approved many tens of thousands MORE than the house we bought - but we wouldn't have even considered maxing ourselves out like that.

Gotta leave enough spare money around to play.

 

[berrychrisc]

Hmmm, so all people deserve safe, sanitary housing?

Yes, they do.

At what point does it become THEIR responsibility to maintain the safety and cleanliness of their own home??

I believe that it is the government's responsibility through an adequate police force to maintain safety. I wasn't referring to something as simplistic as putting locks on a door. Also, I specifically chose the word sanitary instead of cleanliness. I was not referring to the right to a 'clean' house - in the sense that the floors are swept. I was referring to sanitary living conditions - free of pollution.

Sufficient food and clothing - it would be nice if everyone had these items, but what can you do when a woman with four kids sells her food stamps for meth?

I simply stated that everyone should have access to a job that paid sufficiently for these items. I fail to understand what welfare fraud has to do with my assertion.

Most people in Western societies have access to healthcare.

Except in the United States.

and a free education.

The problem with the free education in the United States is that, while at one time it was sufficient to prepare someone for the work force, it is no longer sufficient to prepare someone for the type of job that would pay for the basic items that I mentioned.

In the US, the unemployment rate overall is about 9% (7% where I live). That means that about 91% of people who want to work are working. I would call that pretty good access to employment.

Unless you're one of the 9%. And the employment that they have access to is not always quality employment. Many of those jobs are part-time or minimum wage service jobs.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be sufficient to support a family - they are predominately held by young, unskilled workers and the majority of minimum wage jobs are part time positions, not full time. So most adult workers in the US are paid well above minimum wage and if they are working full time, they nearly always have a benefits package that includes at least a portion of their health insurance costs (often all of it), vacation and sick days.

I live in Vermont and there are many, many full time jobs that pay minimum wage, or very close to it, and these jobs are held by adults. Many do not come with the benefits packages that you speak of.

As for the equal voice in government - I agree that should be in place, but I also know that politicians in general are such a power hungry, corrupt bunch that the common man will always have a fight on his hands to be heard and respected by those who claim to represent his interests in the political arena.

All the more reason to fight for the rights of the 'common man' and to defend these people from corrupt politicians and the big business interests that back them financially. We can start helping the 'common man' by not assuming that such people are lazy, dirty or unmotivated.

I don't expect to move back to the Stone Age, but I made the statement about running water and electricity to make a point - we often call things necessities that are actually luxuries.

I still believe that in this era of technology that running water and electricity are not luxuries. They can and should be made available to all.

 

[Watchmen]

Oh COME ON. People know what their house payments are going to be before they go to the closing table.

Anyone with any common sense should know that if their house payment eats up a huge chunk of their salary, they may need to scale down a bit. But they see that game room and that big kitchen and the jacuzzi tub and suddenly the modest cottage in a working class neighborhood doesn't seem very sexy - especially when their friends are all over extending themselves as well.

They ought to know that when their first house is nicer than either set of parents' current houses - they may be off track a bit.

Your problem is you take it to extremes. Banks told people they could afford very normal houses (no game room, no big kitchen, no jacuzzi...). Foreclosures are hitting the normal, everyday common houses. Open your eyes.

 

[Watchmen]

By the way - I can't waste any more time with this. I have work to do. I'm moving in to my new house with the game room and the big kitchen and the jacuzzi tub so I need to pack.

Note - I had to work 30 years to be able to afford this house. Also - my husband and I were pre approved many tens of thousands MORE than the house we bought - but we wouldn't have even considered maxing ourselves out like that.

Gotta leave enough spare money around to play.

And many people have worked 30 years and are stuck. Believe it or not, many of these people work hard than you, your husband, and me.

 

[dust1n]

After reviewing this - I've decided that it was almost completely irrelevant to anything I said, but I will respond anyway.

The owner of the company - let's talk about him for a bit. I don't know what company you work for, but most workers in this country work for smallish businesses that are privately owned so let's just go with that scenario for the sake of argument.

First of all, I actually don't work, so what I was referring to is the 'slight small potential' that I will find a job. However, I'm not really complaining about it because I left my last job (seeing how they broke labor laws), because I felt like I still had some human dignity left.

This guy, or woman, or small group of owners, carries most of the risk. He has to pay you your earned wages whether the company is making a profit or not. Not only that, he carries a benefits package that costs him a pretty penny as well. He also pays more taxes in more various forms than you are probably aware of.

Of course he carries the most risk... the workers produce something and are guaranteed the pay to do so... the owner just invests the production and should not be entitled to any money because he himself does not actually produce anything.. and he should pay more taxes, rightly so, because the attempt to is make large amounts of wealth for not actually producing anything at all.

Thanks for the 'business 101' lesson.

I used to own a real estate company with about 25 employees. Did I make more money than them? For the most part yes - though I believe that a couple of the top producers actually cleared more money than I did.

Well, clearly they should have seeing they were doing all the 'production'.

Anyway - I paid the lease on the building (NOT CHEAP!), I paid for the computer systems (also not cheap!), the MLS dues, the taxes and charges on various things, the secretarial help (including their benefits package), the various services to the facility, etc, the office supplies, etc., etc.

And you still made more than all your employees? Are you complaining? I don't understand.

I enjoyed being my own boss for awhile - till I figured out that it had a very heavy pricetag when it came to hours at work and responsibility. And in addition to expense and work - I carried the liability of the company. If one of my agents or employees made a mistake or did something unethical - the responsibility fell directly on me - PERSONALLY.

WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY! You mean, you actually had to do something to be making more than the rest of your employees? (Except the 'top' producers, of course)

I could fire them - but then I had to clean up the mess while they went on down the road and worked somewhere else.

Did you not hire your own staff?

Now - sometimes I didn't come in to the office till 11 am. Sometimes I took off for several days in a row (though with technology, one is never really "off"). I think my employees might have told you, "Must be nice to be her - she just comes and goes as she pleases." Which was true - but I had earned that right.

How did you 'earn that right', while others didn't do anything to 'earn' such right?

They also didn't see the times that I was up at the office till 1 am working on something, or writing a check to the tech guy for $6000 for services.

You set your own schedule.. and you mean that $6000 dollars wasn't a profit? Damn. You have to give it to the guy that kept your technology in check.

Everyone pays property taxes, even the guy you think is exploiting you. My property taxes are $4500 a year. Good thing they're a federal tax write-off. For now, anyway.

Of course they do... if you didn't pay property taxes, no one would be protecting your 'right to property', regardless if it hurts the community or not.

It's not just about what SOCIETY produces. Since when do you have the inherent right to something that someone else produces?

Since people gained the inherent right to something I produced?

So five percent of the nation lives in extreme luxury and 95 percent of us work full time for a living? So what - screw them.

Yes, let's screw them real hard Kathryn.

I don't mind working and earning my own way. I couldn't care less how much money Paris Hilton inherits. She doesn't seem too happy to me anyway. I'd MUCH rather be me than her.

Which is a shame, because her fortune could feed a few thousand families, who, would be extremely happy to have said money.

What's wrong with working 40 or 50 hours a week and then working around your own place or on self improvement for a few more hours a week? Is that TOO HARD? I personally find it rewarding.

Others don't find it so rewarding... granted, it's also unnecessary. Now only would the '30-hour work week' leave more 'play time' for you, but it would free up work for people who want to work but cannot find it.

I didn't say you had to work six days a week for someone ELSE. Work also includes work around your own property and for self improvement. A five day work week (working at a company) is the norm for the vast majority of Americans who work.

Yo.. I don't have my own house, or my own property, in fact, the money I've made over my entire life has not even been able to properly keep up with car repairs. All the work I do is, in fact, for 'someone ELSE'.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know about you - but even when I am off - I am doing laundry, or cooking, or cleaning the house, or building a fence - something. Even if it's enjoyable, it's still work.

By WORK - I mean maintenance of life. Taking care of kids is work - even if you're playing with them. Building a deck with your spouse is work. Cleaning up the kitchen is work. Studying is work. Helping your neighbor move his pool table is work. Refinishing the table you found at a garage sale is work. Volunteering at the food pantry is work.

So - maybe people are right when they say I am a workaholic - because much of my week IS spent "working." I rarely have a full day when I do absolutely nothing but play. Nor do most of the people I know. We tend to spend our evenings with our families - portions of the weekend playing - but we're always doing something productive on the side.

But maybe...maybe...that's why I have a comfortable and rewarding lifestyle...I don't know. I do like the nice things in life and don't mind working hard for them. Good thing I'm hooked up with someone with the same set of priorities.

To each his own, I guess.

Please read my posts before responding. It would make the discussion so much better if you actually paid attention to what I'm saying.

 

[Magic Man]

After reviewing this - I've decided that it was almost completely irrelevant to anything I said, but I will respond anyway.

Wait a minute...Kathryn's response to one of your posts had nothing to do with what your post said? I don't believe it!

 

[dust1n]

Wait a minute...Kathryn's response to one of your posts had nothing to do with what your post said? I don't believe it!

Not even close. Every time I reiterate that the majority of people are out of work, or that the super wealthy are sucking up all the wealth, I just keep getting stories of personal achievement, in which all I can really say is - well good! 1/5th is still ****** though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He who dies with the most toys wins. :slap:

I say he who dies with the most toys has lost his life and soul to a hopeless downward spiral of vanity, material oppression and tyranny, and no real sense or purpose in life.
I have some luxuries, don't get me wrong, but I realize they are superficial and in all reality, quite worthless. I have even been robbed, and the only thing about it that was upsetting wasn't the fact I lost many things that I cannot replace, but rather that I knew the person who done it. The stuff that is gone, it is gone. Life goes on and I do not have any less "worth" because I have fewer toys.

Maintaining a home and property requires work and maintenance as well. I think it's reasonable to assume that a five day work week should be enough to support a lifestyle - and don't pull that minimum wage is unlivable thing on me because less than 6% of people in the US make minimum wage and the majority of those are very young, unskilled workers.

I know plenty of places that pay just above minimum wage so they aren't labeled as paying minimum wage. And just because a small percentage of people make $7.25/h doesn't mean everything above that can sustain any lifestyle. 12 bucks an hour, at 45 to 50 hours a week, is about what it takes to sustain a household of two, and still have some to put into savings. But if any unexpected expenses come up, 12 dollars an hour is suddenly not enough.
And there is also a lack of benefits. I am not going to be getting a paycheck for SIX WEEKS while I am off work for medical leave. That is six weeks of no income. And I have a 250 mile weekly drive to and from work, so gas for two weeks is likely to be a very real issue when I get back to work. And I am not the only one who is in a similar situation, and I am without a doubt in a better situation than others, who are off of work for months due to an injury or other medical reason.

And I ask, why should the company owners make more? I'll use my own job as an example. Dollar General could not make a dime if people did not work themselves extremely hard (and there are two positions in there distribution centers, Casepack order fillers and truck loaders that NO ONE will deny is a very hard position.), to the point we are exhausted, aching, hurting, and sore by the end of the week. But for our hard work, the approximately 360 Casepack workers and 720 truck loaders in all nine distribution centers make very little compared to those who run the company, who obviously do not work nearly as hard because they lack the calloused hands and larger muscles that come from such a difficult job. But yet the cannot make a dime without us. They can't even make a dime without the cashiers at the stores. And to reward there workers when Walmart reported loses, and DG reported some of there largest profits, it wasn't wage increases, or hiring more people to ease the work load. It was simply just lay some people off, and make us work even longer hours to accommodate the increasing volume that is going out. I don't know about you, but I see a problem with that.

 

[Magic Man]

And just because a small percentage of people make $7.25/h doesn't mean everything above that can sustain any lifestyle. 12 bucks an hour, at 45 to 50 hours a week, is about what it takes to sustain a household of two, and still have some to put into savings. But if any unexpected expenses come up, 12 dollars an hour is suddenly not enough.

This is an important point. Anyone making less than $20,000 a year is not in good shape. Anyone trying to support two kids on less than $33,000 a year is in bad shape. And those numbers are well above minimum wage.

 

[Yerda]

This is an important point. Anyone making less than $20,000 a year is not in good shape. Anyone trying to support two kids on less than $33,000 a year is in bad shape. And those numbers are well above minimum wage.

Been a few days...

Here's the type of response I would anticipate: Anyone making less than $20,000 a year is stupid or lazy or both and therefore are to blame for their own woes. Anyone supporting two kids on less than $33,000 is irresponsible, since they had two kids and yet don't earn sufficient sums of money to provide for them. Irresponsible people are to blame for their own woes.

The rich deserve to be rich or else they wouldn't be rich, would they?

I work hard for my relatively large income and don't believe my taxes should be squandered on providing social services like health and education for dumb, lazy, irresponsible people or their children. They should have earned enough to pay their own way. If I need my workers to learn basic arithmetic I'll have them trained, making it my responsibility. No one has a right to anything except the things I would like to have a right to, like protection for my person and property.

 

[Magic Man]

Been a few days...

Here's the type of response I would anticipate: Anyone making less than $20,000 a year is stupid or lazy or both and therefore are to blame for their own woes. Anyone supporting two kids on less than $33,000 is irresponsible, since they had two kids and yet don't earn sufficient sums of money to provide for them. Irresponsible people are to blame for their own woes.

The rich deserve to be rich or else they wouldn't be rich, would they?

I work hard for my relatively large income and don't believe my taxes should be squandered on providing social services like health and education for dumb, lazy, irresponsible people or their children. They should have earned enough to pay their own way. If I need my workers to learn basic arithmetic I'll have them trained, making it my responsibility. No one has a right to anything except the things I would like to have a right to, like protection for my person and property.

Yup, that's pretty much spot on with very little exaggeration (sadly enough). I mean, everyone knows Paris Hilton earned her fortune.

 

[berrychrisc]

Anyone making less than $20,000 a year is stupid or lazy or both

Typical disconnected arrogance.

The rich deserve to be rich or else they wouldn't be rich, would they?

No, the system happens to favor them. That doesn't make them worthy.

I work hard for my relatively large income and don't believe my taxes should be squandered on providing social services like health and education for dumb, lazy, irresponsible people or their children. .

The people that you consider dumb, lazy and irresponsible also work hard, and make other "deserving" people very rich in the process. All contributing members of society deserve to share in the benefits of that society. Those benefits include health care and education. If everyone had access to those, perhaps they could become "deserving" too.

If I need my workers to learn basic arithmetic I'll have them trained, making it my responsibility.

So your workers should only know the bare minimum that they need to perform the basic job that you pay them the minimum you can get away with. Then you blame them for their predicament. I have seen this thinking so many times. Education is a basic human right, and contributes to so much more than a person's ability to perform whatever task you have designated them to perform.

No one has a right to anything except the things I would like to have a right to, like protection for my person and property.

Wrong. All contributing members of society have the right to benefit from that society. It is wrong to deprive certain members of society basic rights because they lack the resources to compel access to those rights. But don't worry. As long as attitudes like yours persist, liberals like myself will continue levelling the playing field, and people like yourself will continue to get the bill.

You're welcome for all those healthy employees you will have now that they have access to health care. And don't worry. We'll get them educated and empowered as well so they can eventually figure out how bad you've been screwing them.