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

[Magic Man]

You see, the difference between us is, you think everyone should be a Liberal socialist like you.

I think everyone should be able to look at facts and be reasonable and logical about issues that affect everyone.

You actively seek to change how people think about a subject. That is seeking conversion which you have admitted to. :sorry1:

How do you debate with someone without trying to change their mind?

You see, when we debate, we should debate each others argument not seek to convert each other to the opposite opinion. :foot:

Then, what's the point? On some things, sure, it's fun to just get another side and learn some new things. On political issues like this, the whole idea is to get people to see it the right way.

Disclaimer: This is the sole opinion of me personally about the moral elements of debate in general. Respect and tolerance for the other side is key when debating.

Sounds great. Now when are you going to show me some respect and actually read my arguments? See, that's the real difference. You come on these threads just to spout your nonsense and be heard. I come on to actually discuss an issue, which means I read your comments and respond to them specifically. It would be nice if you could do the same.

It is the ultimate insult to try to convert someone don't you think?

Only if you're talking about religion. If you're talking about leaving millions of people without basic medical coverage, then no, it's not wrong at all to try to convince someone not to do that.

 

[Magic Man]

That's right. The homeless person with a bicycle, who can collect far more pop bottles than the guy on foot, and has a sturdy abandoned barn to sleep in, is rich.

Not monetarily. Maybe spiritually or something, but he's certainly not rich financially.

 

[Willamena]

Not monetarily. Maybe spiritually or something, but he's certainly not rich financially.

What about the person who has earned a steady income for 20 years, has a modest home, an old car to drive, enough money for necessities and a little left over for entertainment, but no savings and no Registered Savings Plan?

I guess I'm asking, why do you draw the line where you did?

 

[Willamena]

You could probably buy the whole city of Detroit for that kind of cash.

Or a house in Vancouver.

 

[Magic Man]

What about the person who has earned a steady income for 20 years, has a modest home, an old car to drive, enough money for necessities and a little left over for entertainment, but no savings and no Registered Savings Plan?

I guess I'm asking, why do you draw the line where you did?

If they don't have any savings, and only a little left over for entertainment and they still have to work, they're not rich. I draw the line where I did because to be rich, you have to meet a certain standard. That standard is having money in the bank, being able to go on vacations whenever you want, having the ability to have a nice house and nice cars and being able to spend money on entertainment all the time.

 

[Random]

Yes, the rich have gone to war against the poor and middle class in America, but it's a war of attrition; the rich have learned how to make themselves even more obscenely richer by playing an exclusive Casino Capitalist game, privatizing profits and socializing losses; the poor and middle class simply do not have the capital (money) to buy into this game, or the agents and expertise to make it work for them.

As for Reverend Rick, he vigorously defends the injustice done by the rich to the underclasses out of pure self-interest, clearly.

 

[KatNotKathy]

It's easier to redistribute wealth than blood. The rich need to remember that.

 

[Gunfingers]

It's easier to redistribute wealth than blood. The rich need to remember that.

Unless you're proposing more funding for the Red Cross i have no idea what that means...

 

[dust1n]

I guess when Rick was stating how millionaires weren't rich, he wasn't trying to convince us that a million dollars wasn't a lot of money, and that we shouldn't feel sympathetic for them...

 

[Magic Man]

Unless you're proposing more funding for the Red Cross i have no idea what that means...

I think she's trying to say that it would be easier for rich people to share their wealth than have their blood shed.

 

[dust1n]

I think she's trying to say that it would be easier for rich people to share their wealth than have their blood shed.

You mean to say, that Kat is implying that the poor will eventually kill the rich due to their condition?!? :gasp:

 

[Alceste]

You mean to say, that Kat is implying that the poor will eventually kill the rich due to their condition?!? :gasp:

They always have so far once their circumstances become unbearable - why would they stop now?

 

[Kathryn]

I'll ask this again since I got absolutely no response from anyone the first go round:

My parents have worked hard all their lives. They are in their seventies.

My father owned a small business. In fact, they only had three employees - themselves and one other person for clerical help. They paid that person well, including a nice benefits package that included education benefits, bonuses, and vacation.

My dad's dad had a farm that has been in the family for 120 years. My grandmother worked at a drug store for 40 years, lived in a small frame house, and somehow - SOMEHOW managed to save $100,000 over her frugal lifetime. (his parents were divorced.)

My dad inherited these since he was an only child. He invested the $100,000 wisely and has made some more money off that. He has mineral rights and timber rights on the farm and those are income producing as well. He manages his property well.

Technically, my parents are millionaires now. But every bit of their money is the direct result of our family's hard work - over 100 years of hard work.

How is it fair that their "wealth" be redistributed to others who have not worked for this land and income producing property? And when I inherit this, and continue to maintain and grow the income from this place - remind me again why Uncle Sam should get 1/3 of it in the form of an inheritance tax? It's already been taxed, over and over again.

 

[dust1n]

I'll ask this again since I got absolutely no response from anyone the first go round:

My parents have worked hard all their lives. They are in their seventies.

My father owned a small business. In fact, they only had three employees - themselves and one other person for clerical help. They paid that person well, including a nice benefits package that included education benefits, bonuses, and vacation.

My dad's dad had a farm that has been in the family for 120 years. My grandmother worked at a drug store for 40 years, lived in a small frame house, and somehow - SOMEHOW managed to save $100,000 over her frugal lifetime. (his parents were divorced.)

My dad inherited these since he was an only child. He invested the $100,000 wisely and has made some more money off that. He has mineral rights and timber rights on the farm and those are income producing as well. He manages his property well.

Technically, my parents are millionaires now. But every bit of their money is the direct result of our family's hard work - over 100 years of hard work.

How is it fair that their "wealth" be redistributed to others who have not worked for this land and income producing property? And when I inherit this, and continue to maintain and grow the income from this place - remind me again why Uncle Sam should get 1/3 of it in the form of an inheritance tax? It's already been taxed, over and over again.

Did they enjoy their life work? Did they live a comfortable life with satisfactory enmities?

 

[McBell]

How is it fair that their "wealth" be redistributed to others who have not worked for this land and income producing property? And when I inherit this, and continue to maintain and grow the income from this place - remind me again why Uncle Sam should get 1/3 of it in the form of an inheritance tax? It's already been taxed, over and over again.

I am rather interested in the answer myself.
However, I am guessing that you will get the ever popular "you can afford it, so it is fair" reply.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, for the most part. Their sense of satisfaction lies largely in their ability to continue a legacy - to pass down to their children and grandchildren what our family has built over the generations. They haven't always lived a comfortable life but for the past 20 years they have - though in that 20 years they have both worked harder than many people work in a lifetime.

Do you think that it is fair that the fruits of all their hard work, done largely for the benefit of their immediate family as well as themselves, should be given to strangers? If so, why?

 

[dust1n]

Yes, for the most part. Their sense of satisfaction lies largely in their ability to continue a legacy - to pass down to their children and grandchildren what our family has built over the generations. They haven't always lived a comfortable life but for the past 20 years they have - though in that 20 years they have both worked harder than many people work in a lifetime.

Do you think that it is fair that the fruits of all their hard work, done largely for the benefit of their immediate family as well as themselves, should be given to strangers? If so, why?

I don't know, I was just curious. As for myself. If I enjoyed my life's work, and had all my necessary supplies and even what luxury commodities I want, I wouldn't want or need to be a millionaire.

 

[Kathryn]

Let's say that you inherit two diamond rings from your grandmother - her wedding band and her 50th anniversary band. You already have a wedding band yourself.

You don't need all three of those. Greedy little pig! There are perfectly good perfect strangers out there who don't have wedding bands.

Is it right for those to be taken from you and given to someone else who may need them more?

What about vehicles? Say your granddad dies and leaves you his vintage 1965 Chevy truck and his new SUV. You already have a perfectly good vehicle yourself. Surely you don't need all these things! Would the government be justified in redistributing these items to those who need them more? And with no compensation to you whatsoever - you're just outta luck?

Where do you draw the line - what about your granddad's house? You have a house - why on earth do you need two? Oh, you want to sell it and pocket the money - maybe put it away for your retirement or put it up for a college fund for your kids and grandkids? But there are people out there who need a HOUSE. Greedy pig! Give it to them! Who cares if your kids don't go to your alma mater - there are perfectly good state schools - and student loans. Woohoo, they can be in debt for the next 15 years - but someone else's kid gets to go to school free with ol' granddad's money.

Something ain't right about all that.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't know, I was just curious. As for myself. If I enjoyed my life's work, and had all my necessary supplies and even what luxury commodities I want, I wouldn't want or need to be a millionaire.

Dust - but what if you inherited that money - and it was money that your family had built out of a few acres of red dirt - they worked that dirt for over 100 years and finally built up something to leave to their kids.

Is it right to redistribute that wealth just because you don't NEED it? Now, it's one thing to give generously to causes when you have extra to spare - but do you think it's right for the GOVERNMENT to basically confiscate your parents' hard earned money and redistribute it to others?

 

[dust1n]

Let's say that you inherit two diamond rings from your grandmother - her wedding band and her 50th anniversary band. You already have a wedding band yourself.

You don't need all three of those. Greedy little pig! There are perfectly good perfect strangers out there who don't have wedding bands.

What about vehicles? Say your granddad dies and leaves you his vintage 1965 Chevy truck and his new SUV. You already have a perfectly good vehicle yourself. Surely you don't need all these things!

Where do you draw the line - what about your granddad's house? You have a house - why on earth do you need two? Oh, you want to sell it and pocket the money - maybe put it away for your retirement or put it up for a college fund for your kids and grandkids?

I don't know about government redistributing wealth, people are the only ones capable of doing it anyway. What you should be less concerned about whether the government has the right to distribute your wealth, or whether your wealth is really necessary. You made some good arguments for that point.

Personally, I don't need any diamond rings, and only need one car that gets from point A to point B, and only one home to exist in. If I had two houses, and retirement and education was a public right, then I wouldn't have to worry about needing money to secure my future. I would give it away, yes.