Where does wealth hatred come from?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

What do you think explains this:

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980.[1][2]"
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

I never disagreed with that. All I am saying is that the reason for it are changes that took place in our society since then.

 

[georgephillip]

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

What do you think explains this:

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980.[1][2]"
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

I never disagreed with that. All I am saying is that the reason for it are changes that took place in our society since then.

Changes that include the richest 1% of Americans bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

"CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60%, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. 'As a result of that uneven income growth,' the report noted, 'the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined.... The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%.""[5

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

What do you think explains this:

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980.[1][2]"
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

I never disagreed with that. All I am saying is that the reason for it are changes that took place in our society since then.

Changes that include the richest 1% of Americans bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

"CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60%, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. 'As a result of that uneven income growth,' the report noted, 'the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined.... The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%.""[5

So who was bribed? Any names in particular?

Let me put something to bed right now: there is no share of income. It's not like the US had this pile of money, and some got more of it than others. If you are poor, it's not because the rich have too much, it's because you didn't try enough.

So let's say that Trump decides he's going to take all the money from millionaires and billionaires. How does that help you any?

It doesn't. Your plight is not based on how much others have, it's based on how you conducted your life.

People who eventually become wealthy did the exact opposite of us. They didn't get the newest I-phone, they didn't have 400 channel cable television. They didn't buy the newest model of car when it came out. They didn't buy a home or rent an apartment that was so pricy it made them live check to check. They didn't take lavish vacations. They didn't start a family at the age of 20. Instead, they invested their money.

When they get on the internet, they are not checking out porn sites. They are not watching YouTube videos of people at Walmart. They are not checking out sports scores and highlights. They are focused on sites that track their investments or learning about other types of investments.

 

[Winston]

Ray, liberals don’t hate the wealthy. Most liberals aspire to BE wealthy. What they hate, is skewing the economy to heavily favour the wealthy.

Spoke too soon:

In other words, tax 99% of the billionaires into extinction (and prison)

When Reagan was elected President, there was an economic balance in the US where a rising tide lifted all boats. The American economy was strong because the working and middle class had financial security and savings. Reagan changed that balance and tilted it to the wealthy. The working class stopped getting raises. Profits mattered more than people.

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

Reagan removed most anti-trust provisions were lifted, allowing larger and larger corporations to be created. Now almost all retail is mega-chains and big box stores. Mega corporations employ millions but the money all goes to the top and the shareholders, while the employees who generate that income receive government assistance.

Wages for low income front line workers have been stagnant since the 1980’s. Not coincidentally, government assistance programs have grown under Republicans. The number of people receiving food stamps doubled the first two years of Reagan’s administration and never declined thereafter.

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

View attachment 171526

When Reagan was elected, the working class had savings. They owned 5% of the wealth of America. Not a lot to be sure, but they had a stake in things. That was gone before the outsourcing began in earnest under George W. Bush. The American middle class is shrinking and the recent tax cuts made by Trump will only accelerate that process.

W’s tax cut and refusal to raise minimum wages got the destruction of the middle class going big time. Trump just doubled down by cutting taxes with a huge deficit and full employment. Dumb and dumber.

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

Because the breaks are going to the wealthy - over 70% of the debt created to pay for this tax cut ties to the wealthy and corporations. Middle class business owners get less of a cut than shareholders. Investing in the stock market is doing nothing for the dividends this money earns. It’s like a rich guy’s version of a government handout since the rich guys and corporations use more government services and return much less than what they use to government coffers.

Corporations use roads for transportation of goods and services and to get employees to work efficiently. They use waste treatment facilities at a higher level. They need an educated work force but they don’t want to pay for their training.

Rural areas complain about the high taxes in cities but cities with public transportation and access to jobs provide shelter for the working poor.

There’s a thread on this board about how higher wages for restaurant workers in Seattle is threatening the return of the $5 foot long sandwich. I see that as a good thing for everyone.

This campaign to keep fast food restaurant wages low so Americans can eat the worst possible food for the cheapest possible price would make for high farce if another thread didn’t make also make the claim that America was the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Yes because fast food restaurant prices are being subsidized by EIC’s. It may be hard to find a supermarket in the ghetto but MickeyD is everywhere.

No, supermarkets can't survive in the ghetto because of the thefts committed by blacks. If it's not the shoplifting it's the armed robberies.

Our Target store--closed, our Walmart store--closed, our K-mart store--closed, all for the same reason.

A handout is when you give somebody something they don't have. Taking less from somebody is not a handout.

This nonsense that the wealthy use more government services than the average person is liberal nonsense. The rich person doesn't need the police as often if at all, they don't need Medicare, they don't need Social Security, they don't need food stamps. Yes, they pay into all that, but take nothing in return.

Corporations add to city and state taxation which is why cities and states fight to get businesses to come there. They offer tax abatements because even with the break, they make out like bandits. When a business employs hundreds or thousands of workers, each worker creates taxes for the city and state. A city with large industry areas does much better than cities that have little industry.

If you believe wealthy use government services less than the poor you are absolutely delusional. Like the police. It is not about domestic violence calls or chasing off gang bangers. It is about the protection of PROPERTY. And I can tell you from experience. I have lived in poor rural areas and I have lived in upper class neighborhoods. In the poor rural areas I could go years without ever seeing a law enforcement officer. In the upper class neighborhoods I spoke to them weekly. Social Security, most wealthy people I know have disability insurance. Social Security is built in to those policies, without it the premium would be triple, at least. And I can assure you, no rich person refuses Medicare Part A, very few turn down Part B. Without Medicare they would be paying full retail for health services. When Donald Trump went to the doctor, he paid Medicare rates, he didn't pay full price.

But you ignore the big expenses. As Dragonlady mentioned, the highways. Corporations depend on them to move their goods, hell you should know that better than anyone. But what about the airports and air traffic controllers. The wealthy depend on those airports to land their private jets, they depend on the controllers to keep them from running in to each other. Not to mention they use commercial airlines at a far greater frequency than any poor person. And then there is defense spending, the protection of intellectual property rights, and of course, the protection of the banking system.

That's silly.

Police in upper crust areas are bored to death. No crime means nothing to do, so they often take laser of cars or patrol streets and businesses. Cities depend highly on business revenue to make the city run. Without it, the city falls apart and that has happened to several suburbs in my area. If businesses are getting broken into or employees cars are constantly damaged, the business eventually moves out to a better location.

Transportation companies pay a ton of taxes for roads and highways. In fact, we get taxed by the mile and by how many axles the vehicle has. That's on top of diesel fuel tax which is something like 30 some cents a gallon. However those costs get passed down to our customers who have to indirectly pay them, so they actually pay more for the roads than anybody else. Nobody is doing the businesses any favors, trust me.

Most wealthy people have long-term health insurance that covers them through the remainder of their lives. They don't need SS and they don't need Medicare, and SS does not subsidize them either.

For the most part, airports are self supportive. They are not financed by cities, states or the federal government. Because businesses use the airport more, they also pay more. Nobody is getting a free ride.

Man but you are a hoot. Long term care insurance covers one thing, long term care. It is specifically designed to cover costs NOT COVERED by Medicare. The FAA requested over 16 billion dollars for 2018. Funny, you seem to easily see the 70 billion spent on food stamps but the FAA's 16 billion is invisible. Of course, that is only a part of the Department of Transportation's budget of 98 billion dollar, which eclipses food stamp spending.

Now, to the grocery stores and the inner city. Often times a grocery store moves locations. They upgrade to a new, more modern, facility. Think of one of those stores that closed in your nearby suburb. Did they locate somewhere else? And that old location, is it occupied? Probably not, and not because another grocery store does not want to go in. It is because of deed restrictions. Walmart has 250 old locations sitting empty due to deed restrictions. They claim they welcome competition but refuse to provide infrastructure to competitors. But hell, they didn't build the building, they didn't even own it. They leased it, and when they signed that lease it including deed restrictions preventing another competitor from leasing the facility in the future. It is an insidious form of rent seeking.

 

[Dragonlady]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

Wealth hatred comes from the poor who have to rationalize being poor, so they demonize anyone with more than them, this is sad because it basically programs children that they must be poor or evil. Very sad

This is such bullshit. The poor don’t hate the wealthy. They hate the lack of opportunities. That where they are born or the colour of their skin determines what they are expected to achieve.

In neighbourhoods where public schools are being replaced by charter schools, the poorest children are dropping out of school. Their parents can’t pay the difference between the vouchers and the tuition so they just get dropped from school rolls.

Lack of funding for inner city schools ensures the generation growing up there now will remain poor.

 

[Winston]

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

What do you think explains this:

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980.[1][2]"
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

I never disagreed with that. All I am saying is that the reason for it are changes that took place in our society since then.

Changes that include the richest 1% of Americans bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

"CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60%, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. 'As a result of that uneven income growth,' the report noted, 'the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined.... The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%.""[5

So who was bribed? Any names in particular?

Let me put something to bed right now: there is no share of income. It's not like the US had this pile of money, and some got more of it than others. If you are poor, it's not because the rich have too much, it's because you didn't try enough.

So let's say that Trump decides he's going to take all the money from millionaires and billionaires. How does that help you any?

It doesn't. Your plight is not based on how much others have, it's based on how you conducted your life.

People who eventually become wealthy did the exact opposite of us. They didn't get the newest I-phone, they didn't have 400 channel cable television. They didn't buy the newest model of car when it came out. They didn't buy a home or rent an apartment that was so pricy it made them live check to check. They didn't take lavish vacations. They didn't start a family at the age of 20. Instead, they invested their money.

When they get on the internet, they are not checking out porn sites. They are not watching YouTube videos of people at Walmart. They are not checking out sports scores and highlights. They are focused on sites that track their investments or learning about other types of investments.

You don't know any rich people. Seriously. And I am not talking wealthy, I am talking rich. A unit is the bar minimum to enter the rich club, and that is probably a little short today. That is 200 million. Not many of the Hollywood elite can claim membership in that club. And saving your dollars ain't going to get you there, it takes an idea, or inheritance like Trump, or being at the right place at the right time. And it takes a little bit of luck. Anyone worth that much will be the first to admit that their success was not based entirely on thriftiness and a strong work ethic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Spoke too soon:

So what you're trying to say is that because Reagan lowered their taxes, they quit giving raises? How does that work anyway?

No, that's completely wrong. When Reagan got in, 23 million were collecting food stamps. When he left, it was about 18 million, but nothing compared to what happened during Clinton and of course DumBama who doubled it within a few short years:

View attachment 171526

Presidents have nothing to do with outsourcing. Outsourcing is a company decision and not a government one.

Can you explain to me how giving middle-class workers tax breaks are destroying the middle-class? How does that work exactly?

Because the breaks are going to the wealthy - over 70% of the debt created to pay for this tax cut ties to the wealthy and corporations. Middle class business owners get less of a cut than shareholders. Investing in the stock market is doing nothing for the dividends this money earns. It’s like a rich guy’s version of a government handout since the rich guys and corporations use more government services and return much less than what they use to government coffers.

Corporations use roads for transportation of goods and services and to get employees to work efficiently. They use waste treatment facilities at a higher level. They need an educated work force but they don’t want to pay for their training.

Rural areas complain about the high taxes in cities but cities with public transportation and access to jobs provide shelter for the working poor.

There’s a thread on this board about how higher wages for restaurant workers in Seattle is threatening the return of the $5 foot long sandwich. I see that as a good thing for everyone.

This campaign to keep fast food restaurant wages low so Americans can eat the worst possible food for the cheapest possible price would make for high farce if another thread didn’t make also make the claim that America was the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Yes because fast food restaurant prices are being subsidized by EIC’s. It may be hard to find a supermarket in the ghetto but MickeyD is everywhere.

No, supermarkets can't survive in the ghetto because of the thefts committed by blacks. If it's not the shoplifting it's the armed robberies.

Our Target store--closed, our Walmart store--closed, our K-mart store--closed, all for the same reason.

A handout is when you give somebody something they don't have. Taking less from somebody is not a handout.

This nonsense that the wealthy use more government services than the average person is liberal nonsense. The rich person doesn't need the police as often if at all, they don't need Medicare, they don't need Social Security, they don't need food stamps. Yes, they pay into all that, but take nothing in return.

Corporations add to city and state taxation which is why cities and states fight to get businesses to come there. They offer tax abatements because even with the break, they make out like bandits. When a business employs hundreds or thousands of workers, each worker creates taxes for the city and state. A city with large industry areas does much better than cities that have little industry.

If you believe wealthy use government services less than the poor you are absolutely delusional. Like the police. It is not about domestic violence calls or chasing off gang bangers. It is about the protection of PROPERTY. And I can tell you from experience. I have lived in poor rural areas and I have lived in upper class neighborhoods. In the poor rural areas I could go years without ever seeing a law enforcement officer. In the upper class neighborhoods I spoke to them weekly. Social Security, most wealthy people I know have disability insurance. Social Security is built in to those policies, without it the premium would be triple, at least. And I can assure you, no rich person refuses Medicare Part A, very few turn down Part B. Without Medicare they would be paying full retail for health services. When Donald Trump went to the doctor, he paid Medicare rates, he didn't pay full price.

But you ignore the big expenses. As Dragonlady mentioned, the highways. Corporations depend on them to move their goods, hell you should know that better than anyone. But what about the airports and air traffic controllers. The wealthy depend on those airports to land their private jets, they depend on the controllers to keep them from running in to each other. Not to mention they use commercial airlines at a far greater frequency than any poor person. And then there is defense spending, the protection of intellectual property rights, and of course, the protection of the banking system.

That's silly.

Police in upper crust areas are bored to death. No crime means nothing to do, so they often take laser of cars or patrol streets and businesses. Cities depend highly on business revenue to make the city run. Without it, the city falls apart and that has happened to several suburbs in my area. If businesses are getting broken into or employees cars are constantly damaged, the business eventually moves out to a better location.

Transportation companies pay a ton of taxes for roads and highways. In fact, we get taxed by the mile and by how many axles the vehicle has. That's on top of diesel fuel tax which is something like 30 some cents a gallon. However those costs get passed down to our customers who have to indirectly pay them, so they actually pay more for the roads than anybody else. Nobody is doing the businesses any favors, trust me.

Most wealthy people have long-term health insurance that covers them through the remainder of their lives. They don't need SS and they don't need Medicare, and SS does not subsidize them either.

For the most part, airports are self supportive. They are not financed by cities, states or the federal government. Because businesses use the airport more, they also pay more. Nobody is getting a free ride.

Man but you are a hoot. Long term care insurance covers one thing, long term care. It is specifically designed to cover costs NOT COVERED by Medicare. The FAA requested over 16 billion dollars for 2018. Funny, you seem to easily see the 70 billion spent on food stamps but the FAA's 16 billion is invisible. Of course, that is only a part of the Department of Transportation's budget of 98 billion dollar, which eclipses food stamp spending.

Now, to the grocery stores and the inner city. Often times a grocery store moves locations. They upgrade to a new, more modern, facility. Think of one of those stores that closed in your nearby suburb. Did they locate somewhere else? And that old location, is it occupied? Probably not, and not because another grocery store does not want to go in. It is because of deed restrictions. Walmart has 250 old locations sitting empty due to deed restrictions. They claim they welcome competition but refuse to provide infrastructure to competitors. But hell, they didn't build the building, they didn't even own it. They leased it, and when they signed that lease it including deed restrictions preventing another competitor from leasing the facility in the future. It is an insidious form of rent seeking.

If they're paying for it they can do as they please. I'm a landlord, and if one of my tenants moves somewhere else but still paying rent, I could care less as long as the unit is being paid for. In fact I'll make out in the end because nobody is using water and sewer.

Now tell me, if a Walmart moved out of a store, WTF would they care if somebody else moved in? Walmart and similar outlets are what's known as an Anchor Store. What that means is that Walmart will attract customers for all the other stores. Most times that is also written in the contract. If the anchor store folds up, then the other surrounding stores have the option to get out of their lease.

Walmart is not afraid of competition outside of online buying.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

Wealth hatred comes from the poor who have to rationalize being poor, so they demonize anyone with more than them, this is sad because it basically programs children that they must be poor or evil. Very sad

This is such bullshit. The poor don’t hate the wealthy. They hate the lack of opportunities. That where they are born or the colour of their skin determines what they are expected to achieve.

In neighbourhoods where public schools are being replaced by charter schools, the poorest children are dropping out of school. Their parents can’t pay the difference between the vouchers and the tuition so they just get dropped from school rolls.

Lack of funding for inner city schools ensures the generation growing up there now will remain poor.

Our schools are locally funded unless they reach emergency levels where the feds come in and help them out. The people of each community vote how much they wish to contribute to their schools. If they decide to fund as little as possible, they get as little as possible.

However as a whole, the US spends more per capita on education than just about any industrialized country in the world. We have only mediocre results to show for it, but throwing even more money at the problem won't solve it.

The reason lower income areas experience drop outs and substandard education is because the parent is less involved than in better areas. Schools can't educate children alone. The parents need to be involved as well. If a kid isn't paying attention in school, not passing tests, not showing up, there is nothing the best school in the world can do for that kid. And if the parent is not involved, then nothing will work.

 

[Clementine]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

It's not even that they really hate business owners. They love wealth creators otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to steal from. They encourage class warfare because they gain support for their wealth redistribution. They want socialism and they intend to make it happen by continuing to dumb people down, make them feel entitled and, of course, lay the blame on the wealth creators.

Most Dems are wealthy. It seems that their motto is "My money belongs to me and your money is community property." You'll never see Dems pointing fingers at their fellow socialists and telling them they earned enough or that they don't need mansions. They'll never tell Al Gore that he should reduce his gigantic carbon footprint. Nope. They love money.

Most Dems are lawyers and think like lawyers. They don't create wealth. They make a living by going after deep pockets to benefit themselves and their clients. No different than what Dem politicians are doing. They have created millions of "clients" by convincing them that they have a legitimate grievance, namely that wealthy people are at fault for their poverty. They get votes on the promise that they'll return the wealth to the rightful owners or some such bullshit. Of course, they always end up confiscating more from average workers and middle class. But the low info idiots eat it up. Too many people have been conditioned to stand there with their hands out waiting for some politician to give them things.

In order to keep their constituents feeling like victims, they have to keep demonizing the greedy wealthy people. It gives government more and more power and the useful idiots are unable to see the big picture.

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

It's not even that they really hate business owners. They love wealth creators otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to steal from. They encourage class warfare because they gain support for their wealth redistribution. They want socialism and they intend to make it happen by continuing to dumb people down, make them feel entitled and, of course, lay the blame on the wealth creators.

Most Dems are wealthy. It seems that their motto is "My money belongs to me and your money is community property." You'll never see Dems pointing fingers at their fellow socialists and telling them they earned enough or that they don't need mansions. They'll never tell Al Gore that he should reduce his gigantic carbon footprint. Nope. They love money.

Most Dems are lawyers and think like lawyers. They don't create wealth. They make a living by going after deep pockets to benefit themselves and their clients. No different than what Dem politicians are doing. They have created millions of "clients" by convincing them that they have a legitimate grievance, namely that wealthy people are at fault for their poverty. They get votes on the promise that they'll return the wealth to the rightful owners or some such bullshit. Of course, they always end up confiscating more from average workers and middle class. But the low info idiots eat it up. Too many people have been conditioned to stand there with their hands out waiting for some politician to give them things.

In order to keep their constituents feeling like victims, they have to keep demonizing the greedy wealthy people. It gives government more and more power and the useful idiots are unable to see the big picture.

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

 

[Clementine]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

It's not even that they really hate business owners. They love wealth creators otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to steal from. They encourage class warfare because they gain support for their wealth redistribution. They want socialism and they intend to make it happen by continuing to dumb people down, make them feel entitled and, of course, lay the blame on the wealth creators.

Most Dems are wealthy. It seems that their motto is "My money belongs to me and your money is community property." You'll never see Dems pointing fingers at their fellow socialists and telling them they earned enough or that they don't need mansions. They'll never tell Al Gore that he should reduce his gigantic carbon footprint. Nope. They love money.

Most Dems are lawyers and think like lawyers. They don't create wealth. They make a living by going after deep pockets to benefit themselves and their clients. No different than what Dem politicians are doing. They have created millions of "clients" by convincing them that they have a legitimate grievance, namely that wealthy people are at fault for their poverty. They get votes on the promise that they'll return the wealth to the rightful owners or some such bullshit. Of course, they always end up confiscating more from average workers and middle class. But the low info idiots eat it up. Too many people have been conditioned to stand there with their hands out waiting for some politician to give them things.

In order to keep their constituents feeling like victims, they have to keep demonizing the greedy wealthy people. It gives government more and more power and the useful idiots are unable to see the big picture.

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

It's not even that they really hate business owners. They love wealth creators otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to steal from. They encourage class warfare because they gain support for their wealth redistribution. They want socialism and they intend to make it happen by continuing to dumb people down, make them feel entitled and, of course, lay the blame on the wealth creators.

Most Dems are wealthy. It seems that their motto is "My money belongs to me and your money is community property." You'll never see Dems pointing fingers at their fellow socialists and telling them they earned enough or that they don't need mansions. They'll never tell Al Gore that he should reduce his gigantic carbon footprint. Nope. They love money.

Most Dems are lawyers and think like lawyers. They don't create wealth. They make a living by going after deep pockets to benefit themselves and their clients. No different than what Dem politicians are doing. They have created millions of "clients" by convincing them that they have a legitimate grievance, namely that wealthy people are at fault for their poverty. They get votes on the promise that they'll return the wealth to the rightful owners or some such bullshit. Of course, they always end up confiscating more from average workers and middle class. But the low info idiots eat it up. Too many people have been conditioned to stand there with their hands out waiting for some politician to give them things.

In order to keep their constituents feeling like victims, they have to keep demonizing the greedy wealthy people. It gives government more and more power and the useful idiots are unable to see the big picture.

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

Each party wants to "expand their tent" as they say. The largest groups in their tent are government dependents and victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

Between Commie Care and food stamps, Dumbama created more than 40 million new government dependents, and that was no accident either. In fact they bragged about it.

Then there is victimization. Victims of big oil, victims of big corporations, victims of the wealthy, victims of smokers, victims of discrimination, victims of unequal pay, victims of income inequality, victims of substandard education, the war on women, victims, victims, victims.

So how do you fight big anything? Simple, with big government.

It's my belief that Democrats really don't care about guns. What Democrats don't like are people being able to protect themselves with guns. If you can protect yourself, then who needs government? And if they were some way able to take our guns, we would all be victims of big crime, and that's exactly what they would want. Because if you are a victim of big crime, then you need an even bigger government to challenge it.

 

[beagle9]

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

What do you think explains this:

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980.[1][2]"
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

I never disagreed with that. All I am saying is that the reason for it are changes that took place in our society since then.

Changes that include the richest 1% of Americans bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

"CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60%, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. 'As a result of that uneven income growth,' the report noted, 'the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined.... The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%.""[5

So who was bribed? Any names in particular?

Let me put something to bed right now: there is no share of income. It's not like the US had this pile of money, and some got more of it than others. If you are poor, it's not because the rich have too much, it's because you didn't try enough.

Here's a real story for you Ray.

I know one of the hardest working guy's you could know any where. This cat will work when no one else will, and will lose his vacation days etc because he won't take off or use them.

Well I got a phone call tonight, and him and his wife are going through some super tough times, and they wanted to sell me a garden tiller in their desperation. She hasn't worked in quite a few years because of her failing health. She is basically disabled due to multiple operations, COPD, and other such things. They only have the one income to count on. She tried to qualify for disability, but they said she didn't work steady enough in her life, so she was denide. With his workaholic personality, they still were just barely treading water. Then Christmas came, and they scraped up enough to get the grandkids something for Christmas, but after that the work fell off badly at his job. He's still employed by the same company he's worked for years at, but it's worse now than he's ever seen it before. He's trying to stay loyal, but his home life situation is in trouble real bad when it comes to hanging on. The company has had employees starting to drop like flies (quit), so he's hoping he doesn't have to do that. He likes the job, but it's on very Shakey ground lately.

He doesn't envy or hate anyone wealthy, but just wants to survive while him and his wife hold on to their dignity, and the mobile home in which they only have till March to finally have it paid off (rent to own situation), in which they had got into years ago. Her medical bills have almost broke this guy's wallet, and has left them trying to sell small items in hopes that the work at his job will pick back up immediately.

Not everyone is just bums, and aren't trying Ray, for some it's just that life happens.

 

[francoHFW]

Well.......the quickest answer is that it comes from the Democrat party and politicians. Hate people because they own businesses, hate people because they don't pay their workers enough, hate people because they get tax breaks, hate people because they have stuff the rest doesn't. It's brainwashing as usual.

But in my opinion, it must have deeper roots than politics.

Hate is usually a defense mechanism. Hate comes from fear or threat. You may hate your supervisor because he or she threatens your future with the company. Hate may come in forms of race where you feel a threat or fear for the safety of your family or investment of your home. Hate may be of gender where a person was abused by their spouse or even a stranger. It comes from somewhere. You don't wake up one morning and say "I really hate that Donald Trump. I didn't mind him yesterday, but today I wish he'd fall off a cliff."

I guess this question is really for the libs since they lead the charge in wealth hatred. If you agree with my assessment that hate derives from fear or threat, what has the wealthy done to you in the past that makes you feel this way? Or is it you were told by the Democrat party to hate wealthy people?

Well.......not all wealthy people of course. Liberals tend to give waivers to sports figures, entertainment figures, lottery winners, people that do things they enjoy instead of working for wealth. But if you went to college, worked your way up the ladder, made investments, and became wealthy through work, you are the worst creature on earth, and the Democrat party simply fuels that flame.

It's not even that they really hate business owners. They love wealth creators otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to steal from. They encourage class warfare because they gain support for their wealth redistribution. They want socialism and they intend to make it happen by continuing to dumb people down, make them feel entitled and, of course, lay the blame on the wealth creators.

Most Dems are wealthy. It seems that their motto is "My money belongs to me and your money is community property." You'll never see Dems pointing fingers at their fellow socialists and telling them they earned enough or that they don't need mansions. They'll never tell Al Gore that he should reduce his gigantic carbon footprint. Nope. They love money.

Most Dems are lawyers and think like lawyers. They don't create wealth. They make a living by going after deep pockets to benefit themselves and their clients. No different than what Dem politicians are doing. They have created millions of "clients" by convincing them that they have a legitimate grievance, namely that wealthy people are at fault for their poverty. They get votes on the promise that they'll return the wealth to the rightful owners or some such bullshit. Of course, they always end up confiscating more from average workers and middle class. But the low info idiots eat it up. Too many people have been conditioned to stand there with their hands out waiting for some politician to give them things.

In order to keep their constituents feeling like victims, they have to keep demonizing the greedy wealthy people. It gives government more and more power and the useful idiots are unable to see the big picture.

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

You mean the lying cheating thieving brainwashing greedy idiot big bad GOP white people, super dupe? The ones who have been pandering to themselves for 35 years and Wrecking the country? My goodness you're a brainwashed functional moron...

 

[Thinker101]

It's not even that they really hate business owners. They love wealth creators otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to steal from. They encourage class warfare because they gain support for their wealth redistribution. They want socialism and they intend to make it happen by continuing to dumb people down, make them feel entitled and, of course, lay the blame on the wealth creators.

Most Dems are wealthy. It seems that their motto is "My money belongs to me and your money is community property." You'll never see Dems pointing fingers at their fellow socialists and telling them they earned enough or that they don't need mansions. They'll never tell Al Gore that he should reduce his gigantic carbon footprint. Nope. They love money.

Most Dems are lawyers and think like lawyers. They don't create wealth. They make a living by going after deep pockets to benefit themselves and their clients. No different than what Dem politicians are doing. They have created millions of "clients" by convincing them that they have a legitimate grievance, namely that wealthy people are at fault for their poverty. They get votes on the promise that they'll return the wealth to the rightful owners or some such bullshit. Of course, they always end up confiscating more from average workers and middle class. But the low info idiots eat it up. Too many people have been conditioned to stand there with their hands out waiting for some politician to give them things.

In order to keep their constituents feeling like victims, they have to keep demonizing the greedy wealthy people. It gives government more and more power and the useful idiots are unable to see the big picture.

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

You mean the lying cheating thieving brainwashing greedy idiot big bad GOP white people, super dupe? The ones who have been pandering to themselves for 35 years and Wrecking the country? My goodness you're a brainwashed functional moron...

Go out, get a job...you'll feel better in about a week.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not even that they really hate business owners. They love wealth creators otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to steal from. They encourage class warfare because they gain support for their wealth redistribution. They want socialism and they intend to make it happen by continuing to dumb people down, make them feel entitled and, of course, lay the blame on the wealth creators.

Most Dems are wealthy. It seems that their motto is "My money belongs to me and your money is community property." You'll never see Dems pointing fingers at their fellow socialists and telling them they earned enough or that they don't need mansions. They'll never tell Al Gore that he should reduce his gigantic carbon footprint. Nope. They love money.

Most Dems are lawyers and think like lawyers. They don't create wealth. They make a living by going after deep pockets to benefit themselves and their clients. No different than what Dem politicians are doing. They have created millions of "clients" by convincing them that they have a legitimate grievance, namely that wealthy people are at fault for their poverty. They get votes on the promise that they'll return the wealth to the rightful owners or some such bullshit. Of course, they always end up confiscating more from average workers and middle class. But the low info idiots eat it up. Too many people have been conditioned to stand there with their hands out waiting for some politician to give them things.

In order to keep their constituents feeling like victims, they have to keep demonizing the greedy wealthy people. It gives government more and more power and the useful idiots are unable to see the big picture.

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

You mean the lying cheating thieving brainwashing greedy idiot big bad GOP white people, super dupe? The ones who have been pandering to themselves for 35 years and Wrecking the country? My goodness you're a brainwashed functional moron...

Yeah, she's almost like the people who come here and repeat the same *&^^ shit every posts day and night. Imagine that!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Four decades....... well let's look at that.

What did we have four decades ago? Not much in comparison. I know because I was a child of the 70's. Back then, we had a landline telephone, a stereo with a cassette player, a 25" color television, and if you were lucky, a roof antenna instead of rabbit ears. Going out to eat was a treat instead of a weekly staple. Most families had one car. Want to see a new movie? Get in the car and drive to the cinema. That too was a treat.

What do you think explains this:

"Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. Income inequality has fluctuated considerably since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950–1980.[1][2]"
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

I never disagreed with that. All I am saying is that the reason for it are changes that took place in our society since then.

Changes that include the richest 1% of Americans bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

"CBO reported that for the 1979-2007 period, after-tax income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19%, just under 40% for the next 60%, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. 'As a result of that uneven income growth,' the report noted, 'the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined.... The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%.""[5

So who was bribed? Any names in particular?

Let me put something to bed right now: there is no share of income. It's not like the US had this pile of money, and some got more of it than others. If you are poor, it's not because the rich have too much, it's because you didn't try enough.

Here's a real story for you Ray.

I know one of the hardest working guy's you could know any where. This cat will work when no one else will, and will lose his vacation days etc because he won't take off or use them.

Well I got a phone call tonight, and him and his wife are going through some super tough times, and they wanted to sell me a garden tiller in their desperation. She hasn't worked in quite a few years because of her failing health. She is basically disabled due to multiple operations, COPD, and other such things. They only have the one income to count on. She tried to qualify for disability, but they said she didn't work steady enough in her life, so she was denide. With his workaholic personality, they still were just barely treading water. Then Christmas came, and they scraped up enough to get the grandkids something for Christmas, but after that the work fell off badly at his job. He's still employed by the same company he's worked for years at, but it's worse now than he's ever seen it before. He's trying to stay loyal, but his home life situation is in trouble real bad when it comes to hanging on. The company has had employees starting to drop like flies (quit), so he's hoping he doesn't have to do that. He likes the job, but it's on very Shakey ground lately.

He doesn't envy or hate anyone wealthy, but just wants to survive while him and his wife hold on to their dignity, and the mobile home in which they only have till March to finally have it paid off (rent to own situation), in which they had got into years ago. Her medical bills have almost broke this guy's wallet, and has left them trying to sell small items in hopes that the work at his job will pick back up immediately.

Not everyone is just bums, and aren't trying Ray, for some it's just that life happens.

Which is what our social programs should be used for.

One of my tenants had her mother move in with her. Now in her early 60's, she has no work record, training or experience. At her age, physical work is limited.

She spent her best years taking care of her disabled bed ridden son. He died about a year ago and she was living off what government gave him. Now that he's no longer here, the government cut her off.

In the meantime, my next door neighbors are HUD people from the inner-city. They come home all hours of the night, slamming doors and setting off their car alarms at 3:00 am on work nights. They've had BBQ parties where 30 or more of them gathered to eat food likely purchased with food stamps.

So where is the equity in all this? My tenant likely saved the government millions of dollars by taking care of her son herself, and now she can't even get her own place to live.

The aggravating thing is that our social programs cater to people who don't try--not to those that do, much like your friend. And for what it's worth, tell your friend to keep trying for his wife's disability. Everybody I know (including two of my tenants) were refused the first time around, but were accepted after two or more attempts.

 

[francoHFW]

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

You mean the lying cheating thieving brainwashing greedy idiot big bad GOP white people, super dupe? The ones who have been pandering to themselves for 35 years and Wrecking the country? My goodness you're a brainwashed functional moron...

Go out, get a job...you'll feel better in about a week.

I'm 66 and happily retired, stupid. But I am sick of your stupid party wrecking the world and everyone but the rich...

 

[Thinker101]

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

You mean the lying cheating thieving brainwashing greedy idiot big bad GOP white people, super dupe? The ones who have been pandering to themselves for 35 years and Wrecking the country? My goodness you're a brainwashed functional moron...

Go out, get a job...you'll feel better in about a week.

I'm 66 and happily retired, stupid. But I am sick of your stupid party wrecking the world and everyone but the rich...

You're 66, happily retired and stupid...check.

 

[francoHFW]

I disagree with some of what you wrote. I don't think most libs are wealthy, I think they tell people they are wealthy, especially here on USMB.

Most liberal politicians are filthy rich, if not before they enter office, then shortly after. Their constituents have little, only what politicians have been able to steal for them. They want their followers poor and dependent on them. As for themselves and their cronies, they are all swimming in money. Look how fast Clinton's wealth grew while she was sec of state and getting all the donations to their foundation. Usually, you don't profit by tens of millions by running a charity fund. Not to mention how wealthy they and their associates got because of the Haiti donations. Yea, nothing to see here.

Okay, I thought you were talking about Democrat followers and not the politicians. Of course they are wealthy. The other day Limbaugh said that Piglosi and her husband are worth over 100 million dollars today. That's why she gave the "crumbs" comment. A thousand or two dollars is crumbs to her, but she like most Democrat politicians are so out of touch with the real world they don't understand what that money means to some people, just like they thought it was crumbs for the government to keep your income tax refund if you didn't have health insurance. They can easily afford insurance, so you must be able to as well.

But I'll still stick with the premise that most of these libs were raised in an entitlement household. They were given things all through their upbringing and never had to work for money until they go older.......if they even did that.

When I see a more successful person than myself, I admire their success because they tried harder than I did. When a lib sees a more successful person, that person must have gotten more entitlements than they did. They had a head start in life, they lived on easy street, they never had to do any physical labor, and that drives them crazy whether true or not.

I agree. The left has worked for decades to create an underclass of entitled, dependent useful idiots. There are those who feel that government should take care of them.

And the left takes more and more money. Of course, they are expanding government as they go so much of the confiscated wealth pays for all the new government bureaucrats that are hired with each new "entitlement" program. It's another means of wealth redistribution because they are turning private citizens into government workers. Just keeps getting bigger.

If people were willing and able to do for themselves, liberal politicians would be irrelevant. Can't have that. Must keep people down and believing they are victims who need government to go after the big bad rich white people.

You mean the lying cheating thieving brainwashing greedy idiot big bad GOP white people, super dupe? The ones who have been pandering to themselves for 35 years and Wrecking the country? My goodness you're a brainwashed functional moron...

Yeah, she's almost like the people who come here and repeat the same *&^^ shit every posts day and night. Imagine that!

Like you in other words LOL! At least I'm not parroting the brainwashing I get from the greedy idiot GOP rich like you do, and I'm not a racist who hates the HUD inner city people who dare to have friends... By the way, everyone is trying but a lot become hopeless dealing with the world that the GOP has produced the last 35 years... We must save the rich from paying their fair share so we could invest in our infrastructure and our Education and Training like all the other modern countries who don't have their head up their ass.......