Why Is Being Rich Bad?

[Liberal]

You do realize you are in absolutely ZERO position to claim someone is an immoral asshat just because they have money??

You progressives believe your opinion on issues or individuals is the end all -- that is why we have a constitution - because your ******* opinions and assessments mean dick...

Understand that asshat??

When did I say that having money = Immoral?

Protip: The word "if" is used to imply that there is conditional clause. Highlighted below to emphasize.

I would gladly have them take all of it if you are a criminal, immoral asshat.

You're very adept to showing your ass. Rage does not fit you well, you get unglued around the edges and say strange things.

 

[Mr.Nick]

You do realize you are in absolutely ZERO position to claim someone is an immoral asshat just because they have money??

You progressives believe your opinion on issues or individuals is the end all -- that is why we have a constitution - because your ******* opinions and assessments mean dick...

Understand that asshat??

When did I say that having money = Immoral?

Protip: The word "if" is used to imply that there is conditional clause. Highlighted below to emphasize.

I would gladly have them take all of it if you are a criminal, immoral asshat.

You're very adept to showing your ass. Rage does not fit you well, you get unglued around the edges and say strange things.

Don't even try to play that game......... You know you hate rich conservatives and love rich fascist progressives....

What the **** you thought? this is my first time debating progressive morals and ethics when it comes to the wealthy and money?

Are there any non-progressives out there who are rich that AREN'T evil and who AREN'T plotting to take over the US with their useless greenbacks?

 

[emptystep]

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

So you see no issue with modern day sweat shops in developing countries?

 

[there4eyeM]

2. The variety of capitalism wherein "Big corporations making moves under the guise of "capitalism" to put their competitor out of business is not immoral" is more correctly known as corporatism.

Can we make the inference, then, that you oppose 'corporatism'?

 

[bucs90]

By itself? It isn't "bad". But when wealth..affords power..

Then it's real bad.

How do you separate the two?

P.S. I'd like to keep the thread along the lines of why is it bad? (not at at you Sallow but going forward)

Being rich isn't bad. Being greedy is. The two dont always go along with each other either. There are plenty of greedy poor people and generous rich people.

 

[Liberal]

Welcome to the board, you ignorant dolt. You've come to the right place for re-education.

Thanks, glad to be here.

Unwarranted personal attacks are not very becoming.

Of course it is not evil.
It is consistent with human nature, a fact of which the Left is ignorant.

Is being evil not part of this "human nature" you speak of?

You proved my point right there, people can steer a corporation in whatever direction they see fit under the unkempt system that is american capitalism. Splitting capitalism down and saying what is what form is an exercise in futile semantics (in reference to your quotes).

In a vacuum, void of any "human nature" capitalism works flawlessly. UNLESS you add regulations to help curb the... Well, you get the rest..

Or.. Am I still being ignorant? Or just a "dolt"?

 

[IGetItAlready]

[
Why are those set on convincing us all that being rich is bad rich themselves?

Who is trying to convince you that being rich is bad?

Democrats and the current administration for starters.

The housing crash - Blamed on the evil rich bankers - All facts regarding congressional pressure on banks to make risky loans ignored.
The fact that no one is hiring - Blamed on the evil rich business owners who are said to be sitting on piles of cash but refuse to expand operations so as to further damage Obama's economy.
Skyrocketing healthcare costs - Blamed on the evil rich insurers and doctors - The drain on the system created by millions of illegals forced to seek ER services totally ignored and recently amplified by an anti American sovereignty administration.
The myth about "pushing granny over a cliff" - Blamed on evil rich Republicans because "everyone knows those Republicans are all mean and rich".
Incessant demands for the rich, those already carrying the vast majority of the tax burden in this nation, to "pay their fair share" - Meanwhile NO ONE has the balls to define a "fair share" as doing so would put a cap on the degree to which the rich could be raped.

I could go on but rehashing the obvious is boring.

 

[Mr.Nick]

By itself? It isn't "bad". But when wealth..affords power..

Then it's real bad.

How do you separate the two?

P.S. I'd like to keep the thread along the lines of why is it bad? (not at at you Sallow but going forward)

Being rich isn't bad. Being greedy is. The two dont always go along with each other either. There are plenty of greedy poor people and generous rich people.

And who defines greedy? let me guess you?

Geed is someone who wants something for nothing - that is greed....

 

[Liberal]

Don't even try to play that game......... You know you hate rich conservatives and love rich fascist progressives....

In an effort to help you understand.. Please go back and read some of my previous posts, I made no ideologically specific exception.

I am sure you will go back, read my posts and come back to apologize for your mistyping.

What the **** you thought? this is my first time debating progressive morals and ethics when it comes to the wealthy and money?

Not sure what to make of you yet. Overt use of the word "****" does not make your points any more right (at least in one way anyway).

Are there any non-progressives out there who are rich that AREN'T evil and who AREN'T plotting to take over the US with their useless greenbacks?

I don't waste too much time selecting my favorite rich people based on their ideological shortcomings.

 

[there4eyeM]

Welcome to the board, you ignorant dolt. You've come to the right place for re-education.

Thanks, glad to be here.

Unwarranted personal attacks are not very becoming.

Of course it is not evil.
It is consistent with human nature, a fact of which the Left is ignorant.

Is being evil not part of this "human nature" you speak of?

You proved my point right there, people can steer a corporation in whatever direction they see fit under the unkempt system that is american capitalism. Splitting capitalism down and saying what is what form is an exercise in futile semantics (in reference to your quotes).

In a vacuum, void of any "human nature" capitalism works flawlessly. UNLESS you add regulations to help curb the... Well, you get the rest..

Or.. Am I still being ignorant? Or just a "dolt"?

You are largely correct. Chic, however, will doubtless set you strait.

Perhaps I should have said 'right'.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Don't even try to play that game......... You know you hate rich conservatives and love rich fascist progressives....

In an effort to help you understand.. Please go back and read some of my previous posts, I made no ideologically specific exception.

I am sure you will go back, read my posts and come back to apologize for your mistyping.

What the **** you thought? this is my first time debating progressive morals and ethics when it comes to the wealthy and money?

Not sure what to make of you yet. Overt use of the word "****" does not make your points any more right (at least in one way anyway).

Are there any non-progressives out there who are rich that AREN'T evil and who AREN'T plotting to take over the US with their useless greenbacks?

I don't waste too much time selecting my favorite rich people based on their ideological shortcomings.

Don't ******* tell me I don't "understand" when I have been analyzing progressives for the last 10 years...

Also - I could give a **** if you don't like my language.... My cusses don't make the substance disappear...

Now go back to your occupy hippie commune and quit pretending you're a reasonable person when faced with irrefutable evidence that you're unable to contradict...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Welcome to the board, you ignorant dolt. You've come to the right place for re-education.

Thanks, glad to be here.

Unwarranted personal attacks are not very becoming.

Of course it is not evil.
It is consistent with human nature, a fact of which the Left is ignorant.

Is being evil not part of this "human nature" you speak of?

You proved my point right there, people can steer a corporation in whatever direction they see fit under the unkempt system that is american capitalism. Splitting capitalism down and saying what is what form is an exercise in futile semantics (in reference to your quotes).

In a vacuum, void of any "human nature" capitalism works flawlessly. UNLESS you add regulations to help curb the... Well, you get the rest..

Or.. Am I still being ignorant? Or just a "dolt"?

You are largely correct. Chic, however, will doubtless set you strait.

Aye, aye...eye-drops.

 

[Liberal]

Don't ******* tell me I don't "understand" when I have been analyzing progressives for the last 10 years...

You know, I was under the impression that you may very well have been a veteran at debating us "liberuhls".

I am glad that you took the time to assert that fact, or I may have gone on in life without such knowledge. I will carry it forward with me and pass along the knowledge to my offspring, as all sentient mammals do with such great boundless knowledge.

Also - I could give a **** if you don't like my language.... My cusses don't make the substance disappear...

Well of course not..

It was never there to begin with..

Or perhaps they can't because it "was" the substance.

Now go back to your occupy hippie commune and quit pretending you're a reasonable person when faced with irrefutable evidence that you're unable to contradict...

Surely you can tell, that I am a reasonable person.

Or was it your blatant internet tough guy-ism blinding you to the fact that I did contradict what you accused me of?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Welcome to the board, you ignorant dolt. You've come to the right place for re-education.

Thanks, glad to be here.

Unwarranted personal attacks are not very becoming.

Of course it is not evil.
It is consistent with human nature, a fact of which the Left is ignorant.

Is being evil not part of this "human nature" you speak of?

You proved my point right there, people can steer a corporation in whatever direction they see fit under the unkempt system that is american capitalism. Splitting capitalism down and saying what is what form is an exercise in futile semantics (in reference to your quotes).

In a vacuum, void of any "human nature" capitalism works flawlessly. UNLESS you add regulations to help curb the... Well, you get the rest..

Or.. Am I still being ignorant? Or just a "dolt"?

1. On what basis do you claim that human nature is based on evil.
America is based on the view that humans are not perfect....nor perfectible. But are capable of self-governing.

2. "You proved my point right there,..."
Not so...unless the point to which you refer is the one on top of your head.

3. "...people can steer a corporation in whatever direction they see fit under the unkempt system that is american capitalism."
True, ...if you ignore laws, regulations, competition, honor, and the myriad voluntary personal interactions that dictate the effects of 'the invisible hand.'
Dolt.

4. "Splitting capitalism down and saying what is what form..."
...is an exercise in reality.
If that is too erudite or too nuanced for you, then you should stick to areas in
which your skill are more applicable....such as lifting the comics with Silly Putty.
I'm certain someone will help you open the egg.


5. I note that you have not responded to any of said quotes: "(in reference to your quotes)."
A wise choice based on your limitations.


6. "In a vacuum, void of any "human nature" capitalism...blah blah blah..."
So, you envision a form of capitalism that involves only robots and cyborgs?
That leads to the following:

7. "Am I still being ignorant? Or just a "dolt""
What makes you believe that this is an 'either-or'?


Try to remember: There’s a fine line between numerator and denominator.

 

[there4eyeM]

Not attacking the 'rich' can be easily understood.
Defending them so strongly is much more difficult to understand.
What is so important to the defenders that they become so passionate about it? Is it merely the dream of also becoming rich?

I still really would like to know! What's in it for you?

No one wants to explain this phenomenon?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Capitalism is not immoral. Only some of the capitalists... and there are immoral people who are not capitalists. Only idiots don't understand that... it is the individual, not the corporation.

I thought corporations were people?

So then we need to regulation to stop these people, under the corporate umbrella.

I couldn't agree more!

You did? The SC agrees - but it is ridiculous to call a corporation amoral. Only individuals have morals, and only individuals can be amoral.

Do you not understand the difference among "Moral", "Amoral" and "Immoral"?

 

[Darkwind]

Being rich isn't bad, buying political power, however, is about as bad as it gets.

So why does Obama have tens of millions of dollars for his campaign? After all, you leftists are the ones who oppose buying political power.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

By itself? It isn't "bad". But when wealth..affords power..

Then it's real bad.

Being rich isn't bad, buying political power, however, is about as bad as it gets.

Being rich isn't bad, buying political power, however, is about as bad as it gets.

What a crock of shit.....

If I were rich and donated 5 grand to Romney you would claim I'm trying to gain political power instead of supporting a candidate and that candidates views...

The truth is you progressives hate the rich because they have more than you do. You hate conservatives, republicans and libertarians because they oppose your socialist ideas. They work hard for what they have and you think you have a right to the fruits of their labor because they have more than you do....

It's really that ******* simple - now go ahead and deny that...

Have you ever heard of these things called lobbyists? Simply donating money is just fine, hiring people to grease palms is another thing entirely.

It's not being rich that is "bad".

It's the method in which you become rich that can be bad. Tax evasion via loop-hole, aggressive/crony business practices (guised as "capitalism").

There are many more way to get rich via taking advantage of the system, people and services than there is via an honest living. It has almost become mandatory.

Have you ever heard of these things called lobbyists? Simply donating money is just fine, hiring people to grease palms is another thing entirely.

And in what universe are lobbyists unique to conservatives or republicans??

Seems you have absolutely no problem with lobbyists pandering to democrats or vice versa..... Funny how Obama is extremely friendly with businesses who use union labor and actually give them Obamacare waivers and additional incentives - and not one ******* word comes out of the DNC's mouth about corporatism - yet these same motherfuckers turn right around and claim republicans are in the pockets of big business...

I have never, ever claimed that democrats have some kind of monopoly on virtue, they are every bit as self interested and corrupt as any other group of politicians, however, there is a case to be made that the lion's share of lobbyist activity is directed towards protecting the interests of the rich so let's take an honest look at what party seems to protect their interests more even when it runs directly counter to the interests of the people at large.

You need a reality check. If something IS FOR SALE, SOMEONE WILL BUY IT. You blaming rich and mega rich corporations for buying the political figures YOU vote for (or not, but hey that's how it works) only means you give these ***** the consent to sell you down the river if they do.

Blaming the players and not the game is the most fundamental retardation ever perpetrated on the people of this nation.

And Occupoop, both parties are looking out for vested interests. You just happen to side with one more than the other. Which makes you not only ******* stupid, but a hypocrite. So STFU about supporting monied and vested interest when you blame republicans alone.

******* "I got a plaque anyway".

 

[Liberal]

1. On what basis do you claim that human nature is based on evil.
America is based on the view that humans are not perfect....nor perfectible. But are capable of self-governing.

I guess you are right.. If you ignore what I typed (seems to be common here). I used the word "PART" .. of human nature. You know, as to imply that it is a piece of the whole, that is human nature.

Self governing goes out the window when greed is rampant... Is it not rampant in our system? Does the dollar not dictate a politicians motives?

But I digress, that is a different issue than the topic at hand.

2. "You proved my point right there,..."
Not so...unless the point to which you refer is the one on top of your head.

Personal attacks are terrible and you should feel terrible.

3. "...people can steer a corporation in whatever direction they see fit under the unkempt system that is american capitalism."
True, ...if you ignore laws, regulations, competition, honor, and the myriad voluntary personal interactions that dictate the effects of 'the invisible hand.'
Dolt.

Perhaps you missed the word unkempt?

You see, the regulations are in place.. However they go unchecked, it is very evident in the industry that I work in. At least until something bad happens, then it gets investigated and people complain when regulations are introduced to prevent it from happening again..

I don't think capitalism needs the death penalty, I just think that the way it is managed is terrible.

4. "Splitting capitalism down and saying what is what form..."
...is an exercise in reality.
If that is too erudite or too nuanced for you, then you should stick to areas in
which your skill are more applicable....such as lifting the comics with Silly Putty.
I'm certain someone will help you open the egg.

5. I note that you have not responded to any of said quotes: "(in reference to your quotes)."
A wise choice based on your limitations.

Lets do it shall we?

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."

-Irrelevant point. Not once did I ever say that capitalism was unequivocally bad. If you look at some of my other posts, I clearly say that capitalism is in need of more guide rails.

2. The variety of capitalism wherein "Big corporations making moves under the guise of "capitalism" to put their competitor out of business is not immoral" is more correctly known as corporatism.
It was implemented in the fascist programs of the National Socialists in Germany, the Fascists in Italy, and the New Dealers in the United States.

The corruption can happen in either "system". Semantics..


a. One of those urban myths is that the Left battles big business on behalf of the ‘little guy’….those greedy ‘robber barons!’ Of course, as is true of so many ‘truths’….it is false.
The actuality is that big business knows that the greatest threat is not government or its regulation, but competition with smaller, more innovative firms. So, when the opportunity arises to cooperate with government in crafting new regulation, big business lobbyists, rather than opposing ‘reform,’ they write the laws for their own advantages!

b. The propaganda of the New Deal (“malefactors of great wealth”) to the contrary, FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated. Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another: the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers.
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism"

c. New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934)

I never said that the left was not guilty of contributing to the problem.

Your assertions about the new deal and the NRA are age old critiques aligned to your political views. They are the same propaganda that has been around since the ALL took up arms. We could go for days about the new deal.

Ultimately, the landscape of capitalism has changed greatly since the new deal.. Regulations have been peeled back and loop-holes have been uncovered.

6. "In a vacuum, void of any "human nature" capitalism...blah blah blah..."
So, you envision a form of capitalism that involves only robots and cyborgs?

No.

I am honest enough to say that I don't know what the answer is to capitalism in the state it is today, but with the way things are there is a serious flaw.

Try to remember: There’s a fine line between numerator and denominator.

Well met!

I'll try to remember your cookie cutter attempt at wisdom.

No, seriously, good for you though.

 

[Erand7899]

1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

So you see no issue with modern day sweat shops in developing countries?

I would, but I am too busy trying to figure out how to bring back dirty air and dirty water.

Do you loons ever run out of side issues?