My brother will sure be surprised

[dogtowner]

Elizabeth Warren says he didn't get rich on his own !

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody," Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said. Warren is running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. Warren hopes to face off with Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) in the general election.

I guess the hard work, sacrifice and drive were incidental. Unreal...

 

[Gipper]

Yes. The mind of a communist is clearly on display.

Many on the Left believe as she does. They do not believe the wealthy are different from the poor and homeless. We are all the same...just a Marx and Lenin thought.

The wealthy just got lucky or screwed someone resulting in their riches. To them, the garbage collector works just as hard and has just as much value as Bill Gates.

Their CRAZY!!!

 

[Openmind]

Yes. The mind of a communist is clearly on display.

Many on the Left believe as she does. They do not believe the wealthy are different from the poor and homeless. We are all the same...just a Marx and Lenin thought.

The wealthy just got lucky or screwed someone resulting in their riches. To them, the garbage collector works just as hard and has just as much value as Bill Gates.

Their CRAZY!!!

Absolutely, a trash collector or a brick layer, or a nurse works as hard as a broker on Wall Street, or a health care insurance company CEO, or Warren Buffett!

Absolutely luck, opportunities, and people surrounding the "successful" person have a lot to do with people who are known as "Outliers!"

Are you telling me that you are so much lazier than your brother, or dumber, or that you just enjoy being lower middle class, so that is the reason why YOU didn't succeed as well as your brother?

By the way, a great majority of people who are in the top .1% wealth have mostly INHERITED wealth, and their annual income is usually derived mostly from NON WORK investments.

The GOP is brainwashing courageous, hard working Americans in order to protect 2 % of the elite population. . .and you're falling right into it!

What did they call slaves who were acquiesing to their masters before the civil war? Uncle Toms?

Well, that's what the GOP wants 98% of the people in America to do: Bow to their masters, their "job creators, their elites. . .and let the 2% elite use and abuse the 98% of America.

 

[GenSeneca]

Absolutely, a trash collector or a brick layer, or a nurse works as hard as a broker on Wall Street, or a health care insurance company CEO, or Warren Buffett!

Absolutely luck, opportunities, and people surrounding the "successful" person have a lot to do with people who are known as "Outliers!"

Are you telling me that you are so much lazier than your brother, or dumber, or that you just enjoy being lower middle class, so that is the reason why YOU didn't succeed as well as your brother?

By the way, a great majority of people who are in the top .1% wealth have mostly INHERITED wealth, and their annual income is usually derived mostly from NON WORK investments.

The GOP is brainwashing courageous, hard working Americans in order to protect 2 % of the elite population. . .and you're falling right into it!

What did they call slaves who were acquiesing to their masters before the civil war? Uncle Toms?

Well, that's what the GOP wants 98% of the people in America to do: Bow to their masters, their "job creators, their elites. . .and let the 2% elite use and abuse the 98% of America.

Is it your view that the Democrat party works on behalf of the poor while the Republican party works on behalf of the rich?

 

[Openmind]

Is it your view that the Democrat party works on behalf of the poor while the Republican party works on behalf of the rich?

Based solely on the comments made by GOP leaders, and by the comments made by conservative people in different forums, and also, obviously by the spins Fox News puts on EVERYTHING, it is difficult to believe that the majority of Republican politicians, and their sheeps have greater interest in helping the poor and middle class than they are in helping the very wealthy (and themselves!).

I do understand that it is NOT your belief, but it is mine. And, by the way, I am NOT (contrary to mean and stupid comments made by some people in this forum) an extreme Leftist.

 

[GenSeneca]

Based solely on the comments made by GOP leaders, and by the comments made by conservative people in different forums, and also, obviously by the spins Fox News puts on EVERYTHING, it is difficult to believe that the majority of Republican politicians, and their sheeps have greater interest in helping the poor and middle class than they are in helping the very wealthy (and themselves!).

Conservatives, not necessarily Republicans, tend to believe that it's the job of private charity, not government, to help the less fortunate.

Conservatives tend to give far more to charity than "liberals", they also do more in terms of service to others, like donating blood and doing volunteer work at shelters etc. So far from being the heartless monsters that "liberals" portray them as being, Conservatives offer more help to the less fortunate with their own hands and with their own money than "liberals".

So in terms of helping others, perhaps if "liberals" were as generous with their own time and money as they are with other peoples time and money, we wouldn't need so much government assistance.

I am NOT (contrary to mean and stupid comments made by some people in this forum) an extreme Leftist.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the extreme left to be?

 

[dogtowner]

Absolutely, a trash collector or a brick layer, or a nurse works as hard as a broker on Wall Street, or a health care insurance company CEO, or Warren Buffett!

Absolutely luck, opportunities, and people surrounding the "successful" person have a lot to do with people who are known as "Outliers!"

Are you telling me that you are so much lazier than your brother, or dumber, or that you just enjoy being lower middle class, so that is the reason why YOU didn't succeed as well as your brother?

By the way, a great majority of people who are in the top .1% wealth have mostly INHERITED wealth, and their annual income is usually derived mostly from NON WORK investments.

The GOP is brainwashing courageous, hard working Americans in order to protect 2 % of the elite population. . .and you're falling right into it!

What did they call slaves who were acquiesing to their masters before the civil war? Uncle Toms?

Well, that's what the GOP wants 98% of the people in America to do: Bow to their masters, their "job creators, their elites. . .and let the 2% elite use and abuse the 98% of America.

I don't mind admitting that I do not share my brother's drive or skills.

You are mistaken to think that most wealthy people inherit it and hard work is not limited to physical labor. And if you feel that investment income is effortless, think again.

At the end of the day its the value of your effort that equates to your compensation.

 

[Openmind]

Conservatives, not necessarily Republicans, tend to believe that it's the job of private charity, not government, to help the less fortunate.

Could you explain then, why we have had abject poverty prior to the tax system being established? And why the gap between the very wealthy and the very poor INCREASES in periods of recessions? If "charity" was enough to oblitarate poverty. . .why (in this period where federal taxes are the lowest for about 70 years) poverty is increasing, and the top 2% of wealth is getting even wealthier?

Conservatives tend to give far more to charity than "liberals", they also do more in terms of service to others, like donating blood and doing volunteer work at shelters etc. So far from being the heartless monsters that "liberals" portray them as being, Conservatives offer more help to the less fortunate with their own hands and with their own money than "liberals".

So in terms of helping others, perhaps if "liberals" were as generous with their own time and money as they are with other peoples time and money, we wouldn't need so much government assistance.

Yep, I've answer this same "canned rethoric" at least twice in this forum. I'll just go through it in big lines, but if you want more details, you can go look at former threads):
There are a lot more "very wealthy" people who are Republicans than those who are Democrats. . .for these people, charity (even billions in charity, as in the case of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. . .who by the way are not Republicans) is a "tax write off." Another "tax loop."

There are more poor people who identify as Democrats, because they realize that they can't expect anything from Republicans. . .however poor people don't have the ability to put aside $200 a month for charity. . .but they do participate ACTIVELY in charity. . .it is just not recorded on their income tax as "charitable contributions," however they may take a meal to a sick neighbor, they may offer to babysit a child when his/her mother is going for a job interview, they may care for a disable person, or they may keep their elderly, mother, diagnosed with Alzheimer in their home, rather than send her to a nursing home to be added to the "medicare" burden.

I also believe that a majority of people in the "helping" career (teaching, nursing, mental health, social work, hospice) identify as Democrats, or at least as Independents, leaning Left. These careers take as much education as, let's say, an MBA, or an engineering degree. . .yet the monetary compensations are much lower. Many of these people forgoe greater salary to SERVE people in need, but they may not have as much income to spare as the MBA working as a stock broker on Wall Street!

A greater percentage of Republicans are "RELIGIOUS," and engage in Thiting. . .only a minute percentage of that money goes to REAL charity (and, only to charities that are basically "in line" with the particular beliefs of that Church, dividing the world into "worthy" and "unworthy" recipients of that charity, rather than on NEED basis), and the rest is used by "the Church" administration (like my Minister neighbor, whose "Church" purchase his $800,000 home, landscaped it, put in a pool. . .all at the parishioners' expense). . . but "Church donations" are reported under "charitable contributions" on your tax return

All those elements are factors that greatly skew any report of "partisanship contribution to charities."

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the extreme left to be?

Any form of extremism (resorting to threats and arms, resorting to insults, resorting to outright lies, resorting to purposefully circular arguments in order to make a point that is not factual, etc . .) and refusing to even recognize ANY validity in the other party's ideology or arguments, but blocking it just "for the sake of seeing the other party lose" are forms of extreme partisanship behaviors to me. Deriding someone SOLELY because he/she identifies with the opposing party is ridiculous and extreme.


Size of this preview: 800 × 455 pixels
Full resolution‎ (1,172 × 667 pixels, file size: 67 KB, MIME type: image/gif)

 

[Dr.Who]

Could you explain then, why we have had abject poverty prior to the tax system being established?

Because the tax system is a burden on people but it is not the cause of poverty.

And why the gap between the very wealthy and the very poor INCREASES in periods of recessions?

The wealth of the poor and the wealth of the rich are not correlated with each other.

But the wealth of the poor is correlated to the economy. The poor are hurt a lot by bad economies.

And the wealth of the rich is also correlated to the economy. The rich are hurt some by bad economies. But the wealthy are also hurt because they take chances in both good and bad economies. Sometimes the wealthy will be hurt in either economy.

If "charity" was enough to oblitarate poverty. . .why (in this period where federal taxes are the lowest for about 70 years) poverty is increasing,

Charity is not enough to obliterate poverty. But it has been a better solution than government programs. There are countries all over the world with various types of programs and they all have poverty. In our country we have had various types of programs and we have always had poverty. No one anywhere obliterates poverty.

The tax rates and poverty are also not correlated.

What is correlated with poverty is education, work ethic, and being a mother without two parents in the house. Health is a smaller factor as are the lessons one's own parents taught one about life.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are a lot more "very wealthy" people who are Republicans than those who are Democrats. . .for these people, charity (even billions in charity, as in the case of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. . .who by the way are not Republicans) is a "tax write off." Another "tax loop."

Simply put that is factually wrong.

There are more poor people who identify as Democrats, because they realize that they can't expect anything from Republicans.

Simply put that is factually wrong.

A greater percentage of Republicans are "RELIGIOUS," and engage in Thiting. . .only a minute percentage of that money goes to REAL charity (and, only to charities that are basically "in line" with the particular beliefs of that Church, dividing the world into "worthy" and "unworthy" recipients of that charity, rather than on NEED basis), and the rest is used by "the Church" administration (like my Minister neighbor, whose "Church" purchase his $800,000 home, landscaped it, put in a pool. . .all at the parishioners' expense). . . but "Church donations" are reported under "charitable contributions" on your tax return

Simply put that is factually wrong.

The studies on giving have excluded thithing and have even demonstrated that conservatives are more giving in many intangible ways too.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13668

 

[Openmind]

Simply put that is factually wrong.

Simply put that is factually wrong.



Simply put that is factually wrong.

The studies on giving have excluded thithing and have even demonstrated that conservatives are more giving in many intangible ways too.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13668

As I said before, I am aware of the previous thread, and I answered at length in that thread.

My opinion has not changed. You can call it "factually wrong" as much as you want. . .it doesn't change my personal experience and my belief that too many of the factors involve in depicting Republicans as "more generous" are skewed by the fact that they are mostly based on financial donations, and that MANY other forms of charity cannot be quantified, but are still very important and VERY real.

 

[GenSeneca]

Could you explain then, why we have had abject poverty prior to the tax system being established?

Poverty has always existed and always will exist. No amount of private charity and/or government spending will ever eliminate poverty yet people like you insist that we tilt at these windmills at the cost of our own freedom and prosperity.

I also believe that a majority of people in the "helping" career (teaching, nursing, mental health, social work, hospice) identify as Democrats, or at least as Independents, leaning Left. These careers take as much education as, let's say, an MBA, or an engineering degree. . .yet the monetary compensations are much lower. Many of these people forgoe greater salary to SERVE people in need, but they may not have as much income to spare as the MBA working as a stock broker on Wall Street!

Such people would be doing a disservice to the very people they want to help.

Any form of extremism (resorting to threats and arms, resorting to insults, resorting to outright lies, resorting to purposefully circular arguments in order to make a point that is not factual, etc . .) and refusing to even recognize ANY validity in the other party's ideology or arguments, but blocking it just "for the sake of seeing the other party lose" are forms of extreme partisanship behaviors to me. Deriding someone SOLELY because he/she identifies with the opposing party is ridiculous and extreme.

By that standard, you exhibit many cases of "extremism", like claiming that people cheered about a 30 yr old man who should be left to die for lack of health insurance. That claim is an outright lie, it is not factual. And you should listen to your rhetoric about the tea party, you deride these people SOLELY because their opinion differs from your own and you don't acknowledge ANY validity in their arguments... Yet you don't consider yourself an "extremist".

 

[Openmind]

Poverty has always existed and always will exist. No amount of private charity and/or government spending will ever eliminate poverty yet people like you insist that we tilt at these windmills at the cost of our own freedom and prosperity.


Such people would be doing a disservice to the very people they want to help.


By that standard, you exhibit many cases of "extremism", like claiming that people cheered about a 30 yr old man who should be left to die for lack of health insurance. That claim is an outright lie, it is not factual. And you should listen to your rhetoric about the tea party, you deride these people SOLELY because their opinion differs from your own and you don't acknowledge ANY validity in their arguments... Yet you don't consider yourself an "extremist".

I watched the cheering about the above incident as it was happening, and the fact is that it did happen. I never said that the whole audience cheered, but NONE of the candidates in the debates bothered to call those few people who were cheering on their lack of compassion or sensitivity. You may not like it, but this is a factual event that will stay in the mind of rational people. . .and that includes many in the tea party because, contrary to what you state, I do not "condemn" the tea party as a whole (although you have no problem condemning every liberal!)

You are correct, there will ALWAYS be a certain amount of poverty, the question is how wide spread and how deep! Charity certainly has its place in our world, it should not take the entire responsibility of the government away from assuring that everything is done to bring the WHOLE citizenship forward away from poverty, not just the top 2%.


As a retired social worker, I can tell you that I am very proud, and very satisfied to have selected that career, even if it limited my personal income. I was one of the lucky one who could afford to forgoe the income that a career based on an MBA would have provided, because my husband was happy to follow the "executive track" in the computer industry, with all the (very sizeable) financial rewards. HE allowed me to feed my soul by contributing to the most needy in society, while allowing me to still enjoy a very comfortable life style. And, contrary to your remark, not only have I never regretted my selection, but neither did ANY of my clients or their family.

And, no, I do not consider myself an extremist. In fact, if you had taken the opportunity to read my full answer to your question in the other thread, and maybe even comment on it, you should know that I am not an extremist.

Are you an extremist? Do you feel uncomfortable making extreme, generalized, judgemental, disparaging remarks about the Left? It seems that you do not consider those remarks "extreme!"

I have often stated that I was certain that in all parties, in all ideologies, there were some good, and some bad people, and that unfortunately, the most extreme were usually the most vocal. I stand by that, for the tea party, for the Left, and for the Right. We are all human.

 

[Dr.Who]

As I said before, I am aware of the previous thread, and I answered at length in that thread.

That too is factually wrong as you did not comment at all on that thread I posted. Hmmm?

My opinion has not changed. You can call it "factually wrong" as much as you want. . .it doesn't change my personal experience and my belief that too many of the factors involve in depicting Republicans as "more generous" are skewed by the fact that they are mostly based on financial donations, and that MANY other forms of charity cannot be quantified, but are still very important and VERY real.

So many of the facts you post are just plainly wrong including the facts regarding your very own comments (or lack of), yet somehow you think that your personal experience is enough to form solid opinions?

The thread I linked to specifically said that the studies show that conservatives give MORE even in non-financial ways.

 

[Dr.Who]

I also believe that a majority of people in the "helping" career (teaching, nursing, mental health, social work, hospice) identify as Democrats, or at least as Independents, leaning Left. These careers take as much education as, let's say, an MBA, or an engineering degree. . .yet the monetary compensations are much lower. Many of these people forgoe greater salary to SERVE people in need, but they may not have as much income to spare as the MBA working as a stock broker on Wall Street!

I for example spend over 20 years in a helping profession and I can vouch for the fact that not all are democrats. Maybe slightly over half would be. I can also vouch for the fact that at the entry level those people get paid less but that is not necessarily true after one gets a lot of experience.

So, about 20% of the population identifies as democrat, maybe half of those in helping professions identify as democrat - that would still be a pretty small effect on the total giving of the dem population if we counted reduced incomes.

I also think it is foolish to start counting certain professions as helping while others would not be counted - only the individual motivation will tell us that. One person might become a psychologists for the money and another person might become a soldier because he wants to help.