Super Rich – Aren't Counted By US Census Bureau | Human Rights

Super Rich – Aren't Counted By US Census Bureau

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | He didn’t say anything of the sort! He, and I, would abolish inheretance | taxes that come from wealthy parents, or any wealthy source. Any money that | is inhereted has already been taxed at least once, and to tax it again is | simply unfair. When I manage to move up to a better neighborhood and get my | kids into better schools, then good for me. You can do the same, or not, but | it’s not my fault if you can’t. My life is what I make of it, and my kid’s | life is what I can provide for them until they grow up and move out on their | own, then life becomes what they make of it. You can’t have it both ways. Either "life is what you make of it", or you can get significant help from your family, neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck, and so forth. Make up your mind.

Life is what you make of it, which may or may not be an improvement of what gets passed on to you by your family. The topic has to do with government intervention that takes away from our efforts if we do well. You introduced a tangent to the discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with the comments made in a prior post.

Response:

| | He didn’t say anything of the sort! He, and I, would abolish inheretance | | taxes that come from wealthy parents, or any wealthy source. Any money | that | | is inhereted has already been taxed at least once, and to tax it again | is | | simply unfair. When I manage to move up to a better neighborhood and get | my | | kids into better schools, then good for me. You can do the same, or not, | but | | it’s not my fault if you can’t. My life is what I make of it, and my | kid’s | | life is what I can provide for them until they grow up and move out on | their | | own, then life becomes what they make of it. | You can’t have it both ways. Either "life is what you make | of it", or you can get significant help from your family, | neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck, and so | forth. Make up your mind. | Life is what you make of it, which may or may not be an improvement of what | gets passed on to you by your family. The topic has to do with government | intervention that takes away from our efforts if we do well. Not always. Ross Perot made many, many millions off the gummint, doing very well indeed. Then he ran for president twice and entertained us all. | You introduced a tangent to the discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do | with the comments made in a prior post. Then why did you bother with it? I suspect it’s because I touched on a contradiction which a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to gloss over. — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

You are off on a tangent that makes no sense.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | | … | | Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the | | very | | thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same | market | | dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right | | along | | side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of | | them | | are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it | weren’t | | for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his | position | | in | | life by simply applying the very rules that you decry. | | Very much agreed. With all of the complaints about "the rich" it seems | as if | | some would be happier if we were all waiting in bread lines because then | | they wouldn’t feel so put out. | | | | The foundations of America are supposed to reflect the addage "life is | what | | you make of it," and I believe in it. … | So you’d abolish inheritance and the other advantages that | come from being born to rich parents and growing up in an | upper-class neighborhood, going to the better schools and | getting to know the more important people? And how would | you neutralize other advantages that might come by chance? | | Because otherwise life won’t be "what you make of it". | He didn’t say anything of the sort! He, and I, would abolish inheretance | taxes that come from wealthy parents, or any wealthy source. Any money that | is inhereted has already been taxed at least once, and to tax it again is | simply unfair. When I manage to move up to a better neighborhood and get my | kids into better schools, then good for me. You can do the same, or not, but | it’s not my fault if you can’t. My life is what I make of it, and my kid’s | life is what I can provide for them until they grow up and move out on their | own, then life becomes what they make of it. You can’t have it both ways. Either "life is what you make of it", or you can get significant help from your family, neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck, and so forth. Make up your mind.

Life IS what you make of it…you take the cards you’ve been dealt and play your hand to the best of your ability. The problem is that the "have-nots" have an envy that runs so deeply that it borders on hatred. Why? Because somewhere along the way, someone’s Daddy became successful and now your pissed off because your Daddy didn’t? It’s ridiculous. If you grew up poor and have nothing, there isn’t a damn thing that’s stopping you from turning it into something. It reminds me of a story that my husband told me, of a guy that who stood outside his office building selling fruit from a cart. They guy told my husband that he used to be homeless and would beg for money in front of the same building every morning. Then one day he got the idea to sell something to the employees, and make money on his own. He went to a small grocer and talked the owner into giving him a dozen oranges, bananas and apples on nothing more than a promise that he’d pay him back the next morning. Then he stood outside that building and sold every one of them for a buck a piece. He went back, paid the grocer and bought more fruit with the money he had left over, and so his little business began. My husband and nearly every other person who worked in his department bought something from that guy (who had branched out into selling other things as well, pens, sunglasses, you name it.) on a weekly basis. Motivation is all it takes to turn your life around. The motivation for one to get off their butt, stop whining about what they /don’t/ have and start looking at ways to get it. If you say that it’s "more complicated than that" you are doing nothing more than being an enabler to everyone out there (and maybe yourself) who doesn’t have what they want, offering validated encouragement to hold the pattern and die in the mold (or the prison) they’ve made for themself…because it’s "someone else’s fault." Blue Moon — Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former –Albert Einstein – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

| …

| You can’t have it both ways. Either "life is what you make | of it", or you can get significant help from your family, | neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck, and so | forth. Make up your mind. | Life IS what you make of it…you take the cards you’ve been dealt and play | your hand to the best of your ability. The problem is that the "have-nots" | have an envy that runs so deeply that it borders on hatred. Why? Because | somewhere along the way, someone’s Daddy became successful and now your | pissed off because your Daddy didn’t? It’s ridiculous. If you grew up poor | and have nothing, there isn’t a damn thing that’s stopping you from turning | it into something. … You haven’t really answered what I said above. It’s true that you can regard life as a game, a hand of cards which you’ve been dealt which you can play well or badly. However, that’s a very self-alienated attitude, suggesting that you could always just get up from the game and go do something else — which you can’t, unless you believe in immediate and convenient reincarnation of suicides. If, on the other hand, you actually feel connected to what’s going on around you, I don’t think you can be quite that abstract about it — you’re going to have to recognize the role of chance and contingency in your life and the possibility of their having serious consequences, not pretend that life is merely a game or something created in a vacuum. And if you see life as having a serious aspect, then the fact that you or your family may suffer as a result of not getting the goods that others get may be of concern, especially if you’re also expected to support the system that’s treating you and yours poorly. It’s simply a matter of practical self-interest, if nothing else. As for envy, I don’t see as much of that among the poor as I do among upper-middle-class strivers, not by a long shot. If your experiences tell you you’re a loser, there’s not much point in desiring what someone else at a great distance has. However, my observation of envy is not scientific — if you know of some sociological study showing that the poor are more envious than the rich, by all means present it. If not, then we’re just trading anecdotes, and mine are as good as anybody’s. My impression is that, in normal capitalist societies like ours, fear and greed by far outweigh envy as motivations for most people. — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Marx’s prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land–and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth’s population. A rising tide sinks many boats. To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"–the upper-middle class–as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau’s cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world. Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome." For more information, visit his web site, www.michaelparenti.org. ### Published on 12/27/02 by http://www.commonDreams.org Michael Parenti received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University in 1962. He has taught at a number of colleges and universities, in the United States and abroad. His writings have been translated into Bangla, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Serbian, Spanish, and Turkish. http://www.michaelparenti.org

You would think that a fellow with such credentials would understand that wealth distribution in markets is not a zero sum game, yet somehow he persists in implicating the wealth of the wealthy in the poverty of the poor. Then again, perhaps such an understanding would have precluded him from receiving his letters in Socialist Dogma. The author seems amazed and horrified by elementary mathematics of compound interest. To most, it is quite unremarkable that an investor with $1,000,000 to invest at 3% will get wealthier faster than will an investor with $1,000 to invest at the same rate. What Mr. Parenti needs to tell us is whether the poor of today are better off than they were in the past. Certainly they are in this country. If I am better off this year than last, it really shouldn’t bother me that my neighbor just bought a new BMW, should it?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | … | You can’t have it both ways. Either "life is what you make | of it", or you can get significant help from your family, | neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck, and so | forth. Make up your mind. | Life IS what you make of it…you take the cards you’ve been dealt and play | your hand to the best of your ability. The problem is that the "have-nots" | have an envy that runs so deeply that it borders on hatred. Why? Because | somewhere along the way, someone’s Daddy became successful and now your | pissed off because your Daddy didn’t? It’s ridiculous. If you grew up poor | and have nothing, there isn’t a damn thing that’s stopping you from turning | it into something. … You haven’t really answered what I said above. It’s true that you can regard life as a game, a hand of cards which you’ve been dealt which you can play well or badly. However, that’s a very self-alienated attitude, suggesting that you could always just get up from the game and go do something else — which you can’t, unless you believe in immediate and convenient reincarnation of suicides. If, on the other hand, you actually feel connected to what’s going on around you, I don’t think you can be quite that abstract about it — you’re going to have to recognize the role of chance and contingency in your life and the possibility of their having serious consequences, not pretend that life is merely a game or something created in a vacuum. And if you see life as having a serious aspect, then the fact that you or your family may suffer as a result of not getting the goods that others get may be of concern, especially if you’re also expected to support the system that’s treating you and yours poorly. It’s simply a matter of practical self-interest, if nothing else.

I wouldn’t be so obtuse as to believe that luck, chance or any other sort of unforseen anomily will not occur in life. But what you say lends to my point. "Bad luck" can be turned around, even poor choices, while they cannot be changed after the fact, can be improved upon by learning and growing. The feeling that I get from your posts leaves me with the impression that you think that if life beats you down that’s where you have to stay. I simply firmly disagree with that. If "life" slams a door in your face, you try others until you find one that’s unlocked. It’s a matter of an individual taking responsibility for their own life and their own future. It may seem idealistic to you, but that doesn’t discount the truth of it’s essence. And to re-address what you said above: "You can’t have it both ways. Either "life is what you make of it", or you can get significant help from your family, neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck, and so forth. Make up your mind." Even if you have "significant help from family, neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck and so forth," the availability of that advantage does not dictate how you will use it. I went to high school with a guy who came from a low income family and was a damn good quarterback. He netted himself a full-ride football scholarship to the University of Hawaii. He didn’t keep his gpa up, lost his elegibility to play ball, lost his scholarship and ended up back in my home town, working at McDonalds and pushing dope to high school kids to feed his wife and kid. He played his "hand" badly…life handed him a golden nugget and he tossed it in the toilet. It happens all the time. What I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter where you start out in life, because the paths you chose make all the difference. Blue Moon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As for envy, I don’t see as much of that among the poor as I do among upper-middle-class strivers, not by a long shot. If your experiences tell you you’re a loser, there’s not much point in desiring what someone else at a great distance has. However, my observation of envy is not scientific — if you know of some sociological study showing that the poor are more envious than the rich, by all means present it. If not, then we’re just trading anecdotes, and mine are as good as anybody’s. My impression is that, in normal capitalist societies like ours, fear and greed by far outweigh envy as motivations for most people. — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

| | … | | Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the | | very | | thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same | market | | dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right | | along | | side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of | | them | | are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it | weren’t | | for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his | position | | in | | life by simply applying the very rules that you decry. | | Very much agreed. With all of the complaints about "the rich" it seems | as if | | some would be happier if we were all waiting in bread lines because then | | they wouldn’t feel so put out. | | | | The foundations of America are supposed to reflect the addage "life is | what | | you make of it," and I believe in it. … | So you’d abolish inheritance and the other advantages that | come from being born to rich parents and growing up in an | upper-class neighborhood, going to the better schools and | getting to know the more important people? And how would | you neutralize other advantages that might come by chance? | | Because otherwise life won’t be "what you make of it". | He didn’t say anything of the sort! He, and I, would abolish inheretance | taxes that come from wealthy parents, or any wealthy source. Any money that | is inhereted has already been taxed at least once, and to tax it again is | simply unfair. When I manage to move up to a better neighborhood and get my | kids into better schools, then good for me. You can do the same, or not, but | it’s not my fault if you can’t. My life is what I make of it, and my kid’s | life is what I can provide for them until they grow up and move out on their | own, then life becomes what they make of it. You can’t have it both ways. Either "life is what you make of it", or you can get significant help from your family, neighbors, education, class, other kinds of luck, and so forth. Make up your mind. — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | … | Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the | very | thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same market | dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right | along | side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of | them | are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it weren’t | for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his position | in | life by simply applying the very rules that you decry. | | Very much agreed. With all of the complaints about "the rich" it seems as if | some would be happier if we were all waiting in bread lines because then | they wouldn’t feel so put out. | | The foundations of America are supposed to reflect the addage "life is what | you make of it," and I believe in it. … So you’d abolish inheritance and the other advantages that come from being born to rich parents and growing up in an upper-class neighborhood, going to the better schools and getting to know the more important people? And how would you neutralize other advantages that might come by chance? Because otherwise life won’t be "what you make of it".

He didn’t say anything of the sort! He, and I, would abolish inheretance taxes that come from wealthy parents, or any wealthy source. Any money that is inhereted has already been taxed at least once, and to tax it again is simply unfair. When I manage to move up to a better neighborhood and get my kids into better schools, then good for me. You can do the same, or not, but it’s not my fault if you can’t. My life is what I make of it, and my kid’s life is what I can provide for them until they grow up and move out on their own, then life becomes what they make of it.

Response:

"snip" I don’t love the idea of excepting financial aid for my school from the government either, but there are two ways I can look at it: 1). Refuse the money that’s there, and not go to school because I can’t afford to do that and pay my rent and feed and clothe my babies and slave away for the rest of my life living paycheck to paycheck. OR 2). Swallow my pride, take what they offer, get my degree and improve my chances of working in the career I’ve always wanted, in turn making a better life for my kids financially, and setting a good example for them by proving that tough times don’t always have to be the end of a dream (and it is my job to be a positive role model for my kids).

You’ve already made excellent choices for yourself and your family. THIS is the "mindset" one need take IF one refuses to wallow in pity and making declarations of "unfairnees" for those that have (or will have) reached their goals. Congratulations, and best of luck to you and yours! Keep up the good work!!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | … | | Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the | | very | | thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same | market | | dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right | | along | | side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of | | them | | are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it | weren’t | | for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his | position | | in | | life by simply applying the very rules that you decry. || Very much agreed. With all of the complaints about "the rich" it seems as if || some would be happier if we were all waiting in bread lines because then || they wouldn’t feel so put out. || || The foundations of America are supposed to reflect the addage "life is what || you make of it," and I believe in it. … | So you’d abolish inheritance and the other advantages that | come from being born to rich parents and growing up in an | upper-class neighborhood, going to the better schools and | getting to know the more important people? And how would | you neutralize other advantages that might come by chance? | | Because otherwise life won’t be "what you make of it". | Never once did I say I wouldn’t take advantage of the opportunities that may | be offered to me in life. However, it surely isn’t difficult for one born | into privilege to squander the financial advantages given to them, or not | make the most of the best schooling, or make an ass of themselves in front | of the more important people. The choices that someone with rich parents | makes can just as important and life-impacting as the choices someone who is | born dirt poor makes. | | And there is no need to "neutrilize" advantages. If you live in an | impoverished neighborhood and go to less than stellar schools you can still | grow up getting the grades to get you into college. If the school you go to | doesn’t do a good job preparing students for college, go to a library and | take advantage of the hundreds of books available to read for free, and | expand your knowledge on your own. Then, when the time comes to start | applying to colleges fill out a FAFSA, get what you can from the government | and hunt out every scholarship you can to make up the difference. There are | people out there living on much less than my husband and I and we both get | our tuition paid courtesy of the US government. | | Society has a tendency to tell people that you will always remain exactly | where you start out in life. The trend may be true, but that doesn’t mean | that it’s set in stone. As a people we let society put us into a | psuedo-caste, and I think it’s sad. I’m just pointing out that the situation is somewhat more complicated than "Life is what you make of it" would imply, at least if what you make is measured by worldly success.

Oh sure…every situation is complicated, but with enough thought and determination it can be simplified to the point where you can establish a plan of action. My husband and I look at our marriage like it’s a business and our roles as if we are employees. We define who takes on which responsibility, and point it out if an area of our "job" is getting neglected. Drilling the situation down to such a simple state makes less room for hasty emotion, and negates spending time arguing about who should be doing what and why we aren’t doing it. Everything can be looked at in a simpler way. Then the problems don’t seem so huge, and the solutions look much more viable and achievable. Personally, I don’t like taking anything from the government because it legitimizes them, but on the other hand, since they’ve already taken it in the first place, I guess you’re only getting back some of what they owe you.

I don’t love the idea of excepting financial aid for my school from the government either, but there are two ways I can look at it: 1). Refuse the money that’s there, and not go to school because I can’t afford to do that and pay my rent and feed and clothe my babies and slave away for the rest of my life living paycheck to paycheck. OR 2). Swallow my pride, take what they offer, get my degree and improve my chances of working in the career I’ve always wanted, in turn making a better life for my kids financially, and setting a good example for them by proving that tough times don’t always have to be the end of a dream (and it is my job to be a positive role model for my kids). Which would you choose? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

| … | | Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the | | very | | thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same | market | | dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right | | along | | side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of | | them | | are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it | weren’t | | for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his | position | | in | | life by simply applying the very rules that you decry. || Very much agreed. With all of the complaints about "the rich" it seems as if || some would be happier if we were all waiting in bread lines because then || they wouldn’t feel so put out. || || The foundations of America are supposed to reflect the addage "life is what || you make of it," and I believe in it. … | So you’d abolish inheritance and the other advantages that | come from being born to rich parents and growing up in an | upper-class neighborhood, going to the better schools and | getting to know the more important people? And how would | you neutralize other advantages that might come by chance? | | Because otherwise life won’t be "what you make of it". | Never once did I say I wouldn’t take advantage of the opportunities that may | be offered to me in life. However, it surely isn’t difficult for one born | into privilege to squander the financial advantages given to them, or not | make the most of the best schooling, or make an ass of themselves in front | of the more important people. The choices that someone with rich parents | makes can just as important and life-impacting as the choices someone who is | born dirt poor makes. | | And there is no need to "neutrilize" advantages. If you live in an | impoverished neighborhood and go to less than stellar schools you can still | grow up getting the grades to get you into college. If the school you go to | doesn’t do a good job preparing students for college, go to a library and | take advantage of the hundreds of books available to read for free, and | expand your knowledge on your own. Then, when the time comes to start | applying to colleges fill out a FAFSA, get what you can from the government | and hunt out every scholarship you can to make up the difference. There are | people out there living on much less than my husband and I and we both get | our tuition paid courtesy of the US government. | | Society has a tendency to tell people that you will always remain exactly | where you start out in life. The trend may be true, but that doesn’t mean | that it’s set in stone. As a people we let society put us into a | psuedo-caste, and I think it’s sad. I’m just pointing out that the situation is somewhat more complicated than "Life is what you make of it" would imply, at least if what you make is measured by worldly success. Personally, I don’t like taking anything from the government because it legitimizes them, but on the other hand, since they’ve already taken it in the first place, I guess you’re only getting back some of what they owe you. — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

| … | Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the | very | thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same market | dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right | along | side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of | them | are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it weren’t | for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his position | in | life by simply applying the very rules that you decry. | | Very much agreed. With all of the complaints about "the rich" it seems as if | some would be happier if we were all waiting in bread lines because then | they wouldn’t feel so put out. | | The foundations of America are supposed to reflect the addage "life is what | you make of it," and I believe in it. … So you’d abolish inheritance and the other advantages that come from being born to rich parents and growing up in an upper-class neighborhood, going to the better schools and getting to know the more important people? And how would you neutralize other advantages that might come by chance? Because otherwise life won’t be "what you make of it". — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

Never once did I say I wouldn’t take advantage of the opportunities that may be offered to me in life. However, it surely isn’t difficult for one born into privilege to squander the financial advantages given to them, or not make the most of the best schooling, or make an ass of themselves in front of the more important people. The choices that someone with rich parents makes can just as important and life-impacting as the choices someone who is born dirt poor makes. And there is no need to "neutrilize" advantages. If you live in an impoverished neighborhood and go to less than stellar schools you can still grow up getting the grades to get you into college. If the school you go to doesn’t do a good job preparing students for college, go to a library and take advantage of the hundreds of books available to read for free, and expand your knowledge on your own. Then, when the time comes to start applying to colleges fill out a FAFSA, get what you can from the government and hunt out every scholarship you can to make up the difference. There are people out there living on much less than my husband and I and we both get our tuition paid courtesy of the US government. Society has a tendency to tell people that you will always remain exactly where you start out in life. The trend may be true, but that doesn’t mean that it’s set in stone. As a people we let society put us into a psuedo-caste, and I think it’s sad. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — (<<) /*/ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv’t

Response:

*BIG snip* Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the very thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same market dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right along side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of them are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it weren’t for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his position in life by simply applying the very rules that you decry.

Very much agreed. With all of the complaints about "the rich" it seems as if some would be happier if we were all waiting in bread lines because then they wouldn’t feel so put out. The foundations of America are supposed to reflect the addage "life is what you make of it," and I believe in it. Just because you’re born poor doesn’t mean you have to stay that way, and just because you’re born rich doesn’t mean it will always be so. The choices we make are reflected in every aspect of life including our income level. Anyone who says they are limited to their income bracket hasn’t fully researched the help they can get to better their position. With the amount of government funding for college education for the poor there shouldn’t be one person who says they can’t get a better education. There are oodles of resources for grants and loans if you want to start your own business and you dig far enough. Yes, you may have to work your butt off to get there, but that’s what seperates the people who move up, and those who stagnate. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Super Rich Are Out of Sight by Michael Parenti The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion’s share of the nation’s wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. So they don’t get counted in the US census equals less representation in the US House of Representatives . Big Deal. However, despite their low numbers, the super rich have a huge influence in Big Brother’s government. They have better representation than the small business men who clearly out number them, Why is that? Because the dice have always been loaded in the favor of the rich.

Doesn’t this basic trueism of life make you want to become one of the rich guys? Why do you spend so much effort trying to change the rules, when you can spend the same effort making the rules work for you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – While I agree that they do have greater influence, they also provide the greatest economic impact within a given area. The poster’s "whine" was directed towards the "super rich" aren’t counted by the Census Bureau. IMO, so what? For the answer to that, suggest that you read the article. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm To get a realistic view, the facts are needed. Without all the relevant facts, you’ll get a lopsided/fictitious view of reality. As is the case on the so called war on terror. The US is the world’s most destructive terrorist – going around for the good of the corporations, not the people.

America is not a terrorist. That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. You very well could be correct that many things are done for the good of the corporations and not the people, but this is hardly an example of being a terrorist. Capitalism has done more to build the world’s riches and prosperity than the Taliban ever did … HERE’s the "bottom line"…whining it’s "unfair". Marx’s prefence of promoting "class warfare" between the "haves" versus the "have nots", then finding a means to make it "fair" by income redistribution, i.e. socialism. The gap is growing. Someday, workers will enjoy the fruits of their labors, and the greedheads will be banished. They can all go straight to hell as far as I’m concerned.

Why don’t you educate yourself a little bit, and take advantage of the very thing the "greedheads" take advantage of? You can buy into the same market dynamics that make the greedheads greedheads, and play the game right along side of them. They are not doing anything that is illegal, OK, some of them are and we should not mimic them. Workers wouldn’t have shit if it weren’t for the companies that hire them, and any worker can improve his position in life by simply applying the very rules that you decry.

Response:

Norm said " If true, this unsubstantiated opinion claims "Bush WANTS to bomb Bagdhdad" is just that, unsubstantiated. How will bombing Baghdad "make many of the rich in the USA richer"? "

Well I think I clicked the wrong button the first time. I do have a comment though. If the "super-rich" are earning money from oil, they might profit from a government in Iraq that is pro-American. If the money comes from companies they own in the defense industry, they might profit from replacing all those bombs, missles and amnnunition used. In addition there will be the research and development of newer better ways the rid ourselves of our enemy, someone will make money off that too. What I’m getting at is, there is alway profit in war, for someone. If a person is "super-rich" it would seem to me that they would be more likely to be one of those who profits through investments or ownership of companies that supply the military. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Super Rich Are Out of Sight by Michael Parenti The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion’s share of the nation’s wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. So they don’t get counted in the US census equals less representation in the US House of Representatives . Big Deal. However, despite their low numbers, the super rich have a huge influence in Big Brother’s government. They have better representation than the small business men who clearly out number them, Why is that? "snp" Marx’s prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land–and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth’s population. A rising tide sinks many boats. HERE’s the "bottom line"…whining it’s "unfair". Marx’s prefence of promoting "class warfare" between the "haves" versus the "have nots", then finding a means to make it "fair" by income redistribution, i.e. socialism. To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"–the upper-middle class–as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau’s cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world. So that you can force upon this small group "standards of fairness" , using the lowest common denominator, by controling their income . Yeah, that’s "fair", eh? Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome." For more information, visit his web site, www.michaelparenti.org. From Parenti’s own web site: "He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts", i.e., he’s a socialist. "snip" "Nearly half of U.S. voters believe that either welfare or foreign aid is the biggest item in the federal budget. In fact, nutrition programs and welfare together amount to only 3 percent of federal spending. Foreign aid takes up less than one percent of the federal budget, and only a small portion of that is focused on sustainable development and humanitarian assistance." Bread for the World http://www.bread.org "Nearly half of U.S. voters believe that either welfare or foreign aid"? Strange that I didn’t find this on your link. Be more specific in your cite, as I didn’t see a search engine on the one you provided. Nor have I seen any evidence that backs this supposedly quoted material. The Bush Administration wants to bomb Baghdad, a city of five million people. This would cause a humanitarian catastrophe equivalent to a heavy air bombardment of Los Angeles. http://www.madre.org/ but it will make many of the rich in the USA richer If true, this unsubstantiated opinion claims "Bush WANTS to bomb Bagdhdad" is just that, unsubstantiated. How will bombing Baghdad "make many of the rich in the USA richer"? "A 1976 report by the National Academy of Sciences reported that we possess all of the resources, structures and technology to end hunger in a single generation, but that the political will to make it a priority is missing." Results group: http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=31 Politics. Nothing.to do with the "super rich" or the Census Bureau. Non Sequirtur TrueMajority Principles: #1 priority: Attack poverty and world hunger as if our life depends on it. It does. Letters promoting and end to hunger, and political sanity are ready and waiting. They can be sent (as is or in your own words) to politicians – online in seconds- http://www.truemajority.com Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion.

Response:

"snip" If the "super-rich" are earning money from oil, they might profit from a government in Iraq that is pro-American. If the money comes from companies they own in the defense industry, they might profit from replacing all those bombs, missles and amnnunition used. In addition there will be the research and development of newer better ways the rid ourselves of our enemy, someone will make money off that too.

So what’s stopping the "whiners" from investing in oil and/or defense industries? What I’m getting at is, there is alway profit in war, for someone. If a person is "super-rich" it would seem to me that they would be more likely to be one of those who profits through investments or ownership of companies that supply the military.

Thus it has always been and will always be…which doesn’t stop the "whiners" from investing in their belief on this issue. IOW, the "whiners" are free to "put up or shut up". and IF their premise is true, they can become part of what they abhor, the "super rich", then give all of their money away, IF they have any integrity regarding their principles and beliefs, eh?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Super Rich Are Out of Sight by Michael Parenti The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion’s share of the nation’s wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. So they don’t get counted in the US census equals less representation in the US House of Representatives . Big Deal. However, despite their low numbers, the super rich have a huge influence in Big Brother’s government. They have better representation than the small business men who clearly out number them, Why is that?

Because the dice have always been loaded in the favor of the rich. While I agree that they do have greater influence, they also provide the greatest economic impact within a given area. The poster’s "whine" was directed towards the "super rich" aren’t counted by the Census Bureau. IMO, so what?

For the answer to that, suggest that you read the article. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm To get a realistic view, the facts are needed. Without all the relevant facts, you’ll get a lopsided/fictitious view of reality. As is the case on the so called war on terror. The US is the world’s most destructive terrorist – going around for the good of the corporations, not the people. HERE’s the "bottom line"…whining it’s "unfair". Marx’s prefence of promoting "class warfare" between the "haves" versus the "have nots", then finding a means to make it "fair" by income redistribution, i.e. socialism.

The gap is growing. Someday, workers will enjoy the fruits of their labors, and the greedheads will be banished. They can all go straight to hell as far as I’m concerned.

Response:

And it will always be so, as every government that forces an income redistribution scheme has failed. While I agree that they do have greater influence, they also provide the greatest economic impact within a given area. The poster’s "whine" was directed towards the "super rich" aren’t counted by the Census Bureau. IMO, so what? For the answer to that, suggest that you read the article. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm

As I’ve noted to others with similar beliefs, ‘Sound like you read too much "progressive" (read leftist-liberal) writings like those of Craig Brown and his apparent obsession against those that disagree with him and his associations as *radical-right*’ To get a realistic view, the facts are needed. Without all the relevant facts, you’ll get a lopsided/fictitious view of reality.

Agreed. You must however, read BOTH sides of the "coin". else you also end up with " a lopsided/fictitious view of reality." As is the case on the so called war on terror. The US is the world’s most destructive terrorist – going around for the good of the corporations, not the people.

This is your opinion but irrelevent to the discussion at hand. HERE’s the "bottom line"…whining it’s "unfair". Marx’s prefence of promoting "class warfare" between the "haves" versus the "have nots", then finding a means to make it "fair" by income redistribution, i.e. socialism. The gap is growing. Someday, workers will enjoy the fruits of their labors, and the greedheads will be banished. They can all go straight to hell as far as I’m concerned.

Over time, they "gap" swings like a pendulum. Your wish may also occur. However, to date, no implementation of the Marist income redistribution concepts have been proven successful, without "someone" (or a small group of people) having MORE./BETTER "fruits" and power than the other "workers". It’s a pipe dream to believe otherwise.

Response:

While I agree that they do have greater influence, they also provide the greatest economic impact within a given area. The poster’s "whine" was directed towards the "super rich" aren’t counted by the Census Bureau. IMO, so what?

Response:

To the question, " to bomb Bagdhdad" is – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – just that, unsubstantiated. How will bombing Baghdad "make many of the rich in the USA richer"? The Super Rich Are Out of Sight by Michael Parenti The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion’s share of the nation’s wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. So they don’t get counted in the US census equals less representation in the US House of Representatives . Big Deal. However, despite their low numbers, the super rich have a huge influence in Big Brother’s government. They have better representation than the small business men who clearly out number them, Why is that? "snp" Marx’s prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land–and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth’s population. A rising tide sinks many boats. HERE’s the "bottom line"…whining it’s "unfair". Marx’s prefence of promoting "class warfare" between the "haves" versus the "have nots", then finding a means to make it "fair" by income redistribution, i.e. socialism. To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"–the upper-middle class–as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau’s cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world. So that you can force upon this small group "standards of fairness" , using the lowest common denominator, by controling their income . Yeah, that’s "fair", eh? Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome." For more information, visit his web site, www.michaelparenti.org. From Parenti’s own web site: "He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts", i.e., he’s a socialist. "snip" "Nearly half of U.S. voters believe that either welfare or foreign aid is the biggest item in the federal budget. In fact, nutrition programs and welfare together amount to only 3 percent of federal spending. Foreign aid takes up less than one percent of the federal budget, and only a small portion of that is focused on sustainable development and humanitarian assistance." Bread for the World http://www.bread.org "Nearly half of U.S. voters believe that either welfare or foreign aid"? Strange that I didn’t find this on your link. Be more specific in your cite, as I didn’t see a search engine on the one you provided. Nor have I seen any evidence that backs this supposedly quoted material. The Bush Administration wants to bomb Baghdad, a city of five million people. This would cause a humanitarian catastrophe equivalent to a heavy air bombardment of Los Angeles. http://www.madre.org/ but it will make many of the rich in the USA richer If true, this unsubstantiated opinion claims "Bush WANTS to bomb Bagdhda d" is just that, unsubstantiated. How will bombing Baghdad "make many of the rich in the USA richer"? "A 1976 report by the National Academy of Sciences reported that we possess all of the resources, structures and technology to end hunger in a single generation, but that the political will to make it a priority is missing." Results group: http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=31 Politics. Nothing.to do with the "super rich" or the Census Bureau. Non Sequirtur TrueMajority Principles: #1 priority: Attack poverty and world hunger as if our life depends on it. It does. Letters promoting and end to hunger, and political sanity are ready and waiting. They can be sent (as is or in your own words) to politicians – online in seconds- http://www.truemajority.com Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion.

Response:

However, despite their low numbers, the super rich have a huge influence in Big Brother’s government. They have better representation than the small business men who clearly out number them, Why is that? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "snp" Marx’s prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land–and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth’s population. A rising tide sinks many boats. HERE’s the "bottom line"…whining it’s "unfair". Marx’s prefence of promoting "class warfare" between the "haves" versus the "have nots", then finding a means to make it "fair" by income redistribution, i.e. socialism. To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"–the upper-middle class–as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau’s cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world. So that you can force upon this small group "standards of fairness" , using the lowest common denominator, by controling their income . Yeah, that’s "fair", eh? Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome." For more information, visit his web site, www.michaelparenti.org. From Parenti’s own web site: "He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts", i.e., he’s a socialist. "snip" "Nearly half of U.S. voters believe that either welfare or foreign aid is the biggest item in the federal budget. In fact, nutrition programs and welfare together amount to only 3 percent of federal spending. Foreign aid takes up less than one percent of the federal budget, and only a small portion of that is focused on sustainable development and humanitarian assistance." Bread for the World http://www.bread.org "Nearly half of U.S. voters believe that either welfare or foreign aid"? Strange that I didn’t find this on your link. Be more specific in your cite, as I didn’t see a search engine on the one you provided. Nor have I seen any evidence that backs this supposedly quoted material. The Bush Administration wants to bomb Baghdad, a city of five million people. This would cause a humanitarian catastrophe equivalent to a heavy air bombardment of Los Angeles. http://www.madre.org/ but it will make many of the rich in the USA richer If true, this unsubstantiated opinion claims "Bush WANTS to bomb Bagdhdad" is just that, unsubstantiated. How will bombing Baghdad "make many of the rich in the USA richer"? "A 1976 report by the National Academy of Sciences reported that we possess all of the resources, structures and technology to end hunger in a single generation, but that the political will to make it a priority is missing." Results group: http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=31 Politics. Nothing.to do with the "super rich" or the Census Bureau. Non Sequirtur TrueMajority Principles: #1 priority: Attack poverty and world hunger as if our life depends on it. It does. Letters promoting and end to hunger, and political sanity are ready and waiting. They can be sent (as is or in your own words) to politicians – online in seconds- http://www.truemajority.com Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion.

Response:

The Super Rich Are Out of Sight by Michael Parenti The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion’s share of the nation’s wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. Even those who purport to study the question regularly overlook the very wealthiest among us. For instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, relying on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, released a report in December 1997 showing that in the last two decades "incomes of the richest fifth increased by 30 percent or nearly $27,000 after adjusting for inflation." The average income of the top 20 percent was $117,500, or almost 13 times larger than the $9,250 average income of the poorest 20 percent. But where are the super rich? An average of $117,500 is an upper-middle income, not at all representative of a rich cohort, let alone a super rich one. All such reports about income distribution are based on U.S. Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income higher than $300,000. Or if interviewed, they were never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit" of $300,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau’s computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper limit to $1 million. This still excludes the very richest who own the lion’s share of the wealth, the hundreds of billionaires and thousands of multimillionaires who make many times more than $1 million a year. The super rich simply have been computerized out of the picture. When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureau’s computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from $300,000 to $1 million it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40 to 50 percent. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample. But by designating the (decapitated) top 20 percent of the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you are in the top 4 percent. Now $100,000 is a tidy sum indeed, but it’s not super rich–as in Mellon, Morgan, or Murdock. The difference between Michael Eisner, Disney CEO who pocketed $565 million in 1996, and the individuals who average $9,250 is not 13 to 1–the reported spread between highest and lowest quintiles–but over 61,000 to 1. Speaking of CEOs, much attention has been given to the top corporate managers who rake in tens of millions of dollars annually in salaries and perks. But little is said about the tens of billions that these same corporations distribute to the top investor class each year, again that invisible fraction of 1 percent of the population. Media publicity that focuses exclusively on a handful of greedy top executives conveniently avoids any exposure of the super rich as a class. In fact, reining in the CEOs who cut into the corporate take would well serve the big shareholder’s interests. Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted respectively by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution and widely reported in the major media, found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe. In typical social-science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies failed to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land the higher paying positions. More importantly, both the Rand and Brookings studies fail to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrate on upper-middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the $100,000 to $300,000 range–which indicates that the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are. When pressed on this point, they explain that there is a shortage of data on the very rich. Being such a tiny percentage, "they’re an extremely difficult part of the population to survey," pleads Rand economist James P. Smith, offering the same excuse given by the Census Bureau officials. That Smith finds the super rich difficult to survey should not cause us to overlook the fact that their existence refutes his findings about self-earned wealth. He seems to admit as much when he says, "This [study] shouldn’t be taken as a statement that the Rockefellers didn’t give to their kids and the Kennedys didn’t give to their kids." (New York Times, July 7, 1995) Indeed, most of the really big money is inherited–and by a portion of the population that is so minuscule as to be judged statistically inaccessible. The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20 percent grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5 percent have grown richer compared with the next 15 percent. The top one percent have become richer compared with the next 4 percent. And the top 0.25 percent have grown richer than the next 0.75 percent. That top 0.25 owns more wealth than the other 99

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism