When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Modbert]

Interesting that you gleaned that from what I wrote.

You're delusional.

It's okay Thomas, go ahead and embrace your inner Liberal. You can come out of the political closet and admit what you are here.

 

[Polk]

The way it works is this. If 90% opposes it and Congress passes it anyway, those 90% are free to vote those congressmen out of office and elect those who are against amnesty. In the next session, the bill will be revised.

That is how it has always worked. 225 years and still working

but that was not the question i asked was it.....you said they represent us....if their votes dont represent us.....who are they then representing?.....here is the question again.....
..if 90% of America is against Amnesty for Illegals.....but Congress passes it anyhow.....are they representing us or themselves?.......

Neither. They're representing what they feel is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

 

[rightwinger]

The way it works is this. If 90% opposes it and Congress passes it anyway, those 90% are free to vote those congressmen out of office and elect those who are against amnesty. In the next session, the bill will be revised.

That is how it has always worked. 225 years and still working

but that was not the question i asked was it.....you said they represent us....if their votes dont represent us.....who are they then representing?.....here is the question again.....
..if 90% of America is against Amnesty for Illegals.....but Congress passes it anyhow.....are they representing us or themselves?.......

And as I said previously, you don't want a Congress swinging back and forth based on deceptive polls of the fickle masses. Congress is there to do a job, they are voted in based on their overall political philosophy. This doesn't mean your Congressman will follow your desires on every vote.

If he doesn't, you are free to vote him out...thats how our system works

 

[Modbert]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

 

[arKangel]

You're a tard because you prejudge a great many people as being evil based merely on the fact that they have more money than you do.

I agree, as I said in my original post, blanket statements fail to recognize people as individuals... not exactly a nice thing to do.
However, those who worship gold do tend to show a disregard for other humans.
Is it not the rich who start wars? Is it not the rich who practice usury? Is it not the rich who revel in exploiting the desperations of their fellow man?

Envy is not a good lifestyle choice.

Again I agree, envy is a cornerstone tenent of gold worshipping and the culture of greed.

"Has money = evil"

Well, your hateful statements are not exactly proving otherwise.

you are somehow doing them a horrible wound by denying them your company, as though any of them know you exist or would deign to spit on you if they did.

See what I mean? Still you continue your fantasy of poor people being "spit on" by the rich. This is proving that rich people are good?


As far as my company goes you are free to make your suppositions/superstitions...
Though I never stated that my denying anybody my company was any great tragedy. I simply stay away from evil people.

Why is it that you have this absolute need to project that all people must be coveting what others have?
Do you not recognize that sort of mentality as evil?

I don't doubt for a second that you're deeply confused about many things, so let me simple this up for you. You = bullshit little non-entity.

That help you any, Spanky?

Actually it does, I am grateful to be insignificant, to be off the radar of gold worshippers. Thank you for affirming my security from such evil.

They usually believe nobody can become rich without obtaining that wealth through less than ethical or honorable means.

The reason for that particular belief/observation is that it is generally TRUE.
Think about it... Why accumulate more "whatever" than what you and yours need if not to have "more" than others? Or worse, "power" over others? What lies at the core of such a need? If it is not evil then what is it?

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not advocating pinko slavery in favor of gold slavery. I only wish to see an end to all slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

Not only that, but the 60% disapprove included those who thought the bill went too far and those who thought it didn't do enough.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Neither. They're representing what they feel is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

interesting.......i can understand what your saying Polk if say 55-65% of the country was against it....but if they did this with 90% against....then i would think the Elitist Snob we are smarter than you bullshit would be at play...AND they would be doing this because of a collective agenda....not because the "best interest of the Country" is in play....

 

[Foxfyre]

And who gets to decide what "anything truely [sic] worth while [sic]" is? You? I note that you feel qualified to tell us that "buying more expensive things you don't really need" with our money doesn't count, so I'll assume you ALSO feel that you get to decide what I "don't really need" is as well.

Must be nice to be able to elect yourself God.

Setting the personal quarrel aside here, I think you have hit on the crux of the matter, Cecile.

Some in varying degrees despise the rich and/or who apparently deep down think nobody deserves to be rich. They usually believe nobody can become rich without obtaining that wealth through less than ethical or honorable means.

This particular phenomenon is sometimes overtly, and sometimes by more subtle means, reinforced by politicians who intend to gain personally and/or materially through promoting such class envy. The hypocrisy and dishonesty in that should be apparent as those promoting the class envy are usually people who already have they wealth safely stashed away, sheltered, and impervious to the ebb and flow of socioeconomic policy.

I believe President Obama is promoting such a prejudice and fallacious image of the rich in his statement that we eventually reach the point where we have enough. The implication is that people should not be allowed to earn more beyond that point.

I believe that this kind of thinking underpins and is the very foundation of all socialist philosophy: If some people are allowed to earn too much, then there won't be enough for everybody else.

Interesting isn't it? I do wonder if Obama, and a good portion of the elected elites will subscribe to limits on what they make?

As long as it is everyone else but themselves?

That's the thing. Those proposing and/or making the laws/rules for the rest of us already have it made. The Obama's are now multi-millionaires and are almost certainly set for life and can enjoy a lavish lifestyle and will continue to acquire wealth if they don't earn another penny.

That is true of most of our elected leaders in Washington--certainly true of all who are presuming to rein in the 'excesses' of the private sector. They certainly don't depend on their congressional salaries to live on for the rest of their lives.

But if they can capitalize on class envy and convince that bottom half of Americans who pay little or no federal income taxes that they are getting justice. . . .

They will barely notice as more and more of their own freedoms, choices, and opportuhities are carefully confiscated to be sure they don't get any notions about freedom being better than the nanny state.

They would meanwhile feel vindicated that the disparity between rich and poor will at long last be narrowed and the evil rich will be at least somewhat defanged and have their wings clipped. . . .

Our elected leaders count on that to garner them sufficient favor and votes to keep them in power indefinitely. There is nothing headier than power, influence, and authority that allows you to protect yourself in every way while you can get even with anybody who has ever annoyed you.

I may be exaggerating a bit for effect here.

But not much.

 

[Harry Dresden]

And as I said previously, you don't want a Congress swinging back and forth based on deceptive polls of the fickle masses. Congress is there to do a job, they are voted in based on their overall political philosophy. This doesn't mean your Congressman will follow your desires on every vote.

If he doesn't, you are free to vote him out...thats how our system works

Rw....90% would not be a fickle deceptive poll.....a much lower number you may have a point....90% would represent pretty solid numbers against something....but thanx for the dance....havent done a waltz since the last time Rdean answered a question....

 

[NYcarbineer]

From 'Chinatown':

Jake Gittes: How much are you worth?

Noah Cross: I have no idea. How much do you want?

Jake Gittes: I just wanna know what you're worth. More than 10 million?

Noah Cross: Oh my, yes!

Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?

...I think that was the along the lines of the president's point...

 

[The T]

Setting the personal quarrel aside here, I think you have hit on the crux of the matter, Cecile.

Some in varying degrees despise the rich and/or who apparently deep down think nobody deserves to be rich. They usually believe nobody can become rich without obtaining that wealth through less than ethical or honorable means.

This particular phenomenon is sometimes overtly, and sometimes by more subtle means, reinforced by politicians who intend to gain personally and/or materially through promoting such class envy. The hypocrisy and dishonesty in that should be apparent as those promoting the class envy are usually people who already have they wealth safely stashed away, sheltered, and impervious to the ebb and flow of socioeconomic policy.

I believe President Obama is promoting such a prejudice and fallacious image of the rich in his statement that we eventually reach the point where we have enough. The implication is that people should not be allowed to earn more beyond that point.

I believe that this kind of thinking underpins and is the very foundation of all socialist philosophy: If some people are allowed to earn too much, then there won't be enough for everybody else.

Interesting isn't it? I do wonder if Obama, and a good portion of the elected elites will subscribe to limits on what they make?

As long as it is everyone else but themselves?

That's the thing. Those proposing and/or making the laws/rules for the rest of us already have it made. The Obama's are now multi-millionaires and are almost certainly set for life and can enjoy a lavish lifestyle and will continue to acquire wealth if they don't earn another penny.

That is true of most of our elected leaders in Washington--certainly true of all who are presuming to rein in the 'excesses' of the private sector. They certainly don't depend on their congressional salaries to live on for the rest of their lives.

But if they can capitalize on class envy and convince that bottom half of Americans who pay little or no federal income taxes that they are getting justice. . . .

They will barely notice as more and more of their own freedoms, choices, and opportuhities are carefully confiscated to be sure they don't get any notions about freedom being better than the nanny state.

They would meanwhile feel vindicated that the disparity between rich and poor will at long last be narrowed and the evil rich will be at least somewhat defanged and have their wings clipped. . . .

Our elected leaders count on that to garner them sufficient favor and votes to keep them in power indefinitely. There is nothing headier than power, influence, and authority that allows you to protect yourself in every way while you can get even with anybody who has ever annoyed you.

I may be exaggerating a bit for effect here.

But not much.

Exactly. They practice what they accuse others of. 'I got mine...you get yours if you can...we'll write a LAW that will see to it that you don't.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

60% aint 90% is it?....if 90% of America in poll after poll said no to this Health Bill....but they passed it anyway....you would just assume they know better then us?.....and just accept it?.....i can understand about what you said about voting off of polls.....but 90% is much different than 50-60%....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

Not only that, but the 60% disapprove included those who thought the bill went too far and those who thought it didn't do enough.

but its a big difference than if it was 90% against....right....

 

[The T]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

60% aint 90% is it?....if 90% of America in poll after poll said no to this Health Bill....but they passed it anyway....you would just assume they know better then us?.....and just accept it?.....i can understand about what you said about voting off of polls.....but 90% is much different than 50-60%....

No...but HD? You'd think they'd get the message when the Congressional switchboard goes in meltdown mode as do their Mail Servers?

They did it anyway...and that is the BEST poll of all.

 

[Foxfyre]

From 'Chinatown':

Jake Gittes: How much are you worth?

Noah Cross: I have no idea. How much do you want?

Jake Gittes: I just wanna know what you're worth. More than 10 million?

Noah Cross: Oh my, yes!

Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?

...I think that was the along the lines of the president's point...

If you believe that, after listening to the clip linked in the OP, I will again shamelessly plug that nice assortment of bridges I still have to sell. I wish I could share your impression that it was an innocuous philosophical statement. I just can't do that, however.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

Poll numbers, no. But on the other hand, it IS part of a Congressmember's job to have his finger on the pulsepoint of his constituency and know where they stand on the issues.

 

[rightwinger]

And as I said previously, you don't want a Congress swinging back and forth based on deceptive polls of the fickle masses. Congress is there to do a job, they are voted in based on their overall political philosophy. This doesn't mean your Congressman will follow your desires on every vote.

If he doesn't, you are free to vote him out...thats how our system works

Rw....90% would not be a fickle deceptive poll.....a much lower number you may have a point....90% would represent pretty solid numbers against something....but thanx for the dance....havent done a waltz since the last time Rdean answered a question....

What specific issue has the public been 90% against?

In fact, we need Congress to do what is right, not necessarily what is popular

 

[rightwinger]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

60% aint 90% is it?....if 90% of America in poll after poll said no to this Health Bill....but they passed it anyway....you would just assume they know better then us?.....and just accept it?.....i can understand about what you said about voting off of polls.....but 90% is much different than 50-60%....

Show me a poll that says Americans opposed Healthcare reform by 90%. In fact, if you combined those who supported the healthcare bill and thos who wanted the bill to do more, you had well over 60% supporting

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're a tard because you prejudge a great many people as being evil based merely on the fact that they have more money than you do.

I agree, as I said in my original post, blanket statements fail to recognize people as individuals... not exactly a nice thing to do.
However, those who worship gold do tend to show a disregard for other humans.
Is it not the rich who start wars? Is it not the rich who practice usury? Is it not the rich who revel in exploiting the desperations of their fellow man?

Couple of problems here, which you would know if you actually knew any rich people. The first is that they don't necessarily "worship gold". In my experience, it's actually bitter, envious poor people who are more conscious of money than the wealthy. I honestly think it's a lot harder to become and stay successful if the money is your focus.

IS it the rich who start wars? Not necessarily. As I recall, WWI's beginning is traced to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a bunch of Bosnian Serbs looking to start a rebellion. Not exactly rich people. (Just an example.) It tends to be POWERFUL people who choose to pursue a war (aka politicians), but they aren't necessarily rich. Common sense would tell you that rich people actually much prefer peacetime, since war is actually really bad for business overall.

Usury? I guess that would depend on how you're defining "rich", but generally, such practices are found in the lower levels of society (loan sharks, pawnbrokers, and the like). The truly wealthy (bankers and such) don't NEED to charge those kinds of interest rates, because they can make their money on volume.

I don't personally know any rich people, or OF any rich people, who "revel in exploiting desperation". I see a lot more schadenfreude from poor people who eat their livers out with envy over someone else being rich, and then revel in any misfortunes that befall them.

I will freely admit that many people have become rich from filling a niche market caused by other people needing something, but I'm afraid I just don't see that as a bad thing.

Envy is not a good lifestyle choice.

Again I agree, envy is a cornerstone tenent of gold worshipping and the culture of greed.

Except that the only people I see exhibiting envy and greed are poor people wanting to stick it to the rich for daring to be more successful than them.

Well, your hateful statements are not exactly proving otherwise.

I'm not the one vilifying an entire class of society as "evil" merely for the sin of having more money than you do, so I'd say I'm pretty down on the scale of "hateful" around here.

See what I mean? Still you continue your fantasy of poor people being "spit on" by the rich. This is proving that rich people are good?

Now you're just babbling uselessly.

As far as my company goes you are free to make your suppositions/superstitions...
Though I never stated that my denying anybody my company was any great tragedy. I simply stay away from evil people.

And again I point out that it's very unlikely your lack of association with rich people is YOUR choice at all.

Why is it that you have this absolute need to project that all people must be coveting what others have?
Do you not recognize that sort of mentality as evil?

Um, YOU are the one projecting, since YOU are the one who has condemned all rich people as evil and exploitative, and I have yet to make any blanket statements about ANY group of people.

I don't have to project that YOU are hate-filled and envious. All I have to do is read your posts. Lady Godiva on a power mower would be more subtle than you are.

And yeah, I DO find your mentality evil, since you asked.

I don't doubt for a second that you're deeply confused about many things, so let me simple this up for you. You = bullshit little non-entity.

That help you any, Spanky?

Actually it does, I am grateful to be insignificant, to be off the radar of gold worshippers. Thank you for affirming my security from such evil.

I doubt you needed me to tell you you're a pissant. It's pretty obviously the source of your bitterness and bile.

They usually believe nobody can become rich without obtaining that wealth through less than ethical or honorable means.

The reason for that particular belief/observation is that it is generally TRUE.
Think about it... Why accumulate more "whatever" than what you and yours need if not to have "more" than others? Or worse, "power" over others? What lies at the core of such a need? If it is not evil then what is it?

Not really surprising that you have no idea why successful people do what they do. Perhaps if you tried accomplishing something in your life, rather than sitting around, thinking up these elaborate, childish theories about "rich=evil", the whole thing might make sense to you.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not advocating pinko slavery in favor of gold slavery. I only wish to see an end to all slavery.

Apparently, you're advocating a world where lazy slackerdom is a virtue. Pass.

And you wouldn't know slavery if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the ass cheek, so spare me.

Oh, by the way. In the future, answer one post at a time, rather than packing quotes from multiple people together. It makes it easier to understand, and God knows, your posts need all the comprehensibility help they can get.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just to make a point, I don't think we'd want Congressmen voting based off poll numbers. Take the HC bill for example, it's highest support at one point was over 60% if I recall correctly, and around 40 something % at it's lowest.

60% aint 90% is it?....if 90% of America in poll after poll said no to this Health Bill....but they passed it anyway....you would just assume they know better then us?.....and just accept it?.....i can understand about what you said about voting off of polls.....but 90% is much different than 50-60%....

Show me a poll that says Americans opposed Healthcare reform by 90%. In fact, if you combined those who supported the healthcare bill and thos who wanted the bill to do more, you had well over 60% supporting

Rw....this was a hypothetical situation....Christ how many times do i see you tell people to read the post...and people wanted REFORM.....not the Government trying to run the show....