Why Do I Harbor So Much Hatred Toward Rich People?

[LAGC]

I'm honestly trying to figure it out.

Is it envy? I don't have any particular desire to be rich myself, especially if it means attaining such wealth the way so many other people have.

Is it jealousy? I don't particularly like the fact that there are so few rich people when there are so many more poor people who don't have what they have, but I don't really resent them for that reason alone.

What is it then? Could it just be the fact that to become rich it means stepping on so many other people below you in order to get ahead? In effect, EXPLOITING people in order to attain for oneself a vastness of resources that you in effect deny everyone else? Even this wouldn't be so bad if the rich didn't bitch about the fact that a portion (or even half) of their ill-gotten wealth gets taxed back by the PEOPLE that the government is supposed to represent!

I mean, you watch reality shows like "How'd You Get So Rich?" with Joan Rivers on the TVLAND channel, and listen to the "rags-to-riches" success stories. Doesn't it ever strike you how in all of those cases its either: a) getting people underneath them to make money off of their labors; OR b) charging exorbitant prices for their products which in effect distributes wealth from everyday people into their greedy little hands?

Do I think we should do away with all rich people? No, for you can never mandate total economic equality without a government gaining too much control over its populace. But do I have a problem with "redistribution of wealth" where the rich are taxed slightly higher than everyone else to pay for their unfair burden of resources that they hog to themselves? NO! After all, its often THEY who benefit the most from government protections of all their wealth in the form of the police and courts, and from wars and other machinations of the State. They ought to pay their disproportionately fair share!

Am I really wrong to think this way?

[lapfog_1]

1. Simple really, they hated you first. Hence the war on the middle class. - n/t

[Warpy]

6. Exactly, they're spoiled brats who won't share

and nobody likes those, not even other spoiled brats.

They will continue to scream and howl until they can fall asleep on a pile of all the toys in the universe.

They don't exactly hate us, they are indifferent to us. Once they've taken everything from us, we simply cease to exist to them.

[lapfog_1]

16. No, they actively hate us.

Trust me on this, I used to hang with "rich assholes" (my now ex-FIL was executive VP of a major oil company, when he took the family, including me, on vacations, we had our own Gulfstream to fly around the country, Limos at every airport, and, yes, a red carpet between the stairs of the plane and the Limo, I almost laughed the first time I saw that).

They HATE us. They view us as bloodsucker losers who are trying to take what is rightfully THEIRS in taxes...

We are the suckers. They literally believe that they are entitled to the life that they have and that we are put here to be used. That they are "superior beings"... masters of the universe.

[boobooday]

23. Nietzsche says they "forget"

Because they are unable to imagine our reality.

[lapfog_1]

27. I think that's true of the "family wealth" people.

The ones who have been part of the ruling class for generations.

My ex-FIL wasn't like that, in fact, he grew up on a farm only 20 miles from where I grew up on a farm. I was the son he never had (he had 2 daughters). He went to war (WWII), came back, went to college, got a chemical engineering degree, and went to work for the oil company. Worked his way up the ranks (when I first started dating his daughter, who went to the same university as I did, he was VP in charge of research and development), caught a few breaks and made it big. But he was always a little self conscious of his wealth. Didn't want to appear to be a really rich bastard. But he hob nobbed with the truly rich, and it colored his thinking (he took up golf, belonged to right country clubs, told the lame "colored people" jokes, etc).

I think he felt guilt about his wealth. I think people like sports stars and movie stars, who are "suddenly wealthy", have real issues with being part of the upper class... because they are never really accepted by the truly wealthy, and they feel guilty that they are now different that what they grew up being. That's why so many rock stars, movie stars, sports stars, etc, go nuts when they make it big. They find themselves cutting their hair off or retreating into "compounds" and other bizarre behavior.

But the multi-generational rich. The "Bonfires of the Vanities" types. They really could care less about the average person. We really are just bugs under their feet. Sometimes useful bugs, but still just bugs. And they hate us with a passion.

[timeforpeace]

152. There are as many liberal rich people, maybe more, than conservative rich people.

[Warpy]

36. Those are the hired help and they do hate us

because they're hired help and desperate to feel as though they'll never be able to fall back down to our level or that they've never risen that far above it in the first place.

I've had old money friends and acquaintances, sit on charitable boards old money. Trust me, they are indifferent.

They leave the hating to the hired help.

[juno jones]

38. I'll back you up on that.

One of my first kitchen jobs was washing dishes in a fancy CA Cuisine Bistro owned by a guy who was sort of a wanna be republican from Carmel. He would wine and dine all sorts of political up and comers after hours at the restaurant, mostly from C. Eastwood's Carmel bunch who all worshipped the ground R Reagan and his ilk walked on. These guys had money and they hated poor people. I used to have to stay around to clean up after their cigar and brandy nites. I remember the 'ketchup as vegetable debate' thrown around by them. Thomas Jefferson was the favorite target of some guy who played a biker in Eastwood's films and was seeking office himself. I heard shit said about poor people, 'welfare queens', etc that would make your skin crawl.

I'm sure they thought I was just white trash and they ignored me like they would furniture. I've always wondered if restaurant employment of illegals has had anything to do with not wanting to dicuss these things in front of english-speaking help.

[barbiegeek]

140. Religiously they believe God blessed them and we're cursed by God

and unworthy. Since God has abandoned us, we deserve what we get.

[glitch]

172. Some of them, maybe even most of them.

The only really good ones are actively distributing their wealth as fast as they can. There are a few out there.

[elehhhhna]

7. you make a hell of a point, there.

[lapfog_1]

22. Everything and everyone has one in the land of point.

Then I, Oblio, must have one too.

[handmade34]

42. loved that film!!!!!

[WillieW]

164. ditto

[WillieW]

165. ditto

[roguevalley]

183. I think it might be the indifference which with they view life, the

indifference to suffering, injustice and the entitlement tinged with unearned personal self esteem that bothers me. I suffer injustice with a simmering rage that scares me sometimes.

[Mythsaje]

2. I don't hate rich people...

I hate rich, selfish people.

Some people can't quite grasp the difference.

[Dennis Donovan]

18. Exactly - I'm employed by multi-millionaires...

...who are the kindest, most benevolent people I've EVER met. Our business is health care IT, and our software helps practices streamline their actions, lowering their overhead - which will ultimately translate into lower health care costs.

[Mythsaje]

21. Awesome...

People who take without giving back are the problem.

[Dennis Donovan]

24. They donate tens of thousands of $$$ every year to charity...

...and, THEY ARE ALL DEMS!

[Kievan Rus]

53. Old money vs. new money

Old money (inheritance and multi-generation wealthy) tends to be selfish and greedy.

New money (i.e. they actually EARNED it) are generally much better people.

[beltanefauve]

168. Not true

both groups have that "entitlement" thing going on.

[fascisthunter]

70. I agree...

[Juche]

3. Could be anger at how they are in control

Have you seen the Tony Benn interview from Sicko about how democracy was supposed to take power away from the wealthy and put it into the ballot box? Seems we have been giving power back to the wealthy and powerful in the last few decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2h0o3uZ-8

[redqueen]

8. Yep.

Thank you for your posts in this thread.

[GodlessBiker]

4. How much do you have to have (or make) to be rich?

[Marblehead]

5. Eat the Rich!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Can you classify rich?

[LAGC]

11. Oh I don't know, say those living in the top 1 percentile.

Those earning more than $250,000 a year and with net worths in the many millions, if not billions of dollars.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. So people like President Obama and Vice President Biden?

[Juche]

15. Obama openly called for tax hikes on people like himself in the general election

However there are some decent rich people. Bill gates donates tons of money to global health. George Soros, Tim Gill and Warren Buffet (to name a few superwealthy liberal people) are leftists. Many of the celebrities in hollywood are leftists.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. I'm not sure I understand your point.

They are all still rich according to the OP's standard.

[Juche]

25. They are rich, but they are decent people

I'm guessing that is what you were getting at with your post, that there are rich people who are still decent and still support left wing causes. I was agreeing with that, and saying there are rich liberals who support progressive taxes and liberal social policies.

There are people with 200 million in the bank like Mitt Romney, but there are also people with 200 million in the bank like Ned Lamont. So not all rich people are bad.

I think media matters (which conservatives in the media hate, they criticize it openly) was funded by wealthy liberals.

Check out this article from worldnetdaily. hahahahah. Not all rich people are bad.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82771

George Soros and others "were angry and discouraged after contributing to the Media Fund which spent $57 million on TV ads attacking President Bush in swing states and to American Coming Together which spent $78 million on get out the vote efforts," the report said.

The result was a victory for President Bush. So in 2005, 70 millionaires and billionaires met in Phoenix "for a secret long-term strategy session." Their principal point of agreement was "the conservative movement was 'a fundamental threat to the American way of life.'"

The donors studied the success of conservatives, their network of organizations, funders and activists, including think tanks, legal advocacy organizations and leadership schools. Former Clinton administration official Rob Stein explained Democrats, meanwhile, had become a top-down organization run by professional politicians.

The meeting resulted in the birth of the Democracy Alliance, "a loose collection of super-rich donors committed to building organizations that would propel America to the left," the report said.

Colorado was one of the first states targeted. Colorado went for Bush by 9 percent in 2000 and by 5 percent in 2004. In 1998, the state had two GOP senators and four of the six members of the House were GOP, as well as the governor and both houses in the state legislature.

As the money began flowing, the results began changing. Now both Senate seats are Democrat, as are five of the state's seven House members, the governor's office and both houses of the state legislature.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Yes you seem to understand.

[Deja Q]

60. Bill also donated to McCain while he donated to Obama. In short, he's two-faced.

Bill's about as left as an exit sign pointed the wrong way.

[Juche]

65. Bill Gates?

I'm not saying Gates was a leftist, I'm saying he devotes billions to fighting diseases associated with global poverty.

[Hannah Bell]

146. he donated billions to bill gates, inc. big difference.

[Juche]

149. The Bill and Melinda fund is a big proponent of fighting global disease

[Hannah Bell]

153. "fighting global disease" = the pretty name for gates, inc. privatized genetic initiatives.

[Juche]

161. Such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Found...

[Hannah Bell]

162. i have no idea what the point of your link is.

gates funds genetic research & development of gmo's & genetically modified meds; it's the main thrust of their research in the third world.

they have extensive ties to, for example, monsanto (what used to be named monsanto) & hire monsanto people. google it.

from food first:


"Yet what has slipped under everyone’s radar screen is Taylor’s involvement in setting U.S. policy on agricultural assistance in Africa. In collusion with the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, Taylor is once again the go-between man for Monsanto and the U.S. government, this time with the goal to open up African markets for genetically-modified (GM) seed and agrochemicals...

The “penultimate draft” of Taylor’s 2002 paper was reviewed by Dr. Robert Horsch, a Monsanto executive for more than 25 years, who left in 2006 to work at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It states, “The ultimate concern of this report is how innovative seed technology derived from patented tools of biotechnology can be developed and disseminated for the benefit of small-scale and subsistence African farmers.”

Taylor’s 2005 paper “Investing in Africa’s Future: U.S. Agricultural Development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa,” was co-authored by the executive director of the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (PCHPA). Founded in 2000 and based in D.C., PCHPA is a consortium of public-private interests (Gates is one of its primary funders) that includes, among many others, Halliburton, several African heads of state, administrators from several U.S. land grant universities, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Monsanto. According to its web site, Taylor and Horsch both sit on PCHPA’s advisory committee. Horsch continues to be listed as Vice President for Product and Technology Cooperation for Monsanto, and a member of PCHPA’s working group for Capacity Building for Science and Technology."

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2515

big foundations are policy-making arms of the ruling class. they dress their activities up as "charity", & some good gets done in the margins, but the main result of their activities is to extend ruling class power & control.

[Duende azul]

186. You can't be serious. Warren Buffet and Soros are leftists?

And Bill Gates donates? You never questioned the motifs of his generosity?
The whole american charity business is based on a sick concept. All these benevolent donors still claim the right to decide who is worthy and who's not.
They exercise power by the only virtue of being wealthy.


Mr "orange-revolution" Soros a leftist?

Wow, let's talk about perspective.

Or did I miss sarcasm? In that case I apologize.

[SOS]

56. Obama is a pauper

"The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.
The top one percent also owns 36.9 percent of all corporate stock.

The total net worth of the Forbes 400 rose to $1.25 trillion in 2006."

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

The ten hedge fund managers who made between $1 and $2 billion each in 2008 are rich.
Someone who makes $250K is not a member of the American ruling class.
Someone who makes $250K is more properly called a "dentist".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. Take it up with the OP, it was their definition.

[Hannah Bell]

147. someone who has to work for others to maintain their wealth = not wealthy, no

matter how highly paid.

[Jennicut]

81. Obama just made his money very recently, mostly from his books

And Biden was the poorest U.S. Senator for a few years. Neither grew up in wealthy families.

Its not the wealth that makes some rich unlikable. Its the behavior. Bush and Cheney were rich through family and through disgusting corporations. And their behavior was equally disgusting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. I'm using the OP's definition.

[Juche]

10. Also, all the economic growth in the last 30 years has gone to them

[The empressof all]

12. Honestly, I think it's an easy target...

I mean what is "rich". People who have more than you or a whole lot more. That's also relative. I got a new car last night through the Cash with Clunkers Program. To someone homeless--I'm rich. I bought a very low end economy car. It was all I needed and I couldn't spend more right now.

I've been able to accumulate stuff, have a degree of financial stability and looking towards an early retirement. I don't think I've personally exploited anyone although I have been exploited by past employers who in retrospect I was far too willing to please. I pay my taxes and would pay more if it means better health care for all.

I'm a Democrat through and through. There are a great many of us who share the wealth in the party in donations to our candidates and our causes.

You are certainly free to be pissed at who ever you wish. Though I think a better target would be the ignorant and the mean who's behavior is shameful.

[cbdo2007]

17. DOH!! You just beat me to it.

Same point I was trying to make but you made it better.

To many people, "rich" = anyone with more money than you, and by trying to do good and make a difference the only way they can think of to do that is by telling "rich" people what to do with their money.

[Hannah Bell]

150. no, "rich" = ownership of the commanding heights of the economy.

if homeless people think you're rich, it's irrelevant.

rich is not about having the biggest house or biggest tv on the block, deluded though some people are. it's not about being able to retire early, or accumulate some stuff. it's about owning & controlling the commanding heights.

[cbdo2007]

13. maybe because they're easy targets?

Everyone dislikes certain groups of people for whatever reason. The "rich" are an easy target cause they have the most money, the nicest stuff, whatever.

[Hannah Bell]

154. the pobrecitos!

[Hippo_Tron]

20. So the computer you're typing on wasn't made with exploited labor?

[flexqube]

26. Rich people help us the most, they don't hurt us

What is a market? A market is simply millions upon millions of individual decision makers engaged in peacable, voluntary exchange each pursuing what they see to be in their own best interest.

When someone has achieved wealth through the market system (i.e. voluntary exchange) what does it mean? Consider Henry Ford. He found a way to produce cars at a low cost so that average people could afford them. That is to say that Ford's customers VOLUNTARILY paid money in exchange for a car because, in their own judgment, the car was more valuable to them that the money. The same could be said about people that worked for Henry Ford. They all had choices. They decided VOLUNTARILY to work for Ford because they (1) would rather have the money than the time and materials they were selling to him and (2) felt that the terms of working for Ford were more beneficial than the terms of working for anyone else.

Rich people:
(1) Provide us with the goods and services that we want at prices we are willing to pay
(2) Provide us with work opportunities that are better than other opportunities that are available to us

When someone has achieved wealth by involuntary means that is bad. We should resent them in that case. Let's take an example. The government gives money to big agriculture corporations to make ethanol as fuel for our cars. Recent studies have found that burning ethanol actual does more damage to the environment than does oil. Conside the dynamic.

(1) Government takes your money using threats and intimidation (the government threatens you with fines or jail if you don't pay your taxes).
(2) Government gives the money (LOTS) to companies and individuals that can afford to pay lobbyists.
(3) The desired results are either never achieved (at best) or counter productive results are realized (more typical).

When people become rich through voluntary exchange (i.e. the market) everyone is better off. When the government uses coersive, involuntary means at the behest of rich business people then the result is bad for everyone except for the rich business people and their politcal puppets (let's be honest, both Republicans and Democrats).

[RagAss]

28. Thank You Mr. Hannity.

[Juche]

30. Capitalism has its benefits

It can force people to provide the highest quality good/service at the lowest cost, and it can propel people into finding solutions for problems because they want to get rich in the process. Basically, yes, dangling the carrot of fame and fortune in front of people can motivate them to solve the world's problems.

However it is an imperfect system because the more costs that the business can disperse onto the public means it can provide a cheaper product. A low wage workforce, environment pollution and depletion of natural resources all make for cheaper consumer goods, but the damage they do to sustainability and health greatly outweighs the benefits. Which is why we need government regulation in labor and the environment, without those regulations capitalism becomes a race to the bottom. Not only that, but there are serious problems that are going ignored since they are not profitable. The developing world has billions of people who could end up curing alzheimers or HIV, but instead many of them are dying of basic diseases because there is no profit to be made in helping them. At the same time, there is massive profit to be made in conspicuous consumption. So the profit motive is imperfect since it has no moral compass or long term consequences. Which is why you need government intervention to provide that moral compass and long term consequences (cap and trade taxes or overuse of natural resource taxes as examples).

And government programs are not all bad. the CARS program has helped grow the economy a bit and may have played a role in slowing the recession. The interstate highway program was also good. So is the NIH and NIMH. So was rural electrification. I would gladly pay more in taxes if the money went to scientific R&D, universal healthcare, global antipoverty efforts or sustainable energy.

[flexqube]

61. Good points

The market is not perfect of course. We are human beings. We will not reach perfection until the next life.

Despite its shortcomings, the market is the best mechanism we have. It relies on voluntary behavior and thus win/win transactions. That is to say that in a market a transaction cannot occur unless both parties expect to be better off. The alterative is non-voluntary behavior that spans win/lose transactions to lose/lose transactions. For example when one party (a thief or government) uses force to make a transaction occur one party is better off and one party is worse off (he must be worse off otherwise force would not have been needed). In some cases the party using force can be made worse off by the transaction as well.

Business does not gravitate to a low wage work force. It does gravitate to paying lower rates per unit of output. But it does so by applying innovation and technology to make workers more productive. This results in higher worker pay. Even if you consider undeveloped countries where workers make cents per hours this is true. Even though the workers are paid a small wage in Nike factories, for example, that wage is often two or three times what workers can earn in their next best alternative. Moreover, those workers have the opportunity to use new technologies and gain experience that will result in even higher future pay. We see this happening in China, Vietnam, and India. It was recently estimated that 1,000,000 Chinese people are being lifted from poverty each month. This is not a result of government programs or a United Nations relief program. It is a result of the free market. In the countries of Africa that don't have free markets (the Asian countries I mentioned were just as poor 20 years ago) they cannot escape poverty even though they have been given trillions of dollars in aide.

Government programs are not all bad. However, rural electrification is not a great example for you to use. If you read a book called "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes it is apparent that the government hindered that effort rather than helped it.

The government should maintain law and order, defend the nation, enforce contracts, protect property rights, protect individual rights, and some other things like building roads.

[Juche]

73. Nonetheless, the market is concerned with immediate profit and nothing else

Which is a problem because we also have to worry about things like quality of life, environment, sustainability and issues like that, issues which have no value to the market. That is why you need government intervention, outside groups and labor unions, to protect these issues.

I disagree about the use of force. Many elderly would've chosen to opt out of medicare and social security when younger if given the chance to avoid paying 8% of income in taxes. However now that they are older, they are reaping the benefits of those systems. There are no wealthy countries with functioning democracies and advanced infrastructure that also adopt libertarian policies. Libertarianism, while sounding good as a philosophy, doesn't really work to run a government because too much is left up to chance. That is largely why there are no libertarian governments with advanced economies and working democratic institutions. No OECD nations are libertarian, and many developing countries are instituting socialistic social programs and economic regulations. India and China, which you mentioned, are instituting universal health care programs right now.

Productivity doesn't necessarily result in higher worker pay. Productivity went up almost 30% in the Bush administration, and wages stagnated. The same happened from 1980 to the present, productivity skyrocketed (probably going up 250%, I don't know the exact number) but after tax income stagnated. Almost all the wage increases went to the top 1%.

China has near daily worker riots about working conditions and wages. I agree that market economics played a huge role in lifting the Chinese from poverty, but they also have to deal with quality control issues, labor unrest, pollution and natural resource depletion. None of these are addressed by the free market, they are addressed by the public forcing the government to take action. That is what is happening in China now. Right now the public have forced the government to start enforcing environmental protections, allowing trade unions, and promoting sustainability and higher quality products. The market itself has no real interest in any of these things, which is why the public both in China and outside China had to force the Chinese government to start enforcing these issues.

Decent trade and economic policy will hopefully lift Africa out of poverty the same way it lifted much of China out of poverty. However once Africa obtains at least some wealth, they will start undergoing the same changes seen in other wealthy nations. They will call for social programs, a safety net, trade unions, environmental protections and regulations on corporate influence.

[flexqube]

92. Let's think about that

Let's start with the use of force. Let's consider the elderly and the decisions they might have made while they were younger.

(1) Americans are supposed to be free. When you override their decisions they are no longer free. You might say that we are only restricting their freedom regarding health care and retirement. As we know, once the government is free to override your decisions regarding your health care and your retirement what argument can be made to prevent the government from overriding your other decisions. That is to say that, as predicted, freedom is lost gradually.

(2) We also have to assume that the government was able to design a one size fits all program that is so good that it was a better and less expensive than the choices people would have made on their own.

- Their are lots of complaints about Medicare from doctors, patients, nurses, and others that we are all familiar with.
- The GAO in December of 2008 published a report saying that Social Security and Medicare are $101 trillion out of balance. That number is certainly worse given the recession. That number means that the government would have to invest $101 trillion today and get a 6% return to keep its commitments. $101 trillion is greater than the GDP of the world. I will pay social security and medicare taxes all of my life and I will not benefit from it. That is according to the joint report of the GAO and the superintendants of these programs.
- Social Security and Medicare are LITERALLY ponzi schemes. If a similar program was offered in the private sector those responsible for it would be quickly sentenced to prison. In fact, when Bernie Madoff was asked where he got the idea for his ponzi scheme he replied, "Social Security".

===============

Of course productivity results in higher pay. Technology, innovation, and risk taking are the backbone of productivity. With those things comes the need for better trained and, this is key, specialized workers.

Often people trot out some information from the U.S. Bureau of the Census concerning income stagnation. From 1969 to 1996 real (adjusted for inflation) median household income rose just 6%. That same source indicates that over the same years real per capita income increased by 51%. How can this be true? Because the average number of people per household was decreasing during those years. Household income is a very misleading statistic. That is to say that during the early 1900s and before extended families (several generations) used to live together. As people became more weathy extended famlies divided into nuclear families. This was common during the 1950s. During this time per capital income was increasing and household income was decreasing because the number of people per household was decreasing. In recent decades divorce and other social trends have shrunk the size of households even more.

People who try to convince you that wages are stagnating are fooling you by using household income statistics. Per capital income statistics tell a different and more accurate story.

Statistics about productivity and wages need to be looked at using the proper lag. Just as unemployment rates are a lagging indicator of economic growth wages increases lag behind productivity. That is to say that productivity increases come first then wage increases. To trick people those that claim that wage increases went to the top 1% look at those numbers without the lag that shows the cause and effect. It is a deliberate deception.

Let me be clear. I am not accusing you of anything. I was fooled by this stuff myself for a long time. I spent a lot of time studing economics and economics history and was able to get to the bottom of what these statistics mean and how they are used to fool people into agreeing to policies that erode freedom.


===============

Markets, more specifically property rights, are the best mechanism for protecting the environment. Here is a simple thought exercise.

In Michigan agriculture is our third largest industry. We are famous for our apple, peach, and cherry orchards. For generations elderly orchard owners have continued to plant trees even when there is no chance they would be alive to enjoy the fruits of those trees. Why would a rational person spend cash that they could use for other purposes on themselves to plant trees they will never eat or sell the fruit from? It is because of private property. That is to say that the present value of property is dependent on its expected future value. If the orchard was public property or if the owner of the orchard thought the government might seize it from him or his heirs it is unlikely he would plant the trees. In fact he would be more likely to cut down his existing cherry trees to furniture makers and spend the proceeds on current consumption.

The solution of the government to environmental problems has been to buy more public property (parks that are regularly ravaged by cattle or forest fires) or to deprive private property owners of the use of their property. This is exactly the wrong policy. The rational person has no incentive to preserve or maintain public property. A rational person would be expected to maximize current cash flow when the government is threatening existing property rights. The right answer is to strengthen property rights. People have no incentive to pollute their own property. Moreover property owners have every incentive to prevent others from polluting their property.

[LAGC]

101. But some degree of regulation is required to ensure free and open markets, would you not agree?

Otherwise monopolies form and squelch competition... I still don't see whats so bad about a "public option" in health care to COMPETE with the private insurance heavies. Competition means lower prices, does it not? And how are people any less free under a government-run plan than a corporate-run one? Are you saying tyranny doesn't come from corporate quarters just as easily (if not easier in this society) than the government? You want to talk about "death panels"...

[HughBeaumont]

123. *blink blink*

Are you fucking serious? Wages ARE either stagnating or declining, wealth IS getting redistributed to the top, everyone from Sherrod Brown to Elizabeth Warren will tell you that wages indeed have not kept up with the rising cost of living these past 30 years (as evidenced by the negative savings rate), your sad ass theories are full of shit and don't stand up to the institutional study and research that quantified these graphs and no amount of Freidmanite/libertarian spin you put on is CHANGING THAT FACT!!

God DAMN it, WHERE do people like you get hatched out of? Do your lips ever get tired of kissing so much Repuke/Corporation ass?

[Iris]

193. Let's think about that. Why, yes, yes I will kiss corporate/repuke ass until I'm in my grave!!!

bwahhahahahaha

[Juche]

133. Good points

Per capita income is itself misleading because it takes the GDP divided by the population. In the US the per capita income is about $50,000 per man, woman and child since we have 300 million citizens and about 15 trillion in GDP. However since the wealthiest 10% take home about 65% of all wages, the real per capita income for the bottom 90% of the country is closer to $19,000 per capita since 270 million people are sharing about 5 trillion in wages.

I don't agree about the use of force. Force is a part of living in a society, whether we like it or don't. We all submit to legal standards, and to a large degree submit to social conventions. Like I was saying earlier, there are no wealthy OECD nations with functioning democracies that do not use taxation to fund social programs, and many developing nations are doing the same thing. If americans wanted to eliminate social security and medicare, they are free to elect politicians who want to destroy those programs. However they do not, if anything they elect politicians who add to those programs. I guess it is a difference of opinion on the issue. I can understand your argument about the use of force being immoral, but the fact that the public elect politicians who will promote social programs eliminates the moral quandary in my mind. If the public wanted to stop being forced to pay taxes for medicare and social security, they can elect politicians who eliminate these programs. So far they have not.

Medicare, despite being imperfect, is run more efficiently than private healthcare. If we expanded medicare to everyone in the country we would save roughly $400 billion in lower overhead and bulk purchases, or roughly 20% of what we spend on healthcare. Not only that but we would provide everyone in the nation with healthcare while still saving $400 billion, so medicare is a superior system than private insurance. Medicare is also enjoyed more than private insurance in opinion polls. So medicare is imperfect, yes. However it is cheaper, covers everyone and doesn't drop them the way private insurance does and is rated higher than private insurance.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/cf-emb05...

As far as productivity increases, government intervention can also promote those. The british government abolishing slavery helped spur on the industrial revolution in the UK because there was no pool of low wage labor anymore. The same is happening in agriculture, as the government cracks down on illegal immigration employers are being forced to invest in robotics technology to perform agricultural work that used to be done by low wage workers. The same is happening and will happen with energy. With a cap and trade system and the taxes used to fund renewables, there will be a strong growth in sustainable energy production. So productivity can also go up because the government provides the long term consequences or moral compass that are missing from the free market. Government and labor interventions to protect workers can result in productivity increases because there is no longer a pool of low wage, unprotected laborers to use. Which forces employers to innovate and find ways to increase productivity.

Privatizing everything might lead to less pollution, I have heard that argument before. But so will environmental regulation of public lands. Both situations involve the government forcing a polluter to stop polluting. If you privately own a river and it is being polluted, you petition the government to defend your property. If it is public land, the same thing happens and the government is petitioned to defend the property. So either way, the government will force the polluter to stop polluting. It is fine if you prefer private lakes or forests, but many of us on the left prefer public lakes and forests. Not only that, but many times pollution does happen to private land. In China the pollution from factories may damage the land of nearby private farms. However only the public in China organizing and forcing the government to protect them seems to be working to protect their land. So either way, whether private or public, it is still the government that forces polluters to change their behavior. The problem is that when you privatize everything, then the wealthy private interests just buy the politicians and tell them to use the police to crack down on those who complain about abuses.

[HughBeaumont]

122. So, destroying one economy so another can get buoyed is a good thing, then.

I think this means you support the practice of job offshoring, then. Where, exactly, is the higher worker pay HERE, as you Reaganite jokers espouse? I think that kind of shoots your "win/win" through voluntary action theory in the ass.

Amazing. And you wonder why you were dropped in the Dirtnap Motel.

[armyowalgreens]

34. Fuck free-market capitalism.

[Deja Q]

59. If the health industry was genuinely free market, they'd all be beggars on the street by now

$10 for a frigging aspirin in a hospital when the same money can buy over 360x the number of tablets, whoops I mean "commoditized product", in a grocery store. Or 1080x+ at a warehouse club...

[flexqube]

79. Let's think about that

Is the hospital really charging you $10 just for the aspirin?

That is to say is it charging you for some legitimate expenses?
- the salary of the nurse that brings it
- the salary of the doctor
- training for the hospital staff
- the cost of the hospital building
- the cost of the hospital overhead (billing, administration, etc.)
- logistics costs (the systems and processes needed to purchase the medicines, store it, and deliver it correctly to the correct patients)

Also do they have some questionable expenses.
- The cost of the risk from large lawsuits, legal expenses, insurance premiums, and punitive damages
- The cost of treating patients that refuse to pay (some because they are poor but others that have the money but refuse to pay)

Given some of these expenses is it really advisable to go the hospital for an aspirin? I have the same problem at work. The sandwich places around work all charge $5 to $10 for a sandwich. I can make the sandwich myself for $1 to $2. The sandwich shop charges that much in part because of the additional costs other than materials that they have to pay. They also charge that much because of the extra convenience they provide to those who choose to go to their shop. If the sandwich shops only charged $3 to $4 for a sandwich the extra money might be worth the convenience to me. However, the fact that others are willing to pay a higher premium does not harm me.

But both the hospitals and the sandwich shops must operate under the laws of supply and demand. This means they are price takers and not price setters.

[armyowalgreens]

86. Supply/demand is a lie. It doesn't exist.

There are many other less honest factors that play a role in the price of goods and services. If you honestly believe that supply/demand is some sort of law, you really need to do some more research on economics.

[Hannah Bell]

151. you = shill

[flexqube]

63. Why f*** free market capitalism

A free market is based on voluntary behavior. In order for a transaction to occur both parties must expect to be better off. What is wrong with that?

The alternative is to use force and intimidation to override the voluntary decisions of free people and impose the will of elites upon them. Once we do that they are no longer free people. That can't be what you want. Is it?

[LAGC]

67. It is true that the rich get rich not by force.

After all, people willingly pay for their over-priced products (that they extract profits from) and willingly work for below-market wages (that they exploit also for profits) even though its called the "prevailing market wage" -- although the choice is often: work at that wage, or starve and be homeless.

But do you not believe they should "give back" a fair amount of that which they have taken from people in the first place? Belief in the free-market isn't necessarily exclusive to the concept of redistribution of wealth...

[flexqube]

74. Let's think about that

I ask the following question respectfully. Do you think your fellow Americans are stupid?

Consider Walmart. That corporation is routinely bashed for the very things you are talking about.

I shop there all the time. I do so because they offer me great products for a low price. I am happy with the quality of their products and thrilled with the prices. For some products, not many but some, other stores have a lower price. For those products I shop at the stores with the lower price.

There are some products that are available at Walmart and other stores that cost more than I want to pay. A good example is a flat panel TV. I would really like one. But I am not willing to pay over $1,000 for a decent model. So I just don't buy one.

I have never been forced by gun point to go into Walmart to buy anything. Why would I shop at Walmart if better alternatives were available? I would have to be stupid.

In contrast my local government provides my garbage collection services. They are often late. They sometimes refuse to take my garbage. They throw my garbage cans in the middle of the street rather than putting them back on the curb. And if I don't pay whatever price they ask the local government will confiscate my house and/or subject me to fines and jail time.

What about how Walmart treats employees? I have never seen Walmart marching employees into the store a gun point and forcing them to work. In fact, even in this bad economy in my lower middle class neighborhood in metro Detroit workers have other choices than working at Walmart. In fact more workers have chosen to work at Walmart than at any other company in the world. Why would workers choose to work at Walmart if better alternatives were available? They would have to be stupid.

[LAGC]

80. Oh no, you did NOT just bring Walmart into this conversation!

The same Wal-mart that refuses to let its workers organize, and actively stifles any attempts at forming a union, including anti-union propaganda forced onto all employees?

http://walmartwatch.com /

Those low prices come at a mighty high cost... and even then, the stock-holders are STILL making bank!

[armyowalgreens]

85. I'm starting to this that person is a troll...

No proper democrat boasts the benefits of Walmart and free-market capitalism. Those are right-wing memes.

[flexqube]

96. Winning on the merits

I am not claiming that Walmart is perfect.

I am saying that blaming Walmart is not a policy solution. I am saying that blaming rich CEOs is not a policy solution. I am saying that making personal attacks on George W. Bush is not a policy solution. It is a diversion. It will win an election here and there, but it is not an approach that will lead to long term success.

If we want a good health care system or a clean environment we need to win based on ideas. We need to discuss policies in a rational way. We need to look at the incentives that we are putting in place.

Take regulation as an example. Is the issue with our regulatory environment that we have too few regulations? Or is it that we don't have the right regulations. I hear Democrats and Republicans complain about stupid contradictory regulations. If we want to win on the merits complaining about too few regulations is going to fall flat with people that live and work with them. We need to focus on the regulations that are simple, transparent, and make a real difference. Then we are coming up with solutions that are practical and consistent with freedom.

Isn't that what all of us are for?

I don't think there are a lot of people out there (including Republicans) who think that George Bush is smart or that CEOs are not greedy. Talking about that does not move the conversation an inch. I am saying that we need to challenge ourselves here to focus on solutions and not on villains.

[armyowalgreens]

98. We need to identify the enemy...

So yes, I will continue to call out Walmart, CEOs and Bush and friends. I will let everyone know just how evil they are.

Have fun shopping at Walmart. How you can live with yourself is beyond me.


The correct answer is that there is not enough regulation. Actually, the correct answer is that we should get rid of private insurance all together. We need socialized medicine. All the greedy assholes at private insurance companies can go fuck themselves.


The reason why I think you are a troll is because you a boasting about things like free-market capitalism, Walmart and "incentives". These are all conservative talking points. It hardly qualifies you as a democrat.

I think you'd be happier if you found your way to freerepublic.com

[natrat]

118. no doubt , they sent out the 1st string tonight. freemkts my but,corrupt monopolies more like

[armyowalgreens]

84. I will gladly intimidate the hell out of rich assholes. I want socialism.

Time for a reality check. Free-market capitalism pools wealth at the top. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It has very little to do with "voluntary behavior". It has more to do with power and money.

[Orsino]

37. Clumsy.

Rich people hurt "us" plenty, particularly when laws equate their wealth with political power, and make it hereditary.

[flexqube]

68. I agree, mostly

That sentiment agrees mostly with my original post.

It is only possible for rich people to buy favors from a big, powerful government. When the government is limited as our founders intended it to be and it only has specifically enumerated powers (Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution) then rich people cannot bribe politicians and use the power of government to take advantage of average and poor people.

Making government more powerful will only make the problem worse. There is no amount of campaign finance laws that can limit corruption when the government is big and powerful. Consider the Soviet Union. People were not allowed to make any campaign contribitions. All elections were publically financed. People were permitted to vote. Even the most red blooded communists/socialists were disgusted with the corruption in their government by their own testimony.

Think about it. We should welcome wealth accumulated through peacable, voluntary exchange. It makes all of our lives better. We should fear and reject involuntary (coerced) transactions that are typical of large, powerful, corrupt government intervention.

[Selatius]

97. There were no free and fair elections in the Soviet Union, especially during and after Joseph Stalin

One Party Dictatorships aren't the result if the ballot box isn't rigged.

[Orsino]

119. Even clumsier.

No, my sentiment does not agree with your OP.

Let me guess: will proposed health-care reforms make our government more powerful, and increase the corruption that has you worried?

[mitchum]

104. Fuck off, lap dog

[Hannah Bell]

155. difference between "rich people" & "gov't" = ?????

government = executive committee of ruling class

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. All rich people arent "hate-able"

[DailyGrind51]

176. The Kennedys and Warren Buffet actually help the less fortunate.

[ejpoeta]

31. i don't hate rich people.... i think it's the ones that think they are entitled and that you are

poor because you deserve to be poor. the ones that think that THEY shouldn't have to pay any more in taxes even though they make a lot more money. i could care less if they have mansions and fancy cars... they don't really seem to be very happy... and what does it say when people wait around like vultures for you to die so they can get your money... waht does that say about you??? There are things that money can't buy, and I'd rather live paycheck to paycheck then to have to live in that kind of world.

[truedelphi]

178. That is my take on the matter also.

HAving taken care of the disabled and elderly for almsot twenty years, often the people I worked for were wealthy.

If someone was self-made, in terms of their wealth, and they were of the Generation that had gone through the Depresion and WWII, I usually didn't find them obnoxious. They wanted certain things done, they had standards that they felt needed to be met, but they were not picky.

The worst were elderly women who had never worked a day in their life, but married someone rich. They wanted me to spend hours doing senseless things - making sure the knick knacks were arranged within one eighth of an inch of each other.

On the other end of the spectrum were people who had come into money but loved their day job so much they still had worked at it. One music teacher I cared for was like this - she loved her students and didn't retire until her Alzheimer's forced her to.

[armyowalgreens]

32. Most rich people are slaves to the same system as the rest...

But I stress the MOST part.

If you are talking about the hyper-wealthy, I could understand your hatred a little better.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Dappleganger]

35. I don't hate rich people.

Only greedy ones who live like they're the only ones on the planet.

[Journeyman]

39. A client of mine is one of the wealthiest people in California, inherited wealth, generations old...

I rarely work with them direct, it's true, mainly through their intermediaries, but everything we do benefits society. They fund numerous life altering institutes, medical organizations, and scholastic endeavors, have consistently supported Democratic ideals and candidates, and have, on numerous occasions, expressed their distaste for BushCo and all the class-conscious choices the Republicans favor.

As with most of the opinions we form in life, I guess the particulars are hewn by our experiences. But I do believe it's important to remember that wealth serves its holder, and can be neither wicked nor gracious without a conscious determinant act.

[ipaint]

41. If they paid their fair share of taxes we wouldn't need their charity. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

128. +1

[Hannah Bell]

156. why do rich people get to foist their private solutions to social problems on others?

& why, despite about 200 years of such "generosity" by the rich (look into the history of charities & foundations) do they own more of the country & its assets than ever?

charity = the bunk.

[ipaint]

40. The rich are by and large useless hoarders.

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 36.7% of all privately held stock, 63.8% of financial securities, and 61.9% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population. (It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservatives behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.)

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth....

There is ample reason to hate the rich and the multitude of horrible problems their hoarding visits on the rest of us. The rich are a huge problem and the poor wouldn't exist without them.

I swear some people in this thread are channeling reagan.

[ipaint]

43. They rule.

They Rule aims to provide a glimpse of some of the relationships of the US ruling class. It takes as its focus the boards of some of the most powerful U.S. companies, which share many of the same directors. Some individuals sit on 5, 6 or 7 of the top 500 companies. It allows users to browse through these interlocking directories and run searches on the boards and companies. A user can save a map of connections complete with their annotations and email links to these maps to others. They Rule is a starting point for research about these powerful individuals and corporations.


A few companies control much of the economy and oligopolies exert control in nearly every sector of the economy. The people who head up these companies swap on and off the boards from one company to another, and in and out of government committees and positions. These people run the most powerful institutions on the planet, and we have almost no say in who they are. This is not a conspiracy. They are proud to rule. And yet these connections of power are not always visible to the public eye.

http://www.theyrule.net/

[handmade34]

44. before I was educated about economics and finances

I always had a sense that the only way people became really wealthy was through exploitation of some sort, whether by exploitation of natural resources, people, rules or what have you.
I have come around to believing this to be true

[Rex]

45. Your anger is mostly aimed at the 'owners' of America.

They are not the rich - they are the ultra-wealthy, mega-yacht crowd. Rich people usually are successful and work hard. Wealthy people, such as the type you are angry at, are born into money and don't have to work hard or have any kind of moral values - they were born to amazing fortune. You are mad at them, because they have enough money to make a difference and don't. Usually just the opposite - they hurt the working class just by existing and leeching off the money someone else made. My 2cents.

[LAGC]

46. True.

Maybe I painted too broad a brush when I said "the rich" in general?

[Rex]

54. Well if you feel the anger like I do, you are most angry at the 'owners'

of our society. They never give back anything and it makes me mad.

[abumbyanyothername]

47. Is there really a TV show called How'd You Get So RIch"

trumpeting modern day Horatio Alger stories?

That's horrible. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of viewers being brainwashed into thinking that hard work, etc. can lead to riches.

I would like to see the real statistics on how many, what percentage of hard workers make it really big.

Mega-Millions offers better odds.

[LAGC]

49. Yep, believe it or not.

Every Wednesday night on TVLAND channel:

http://www.tvland.com/prime/shows/howd_you_get_so_rich/

[HughBeaumont]

83. Horatio Alger. Believe it at your own peril.

The reality of Horatio Alger comes in the form of a cold sledgehammer to the balls.

Despite Sowell’s insistence that tax brackets tell the real story of income distribution and economic mobility, the increasing wealth disparities between upper-class and working-class Americans confirm that indeed, the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of the U.S. population.

The real median income on has increased steadily since 1947, from $22,000 to just over $50,000 in 2003. Since 1979 then incredibly divergent income patterns have developed between the rich and the poor. There has been an almost negligible growth for the median and 20th percentile, with explosive growth at the top 95th percentile. The increase in income inequality since the 1970s can be described as the middle class squeeze, with the greatest changes in the bottom third and the top third. In the bottom third, income is generally as it was almost 30 years ago. The top 1% of the population have seen their incomes more than double. Among the poorest people, income grew during 1995 and 2004 due to the increase in annual hours worked, but the increase was very small. The opposite is true for the elite. According to Gregory Mantsios, director of Working Education at CUNY, “the wealthiest 20 percent of the American population holds 85 percent of the total household wealth in the country,” a statistic that does not offer much hope for the remaining percentage of the population.<10>

The poor are becoming poorer and owing more money. In 1985, the average working-class citizen owed $500, compared to $8,000 today. For the top 5%, wealth (income and assets) has increased from about $500,000 to about $1,000,000. In 2005, the average family had a net worth of $80,000. The poverty level is also much too low for the Horatio Alger myth to be applied in modern society: “a total of 14 percent of the American population – that is, one of every seven – live below the government’s official poverty line (calculated in 1996 at $7,992 for an individual and $16,209 for a family of four)”.<11>

(snip)

Evidently, as Dalton proclaimed, we are living in an era of diminished opportunities for most; this is especially true for minorities and women.

[Kievan Rus]

48. I agree, for the most part

Why: quite simply, because a lot (but not all) of them think that they're God's greatest gift to humanity, they think they're above the law, and some of them (think Enron) are just plain evil. Many of them flat out cheat, lie and steal and flat out get away with it.

Many of them are greedy and take the "Wall Street" quote "greed is good" to heart. Business ethics are lacking; the job market in this nation has been destroyed by their greed and outsourcing. They go nuts at the idea of even a slight increase in taxes on the wealthy. And all because four mansions and five yachts for one of them aren't enough. Meanwhile, the majority of humanity wonders where its next meal will come from.

Of course, not all rich people are jerks. There are some good ones out there. But the ones whom vocally act as if they're God's gift to the world and that the Earth revolves around them, and have no morals just to make even more money tend to speak louder than the ones who aren't bad.

[otohara]

50. They Use So Much Energy & Resources

they don't care about the environment otherwise they'd live in smaller homes - they tend not to recycle all the shit they consume, wasteful, greedy.

They will use Mexicans for child care, lawn care, house cleaning yet don't want them in our country.

Those are some of the reasons rich people are on my shit list.

[ipaint]

52. A minor point but relevant-

On every stupid rich people reality show on tv they let their dogs shit all over the house and expect the "servants" to clean it up.

I've only caught a few of those shows and I've seen it and folks I talk to who watch that garbage tv regularly say it happens all the time.

Disgusting.

[rug]

51. Because your eyes are open.

[graywarrior]

55. Eat the rich.

One of my best friends is a millionaire and she is ashamed of it. Of course, that doesn't stop her from flying around the planet whenever she fucking feels like it.

However....I must say that she was raised with the goal to accomplish something good with her life. And she has. everything she had on a to do list since she was a kid, she's accomplished including getting a book published and acting.

[Fumesucker]

57. Another case for the "L" curve..

http://www.lcurve.org /

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)

--The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

--At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

--The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

--From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!

[brendan120678]

130. 95 Yard Line? 99 Yard Line?

What kind of football is that?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

58. My dad's boss was a billionaire. Here's what he said to me a week after my mother died.

"You're sitting on your lazy ass, wallowing in self-pity over your dead mother..."

Fortunately for him, my dad was dead at the time too. If not, and if he knew this prick said what he said, he'd have hit him so hard that the motherfucker would still be bleeding...7 years later.

That's my experience with rich people. I have similar stories, this is just the worst one, and the biggest, richest asshole I've encountered.

[stray cat]

62. Why does anyone discriminate against or hate any group in mass? Its bigotry

and usually starts with depersonalization of a group due to limited exposure that hardens into blind hatred toward an entire group.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Thank you for some common sense.

[blindpig]

180. What pure bullshit

What have we done to them to excuse the abuse we receive? They steal our labor, piss on our leg and tell up it's raining.

It's not about hating individuals, I assume there might be a few decent rich folks as a theoretical exercise. Rather it is the class which preys upon us as a matter of it's own necessity which we have every reason to hate. Take away their power over us and I won't hate them anymore.