If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Short-term thinking, personal irresponsibility, cynicism about playing by the rules, an aversion to socially productive labor - this is why poor people are poor. Wait, scratch that, that's why rich people are rich   (cnn.com) divider line 68
    More: Ironic, Thomas Piketty, national income, selfishness, income inequality, productive labour, poverty, wealths, inner-city  
•       •       •

4087 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 7:09 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-09 05:51:48 PM
Not true. Some rich people are workaholic. They are also assholes too.
 
2014-04-09 06:24:36 PM
Most of the really rich people I know were born into it. There are exceptions of course. But I've never met a rich person who thinks he is or will admit that he's rich. Then I don't know any rappers.
 
2014-04-09 06:24:52 PM
So basically sociopaths
 
2014-04-09 06:37:23 PM

Mugato: Most of the really rich people I know were born into it. There are exceptions of course. But I've never met a rich person who thinks he is or will admit that he's rich. Then I don't know any rappers.


It's not a guarantee, but it's like buying a lotto ticket when there's only one number left to draw.
 
2014-04-09 06:38:45 PM
After all this talk, I'm going to be really disappointed if I don't get to see a beheading.
 
2014-04-09 06:43:28 PM

MisterTweak: It's not a guarantee, but it's like buying a lotto ticket when there's only one number left to draw.


I like that expression
 
2014-04-09 06:45:54 PM

sithon: So basically sociopaths


How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?
 
2014-04-09 06:50:53 PM

cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?


Hit a little close did it?
 
2014-04-09 07:06:56 PM
I've had the benefit of working with a number of very wealthy (enough to own multiple airplanes and rarely go into the office) people, most of which started from rather humble beginnings.  I'd say the headline is pretty accurate from my personal experience.

While many are workaholics, not all of them were.  The overwhelming trend I've seen was not caring about what the law was, if they thought they wouldn't get caught, or that the punishment was small enough (at least the first few times you were caught) to not care about it.  Also quite a few of them really enjoyed manipulating people for their amusement.
 
2014-04-09 07:07:50 PM

Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?


No I just felt like being a wiseass
 
2014-04-09 07:13:26 PM
better to be a wiseass, instead of a dumbass.
 
2014-04-09 07:14:29 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: I've had the benefit of working with a number of very wealthy (enough to own multiple airplanes and rarely go into the office) people, most of which started from rather humble beginnings.  I'd say the headline is pretty accurate from my personal experience.

While many are workaholics, not all of them were.  The overwhelming trend I've seen was not caring about what the law was, if they thought they wouldn't get caught, or that the punishment was small enough (at least the first few times you were caught) to not care about it.  Also quite a few of them really enjoyed manipulating people for their amusement.


"The usual bet?"
"Sounds good, Mortimer"
 
2014-04-09 07:23:09 PM

cman: Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?

No I just felt like being a wiseass


Would there be any credibility to a diagnoses that was pulled out of your ass if your ass were truly wise?
 
2014-04-09 07:24:53 PM
 
2014-04-09 07:25:20 PM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: cman: Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?

No I just felt like being a wiseass

Would there be any credibility to a diagnoses that was pulled out of your ass if your ass were truly wise?


That is a great frain. Well, if that ass had a diploma, then I think the ass could do a diagnosis.
 
2014-04-09 07:25:39 PM

MisterTweak: It's not a guarantee, but it's like buying a lotto ticket when there's only one number left to draw.


"Being born on third base, and thinking he hit a triple."
 
2014-04-09 07:27:34 PM
Hmmm. I should be a freaking billionaire then
 
2014-04-09 07:33:12 PM
Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.
 
2014-04-09 07:34:57 PM

RanDomino: To drive it home, David Graeber: Caring too much- That's the curse of the working classes.


That explains why when I worked at grocery stores, it was always the stores in the poor neighborhoods that raised the most for donations for charity over the stores in rich neighborhoods.
 
2014-04-09 07:35:44 PM

cman: Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?

No I just felt like being a wiseass


Yes, but a normal wiseass or a sociopathic one?
 
2014-04-09 07:41:23 PM
I don't have the...

(sociopathic / psychopath / sacrifice others to benefit myself / "I got mine so fark you")

...gene required to make it to the top of today's America.
 
2014-04-09 07:42:09 PM

Teufelaffe: cman: Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?

No I just felt like being a wiseass

Yes, but a normal wiseass or a sociopathic one?


Why not both?
 
2014-04-09 07:42:16 PM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: cman: Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?

No I just felt like being a wiseass

Would there be any credibility to a diagnoses that was pulled out of your ass if your ass were truly wise?


Cancer.
 
2014-04-09 07:43:32 PM
So... How exactly do bootstraps play into this? Poor people should just start being bigger assholes?
 
2014-04-09 07:46:20 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.


Let's compromise.

Let's say both rich and poor are morally bankrupt. Let us also surmise that who is rich and who is poor comes down to luck or lack thereof.

Thus, to say that the poor are poor because of some character fault is a fallacy. Those same faults are also found in abundance with the rich.
 
2014-04-09 07:51:37 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.


It's painting one side or the other as evil that makes it easier to take immoral action against them.  That's the whole point of the class warfare going on right now, justification of doing things you know are wrong to whichever happens to be the other class from your perspective.  There are a lot of despicable people on both sides of the fence.
 
2014-04-09 07:51:53 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.

Let's compromise.

Let's say both rich and poor are morally bankrupt. Let us also surmise that who is rich and who is poor comes down to luck or lack thereof.

Thus, to say that the poor are poor because of some character fault is a fallacy. Those same faults are also found in abundance with the rich.


People is people.
 
2014-04-09 07:54:06 PM
Money buys exemptions for bad choices.

That's really all you need to say.  The GOP constantly excoriates poor people for 'making bad choices', as that's the foundation of poverty in their dogma.  But they refuse to admit that the owner class can buy success for themselves, and for their children.   Affluenza means exactly how it was portrayed recently when that asshole kid killed people when he was driving.

You can't discharge your college debt by filing for bankruptcy, but New Jersey Real Housewives and their husbands can pay off $13 million in debt with just $7500.
 
2014-04-09 07:55:01 PM

Teufelaffe: cman: Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?

No I just felt like being a wiseass

Yes, but a normal wiseass or a sociopathic one?


Certainly not a rich one.
 
2014-04-09 07:56:20 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.


Did you read the same article as the rest of us? It's a response to Paul Ryan's blatant attempt to badmouth the poor.  It doesn't do any of the things you claim it did.  At best, it shows how the upper 1% and the lowest 20% could be painted with the exact same description Ryan did.  The only difference the author points out is that the rich have money and the poor don't.
 
2014-04-09 07:58:46 PM
You want to understand the situation?

The Pinata Theory
 
2014-04-09 07:59:23 PM

Craw Fu: AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.

It's painting one side or the other as evil that makes it easier to take immoral action against them.  That's the whole point of the class warfare going on right now, justification of doing things you know are wrong to whichever happens to be the other class from your perspective.  There are a lot of despicable people on both sides of the fence.


Where are all these immoral actions against the rich happening? I haven't seen any.

I see a whole lot of actions by the rich against the poor, but nothing from the other side.

Maybe what we need is for the poor majority to join together and fight back instead of buying that extra lottery ticket and dreaming of becoming rich.
 
2014-04-09 08:01:07 PM

Mugato: Most of the really rich people I know were born into it. There are exceptions of course. But I've never met a rich person who thinks he is or will admit that he's rich. Then I don't know any rappers.


I can introduce you to one. He grew up working in his grandpa's (and later his dad's) company. He started sweeping floors as a kid, and did pretty much every crap job in the place. He knows he's rich, and he knows why: all the guys and gals doing the dirty work.

Why yes, the company has a union. (it's a trade) No, there's never even been the threat of a strike. Yes, their pension is fully vested as written into the corporate rules by grandpa. No, he has no intent on changing that. Yes, his kids started sweeping the floors when they reached the proper age.
 
2014-04-09 08:02:53 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.


Jesus tap dancing christ.

This is a pretty farking easy argument...The rich have rigged the rules for decades and have created system where capital is king, and labor is worthless. There is no middle ground both sides are wrong argument to be had here.
 
2014-04-09 08:03:04 PM

Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?


a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Hmmm...Generally hate social gatherings and being around other people because they're annoying? Check. Not give a shiat that douchebag humans get hurt? Check. Generally not give a fark about people I have no control over or real way to help? Check.

What do I win?
 
2014-04-09 08:31:24 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.


So you disagree that ones morality affects their wealth? So how do you suppose people come to become rich or poor?
 
2014-04-09 08:32:03 PM

Kit Fister: Ambivalence: cman: sithon: So basically sociopaths

How did you come by that diagnosis Doctor Sithon? Did you just pull it out of your ass?

Hit a little close did it?

a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Hmmm...Generally hate social gatherings and being around other people because they're annoying? Check. Not give a shiat that douchebag humans get hurt? Check. Generally not give a fark about people I have no control over or real way to help? Check.

What do I win?


You should probably consider a career in politics but otherwise, nothing.
 
2014-04-09 08:37:15 PM

EngineerAU: RanDomino: To drive it home, David Graeber: Caring too much- That's the curse of the working classes.

That explains why when I worked at grocery stores, it was always the stores in the poor neighborhoods that raised the most for donations for charity over the stores in rich neighborhoods.


True. When we road-blocked for charities, it was the poorest that gave the most.

/ashtray change is the dirtiest stuff ever.

Favorite road-block story: three times in one day a wealthy lady and her daughter in a new Mercedes went through our road-block collecting for leukemia. The third time, she finally said "we do all of our donations by check."
My fraternity brother did not skip a beat and responded: "we take checks.....if you have I.D."
She laughed and donated.
 
2014-04-09 08:41:50 PM
Kevin Drum's review said that the rich only lose out in wars.  Yep, pretty much.  The rest of the time, wealth=power, and power gets to rig the rules.
 
2014-04-09 08:59:55 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-09 09:32:51 PM

MayoSlather: After all this talk, I'm going to be really disappointed if I don't get to see a beheading.


I hear your tears go well with Chateau Rothschild.
 
2014-04-09 09:36:52 PM
It is dangerous to stereotype anyone, but I think the article was spot on. The rich get away with acting the way they do because they CAN. If you gave the poor the same access and power do you really think they would act any different?

It's not a sickness of a class, its a sickness of the whole.

Having said that, the power that we hand over to these individuals by worshiping wealth is truly frightening.


/ abject poverty can warp your soul, but nothing like absolute power over your fellow man
// you have never seen real simpering and pandering until youve seen a billionaire walk into a room full of millionaires.
/// At least the poor have some pride.
 
2014-04-09 09:41:18 PM

shift_DAWG: MisterTweak: It's not a guarantee, but it's like buying a lotto ticket when there's only one number left to draw.

"Being born on third base, and thinking he hit a triple."


Or in the case of the Waltons, being born on home plate for the World Series winning run, then proceeding to urinate on the rest of the team, the opposing team, the coaches, the media, and the fans.
 
2014-04-09 09:48:45 PM

wesmon: Craw Fu: AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.

It's painting one side or the other as evil that makes it easier to take immoral action against them.  That's the whole point of the class warfare going on right now, justification of doing things you know are wrong to whichever happens to be the other class from your perspective.  There are a lot of despicable people on both sides of the fence.

Where are all these immoral actions against the rich happening? I haven't seen any.


Well, Obama got elected.  Twice.
 
2014-04-09 10:01:08 PM
I work with poor disabled adults and rich peoples poor adult kids in a government employment program.

I have found rich people to have a totally unrealistic view of how social services work. They expect special treatment, all encompassing funding for all expenses and want every little problem solved immediately - screw the 200 other people on your case load.

They suck up all the resources they can while still providing plenty of under the table cash to their drug addicted children with dubious mental health disabilities related to throwing fits when not given what they want.

Rich peoples are often jerks - so are their snowflakes.

/ I would honestly rather try to find work for a blind one legged schizophrenic. Chances are they would actually be grateful and do all they could to stay employed.
 
2014-04-09 10:23:55 PM

wesmon: Where are all these immoral actions against the rich happening? I haven't seen any.

I see a whole lot of actions by the rich against the poor, but nothing from the other side.

Maybe what we need is for the poor majority to join together and fight back instead of buying that extra lottery ticket and dreaming of becoming rich.


Ever hear of EBT fraud?   Don't worry though...we're approaching the tipping point where the takers will outnumber the producers....that's when we will officially run out of "other people's money"
 
2014-04-09 10:29:26 PM

Mouser: wesmon: 

Where are all these immoral actions against the rich happening? I haven't seen any.

Well, Obama got elected.  Twice.


And he has been serving the Rich by only proposing Republican policies from twenty years ago.
His trade policies? Fast track "Free Trade" agreements
Number of bankers who destroyed the economy jailed? None.
Number tried? None.
His "stimulus"? About half was tax cuts for the rich.
ACA/Romneycare? Subsidy for the insurance companies
Cabinet and other top positions filled by Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, JP Morgan and oil industry alumni
 
2014-04-09 10:31:30 PM
Eponymous:

Ever hear of EBT fraud?   Don't worry though...we're approaching the tipping point where the takers will outnumber the producers....that's when we will officially run out of "other people's money"

Yeah, it's running at about 2-4% which is incredibly good for any large program, corporate or government. The problem is that the real takers, the rich bastards, are running this country into the ground, turning the middle class poor and then starving the poor
 
2014-04-09 11:16:23 PM

Mugato: Most of the really rich people I know were born into it. There are exceptions of course. But I've never met a rich person who thinks he is or will admit that he's rich. Then I don't know any rappers.


Chris Rock described it best.

Basketball players in the NBA are wealthy.

The white guy that signs their checks is rich.
 
2014-04-09 11:48:37 PM
It's odd how all of our social & political structures tend to devolve into feudalism.  It's as if something is ingrained into our species that there always has to be "someone at the top".   You see it in companies large & small, political organizations, even charities and religious institutions.  It's as if most of the human population can't handle the idea of there not being someone at the top deserving more than everyone else.
 
2014-04-09 11:53:11 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: I've had the benefit of working with a number of very wealthy (enough to own multiple airplanes and rarely go into the office) people, most of which started from rather humble beginnings.  I'd say the headline is pretty accurate from my personal experience.

While many are workaholics, not all of them were.  The overwhelming trend I've seen was not caring about what the law was, if they thought they wouldn't get caught, or that the punishment was small enough (at least the first few times you were caught) to not care about it.  Also quite a few of them really enjoyed manipulating people for their amusement.


The ones that I've dealt with that always confuse me are the ones that are in a family business, rich as god, and they'll not think twice about completely farking over a family member if it means a few more bucks in their pocket. I just can't imagine any situation where I A) would not want to share my family wealth with my family, and B) would actively screw people over for money when I've already got more money than any honest person would ever need.

Maybe that's why I suffer from chrometophobia. I'm terrified that there's just something intrinsic to wealth that'll turn a normal person into a complete waste of skin.
 
2014-04-10 12:26:49 AM

powtard: It's odd how all of our social & political structures tend to devolve into feudalism.  It's as if something is ingrained into our species that there always has to be "someone at the top".   You see it in companies large & small, political organizations, even charities and religious institutions.  It's as if most of the human population can't handle the idea of there not being someone at the top deserving more than everyone else.


Actually in a lot of preliterate cultures there will be a Big Man who will be the authority for the band, but there are also levelling mechanisms that ensure the Big Man doesn't monopolize the resources of the band. Basically, if the Big Man doesn't spread the wealth evenly he won't be Big Man for long.

As civilization developed and societies grew in population so too did the propensity for negative reciprocity. The bigger the population the less likely there would be negative consequences to screwing over people you are less familiar with. In band societies were there are only 50 to 100 people you start screwing people over it's not long until you're kicked out of the band and left to fend for yourself in the wilderness.

Of course levelling mechanisms take place in modern societies too. The rich can only stand on the necks of the poor for so long before the poor rise up and numbers are always on the side of the poor. The rich will run out of bullets long before the poor run out of bodies. Sadly these sort of levelling mechanisms are never good for anyone, rich or poor. Revolution almost always leads to a period of instability where suffering is even greater than it was before the revolution. The rich are aware of this, but frankly they just don't care. They know the backlash is coming, but they're banking that they'll be long cold and gone before things break. That's why they've always been so surprised when revolution comes because they always convince themselves it's a long ways away.

Hurray! I got to use my education in anthropology in a Fark post. My University education was worth it!
 
2014-04-10 12:33:29 AM
"Socially productive labor" .. what are, Antonio Gramsci's dead cousin?
 
2014-04-10 01:11:32 AM
Do the mods that greenlight threads work in a blue room or something?

This site is farther to the left than Rachel Maddows dick.
 
2014-04-10 01:12:52 AM

powtard: It's odd how all of our social & political structures tend to devolve into feudalism.  It's as if something is ingrained into our species that there always has to be "someone at the top".   You see it in companies large & small, political organizations, even charities and religious institutions.  It's as if most of the human population can't handle the idea of there not being someone at the top deserving more than everyone else.


We are not returning to feudalism. We tried that and evolved past it. Rich people understand that feudalism is very bad for making money. Thats why we no longer are in a feudalistic society; because its economics don't work in our world.
 
2014-04-10 02:48:32 AM

powtard: It's odd how all of our social & political structures tend to devolve into feudalism.  It's as if something is ingrained into our species that there always has to be "someone at the top".   You see it in companies large & small, political organizations, even charities and religious institutions.  It's as if most of the human population can't handle the idea of there not being someone at the top deserving more than everyone else.


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure"
 
2014-04-10 02:58:32 AM

Eponymous: wesmon: Where are all these immoral actions against the rich happening? I haven't seen any.

I see a whole lot of actions by the rich against the poor, but nothing from the other side.

Maybe what we need is for the poor majority to join together and fight back instead of buying that extra lottery ticket and dreaming of becoming rich.

Ever hear of EBT fraud?   Don't worry though...we're approaching the tipping point where the takers will outnumber the producers....that's when we will officially run out of "other people's money"


Actually, the takers have been sitting on top of the makers for too long already, and the problem is that their numbers are getting smaller as they push more people from the middle to the lower classes.
 
2014-04-10 06:33:43 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.


Yeah but when a poor guy is immoral a gas station gets robbed. When a rich guy is immoral Wallstreet crashes. It becomes a matter of scale.
 
2014-04-10 06:33:47 AM

powtard: It's odd how all of our social & political structures tend to devolve into feudalism.  It's as if something is ingrained into our species that there always has to be "someone at the top".   You see it in companies large & small, political organizations, even charities and religious institutions.  It's as if most of the human population can't handle the idea of there not being someone at the top deserving more than everyone else.


It's the human ego, nothing more. Someone will always believe they are better than everyone else. As we evolve socially and through critical thinking, equality slowly becomes more prevalent.

We went from god kings and accepted slavery to widespread condemnation of such things. The next step is admitting wealth inequality isn't just one person having more stuff, it's a larger voice in a democracy that leads to actual inequality.
 
2014-04-10 06:53:31 AM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Do the mods that greenlight threads work in a blue room or something?

This site is farther to the left than Rachel Maddows dick.


It takes a true ideologue to see wealth inequality as red vs blue issue. Modern Republicans are too f'ing dumb to stand up for the rights their own fathers and grandfathers tirelessly protested for through unions.

What's left is a manipulated subservient constituency that obsequiously licks the shoes of their wealthy masters. Yup, the modern republican constituency is nothing but trained biatches. Now go back to work, your master calls.
 
2014-04-10 06:58:38 AM
My theory is that shamelessness is often a major key to success.
 
2014-04-10 08:29:36 AM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Do the mods that greenlight threads work in a blue room or something?

This site is farther to the left than Rachel Maddows dick.


You've figured out the mods' darkest secret!  Stay where you are, the gay Muslim abortionist hit squad is on its way to force you to gay marry a turtle and give all your money to homeless people.  Don't fight them and it will all be over quickly.
 
2014-04-10 09:40:20 AM

codigo: better to be a wiseass, instead of a dumbass.


We prefer the term SMARTASS.
 
2014-04-10 11:44:51 AM
Sounds more like an argument for a return to higher inheritance taxes?  But then again, are we wanting to deny parents the right to provide for their children as they see fit?

Too bad there's no "asshole tax" that could be levied based on how much an asshole someone is.  That would be the fairest tax of all.
 
2014-04-10 11:49:21 AM

elchupacabra: Sounds more like an argument for a return to higher inheritance taxes?  But then again, are we wanting to deny parents the right to provide for their children as they see fit?

Too bad there's no "asshole tax" that could be levied based on how much an asshole someone is.  That would be the fairest tax of all.


Half of Fark would be broke as a result of that tax.
 
2014-04-10 11:54:00 AM

Teufelaffe: elchupacabra: Sounds more like an argument for a return to higher inheritance taxes?  But then again, are we wanting to deny parents the right to provide for their children as they see fit?

Too bad there's no "asshole tax" that could be levied based on how much an asshole someone is.  That would be the fairest tax of all.

Half of Fark would be broke as a result of that tax.


LOL -- nah, I'm thinking "asshole" would be more meta, like someone's example of "robbing a bank" versus crashing Wall Street.  That level of asshole where someone else gets financially ripped off.
 
2014-04-10 02:17:11 PM

MayoSlather: AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.

Jesus tap dancing christ.

This is a pretty farking easy argument...The rich have rigged the rules for decades and have created system where capital is king, and labor is worthless. There is no middle ground both sides are wrong argument to be had here.


this this this
/eat the rich
 
2014-04-10 05:35:56 PM

MayoSlather: AverageAmericanGuy: Contrary to what the article author thinks, the problem isn't that the rich have money, but rather that the poor don't.

This article meets the very definition of class warfare. It declares the rich to be morally bankrupt and the cause of society's ills. It holds the irresponsibility of the poor up as a moral good while impugning the money-making actions of the rich as morally evil.

Wealth or lack thereof does not equate to morality. The crusaders on both sides of the aisle, from Paul Ryan on the right and the article author on the left, are wrong to make the leaps in logic and judgment they make to paint their targets as evil.

Jesus tap dancing christ.

This is a pretty farking easy argument...The rich have rigged the rules for decades and have created system where capital is king, and labor is worthless. There is no middle ground both sides are wrong argument to be had here.


While it looks easy on the surface there are many things under it which makes it far more complicated

Do the rich rig the system? Most certainly yes. Without question they do. I can say this will 100% certainty. Why? Because people in power do whatever they can to get more power. Its human nature.

Rich people understand that the feudalistic society did not lend itself to the primary purpose of the creation of modern technology. Rich people understand that this technological paradise is only possible in a capitalist society. Just like every other person a rich person wants more things, bigger and better things, and feudalism doesn't provide the opportunities that capitalism does.

This is where the government has failed. We live in a wonderful technological paradise where peoples lives were improving year after year. Unfortunately the balance of power has fallen from labor. This has given management far more power than they should have, and they are rigging the game because it is human nature to do so. In order to counteract this massive imbalance labor needs to reassert themselves.

We live in such a wonderful world where many things can happen, but we have shot ourselves in the foot. Anarchic capitalism isn't the answer, but ridding capitalism completely from our society isn't the answer as well.

/It took modern banking for the industrial revolution to start.
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report