But I am NOT blaming the poor. I made an observation based on the topic of the thread.
Well, I think it is obvious that people remain in bad situations due to the lifestyle choices they make. Maybe that would make for a more interesting thread.
I should add, I don't think you are blaming the poor.
cav, We do not cheat on our income taxes. Having worked as a auditor for many years of my career, my ethics is very important to me, even though I disagree with how the government ends up spending it. In many of the years that I did consulting work, we were audited by the IRS frequently. One year, the IRS auditor found an error on our tax return, and they owed us money! c.i.
Geez....I now know 3 people here who are or were auditors...lucky for me, I'm not important enough to be audited
I wanted to add something that is very important to me at this stage. I use for an example Bill Gates. He, for years did not give anything of substance to charities, yet he received a significant per centage of the annual diversification of wealth.
I go along with a previous statement made that annual wealth is a resource that is greedily corraled by a small % of the privileged. Even if you started out, working hard and investing wisely - once you have accumulated wealth, you are now privileged. Bill Gates created a foundation in his name funding it for 150 million dollars. This was the largest one time funding in history. But, when taken as a whole of his wealth, it was a very small amount.
This is not the only example of this form of accumulating wealth, yet not giving equal portions. When Bush asked America to sacrifice, it did not include the wealthy. And the hand out continues.
I often have problems with the sports stars because they do not give back. But as in all matters - there are sports, entertainment and other wealthy that give their fair share and more. There are even quite a few that say the Tax cut is wrong!
Why did I know that someone would mention Bill Gates? Did you ever think, that if it weren't for Bill Gates, we would not be on A2K today????
Personally, I think that it is very admirable if the rich choose to give back to the community. I don't think though, that it is nescessary. I never can understand why some people think that just because you are rich, that you are obliged to share with people who have less than you. I think that charity is a matter of ones own preference, and no one has the right to tell anyone what to do with their money!
But we can rate them and talk about them. Freedom of speech, you know. Besides, Bill Gates did not give us the Internet - the taxpayers did. It was developed and paid for under the guise of the military. The area of spending that the Republican allow! Bill Gates just tries to control it and make money off keeping other corporations out!
Thats real nice of the rich that they think about the poor every once in a while. Then sometimes even give a couple crumbs to them.
Well, karmically it makes sense, since Bill pretty much bought his innovations and multiplied them through ruthless business practices. (A German translator I knew who worked over there got laid off along with 200 others in one fell swoop; no big, though -- people who got in on the ground floor are rich beyond their -- or at least my -- wildest dreams.)
Gates gives tons of money now, whatever his motivations. He is the single largest contributor, fer instance, to the Medicines for Malaria Venture, which may well be the organization that funds the next big step in treatment of the disease. And if he hadn't thrown down, likely Ted Turner never would have, either.
My thoughts on the matter of the accumulation of wealth and the continued health of the species are so pessimistic that I'll just stop at that.
Good on ya, Bill.
Actually "the poor" is not the static group of victims that most make them out to be. A lot of people who are measurably poor today will have pulled themselves (by their bootstraps, of course) out of poverty in a year or two. Other people who are currently measurably well off today will find themselves impoverished within the same time period due to bad decision making or unfortunate circumstance.
The reality is that--no matter how much we raise the standard of living in this or any country--there will always be a bottom 5%, 10% or 25% for those who worry about such things to worry about. As a society, we should ensure we offer these people the absolute maximum freedom within which to help themselves, including the absolute maximum economic freedom that can only be realized by limiting the rate at which government confiscates the fruits of the worker's labor to the absolute minimum necessary to provide those services government is explicitly called to provide by the Constitution.
Oh, really. If it hadn't been Bill Gates, there would have nobody to create an OS and then try to monopolize the entire Internet.
Scrat, I can see by your last post that you are a dreamer and idealist. "Minimum necessary" is and never will be in our government's vocabulary. How else are they going to feel important by spending billions of dollars during each budget? Where else in life will they have that opportunity? c.i.
Lightwizard- But without the operating system, do you think that the internet would have evolved as it has, and be available to practically everybody?
Hate to say it, but I'm sitting here tapping away on a Steve Jobs machine, and it's working just fine.
What a depressing thread. Sorry if I ramble, not doing so good today.
I retired at 33 when my investment income exceeded any salary I could find.
So I guess maybe I was rich, along with 20-30 ordinary people I know around town.
But I didn't feel any different, and I didn't really have much use for the money.
I still read books, went for walks, sat on a chair, cooked my own breakfast,
all the same things I've always chosen to do. I'd rather have nice friends
than money.
Some rich people are greedy, self-centered, ruthless and abusive,
just about the same as some poor people too.
Those qualities are not related to producing income
(at least with the people I've met and talked to).
Those qualities are not requisite and necessary, or even a strong contributor.
A salaried job never made anyone rich. It's what one does with the money
after they get it. One has to plan, adjust, and then go for it.
All it takes to make money is to make money -- sit down and do it.
Spend two hours a day managing your investments, and even if all you have
is five dollars to manage, those skills and habits will grow.
The seed money will multiply. Does one have to be an arsehole to do this?
If a nice guy does it, are they now a jerk?
It doesn't take brains, brawn, or a bastard heart to spend an hour or two each day.
Most rich people I know are indistinguishable from any person walking
down the sidewalk. They just didn't spend all their income, and live a good
deal within their means. I think we get carried away by the celebrities,
and don't realize who most millionaires really are.
It doesn't take any particular characteristic to invest in real estate,
start a small business, manage some holdings, or research more and more ideas,
continually shopping for opportunity.
Some of the least talented, clumsy, inept, stupid, yet kind-hearted people
I know became millionaires simply because they focussed on buying a second home
or put a little savings plan in place, and eventually got lucky.
The only difference is that rich people have spend time doing it.
There are so many quick judgements here about other people, mostly based on a whim.
It's very discouraging for me. Through one catastrophe and another I lost
my entire retirement fund, so please realize that nothing you save will ever be
really secure. Ever! Cancer, fire, or accident can spin anyone's life around,
at any moment of any day.
But it's still ones role to make progress happen. Creating fanstasies about
the rich or the poor won't actually change who we are, or what we need to do.
Some of my neighbors make $6-10/day doing construction labor because, like one
in thirty people here in America, they are illegal. They are not supposed to exist.
We disallow their correctness. One of them is a complete jerk, and another is
the sweetest, kindest person you'll ever meet. Yet they're both poor... How could that be?!
But they still work and sometimes manage to get ahead. I often find one of
them passed out on the stairs, because the pressures in their lives are just
too much. I would drink too. I would take up smoking. I would fall apart
and do anything to make the world go away. In the end ... All kinds
of people face all kinds of stress, and all kinds of traps that prevent
them from changing their occupation, home, or income.
I think it's unrealistic to judge people on a whim. What motivation is there
to do that? ... Blah, blah, blah, I'll shuttup now.
-------
PS -- Personally I think Bill Gates' presence has been quite limitting and destructive to the computer industry, and most of the internet has no Microsoft software on it anyways. But that's just my prejudiced whim, against someone I don't know, because I wish there to be innovation and creative development.
A Windows type of OS was a natural evolution and Gates merely go to the markeplace first and just in the nick of time. He is more of a marketing genius than an inventor. However, nobody can short him for putting together the team and getting the job done. That's the name of the game. It would have all come about in the same time frame if a bus had run over him.
Thanks, CodeBorg. I thought I might explode when I read the entries. Rich and poor are not standards for measuring character. Not all rich are selfish bastards (by a long shot) and god know not all poor are poor because of "poor choices."
Now I can leave this thread in peace!
Tartarin wrote: Rich and poor are not standards for measuring character.
Well that's one of the cool things about taking kids to Mexico on a mission trip. Can it be done in the US - I think so but nothing like an experience out of country - where the language is different.
If I could prevail on the people on the other side of the coin from me on this issue -- which is to say, the folks who feel about the poor and their plight more closely in alignment with the way McG does rather than with the way I do...
...I would recommend that you give more consideration to the "virtue" of erring on the side of compassion for the poor -- even if it means incurring some unnecessary costs -- rather than being hard-assed about it.
I recognize and acknowledge that you most likely would recommend that I, and others on my side of issue, consider the possibility that we may be naive to a fault in these matters -- and that your side represents, by far, the more logical and efficient perspective on poverty, the poor, and how to deal with them.
That could be, by the way. You folks could be right about how to deal with the problem of poverty. I don't think so, but
hey
in the early 60's, I remember telling my star struck sister that this "Beatles Group" as I called them back then, was a flash-in-the-pan and wouldn't be remembered in five years.
In any case, I promise I will give my rendition of your thoughts lots of consideration (in fact already have given it plenty) -- and I hope you do the same for my recommendation in return.
Let's not even talk about it. Just do it when it is comfortable to do -- and not let it intrude into whatever is left of the discussion at hand. This thing has the sound of a thread winding down. We can always come back here to discuss any major changes in position if and when it ever happens. (I resisted the temptation to add: And when pig's whistle!)
Who knows? Maybe there is a common ground we don't easily see right now.
Hmm...I'm not sure how clear my posts were regarding this whole issue, but I would like to add that charity should come from our ability to recognize humanity in people, not just from a category, i.e. rich, poor, whatever. Perhaps that is where our common ground comes lies. There are always "bad apples", but probably fewer than we think.
