Who said anything about the middle class? Why do they automatically side with the rich? Seems like they’d get some utility out of a good safety net too. Especially UHC.
Rand Rover: I think examples of condescension toward the and contempt for the poor have appeared all by themselves. Do you still demand a cite from me?
Has everybody watched this?
On what planet is diet soda more expensive, or takes longer to “prepare”?
You keep dodging the question because you’d rather complain about rich people instead of discussing some of the points brought up. Let’s try again.
I can’t show you the exact full-page ad in The Economist magazine for Ontario Canada but I found a webpage that was similar.
To attempt to add constructive dialogue to this discussion, I ask you to read Ontario’s web page. You’ve seen ads for beer, cars, and blue jeans but I’m guessing you’ve never seen an advertisement for economic development of a country before:
http://www.investinontario.com/whyontario/default.asp
There are similar ads like that from countries like Chile South America, Sweden, Singapore, etc. Ask yourself honestly who that ad is targeting. They are not targeting people with “money”. They are targeting business leaders (who happen to have money).
What’s the nuance between a person who’s just rich vs a business leader who is rich? The nuance is that Ontario is not targeting Paris Hilton and her millions. Paris is a dingbat airhead who cannot bring economic improvement to Ontario. They are targeting people like Michael Dell of Dell Computers who might want to open a call center there. Or they are targeting the CEO from Sony to maybe open a chip fabrication facility.
If you truly believe Ontario’s advertisement is targeting anybody with money, you’re saying that Ontario doesn’t care whether they get Paris Hilton or Michael Dell. You’re saying that Ontario would consider Paris Hilton interchangeable with Michael Dell – just replace rich guy #1’s money with rich gal #2’s “money”. If that’s what you’re saying, then I guess you’re being stubborn (insane?) and there’s nothing further to discuss.
The number of rich people that run businesses outnumber non-productive socialites. Yes you are correct – Paris Hilton doesn’t bring jobs, but she’s a tiny speck in the vast sea of rich people. She just happens to be on TV a lot. Stop watching TV and getting your image of “rich” people burned in to your brain by Paris Hilton!
Let me dumb it down for you since you appearently need the help.
Me Tao, you Carol. The soda thing was a slur. I know 4 letter words are kinda big for you, but do think you could say it? I think you can. Say it with me now. Slur. Good. Now the causes, I’m sorry too fancy a word for you, I mean, the the things that make happen bad diet are more then just soda choice.
Yeah, wealthy people also sometimes make bad, self-destructive decisions. You’ll get no argument from me about that; it’s pretty much the basis of the entire tabloid industry. On the other hand, I think it’s disingenuous for someone to claim that they don’t make enough money and then spend the money they do have on junk they don’t need and that actually increases their medical expenses.
Hmmm . . I don’t know of a country that doesn’t have a recognizable middle class (maybe North Korea? Somalia?). This class is often far smaller than in the west (and sometimes of a different ethnic group than the majority), but it’s always there. Are you saying that, in the developing world, poor people wouldn’t consider the life led by local professionals to be within their reach, or that they simply don’t distinguish between their country’s own upper and middle classes?
No, I think we just don’t want to have to be responsible for paying for people’s mistakes.
No one is saying anything about the middle class. Everyone seems to think that there are only poor people and mega-rich tycoons in this country and that clearly isn’t the case.
The middle class don’t automatically side with the rich, but it is generally the middle class who is hit hardest by tax increases. They have less disposible income however they are often less eligable for social services.
The problem, which I think most of you don’t seem to grasp, is that there isn’t an infinite amount of money to pay for all these safety nets and social services. And just because someone makes over $100,000 a year, does not give you claim to their earnings just because you think you need it more.
Here’s similar page for Sweden with a downloadable PDF:
http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Business/Doing-business/Facts/Invest-in-Sweden-report-200607/
Here’s the quote from page 3 of the PDF, Fredrik Reinfeldt (Prime Minister of Sweden):
*“Dear executives, experts and researchers: I warmly welcome you, your businesses and your families to Sweden. Please take a closer look at what we offer.”
*
Let’s compare the Prime Minister’s greeting to your quote again:
Please explain why the Prime Minister of Sweden, Canada, etc are trying to attract the “sorry asses of the rich”? Since the rich provide no benefit, what’s the point?
So who is spouting out words of insanity? The Prime Minister or you?
Like I said, no one ever follows up.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Tao, these sort of insults are unacceptable for this forum. You were just told to take it to the BBQ pit if you must insult people; please do so. This is an official warning.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
We of the SDMB People’s Revolutionary Front (Trotskyist) have recently defined our position on this. Mr. Gates has been removed from the Straight to the Wall list in recognition of his work in combatting malaria on a global scale. Tax lawyers are also exempt, but for a different reason, any place where a drop of their blood falls, no grass grows nor any living thing prosper.
Since you are already quite sure I have it bass-ackwards, you must already know. So, tell us, and save us all that much more time.
In America, 4% would be about, what, 12 million people? (Registered mathtard here, I think I’m right…)
So, what do we do with all these useless people? Clearly, they are morally bereft, they don’t work. If the morality of the work ethic is valid, isn’t the obverse equally valid? Why then should the rich be exempt? Is the possession of large amounts of money a sure indicator of God’s approval. (Don’t laugh - I’ve heard precisely this construct offered…)
I have no idea what the Prime Minister is trying to achieve. I do note that he addresses the question to “executives, experts and researchers”, but did not know that these categories are precisely the same as “rich”. Given you all-encompassing expertise in all things Swedish, perhaps you can explain?
And, of course, since we know the Swedes have been flagrantly and disastrously wrong for years now, perhaps they are simply wrong again? Perhaps they will turn to you for advice on how best to conduct themselves in the future.
Or, still, to be fair, it could be that this example you offer undeniably and irrefutably proves your point beyond all debate. I trust you will forgive me and others if we withhold a crumb of doubt.
The brain from elucidator that typically writes posts with fanciful allusions to literature & the Bible is supposedly the same brain that can’t read the words the Prime Minster is saying and can’t ascertain what he’s trying to achieve.
Yeah, riiiiiiigggggggggghht.
I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a discussion that needed a few definitions more than this one does. People here seem to be using very different definitions of words here.
Agreed, which is why I’ve been trying to get luci and Fear to define “rich” and “poor” for us, to no avail.
And when Rand Rover asks a simple question to elucidator for his definition of “rich”, do we get a simple answer? No. Instead we get some vague nonsense with hack poetry instead of an honest straight answer to help make progress in this discussion.
It is annoying.
Well, we tend to be a bit suspicious, we think that ofttimes a request for definitions is an effort to drag the discussion into a semantic parsing contest. This has sometimes led to someone cutting and pasting a definition from a dictionary, which all sane Dopers know is an unspeakable affront.
Might one ask what this is in aid of? How will a definition of “rich” further our discussion?
(I am reminded of The Master, Mr. Clemens, who wrote an open letter to Commodore Vanderbilt, beseeching him to commit some uncharacteristic act of humanity. His definition of rich was to be content with what one had. He mourned for the greedy, who has twenty million but craves to have fifty, so is therefore impoverished by thirty million. By this definition, I am rather well off, but am unlikely to avail myself of your (no doubt excellent!) services and expertise. I fear the guard dogs posted outside your office would instantly detect that I have no credit rating whatsoever, and turn upon, and rend me…)
For some of us who are formally educated in business, economics and accounting, we ARE using the specific definitions of words.
And those are being countered by angry rants and emotional appeals.
Also, I asked some specific questions further up but no one has bothered to answer on behalf of the poor.
How will it help the discussion?!?!?! Your jokes are lame.
You say the following sentences with “rich” in them and we’re not allowed to ask what you mean?
You want to play it both ways. On the one hand you’re reluctant to define “rich” because of parsing. On the other hand, you continue writing sentences using the word “rich” while keeping readers in the dark as to its clarification.
How the hell are we supposed to even interpret or understand what you’re writing in your posts?!?!