# What does this mean in the context of political divisiveness? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541 "2010-09-21T15:36:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/1 "2010-09-21T15:36:01Z")
A poster posted this [statement](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12913492&postcount=31) in a thread in the 2010 Elections forum: > [@](#): > > What a lot of typing to say vote Republican, the rich don’t have enough of your money yet. It was in response to a post of someone making an endorsement of Republican candidates pretty much across the board. What I don’t understand is the comment about the “rich don’t have enough of your money yet.” What does that even mean? I have never heard someone use the argument of the rich taking poor peoples money in context of describing Republicans. Sure I’ve heard Republicans described as selfish, greedy, hoarders, not wanting to share their wealth with those less fortunate, but that doesn’t sound like what the poster was trying to say. Thanks for your insight. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/2 "2010-09-21T20:04:00Z")
No ones willing to touch it, huh? The overwhelming silence, I assume, means that the comment is the sole opinion of one person and not necessarily a common view held by non-Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/3 "2010-09-21T20:25:00Z")
I think he’s suggesting that the Republicans are the party of the rich and in thrall to the rich and the rich man’s interest, and that putting Republicans in charge will make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/4 "2010-09-21T20:51:42Z")
Not historically accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/5 "2010-09-21T20:57:39Z")
You didn’t ask if it was historically accurate. You asked what he meant. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/6 "2010-09-21T21:03:38Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > I have never heard someone use the argument of the rich taking poor peoples money in context of describing Republicans. Do you lead a sheltered life? In the context of Social Security Privatization, the argument pretty much falls into your lap: > [@](#): > > [President Obama praised Social Security as the “cornerstone in the foundation of America’s middle class” and warned against what he called Republican efforts to privatize the program.](http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/114265-obama-social-security-privatization-on-gop-to-do-list) > “It’s right up there on their to-do list with repealing some of the Medicare benefits and reforms that are adding at least a dozen years to the fiscal health of Medicare,” he said in his weekly address, broadcast Saturday. “That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen. > > “I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street,” he said, noting the recent financial crisis saw the “wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days.” Not that Republicans _ever_ want to privatize _SS_ It’s just ‘on the table’ in the same sense that ‘invading Iraq’ was on the table; no real threat there at all. ;);)😉 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/7 "2010-09-21T21:04:47Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Not historically accurate. Sure it is. Oh, the Republicans TALK about a lot of other things to get elected – reducing the size of government, stopping gays from getting “special rights”, getting tough with illegal aliens, making abortion illegal – but when they’re in power what they mostly do is cut taxes for the rich, give away lots of pork, and game the regulatory system to the advantage of their cronies. See, for example, [The K Street Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/8 "2010-09-21T21:09:55Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Not historically accurate. Actually it is, **Wilbo,** ever since the Gilded Age. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/9 "2010-09-21T21:27:40Z")
Privatizing SS is not taking money from the poor…it’s taking your own money back. Cutting taxes on the rich is not taking money from the poor…it’s taking your own money back. And no, the change household incomes for all stratas of the US population has been pretty consistent, regardless of level of income: [File:United States Income Distribution 1967-2003.svg - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg) Just so I’m clear…it is the common opinion of non-Republicans that money earned by rich people is rightly appropriated and redistributed to poor people, and any change in that policy is considered theft of poor people’s money? Interesting analysis of property and what belongs to who. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/10 "2010-09-21T21:35:22Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Privatizing SS is not taking money from the poor…it’s taking your own money back. Garbage; it means that when they are too old to work, the majority of the populace will be utterly impoverished or dead of starvation. We know, because preventing that is why SS was created. > [@Wilbo523](#): > > Cutting taxes on the rich is not taking money from the poor…it’s taking your own money back. Nonsense again; the rich get rich be taking money from others. Taking money from them is a matter of forcing them to pay what they owe to the upkeep of society, and to keep them from hoarding all wealth to themselves. The natural trend of money is from everyone else to the rich; left unchecked the inevitable result is a few extremely wealthy people in a sea of extreme poverty. The Republicans look at this as desirable, which is why they keep trying to push society in that direction. > [@Wilbo523](#): > > Just so I’m clear…it is the common opinion of non-Republicans that money earned by rich people is rightly appropriated and redistributed to poor people, and any change in that policy is considered theft of poor people’s money? It is the duty of the rich to pay their fair share to the society that makes their wealth possible, instead of being parasites like they prefer. The Republicans would prefer a society built more along the lines of masters-and-serfs, with all wealth, power and rights belonging only to the wealthy (and white, and Christian) minority. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/11 "2010-09-22T13:13:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > the rich get rich be taking money from others. Is that how you characterize the income you earn? Taking it from others? Or is there some sort of threshold in your mental model of the world, where anything above is “taking” it, and anything below is “earning” it? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/12 "2010-09-22T13:49:44Z")
Privatizing is not ‘taking your own money back’, it’s forcing you to give your money into the care of Wall street fatcats. You know, the ones that caused us to lose trillions in national wealth because of their financial shenanagins, the ones who wrecked our economy? Those guys should be paying their fair share of taxes, not be given my money to gamble with, as the Republicans want. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/13 "2010-09-22T13:50:56Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Privatizing SS is not taking money from the poor…it’s taking your own money back. I’ll believe it when I see that big check in my hand. But what’s more likely to happen is all “my” money will be handed over to a private investment firm, who, given a monopoly by the government, will feel free to charge %1.5+ fees on their funds, and I still won’t be able to get my money when I need it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/14 "2010-09-22T14:33:05Z")
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” – Adam Smith ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/15 "2010-09-22T14:53:27Z")
It was a throw-away line, but I can’t for the life of me understand why people can’t just dismiss it as such, instead of knee-jerkingly defending it just because it’s anti-Republican. Actually, I can for the life of me understand. We see this knee jerk all the time on this MB. On both sides. Makes it difficult to call this a board dedicated to fighting ignorance when so much effort is put into defending ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/16 "2010-09-22T15:14:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It was a throw-away line, but I can’t for the life of me understand why people can’t just dismiss it as such, instead of knee-jerkingly defending it just because it’s anti-Republican. As opposed to knee jerkingly dismissing it as an alien from another planet type worldview, as the OP does? The perception is out there, it’s not even uncommon, regardless of its value or accuracy. Acknowledging that is not knee-jerking, nor is it defending the accuracy of the perception’s ultimate fine structure, as you seem to be implying is going on here. Perhaps **Wilbo523** has lived such a sheltered existence that he’s never heard talk of Republicans giving our money to the rich before. Perhaps too, the internet has not yet come to his town, and he has to travel to the next county over in order to post here. Here’s a couple nice cartoons relating to the subject, from this morning’s papers: [http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/sc/](http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/sc/) [http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/bs/](http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/bs/) See, the concept of the GOP using government to enrich the wealthy further, at the expense of the rest of us, is pretty mainstream just now. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/17 "2010-09-22T15:26:35Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > It was a throw-away line, but I can’t for the life of me understand why people can’t just dismiss it as such, instead of knee-jerkingly defending it just because it’s anti-Republican. > > As opposed to knee jerkingly dismissing it as an alien from another planet type worldview, as the OP does? > The perception is out there, it’s not even uncommon, regardless of its value or accuracy. Acknowledging that is not knee-jerking, nor is it defending the accuracy of the perception’s ultimate fine structure, as you seem to be implying is going on here. So, when you said “the argument pretty much falls into your lap”, you were not endorsing the argument? If you sincerely say you weren’t, I will believe you. But can you not see that some people, upon reading that, would think you were? But aside from that, we have DT posting: “the rich get rich be taking money from others.” So, no, I was not responding in a knee jerk way to people trying to explain it. I was responding to people defending it. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/18 "2010-09-22T15:28:55Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/sc/](http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/sc/) > [http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/bs/](http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/bs/) Neither of these political cartoons are about the rich getting richer **at the expense of** the poor. :rolleyes: They are just critical of the greediness of the wealthy. Not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/19 "2010-09-22T15:31:33Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Perhaps **Wilbo523** has lived such a sheltered existence that he’s never heard talk of Republicans giving \*\*our money \*\*to the rich before. Honestly, how is a tax break on the rich, giving **your money** to the rich? How is it **your money**? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541/20 "2010-09-22T15:38:56Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > And no, the change household incomes for all stratas of the US population has been pretty consistent, regardless of level of income: [File:United States Income Distribution 1967-2003.svg - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg) I’m confused. That chart pretty clearly shows the top-earner line increasing at a steeper rate than the bottom. Other data on income and wealth disparity backs this up. One could consider the GINI index ([Gini coefficient - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time)), lowest in 1968 and highest in 2006 (and also roughly 50% higher than it is in EU countries). [QUOTE=Wilbo523] Just so I’m clear…it is the common opinion of non-Republicans that money earned by rich people is rightly appropriated and redistributed to poor people, and any change in that policy is considered theft of poor people’s money? Interesting analysis of property and what belongs to who. [/QUOTE] That is a common interpretation, yes. Ben Franklin certainly seemed to agree: > [@](#): > > “All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation > of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his > natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all > Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the > Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore > by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick > shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society > on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can > have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his > Club towards the Support of it.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-this-mean-in-the-context-of-political-divisiveness/554541.md?page=2)