Who are the Rich?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I should probably clairify -

that thought I had was the only people who I know for sure who ARE anti-union are rich people - some poor people too, but without a doubt the rich people -

and I'll side with these assessments of rich - $400000 and up...certainly not 110K - I made that much one year myself, and I was nowhere near rich.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm anti-union. I'm not rich. I was raised very poor, we were on welfare at one point. My parents are both in a union. I think unions suck and unions if anything have been detrimental to the success of their members.

Also, just because democrats (or anyone) wants to claim some issue is good for the little guy doesn't make it so. There's two sides to every issue and it's not a given that those who are "helping the little guy" actually are just because they say so.

And also, just because educated wealthy people may overwhelmingly favor a policy does not mean that the policy is deterimental to the poor, even if the "poor" and their democrat leaders say so.


natedogg

[r3vbr]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm not talking about some $400,000-a-year Wall Street stiff flying first class and being comfortable. I'm talking about liquid. Rich enough to have your own jet. Rich enough not to waste time. Fifty, a hundred million dollars, Buddy. A player." Gordon Gekko - Wall Street

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.. classic!

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll avoid the Conservative or Liberal label and simply look at Republicans and Democrats. A major shift has occured in the past twenty-five or so years. The strongholds of the Democratic base have shifted from more rural areas into the larger cities, once the stongholds of the Republican party. Part of this change has been the result of the growing influence of the born again Christian movement and the direct appeal to this demographic on the part of the Republicans. In other words, a town of 30K in TN would certainly be part of that Republican stronghold (not surprising that Gore could not carry hus home state, then).

[/ QUOTE ]

You have helped me make my point. The majority of voters on the right are not rich by any reasonable standards. When people on the left attack a right (or conservative) viewpoint by using the tried and true "rich folks vs poor folks" argument, it doesn't help their cause.

As an example, Democrats love to claim that Bushes tax cuts only helped the rich. The tax cuts have helped my wife and I, and we make way less than 110K a year. So when Democrats start talking about repealing the tax cuts because it would only effect the rich, I wonder if they really understand what the definition of rich is?

Todays Republican Party is not in power because of the Country Club elite, they are in power because of common every day people. I don't think the Democratic party understands why they are losing votes in places like rural middle TN, and until they figure it out they are going to continue losing elections.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should probably clairify -

that thought I had was the only people who I know for sure who ARE anti-union are rich people - some poor people too, but without a doubt the rich people -

and I'll side with these assessments of rich - $400000 and up...certainly not 110K - I made that much one year myself, and I was nowhere near rich.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm anti-union. I'm not rich. I was raised very poor, we were on welfare at one point. My parents are both in a union. I think unions suck and unions if anything have been detrimental to the success of their members.

Also, just because democrats (or anyone) wants to claim some issue is good for the little guy doesn't make it so. There's two sides to every issue and it's not a given that those who are "helping the little guy" actually are just because they say so.

And also, just because educated wealthy people may overwhelmingly favor a policy does not mean that the policy is deterimental to the poor, even if the "poor" and their democrat leaders say so.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said!

[mmbt0ne]

FWIW, I would kick babies in the head for 110k a year.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I would kick babies in the head for 110k a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll do it for less. Now where do i send my resume?

Im lower-middle class and Im very conservative. Im working my way though college on loans. I just dont want the government giving me free shizzit that they confiscated from my fellow countrymen, unless Im on the verge of starving and cannot feed myself.

In my mind, the real poverty is living on $1 a day, being on the brink of starvation/disease, having no water, etc.

In America, the difference between poor and rich comes down to bigger house, bigger car, hotter wife, since here even the totally destitute arent starving to death or freezing to death in droves like they do in countries that face real poverty.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
way higher than 110k

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure the 110K even equals upper middle class.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
The tax cuts have helped my wife and I, and we make way less than 110K a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't.

[Aaron_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tax cuts have helped my wife and I, and we make way less than 110K a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't. [Reason gets inserted here, between these brackets].