Second Gilded Age?

Post Reply New Topic

In some cases probably, but I think it is more likely wealthy people don't empathize with poor people because they rarely meet them, and most wealthy people have never been poor themselves. Example: Mitt Romney. He made many remarks during the primaries and election that suggest he doesn't really know anything about poor people. Probably most of his friends and colleagues are wealthy or super-wealthy.

All "ages" were Gilded.
One could just as easily point to the government as to the classes, and they would be equally right.
Everyone is at fault, because systems pristine corrupt and crack with growth and age.

People have been convinced that the poor are poor because they're shiftless and lazy - just remember how the pizza man, when running for president, had said that if you aren't employed, or if you aren't rich, blame yourself. And they've allowed themselves to buy into the BS dangled out by the rich's political machine that anyone is a rags to riches story in waiting - they just have to work harder.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

^^^
if the 99% ever gets wise, there will be hell to pay.

Operative word: if.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

well, at least it happened in france back in the day.

Quite true.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Just World Fallacy anyone? There's nothing I hate more than this sort of Panglossian nonsense.

Last edited by marshall on 05 Mar 2013, 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

there is to be no communication of any usefulness, between believers in just world [fallacy] and unbelievers. there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Of course they refuse to see it. They believe what's best for themselves.

Except in the Gilded Age there was no social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, housing, and student loans.

At the rate the economy is going, they eventually won't exist in this age either. And sadly that's what's keeping a lot of people afloat right now, and barely that.

What is wrong with luxury, if one has earned it honestly?

The problem with the Pinko Stinko Socialists is that they believe no one should have seconds until EVERYBODY has firsts.

ruveyn

I hate to say it, but there's no such thing as "honest luxury", billionaire's get their money by two possible ways, either A) They get it through their family by way of trust funds (which is often built off of the backs of other people any number of years ago), or B) they build their fortune by either undercutting their workers, or underhanded methods that result in people losing their jobs (happens more often than not).

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people living in luxury, and I don't think that's something that should ever go away, but I don't think people should be allowed to waste money in frivolous ways if that money could be used to help other people who need it.
And no, I don't believe the rich should benefit more than the middle or poor classes simply because they have money, I think that's the dumbest thing going on right now. People who don't have money are punished for it by being left to tend to their own ridiculous amounts of taxes and bills that they can't afford, while the rich get tax cuts and are elegible for benefits because of their wealth, these are both things that people who don't have money should be able to get access to, so they can actually support their families without having to live either on the streets or in some crappy flat that is breaking down around them.

If anything, I think the rich should be taxed more and those taxes should be given to the middle and poor classes (which at this point, are one and the same) to help people recover from the economic b.s. that has claimed their jobs, livelihood, and even homes.
The rich would survive one way or the other and they'd still be better off than the rest of us, because they can afford it, the rest of us are losing houses, jobs, you name it.
Does this equate to "punishing the rich because of their wealth"? Answer, no: because they aren't losing the only things they have in the process, if anything, it's balancing everything out so that people can actually live without losing everything in the process of trying to support their families.

^^^
QFT

You should have left out the first two words, then it would have been the original laconic reply.