Who's responsibility?

So, reading the Wall, Edan posted this link...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30038753

Now, I am not some heartless person, but I have to ask...

What are we to do?

Here in the US, our handicapped children are supported by the government...

My ex-wife has two children who get Social Security becasue they will likely never work... They also recieve government healthcare, and other benefits, provided by the taxpayer...

My wife worked with handicapped children (not me, quit laughing, ) in a camp in the summer time, and in schools with the special needs children... As well as many of my friends still do...

I have an uncle who is 70 (I think) with Downs Syndrome, who I know is supported through my grandmothers estate, but who pays for his insurance? Taxpayers... Now he is probably on Social Security and Medicare....

How is this not charity? The government caring for and sending money to, these folks....

A couple of years ago, my wife was at risk for losing her job, the Governor was cutting government funded entities, and her entity was one of them...

We had a discussion, the wife and I, and I told her that that was a charity... A government funded charity...

And if they couldnt pay their employees to fix roads (my job), fight fires and crimes, and whatever else the government does, that is a necessity, then it is a luxury...

She of course, did not take that well, but I still maintain it...

We all have bills, and when things are tight, somethings dont get done... Maybe a bill gets skipped, or we wait a little longer for new tires, hoping the snow holds off... Or we cancel our cable channels, or bug service, cleaning service, whatever...

The point is, that we start cutting back...

But the government does that, (also my job as an elected official) then people scream that their tax dollars pay for them services... DO they want to pay more to ensure the service continues? Well, no, of course not, need to be more aware of how the money is spent....

But just like in our houses, there is only so much coming in, and all we can control sometimes is what goes out...

And it is not the kids fault they need help, but the government didnt ask that they be born, not be aborted, or if they could help support.... They tried to help a few, and in an effort to not exclude, they had to help more, and more... And now it is called a "benefit"... Stay at home, havekids you cnat afford, the government will help....

I must wanted to post this...

I dont have any answers, always more questions...

Once I post things, I can clear my head again...

Jestor wrote: So, reading the Wall, Edan posted this link...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30038753

Now, I am not some heartless person, but I have to ask...

What are we to do?

Here in the US, our handicapped children are supported by the government...

My ex-wife has two children who get Social Security becasue they will likely never work... They also recieve government healthcare, and other benefits, provided by the taxpayer...

My wife worked with handicapped children (not me, quit laughing, ) in a camp in the summer time, and in schools with the special needs children... As well as many of my friends still do...

I have an uncle who is 70 (I think) with Downs Syndrome, who I know is supported through my grandmothers estate, but who pays for his insurance? Taxpayers... Now he is probably on Social Security and Medicare....

How is this not charity? The government caring for and sending money to, these folks....

A couple of years ago, my wife was at risk for losing her job, the Governor was cutting government funded entities, and her entity was one of them...

We had a discussion, the wife and I, and I told her that that was a charity... A government funded charity...

And if they couldnt pay their employees to fix roads (my job), fight fires and crimes, and whatever else the government does, that is a necessity, then it is a luxury...

She of course, did not take that well, but I still maintain it...

We all have bills, and when things are tight, somethings dont get done... Maybe a bill gets skipped, or we wait a little longer for new tires, hoping the snow holds off... Or we cancel our cable channels, or bug service, cleaning service, whatever...

The point is, that we start cutting back...

But the government does that, (also my job as an elected official) then people scream that their tax dollars pay for them services... DO they want to pay more to ensure the service continues? Well, no, of course not, need to be more aware of how the money is spent....

But just like in our houses, there is only so much coming in, and all we can control sometimes is what goes out...

And it is not the kids fault they need help, but the government didnt ask that they be born, not be aborted, or if they could help support.... They tried to help a few, and in an effort to not exclude, they had to help more, and more... And now it is called a "benefit"... Stay at home, havekids you cnat afford, the government will help....

I must wanted to post this...

I dont have any answers, always more questions...

Once I post things, I can clear my head again...

Oh lord. I know the swarm of egg, and rotten tomato throwing will be coming after this. I do not think it is the governments responcibility to carry this burden. Does my heart weep for these people? Of course. Do they need help and support? Yes. However, it should not come from the government. It should come from other non profit organizations, etc. It should not be something that is government funded. When the government gets involved in situations like these, the government is looked at to get involved in other situations. Sooner or layer then government will be in every single situation imagine, giving money left, right, up, down, sideways, etc. Either there would have to be an enormous tax increase, (which is when you will have riots, and all of those people screaming for the Government to do something in these situations will back off immediately, once their moneys involved.) Or the government will be printing money out the ass, making deals, borrowing money, etc until it eventually collapses. My question is, where is the Bill Gates, Oprah, etc. Why are none of them funding things like this? Where are these huge churches, that have millionaire pastors, like Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, or even the Roman Catholic Church, and their tucked away millions?

I do not have hard feelings for your position and i respect your opinion, but i disagree 100% even with the question.
I do not call it charity i call it solidarity "for it is in giving that we receive".
The foundations of the human civilization are how we can be united to overcome obstacles and not how the strong are taking more privileges through opportunism... we are not in the jungle.
I do not wish to promote a different finance handling
But to applause the Rich and throw the poor or the weak in the trash it is not my way of living.
I say what i say with respect and please don't take me wrong, i don't mean anything personal.
MtFbwY.
Robert.

Revan Falton wrote:

Jestor wrote: So, reading the Wall, Edan posted this link...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30038753

Now, I am not some heartless person, but I have to ask...

What are we to do?

Here in the US, our handicapped children are supported by the government...

My ex-wife has two children who get Social Security becasue they will likely never work... They also recieve government healthcare, and other benefits, provided by the taxpayer...

My wife worked with handicapped children (not me, quit laughing, ) in a camp in the summer time, and in schools with the special needs children... As well as many of my friends still do...

I have an uncle who is 70 (I think) with Downs Syndrome, who I know is supported through my grandmothers estate, but who pays for his insurance? Taxpayers... Now he is probably on Social Security and Medicare....

How is this not charity? The government caring for and sending money to, these folks....

A couple of years ago, my wife was at risk for losing her job, the Governor was cutting government funded entities, and her entity was one of them...

We had a discussion, the wife and I, and I told her that that was a charity... A government funded charity...

And if they couldnt pay their employees to fix roads (my job), fight fires and crimes, and whatever else the government does, that is a necessity, then it is a luxury...

She of course, did not take that well, but I still maintain it...

We all have bills, and when things are tight, somethings dont get done... Maybe a bill gets skipped, or we wait a little longer for new tires, hoping the snow holds off... Or we cancel our cable channels, or bug service, cleaning service, whatever...

The point is, that we start cutting back...

But the government does that, (also my job as an elected official) then people scream that their tax dollars pay for them services... DO they want to pay more to ensure the service continues? Well, no, of course not, need to be more aware of how the money is spent....

But just like in our houses, there is only so much coming in, and all we can control sometimes is what goes out...

And it is not the kids fault they need help, but the government didnt ask that they be born, not be aborted, or if they could help support.... They tried to help a few, and in an effort to not exclude, they had to help more, and more... And now it is called a "benefit"... Stay at home, havekids you cnat afford, the government will help....

I must wanted to post this...

I dont have any answers, always more questions...

Once I post things, I can clear my head again...

Oh lord. I know the swarm of egg, and rotten tomato throwing will be coming after this. I do not think it is the governments responcibility to carry this burden. Does my heart weep for these people? Of course. Do they need help and support? Yes. However, it should not come from the government. It should come from other non profit organizations, etc. It should not be something that is government funded. When the government gets involved in situations like these, the government is looked at to get involved in other situations. Sooner or layer then government will be in every single situation imagine, giving money left, right, up, down, sideways, etc. Either there would have to be an enormous tax increase, (which is when you will have riots, and all of those people screaming for the Government to do something in these situations will back off immediately, once their moneys involved.) Or the government will be printing money out the ass, making deals, borrowing money, etc until it eventually collapses. My question is, where is the Bill Gates, Oprah, etc. Why are none of them funding things like this? Where are these huge churches, that have millionaire pastors, like Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, or even the Roman Catholic Church, and their tucked away millions?

So let's say Gates, Opreh or some other billionaire starts and funds a project that will provide the much needed care these kids need, then what? Allen Watts said something in his book about people wanting to help the homeless, so we help them...and then what? I am not attempting to be heartless, the world of man is far more depressing than we realize, and all the money in the world will not fix every problem. You can't throw paper on a fire and expect it to go out.

I read about the homeless, and how illegal it is to feed these people who are starving to death, so I donate food to a few neighbors who are going without. I watch animals in a kennel being mistreated on t.v, so I volunteer at the animal shelter across the river. My point is, there isn't really anything I can do about the bigger problems in the world, so I use them as motivation to do something about the smaller problems I CAN do something about.

Don't just sigh, cry, complain or moan over these kids, do something to make your corner of the world a little better...

Exarchias wrote: I do not have hard feelings for your position and i respect your opinion, but i disagree 100% even with the question.
I do not call it charity i call it solidarity "for it is in giving that we receive".
The foundations of the human civilization are how we can be united to overcome obstacles and not how the strong are taking more privileges through opportunism... we are not in the jungle.
I do not wish to promote a different finance handling
But to applause the Rich and throw the poor or the weak in the trash it is not my way of living.
I say what i say with respect and please don't take me wrong, i don't mean anything personal.
MtFbwY.
Robert.

Why is it the governments job to provide the solidarity?

If you have a baby, you should support it... The government didnt ask you to have it...

It doesnt get the tax credits you do, nor any of the joys the baby provides....

Shouldnt personal responsibility also be there?

Zenchi wrote:

Revan Falton wrote:

Jestor wrote: So, reading the Wall, Edan posted this link...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30038753

Now, I am not some heartless person, but I have to ask...

What are we to do?

Here in the US, our handicapped children are supported by the government...

My ex-wife has two children who get Social Security becasue they will likely never work... They also recieve government healthcare, and other benefits, provided by the taxpayer...

My wife worked with handicapped children (not me, quit laughing, ) in a camp in the summer time, and in schools with the special needs children... As well as many of my friends still do...

I have an uncle who is 70 (I think) with Downs Syndrome, who I know is supported through my grandmothers estate, but who pays for his insurance? Taxpayers... Now he is probably on Social Security and Medicare....

How is this not charity? The government caring for and sending money to, these folks....

A couple of years ago, my wife was at risk for losing her job, the Governor was cutting government funded entities, and her entity was one of them...

We had a discussion, the wife and I, and I told her that that was a charity... A government funded charity...

And if they couldnt pay their employees to fix roads (my job), fight fires and crimes, and whatever else the government does, that is a necessity, then it is a luxury...

She of course, did not take that well, but I still maintain it...

We all have bills, and when things are tight, somethings dont get done... Maybe a bill gets skipped, or we wait a little longer for new tires, hoping the snow holds off... Or we cancel our cable channels, or bug service, cleaning service, whatever...

The point is, that we start cutting back...

But the government does that, (also my job as an elected official) then people scream that their tax dollars pay for them services... DO they want to pay more to ensure the service continues? Well, no, of course not, need to be more aware of how the money is spent....

But just like in our houses, there is only so much coming in, and all we can control sometimes is what goes out...

And it is not the kids fault they need help, but the government didnt ask that they be born, not be aborted, or if they could help support.... They tried to help a few, and in an effort to not exclude, they had to help more, and more... And now it is called a "benefit"... Stay at home, havekids you cnat afford, the government will help....

I must wanted to post this...

I dont have any answers, always more questions...

Once I post things, I can clear my head again...

Oh lord. I know the swarm of egg, and rotten tomato throwing will be coming after this. I do not think it is the governments responcibility to carry this burden. Does my heart weep for these people? Of course. Do they need help and support? Yes. However, it should not come from the government. It should come from other non profit organizations, etc. It should not be something that is government funded. When the government gets involved in situations like these, the government is looked at to get involved in other situations. Sooner or layer then government will be in every single situation imagine, giving money left, right, up, down, sideways, etc. Either there would have to be an enormous tax increase, (which is when you will have riots, and all of those people screaming for the Government to do something in these situations will back off immediately, once their moneys involved.) Or the government will be printing money out the ass, making deals, borrowing money, etc until it eventually collapses. My question is, where is the Bill Gates, Oprah, etc. Why are none of them funding things like this? Where are these huge churches, that have millionaire pastors, like Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, or even the Roman Catholic Church, and their tucked away millions?

So let's say Gates, Opreh or some other billionaire starts and funds a project that will provide the much needed care these kids need, then what? Allen Watts said something in his book about people wanting to help the homeless, so we help them...and then what? I am not attempting to be heartless, the world of man is far more depressing than we realize, and all the money in the world will not fix every problem. You can't throw paper on a fire and expect it to go out.

I read about the homeless, and how illegal it is to feed these people who are starving to death, so I donate food to a few neighbors who are going without. I watch animals in a kennel being mistreated on t.v, so I volunteer at the animal shelter across the river. My point is, there isn't really anything I can do about the bigger problems in the world, so I use them as motivation to do something about the smaller problems I CAN do something about.

Don't just sigh, cry, complain or moan over these kids, do something to make your corner of the world a little better...

Exactly. You say injustices being done, and YOU did something to try and fix it, no matter if it was small, or centralized at a community level. You did something, and because you did something even at that small level, it holds more value then if Bill Gates donated a million dollars. (Oh mercy. I'm getting dangerously close to biblical verse here lol )

My point is. You did something. You did not go to the Government and say. Hey, there is this issue. It should be fixed, so fix it, because I am not going to do anything but live in my own little comfortable bubble.

You could have billions of dollars of donations in money from the "rich". Will that help? Of course, but it won't solve all the problems. You will still need volunteers to hand out the food, serve, prepare, store, cook, etc.

Exarchias wrote: I do not have hard feelings for your position and i respect your opinion, but i disagree 100% even with the question.
I do not call it charity i call it solidarity "for it is in giving that we receive".
The foundations of the human civilization are how we can be united to overcome obstacles and not how the strong are taking more privileges through opportunism... we are not in the jungle.
I do not wish to promote a different finance handling
But to applause the Rich and throw the poor or the weak in the trash it is not my way of living.
I say what i say with respect and please don't take me wrong, i don't mean anything personal.
MtFbwY.
Robert.

Attachment h9af05d0.jpg not found

This is going to the picture you posted.

If what that is saying is true, and how it should be. Then theorize this. You have three men. One with no arms, and one with both arms, and one with two arms that is in a building, and is running the building. Both of the two men on the street are employees of the third. The man with no arms is struggling to open a door. Should the man with two arms cut one of his arms off, and give it to the other, attach it, etc, that way they will be equal? The man with no arms surely will be better off before? But what of the second? Because he gave up his arm, he is at a dissadvantage now because he can not work as fast. But the pair is equal. Should the second man go to the boss, and tell him the situation, and tellls the boss to open the door for the man? Or should the man, take personal responsibility on himself, and open the door for the man. Which is more logical and sound?

Jestor wrote:

Exarchias wrote: I do not have hard feelings for your position and i respect your opinion, but i disagree 100% even with the question.
I do not call it charity i call it solidarity "for it is in giving that we receive".
The foundations of the human civilization are how we can be united to overcome obstacles and not how the strong are taking more privileges through opportunism... we are not in the jungle.
I do not wish to promote a different finance handling
But to applause the Rich and throw the poor or the weak in the trash it is not my way of living.
I say what i say with respect and please don't take me wrong, i don't mean anything personal.
MtFbwY.
Robert.

Why is it the governments job to provide the solidarity?

If you have a baby, you should support it... The government didnt ask you to have it...

It doesnt get the tax credits you do, nor any of the joys the baby provides....

Shouldnt personal responsibility also be there?

Why the reason to have government then?
For having Army Police and Senators?
You, I, We stand in our feet and we can work, but other people are not that lucky and luck, (as i noticed), does last not for ever. If i ever have a accident, or if someone in my family have a accident i wish that will not be casted away from the society, and for THAT reason, i am more than happy to pay TAXES which go for insurances, education and health care.
Personal responsibility is not to care for the community only to achieve lower taxes?
I do not have anything else to add.
Even if i had something to add my anger can lead to unfairness and i don't wish that.

ps. If it was in my hand i wouldn't allow anyone to have children. There are plenty children out there to be adopted and i believe that to bring a new life in this specific world that we live now it is a act of cruelty. My opinion.

Two things come to mind. The first is that charity has become a dirty word, as if needing help was a categorically bad thing. One might argue that accepting aid you don't need is dishonorable, but that is a separate issue. I am not making any personal accusations. Only commenting on the culture.

I work with survivors of brain injury, people who will never be able to work or generate income again. One of the first things that comes up is the shame of receiving help, as if the needs born of injury were some kind of character flaw.

But it isn't. Helping them get by isn't just about them. It's about all of us. I regard it as a mark of a civilized society that it does not throw human beings away. We are not quite there.

Even if one feeds a person in need, and many situations can create need, giving shame along with the money is too close to throwing people away for my taste. As much as, for instance, that Jedi out in Oregan needs help, we asna society need to help him. We require it for our own wellbeing.

Perhaps, rather than asking if it is charity (sure), or if there is money (there is), ask why caring for humans is so much less important. It boils down to a question of priorities.

Cabur Senaar wrote: Two things come to mind. The first is that charity has become a dirty word, as if needing help was a categorically bad thing. One might argue that accepting aid you don't need is dishonorable, but that is a separate issue. I am not making any personal accusations. Only commenting on the culture.

I work with survivors of brain injury, people who will never be able to work or generate income again. One of the first things that comes up is the shame of receiving help, as if the needs born of injury were some kind of character flaw.

But it isn't. Helping them get by isn't just about them. It's about all of us. I regard it as a mark of a civilized society that it does not throw human beings away. We are not quite there.

Even if one feeds a person in need, and many situations can create need, giving shame along with the money is too close to throwing people away for my taste. As much as, for instance, that Jedi out in Oregan needs help, we asna society need to help him. We require it for our own wellbeing.

Perhaps, rather than asking if it is charity (sure), or if there is money (there is), ask why caring for humans is so much less important. It boils down to a question of priorities.

I think we are in all agreement that there needs to be aid given to these indivual, however it seems from who's responsibility is it to care and aid these individuals, and why.

Cabur Senaar wrote: Two things come to mind. The first is that charity has become a dirty word, as if needing help was a categorically bad thing. One might argue that accepting aid you don't need is dishonorable, but that is a separate issue. I am not making any personal accusations. Only commenting on the culture.

I work with survivors of brain injury, people who will never be able to work or generate income again. One of the first things that comes up is the shame of receiving help, as if the needs born of injury were some kind of character flaw.

But it isn't. Helping them get by isn't just about them. It's about all of us. I regard it as a mark of a civilized society that it does not throw human beings away. We are not quite there.

Even if one feeds a person in need, and many situations can create need, giving shame along with the money is too close to throwing people away for my taste. As much as, for instance, that Jedi out in Oregan needs help, we asna society need to help him. We require it for our own wellbeing.

Perhaps, rather than asking if it is charity (sure), or if there is money (there is), ask why caring for humans is so much less important. It boils down to a question of priorities.

My wish is just to mark the bolted text.
I totally agree with these words.
MtFbwY All.
Robert.

Cabur Senaar wrote: Two things come to mind. The first is that charity has become a dirty word, as if needing help was a categorically bad thing. One might argue that accepting aid you don't need is dishonorable, but that is a separate issue. I am not making any personal accusations. Only commenting on the culture.

I work with survivors of brain injury, people who will never be able to work or generate income again. One of the first things that comes up is the shame of receiving help, as if the needs born of injury were some kind of character flaw.

But it isn't. Helping them get by isn't just about them. It's about all of us. I regard it as a mark of a civilized society that it does not throw human beings away. We are not quite there.

Even if one feeds a person in need, and many situations can create need, giving shame along with the money is too close to throwing people away for my taste. As much as, for instance, that Jedi out in Oregan needs help, we asna society need to help him. We require it for our own wellbeing.

Perhaps, rather than asking if it is charity (sure), or if there is money (there is), ask why caring for humans is so much less important. It boils down to a question of priorities.

I don't think charity is a dirty word, and if the government can afford it, more power to them...

But the US cannot, as shown by our increasing debt...

Zenchi pointed out how he helps... I do my small things too, and we all should...

Many do...

The government, Exarchias, is not here to raise us, and raise our children, is it?

We get awful upset when it sticks it nose in our business, don't we?

Yet expect it to jump when we need something from it...

I don't have an answer, I'm only having a conversation...

It is something I think about often...

Our new Governor is a millionaire... Self made success story...

How does this happen? Was he just lucky?

Or, is it because he made hard decisions because of his goals?

To bring us back out of debt, hard decisions need to be made, and I don't think the majority of people are anywhere NEAR ready....

Idk...

Jestor wrote: (1) I don't think charity is a dirty word, and if the government can afford it, more power to them...

But the US cannot, as shown by our increasing debt...

(1) Zenchi pointed out how he helps... I do my small things too, and we all should...

Many do...

(2) The government, Exarchias, is not here to raise us, and raise our children, is it?

We get awful upset when it sticks it nose in our business, don't we?

Yet expect it to jump when we need something from it...

I don't have an answer, I'm only having a conversation...

It is something I think about often...

Our new Governor is a millionaire... Self made success story...

How does this happen? Was he just lucky?

Or, is it because he made hard decisions because of his goals?

To bring us back out of debt, hard decisions need to be made, and I don't think the majority of people are anywhere NEAR ready....

Idk...

I know i said i will now keep up with this conversation but i do not disagree 100% neither i have the anger that i had before.
Probably i misunderstood something and i failed somehow to see your point of view.

2 points (i marked with numbers specific points on your text)

(1) I do not speak for charity i speak for solidarity. Not a random action of goodness but a very specific way of life that "leaves no people behind". Somehow, somewhere here lies the friction point in this discussion, but i guess there is no simple answer that we can find in a days work. I am open to suggestions.

(2)I can't trust a family oriented system of solidarity so easily. Families are very small units, often uneducated, and they lack of proper equipment (for example a family can't have special doctors, or teachers in the case of need.)

Please notice once again, that if it was in my hand many things about raising a family would be restricted regulated not for the happiness of making laws or restrictions but in order to prevent stupid actions in the field of family matters.

I hope this time my answer was better formulated.
MtFbwY All.
Robert.

Just a ps. I don't have positive idea for extremely rich people. I believe most of the case are crooks, especially politicians. I do not admire rich people. Just saying.

There is something very disturbing about this topic.

Europeans aren't going to relate to what conservative Americans take for granted. Americans are not going to be able to relate to what benefits social-democracies (and some of those are constitutional monarchies) yield.

Exarchias is Swedish ; Sweden has one of the most well-developped social security programmes in Europe. I would hesitate to tell him that he is wrong ... France also has a pretty good social security coverage. We don't have to worry too much about not affording medical care - even lengthy hospitalisations. And yes ! that is something that a vast majority of us are willing to pay our taxes for.

It is going to be a little hard for many of you, certainly the Americans, to wrap your heads around. You will have to leave behind what you think is "common sense". It isn't "common" in the universal sense.

Basically subscribed here (more or less because I just don't want to f**k with this) : this is not "charity" and I am absolutely revolted that anyone could think that. It is called humanism ... or humanity ... or just good human decency.

Exarchias wrote: Just a ps. I don't have positive idea for extremely rich people. I believe most of the case are crooks, especially politicians. I do not admire rich people. Just saying.

And why is that, what is your reasoning for such a statement. What has a rich man done personally to you? Or is it because they are successful, more so then others. That you and others are envious of their wealth and success. That you and others struggle and they do not struggle as much?

Revan Falton wrote:

Exarchias wrote: Just a ps. I don't have positive idea for extremely rich people. I believe most of the case are crooks, especially politicians. I do not admire rich people. Just saying.

And why is that, what is your reasoning for such a statement. What has a rich man done personally to you? Or is it because they are successful, more so then others. That you and others are envious of their wealth and success. That you and others struggle and they do not struggle as much?

If someone is rich someone somewhere else will be poor and the gap is too huge to be accepted so easily.
That is more or less my opinion.
If it is for me to live in world who leaves people behind i do not wish, to think anything positive about rich people.
You are free to admire them if you wish, but i will not and no one in the world can't convince me to see them with a good eye, (especially politicians)

Let's say i am envious with their success. (Humor, not irony )

Alexandre Orion wrote: It is called humanism ... or humanity ... or just good human decency.

This... covers pretty much everything I was going to say, in one sentence.

Exarchias wrote:

Revan Falton wrote:

Exarchias wrote: Just a ps. I don't have positive idea for extremely rich people. I believe most of the case are crooks, especially politicians. I do not admire rich people. Just saying.

And why is that, what is your reasoning for such a statement. What has a rich man done personally to you? Or is it because they are successful, more so then others. That you and others are envious of their wealth and success. That you and others struggle and they do not struggle as much?

If someone is rich someone somewhere else will be poor and the gap is too huge to be accepted so easily.
That is more or less my opinion.
If it is for me to live in world who leaves people behind i do not wish, to think anything positive about rich people.
You are free to admire them if you wish, but i will not and no one in the world can't convince me to see them with a good eye, (especially politicians)

Let's say i am envious with their success. (Humor, not irony )

So my initial assumption was correct then, no? Since you did not say anything affinitive to dissagree with my initial statement. Now, allow me to expand on that. Since you are stating it is not fair he has a vast amount of wealth while others do not, you seem to be proposing that the playing field should be leveled, yes? That all should have the same amount of wealth? Correct? Now, if those are you beliefs, then humor me with this scenario. A homeless man sees you, you have a family, children, a house, etc. You aren't rich by any means, but you work enough to support your family and live a decent lifestyle. However, compared to the homeless man you might as well be a billionaire. He is envious of your success. Follows you for a week, knows you and your family's schedule. Then he breaks in, and steals your possessions and money. Enough just so you can be on the same level. Realizing this, you now have a tremendous amount of dept you can't pay off, your car is repossed and the bank forecloses on your home. You are now equal with that homeless man. Is that the world you wish to live in, where no one can have a decent life? Where everyone must be made to suffer?

Revan Falton wrote:

Exarchias wrote:

Revan Falton wrote:

Exarchias wrote: Just a ps. I don't have positive idea for extremely rich people. I believe most of the case are crooks, especially politicians. I do not admire rich people. Just saying.

And why is that, what is your reasoning for such a statement. What has a rich man done personally to you? Or is it because they are successful, more so then others. That you and others are envious of their wealth and success. That you and others struggle and they do not struggle as much?

If someone is rich someone somewhere else will be poor and the gap is too huge to be accepted so easily.
That is more or less my opinion.
If it is for me to live in world who leaves people behind i do not wish, to think anything positive about rich people.
You are free to admire them if you wish, but i will not and no one in the world can't convince me to see them with a good eye, (especially politicians)

Let's say i am envious with their success. (Humor, not irony )

So my initial assumption was correct then, no? Since you did not say anything affinitive to dissagree with my initial statement. Now, allow me to expand on that. Since you are stating it is not fair he has a vast amount of wealth while others do not, you seem to be proposing that the playing field should be leveled, yes? That all should have the same amount of wealth? Correct? Now, if those are you beliefs, then humor me with this scenario. A homeless man sees you, you have a family, children, a house, etc. You aren't rich by any means, but you work enough to support your family and live a decent lifestyle. However, compared to the homeless man you might as well be a billionaire. He is envious of your success. Follows you for a week, knows you and your family's schedule. Then he breaks in, and steals your possessions and money. Enough just so you can be on the same level. Realizing this, you now have a tremendous amount of dept you can't pay off, your car is repossed and the bank forecloses on your home. You are now equal with that homeless man. Is that the world you wish to live in, where no one can have a decent life? Where everyone must be made to suffer?

You can't convince me for anything. So don't try.

p.s. i sound too negative so if you are not extremely rich i wish you to have a wonderful night

Exarchias wrote: If someone is rich someone somewhere else will be poor and the gap is too huge to be accepted so easily.
That is more or less my opinion.
If it is for me to live in world who leaves people behind i do not wish, to think anything positive about rich people.
You are free to admire them if you wish, but i will not and no one in the world can't convince me to see them with a good eye, (especially politicians)

Let's say i am envious with their success. (Humor, not irony )

Id really like to stop and examine this one for a second.

Singer Mariah Careys net worth sits at around $150 million dollars. People love her music (why is beyond me) and she gets paid when people buy it or attend her concerts. Does this make her a bad person somehow because shes stupidly wealthy and others arent? Has she done something to widen the gap between rich and poor? How many people have made money and had employment because of the "industry of Mariah"?

Bill Gates net worth, around $81 Billion dollars. Microsoft employes directly around 90 thousand people. Thats JUST microsoft, not including the hundreds of companies and suppliers that work with Microsoft. Thats a lot of people in steady employment because of his business. Also, he has given around 50 billion in total to charity over the years and its estimated that his charitable work has touched the lives of literally millions (did you know that he personally funds vaccination and education programmes that saves childrens lives all over the world? and has publicly pledged to keep giving half of everything he earns to charity?) He doesnt sound so bad does he.

George Lucas, net worth around 4.5 billion.... for creating star wars and Indiana Jones and giving thousands of people work over the years both directly on sets and indirectly through the merchandising industry. Also philanthropic. Had donated to a lot of educational groups in his time. I dont see him widening the gap between rich and poor either.

ALL universities and the majority of hospitals in the United States have a major donor programmes because the government simply cannot afford to pay for them to run. Major donor btw, is generally defined as someone who gives an average of $10K or over.

I could go on as there are thousands of very wealthy people whos philanthropy is well documented, but I think you understand what im saying.

Sure, there are always going to be people who cheat the system, who take advantage of others to get what they want and to make money. And yes, some people are just unethical %$&# who have made their fortunes on the backs of modern day slaves. Which is ass, but the system and the culture has created that situation and allowed it to exist. That is where the change needs to happen. Just as a starting point I'd love to see some fundamental changes to the tax system that remove loop holes for the super wealthy, but I don't believe that the demonising of people who for the most part have worked hard to get where they are is right or fair.

And the "them vs us" mentality does nothing other than create bitterness and anger and an inability to see through to the actual problem.