SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (588298)7/6/2004 7:31:36 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"It has been shown that as more people participate in the governing of this country, the results are better for everyone"

I bet that is true. But that is not the point I got from the author. His seems to be that rich a-holes are controlling the show. My view is that EVERYBODY of voting age (except felons in certain circumstances) gets to be involved. The process is open, and you can't ask for much more.

"So to answer your question, yes, I think its better that you and I and others on these threads participate in the selection process for election candidates and not just the top ten percent of this country."

That wasn't a question. I had a point, and that is everyody who chooses to involved can be involved. I guess you agree with my point, but be clear I wasn't asking you whether people other than the top 10% can participate. Again, the author implies otherwise. Particularly when he says "Then, high-income voters will disproportionately influence the outcome of those races."

"Decade after decade, the rich in this country have gotten richer with a higher percentage of the country's assets in their control."

I don't know if that is true or not, but it does not bother me much. Most rich people earned it and deserve their rewards. They frequently fall short in life imo because the forsake what I consider more important goals (like being with their families) so they can get rich. But I hold no grudge against them. "Poverty" as we define it in America has been pretty consitent at about 10%. Doesn't seem to matter how many programs are offered.

"The only reason we have a big middle class is because the pie got bigger over those decades......so there was more to go around. Had it not, there would be no middle class in this country"

Huh? Sounds pretty weird. Do you mean "more to go around" in the sense that there are more jobs? I think we have a big middle class because most people in this country have the tools, motivation and ingenuity to do well for themselves. Our system of government allows and encourges this success imo. Middle class in America is a pretty good life imo.

"The have nots in the article are us"

Speak for yourself. I think middle class America is a great life. If you want more $, it's out there. Work your but off from morning to night and you can get there if that is your goal.

"If you make less than 500 k per year, you are not one of the big guys"

Don't really want to be a big guy. I personally think I could get to that level. But I don't like to work that hard.

"one or two people make it and we think everyone can. The odds are very much against the guy who was not born rich"

You're definately a pessimist. What you don't understand is that the "odds" are mostly under our control. Sit around and bellyache and complain, and your odds are near zero. Work your ass off every minute of the day, and the odds go WAY up. Like I said, many that have "made it" and are "big guys" have lots of other issues in their life that aren't too pleasant. Broken families, ulcers, heart conditions, early death, etc. Most "big guys" who have had it given to them by previous generations blow it btw. I think you would be surprised at how many rich guys are damn smart and work damn hard. Take the Hollywood liberals out of there, and the percentage is even higher.

"One that insures the rich stay rich"

You have a warped view imo. Nothing insures you stay rich. Particularly if it was given to you.