# Republicans are geniuses

• News
phatmonky said:
Rich people didn't MAKE poor people poor. Kerry was on TV last night talking about how Executives keep making more and more money The guy, via his wife, is worth a LOT more than most executives.

Look, let me put in terms that are easier to understand.
Imagine the US, with the largest percentage of the world's wealth for any single country, going to African nations and saying "Those rich guys, they are making all the money while you suffer. I'm here to help you fight them." How do you think that would go over? I have a feeling some smart Africans would realize "hey, the person telling me this IS the person they are demonizing".
John Kerry is not working class. He likes to act as if he is thought. If he just said "I've been very fortunate, and I want to use my power for the good of those who haven't been as fortunate", then I'd have no complaints. Even Bill CLinton had the balls to say "Bush wants to give the tax cuts to people like ME. I'm the one who will be benefiting from this, I don't need it". Kerry still refers to the rich as if he weren't part of them.
Ok, Kerry is rich, does that mean he's incapable of helping poor people? I get your point about his argument being somewhat phony by not admitting he's filthy rich, but it doesn't negate the fact that he wants to help poor people out.

I think if a bunch of Americans went to Africa and said to the poor people all over that the reason they were so poor was because greedy African politicians/buisnessmen were siphoning off all the money for themselves, and that the Americans would help the Africans fight these greedy people, that the African's would not take a principal stand and reject American help, even though Americans are rich.

Since you didn't feel like wasting your time with my sarcasm, let me put it in terms that are easier to understand.

It IS a problem that Muslims and our Allies don't like us. Because Muslims don't like us, 9/11, and tons of other terrorist attacks have happened, Muslims not liking us is the whole reason we're in a war on terrorism. Saying Muslims not liking us is a problem isn't just playing on people's emotions, it's diagnosing a huge problem. It's also a problem that Europe doesn't like us. While Republicans like to totally dismiss Europe as having any importance, our most powerful allies are in Europe. If Europeans liked us more, they would have been more likely to allign with us against Iraq. If the European nations liked us more, we wouldn't have had so many American troops in Iraq, and we wouldn't have spent so much American money on Iraq. Iraq would be less a mess in general because we'd have more troops as a whole, being able to better secure the country.

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
phatmonky said:
Kerry was on TV last night talking about how Executives keep making more and more money The guy, via his wife, is worth a LOT more than most executives.

This is a pointless point. :grumpy:

So, no rich person dare talk about economic reform ??

member 5645
Gokul43201 said:
This is a pointless point. :grumpy:

So, no rich person dare talk about economic reform ??
No, no rich person should demonize others for making money.

phatmonky said:
No, no rich person should demonize others for making money.
Kerry wasn't saying rich people are the problem, he was saying that Executives, who pretty much get to decide their own salary, are getting more and more money, which takes away from profit the company makes and money their employees could earn.

Kerry's stance on rich versus poor is just the cliche that is always trotted out during election years.

"The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

"The gap between the rich and the poor is widening."

"America's middle class is vanishing."

"The rich aren't paying their fair share."

These slogans have been repeated by Democrats so many times over the past forty years that I don't even think they bother to parse the meanings. Democrats just say it, and the crowd claps.

member 5645
wasteofo2 said:
Kerry wasn't saying rich people are the problem, he was saying that Executives, who pretty much get to decide their own salary, are getting more and more money, which takes away from profit the company makes and money their employees could earn.
Executives are paid what the market will bare. They do NOT decide their own salary, the corporations board does. A companies internal parate is created by that company, and with the exception of minimum wage, are not dictated by the government.
As such, Kerry is no position to demonize them because he can't/won't/shouldn't add any legislation that will affect the salaries of the CEO's.
If the CEO's performance isn't worth the price, the board will vote them out, and they are fired.
Kerry's pathetic demonizing of those that are making millions in a recession is immoral and disgusting. It's just one of the many things that it actually stopping me from voting for him just outright. He's still on the plate, but I'm happy to be critical of him and his hyporcisy.

Atleast Bush made the "The call you the have's and the have more's.......I call you my base" :rofl: Partially true, but atleast he doesn't act as if he's not one of the same a la Kerry and his workman's jacket.

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
JohnDubYa said:
Kerry's stance on rich versus poor is just the cliche that is always trotted out during election years.

"The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

"The gap between the rich and the poor is widening."

"America's middle class is vanishing."

...

It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau

Gokul43201 said:
It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau

Can you tell me where the income of the top 20 percent of americans begins at?

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
About $88,000, and the bottom 20 percent ends at (ie : the 20 percentile income) a little below$18,000

russ_watters
Mentor
Gokul43201 said:
It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau
But that only addresses one of the cliche's (the second). The first cliche' is, in fact, false. The third is a product of the second and is largely irrelevant, since the middle class is getting smaller because people are moving up and out of it.

I also read a pretty compelling criticism of the use of "hoseholds" in income stats: It gives the false impression that the bottom 20% of "households" is the bottom 20% of the population. It isn't. I'm single and I'm a household. A family of 4 is also a household. Households toward the bottom are generally smaller than households at the top, so that bottom 20% of households is actually significantly less than 20% of the population while the top 20% of households is significantly more.
Ok, Kerry is rich, does that mean he's incapable of helping poor people? I get your point about his argument being somewhat phony by not admitting he's filthy rich, but it doesn't negate the fact that he wants to help poor people out.
Kerry is a politician and Bush is a politician. Politicians, first and foremost, are interested in votes (yes, I really am this cynical). Kerry isn't necessarily interested in helping the poor, he's interested in getting the poor to vote for him. To that end, its not solutions that Kerry wants (if the poor people become rich, he loses that voter base), but its complaining about problems without fixing them.

Last edited:
GENIERE
If a progressive tax system is thought to be a means of reducing wealth inequity, think again. EU countries except for England have only seen a modest improvement after decades of socialist policies but inequity is still increasing for most countries. England has a higher percentage of inequity than the US. England has the strongest economy in the EU; is there a connection? France mysteriously provides no data for the 90’s; wonder why? The remnant French colonies, having strong economic ties with France, fair much worse than those remnant colonies of the US and England. Chirac visited Algeria, begging them not to increase trade with the US. Chirac is probably the most fiscally conservative president that France is likely to elect. With government employees totaling 20% of the French “work” force; what hope does that country have? If one wishes to accept unemployment figures of 10%, by all means tax and distribute. Let the 10% eat cake. I suggest a smaller piece of a much larger pie is superior to a big piece of a tart. Should a means be introduced to minimize inequity? Absolutely! Via a progressive tax system? Absolutely not!