Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
sub3over40 wrote:I usually do not use the word "rich" but was trying to use common language. We have a different definition of rich. I prefer "producers".
What?!
Your whole post was about "rich" people. You are the one who was focusing on people's wealth and stating: they are rich BECAUSE they are smart, end of story. And I proved you wrong. Now you are trying to do some dance to get out of your own words. Not working.
sub3over40 wrote:I don't like many of the people you named but none of them are moochers. None of them are asking me to pay their bills. None of them are asking me to provide their needs or live at their expense.
Firstly, many rich people, whether they be financial giants who received gov't bailouts, or mega-farms or big oil or big pharma who have received huge gov't subsidies or great tax preferences or sweetheart deals have indeed asked and had you (i.e., the gov't, since they get their $ from you or me) to "pay their bills". Pretty funny that you are unaware of that. (whether you support that or not, is irrelevant. It is the reality you chose to ignore, and you'd rather complain about minimum wage moochers).
Secondly, your post/quote that I challenged was nothing about that (whether or not rich people ask others to pay their way. try and stay focused). I was challenging your typical right wing nonsense, blanket statement that rich people are rich because they are smart. This is simply not true. Just as all poor people are not lazy and dumb. But I know, it's easy to play class warfare the way you are, because justifies the "cut taxes for the rich" right wing agenda.
sub3over40 wrote: Many of the people you named had to develop their talents even if I am not their fans. By the way, Trump is smarter. That was a bad one to try to make a point with. He built an empire from nothing.
1) Paris Hilton "developed her TALENTS" ??? How, by being an heiress and acting like an idiot and slut?
2) The walton family, who inherited more $ than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined "developed their talents" ?
3) Shaq O'Neal, who is as big as many on the planet (if you combine height and pure muscle size), had to work really hard to become a great basketball player?? The guy was born that way. He didn't f' it up, but c'mon, he was BORN an NBA player (or a pro football player if he wanted).
These are just a few examples. You said people are rich because they are smart. I've proven you wrong. Many are rich because they are born with insane one in a trillion talent or body, and some are just born rich, period. You honestly don't get that??
TRUMP??? lol. the guy may have done some smart business moves, but he proves how stupid he is every time he opens his mouth.
sub3over40 wrote: I hope you set aside envy and achieve your dreams. The people you named have all done that so they are smarter than the people who have not. What is holding you back?
Again, I've proven to you that the circumstances of one's birth (wealth-wise and genetics-wise) plays a a huge role in why some become wealthy and why some do not. You said it was all about intelligence (which is also god-given in many ways, but we won't get into that now), and I have shown, without a doubt, that it often is not. Yet you cling to this nonsense still? Wow. You are ignorant (ignoring reality), plain and simple.
Lastly I am not envious of these people in the least, don't be idiotic. I am also quite wealth, likely much more than you. Most of it was achieved through luck, not intelligence. Is Warren Buffet envious of of rich people??? He support raising taxes on rich people, so I guess he must be. And I guess that goes Alan Greenspan and many other wealthy people who support dropping the Bush Tax cuts.
You've proven yourself to be a very ignorant and naive person if you think, AS YOU HAVE STATED, that wealthy people are inherently and absolutely smarter than poorer people. You should really stick to the libertarian argument:" I don't care about dumb and lucky the average rich person is: it's their $, so they should get to keep (almost) all of it. That's life. " I don't agree with that, but it at least it has some sort of consistent "logic" to it, unlike your statement.