jump to last post 1-50 of 50 discussions (364 posts)

Do You Think The Rich Care About The Poor

  1. profile image0
    awesome77posted 6 years ago

    Coming from a very poor background, I have come to realize that most rich people do not give a rats ass about the poor! If in doubt, show me a rich person and you will see someone that has gone to great lengths to isolate themselves from the poor!

    Most rich people like to live in non accessible neighborhoods as a way to not associate with the poor!

    Most rich people blame the poor for been poor!

    Most rich people would not contribute a dime to charity, if the charitable contributions loopholes suddenly stopped!

    Most rich people are afraid of the poor, because they fear the poor will one day wake UP from the religious trance and feel good shows on TVs, and decide to vote a poor person into office!

    Do you know 5% of the population control about 45 to 50% of the wealth in AMERICA!

    And in the world, maybe 2% control 60% of the wealth!

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They live in constant fear of the poor finding out why they are poor whilst the rich are rich.

      1. profile image0
        awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        that is why they wear identifying markers to know themselves! They create exclusive areas to live in and make sure most public transportation will drop you miles away!

        They wear certain clothes as a right of passage!

        They bury the family wealth in trust funds that pretend to be charity, but in reality a disguise to pay less taxes!

    2. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I doubt that what you believe is true. The evidence just isn't there to support it. I can list all of the rich people that give away great sums of wealth to the poor. There is even a group of rich people that have signed a pledge to give away the bulk of all their wealth to the poor when they die.

      The truth is, it is in the interest of everyone, including the poor, to make what they can, save what they can and give what they can! Society is served best when we do all we can to be productive members and accept personal responsibility for doing so. Nobody should get a free ride. We all have a role to play and a DUTY to reach our maximum potential as well as a moral obligation to help those that for reasons beyond their control can't survive without it.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh get real. What about all these wealthy people who insist that they can't afford to pay a minimum wage but probably salve their conscience with charitable donations that represent just a very small percentage of the money they've robbed off their less than minimum waged employees

        1. lady_love158 profile image58
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          All what people? Do you just make stuff up all the time? Why should there be a minimum wage anyway? Who decides what should be minimum? Based on what? How many more people would have a job if there wasn't a minimum wage?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Why should there be a minimum wage anyway?"

            Yes indeed pay people $8 an hour, should be grateful shouldn't they? After all if they worked for $2 an hour then their bosses would have even more money to give to charity.
            In fact, why not legalise slavery, 100% employment straight off and no one taking the bosses rightful profits.

            Hey it's not all about having a job, it's about being able to provide for your self and family, about being able to hold your head up and say I'm beholden to no man. But you don't understand that do you?

            1. Shadesbreath profile image88
              Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              This gets a perfect 10 on the logical fallacy meter. Well done.

              Too bad too because you actually had a very arguable point to work with and might have opened someone's eyes with a reasonable response.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Go on then Shades, point me at the logical fallacy.

                1. Shadesbreath profile image88
                  Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You tried to create a direct relationship between an opposition to minimum wage with a belief that slavery should be returned.

                  Do I really need to draw you diagrams to illustrate how that is a fallacious argument?


                  My point is merely that crime is hardly limited to the poor. Crime is a human thing, sometimes by need, typically by greed and/or an unwillingness to follow the rules established by society.

                  If you are suggesting that numerically speaking, more crimes are committed by the poor, then I will grant you that, as there are more of them to be sure. But I suspect if you count them up proportionate to their economic status, you would find at least as many of the wealthy per capita break the law (crime) as do the poor.

                  I think it's too easy to blame economics for morality (and I'm not counting the man who steals bread to feed his children).

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But if you have a minimum wage set at a level below that needed to subsist and you cry out for it to be cut further isn't the logical extension of that a return to slavery?

          2. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Why should there be a minimum wage anyway? ... How many more people would have a job if there wasn't a minimum wage?"

            This makes perfect sense until you look at the dynamics. Joe works at a sandwich at minimum wage, say $8 per hour. Suppose we repeal the minimum wage and all sandwich stores cut wages by half.   Will Joe's employer hire a second sandwich maker? Not likely - if everyone got their wages cut, there will be fewer people with money to buy sandwiches.

            Joe will probably keep his job, and Joe's employer will pocket the $4 per hour he used to pay Joe. Notice who prospers.  Instead of the apartment he had, Joe will move in with the families of 2 other sandwich makers - the only way they can survive. This will result in two apartment vacancies, casualties of the shrinking economy.

            Austerity feeds the recession and drives up unemployment like kerosine on a fire.

            1. lady_love158 profile image58
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are just making conclusions that are not necessarily so!
              Eliminating the minimum wage means that Joe could hire help for less, and with the additional profit he could cut his prices and generate more business which would lead to him investing in enlarging his shop and hiring more people to handle the additional sales!
              Again, this view that the "rich" are greedy hoarders of cash that will simply use people is not based in any fact!

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oh really! How many billions has Bill Gates got?

                1. Flightkeeper profile image72
                  Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  A lot more than you that's for sure and since it's his money he should do what he wants with it.  Also he did set up a foundation.

                  1. Rafini profile image87
                    Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    how many 'poor' people, here on Hubpages, are benefitting from said foundation?  I know I'm not....

                2. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Bill Gates and his wife has done MUCH more than Obama to help Africans! He's spend billions of his OWN money fighting malaria and handing out mosquito nets! I believe he also has signed the pledge to give away the bulk of his wealth upon his death. And let's not forget how many people are millionaires BECAUSE of Bill Gates and Microsoft!

              2. kirstenblog profile image74
                kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What about the billionaires that profited by adding poisonous chemicals to tobacco to make them more addictive? How about Monsanto who created GM crops that fertilize regular seeds, that then forces the farmers to pay Monsanto for the use of the seeds that result from the fertilization as the seeds are now copyright protected? These farmers have to pay for new seeds each year as they are not allowed to collect and re-use the grown seeds from their crops. It is plain evil in my opinion, what they are getting away with. Sure there are companies and businesses with good business practices and charitable activities but there are others with horrible business practices that directly result in the deaths of people. No one group is ever all good, or all bad, period.

                1. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm glad you brought up Monsanto! The food safety bill passed by Obama and the socialist democrats is responsible for enriching Monsanto!

                  You see, the government is distorting the free market with regulations that they say are necessary to "protect" our food supply! This is YOUR Democrats, YOUR Obama, YOUR Party FOR the People! They are criminals! Evil people that MUST be resisted, must be stopped IF you want to maintain your freedom!

                  1. profile image0
                    awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    If you think for a minute that their is a difference between BUSH and OBAMA, then I have a free Bridge to give you!

                    Obama is just continuing the policies created and started by Bush!

                  2. kirstenblog profile image74
                    kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    MY Democrats?!?! lol
                    Goodness I wish! I would sell them to the highest bidder straight away and buy a house lol
                    Honestly, I don't think either party is working for the best interest of the people, except for when it profits them to that is. I really do despair of the whole political system, and do not see any alternative that would actually do any better. The more I think about it, the more I learn and hear, the more I wonder if David Icke might not be that crazy hmm (sure do wish he didn't go on about shape shifting lizard people tho)

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              you're COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that Joe could EASILY quit and work at a separate place for more money.

              there's competition on BOTH sides of the dollar.

              As much as I hate to point fingers (I'm an Anarchist, after all), but this mistake is made more frequently by liberals than conservatives.

          3. DTR0005 profile image79
            DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Lady Love,
            I take from your profile that you are involved in the medical sales field. Perhaps pharmaceuticals, perhaps other equipment. I work directly and have for a very long time with health insurance - all forms of insurance for that fact - and I have to say the following: for someone who spouts the Libertarian view chapter and verse, perhaps you ought to look into how your own industry prospers from what amounts to "price fixing," "corporate socialism," etc. And how does that differ from a government body fixing a minimum living wage? In reading your posts/responses, I see the typical double-standard that emerges in so many conservative arguments/ opinions. So it's ok if private enterprise breaks one off  in the consumer, but it's evil if the government says $16,640.00 and some change a year should be the minimum living wage. You wouldn't work for that and neither would I. In fact no one can truly survive on that. I routinely deal with people who are paying about $10,000 a year for family health insurance. Wanna do the math? That's 60% of a "living wage" going for health insurance. Ok, so let's say a wife and husband are both working for minimum wage. That makes $33,000 a year combined salary. Add health insurance and you are still at 33% of your annual income going to ONE INSURANCE payment alone. So yeah, in answer to the original question - the rich may not "hate" the poor, but they certainly are very myopic in their vision and tragically apathetic to the plight of their fellow man...

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Pointing out that the highest rate of income tax in the UK, including health insurance, is 40% on incomes over $55,000, below that it's 20%.
              Now will somebody explain to me how I'd be better off paying out 60% of my income than I am paying out 20%? Oh and that isn't just for health insurance either.

      2. profile image57
        lyfbondposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        very well said lady_love.

        i really like this part.... i couldn't agree more that we each have a role and responsibility.

        "Nobody should get a free ride. We all have a role to play and a DUTY to reach our maximum potential as well as a moral obligation to help those that for reasons beyond their control can't survive without it."

      3. profile image57
        Geordie945posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I like you philosophy madam but rose coloured glasses come to mind  You haven't seen the arrogance of some of these people

        Kenneth Clark for one well healed Brit didn't give a damn about our Ambulance crews in the 80's just recently he's advocated that the immoral compensation paid to muslim scum be kept secret

        Thatcher didn't care how many of our people were killed and injured in the Falklands war which could have been avoided

        It's ordinary men an women who are in these services not the rich

      4. megs11237 profile image71
        megs11237posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are absolutely right.

        We must take responsibility and be productive.

        Like this guy. He is an example to follow 14 hours  a day for $35. This is the ideal Libertarian way of running society right? If only more unemployed would get off their high horse and do their DUTY and take these jobs.

        Cuz most people will do the right and moral thing when decided how much to pay their workers with out big government's intervention.

        http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/vi … 5b8c73263d


        If only we could all be as productive as him.

        Thank you for enlighting me on how we all need to be more productive and have less government.

        Oh and how businesses and the rich will you know do the moral thing.

      5. nursepam profile image61
        nursepamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Please go to
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khUafnvJRvI
        This is part one of a documentary by Jamie Johnson, heir to Johnson & Johnson.  There are eight parts, you will see links on the right side of your screen for the 7 remaining parts.  Each are 10 minutes long.

        This will show you how the rich view the poor.

    3. thisisoli profile image56
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They care, in teh same way I care about african babies starving. I would like to help, but I never really do anything about it.

      But then again, is it really the responsibility of the rich to give money to the poor?

      Personally I like the charities which organize personal loans to resident people who want to start businesses in poor countries. It is a great way to help not only people, but the economies of the countries which are the most vunerable.

      1. profile image57
        Geordie945posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If our governments did the right thing there would be no need for charities

        Charities are quangos with administrators picking up vasts ammouts of money for their own personal bank accounts

    4. Shadesbreath profile image88
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's also not as simple as that.

      Whenever I see a "these guys are bad and these guys are innocent" conversation starting, I usually have to sigh.

      Most people aren't helpless. Most people aren't victims. Most people aren't living their lives for or against anyone. The victim mentality in this nation is causing more poverty than any "rich people" investing their money does.

      Just out of curiosity, how do you define "rich" given that your use of the term and your statistics are all over the board?

      1. profile image0
        awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well so you know, I do not despise the rich at all! The rich I would define as not middle class!

        In fact I admire them for the subtle ways they use the govt to get richer! My observation is just that, the rules are rigged in their favor, in all instances economically!

        I am not a fan of re-distribute the wealth, but I do frown on tax breaks for those that are fabulously wealthy!

        If you look carefully at some of my hubs, I do believe we humans are primarily responsible for our conditions in life!

        But I have also studied some of the tactics employed by the well to do and  it puts to shame any govt handout given to the poor!

        Yes! the poor bear 99% of the responsibility for been poor, but the rich have rigged the game of life financially to make sure that is the case!

        1. Pandoras Box profile image67
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          To make sure what is the case? As your final sentence stands I'm not sure I get your point.

          I think the rich are very interested in staying that way. I don't think the rich are overly interested in keeping the poor poor.

          Damn I need a cigarette.

          1. profile image0
            awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            For example, do you think the rich would ever allow all deductions to be eliminated? Hell no!

            My point exactly, the system is rigged to favor them, why change it!

            1. Pandoras Box profile image67
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not sure all deductions should be eliminated. And the poor cheat on their taxes as eagerly as the rich.

              You've mentioned the deductions a few times now. That's a whole other topic I think. I'm one of those literal types of people.

              The deductions aren't all for the rich. We deduct everything we possibly can.

      2. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Most people aren't helpless. Most people aren't victims. Most people aren't living their lives for or against anyone. The victim mentality in this nation is causing more poverty than any "rich people" investing their money does."

        I applaud you.

        1. lady_love158 profile image58
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If people are victims of anything it's artificial class warfare sponsored by the left, and the burden of big government regulation and taxation!

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Watch out, you will be accused of blaspheme against big brother.

    5. Messenger_of_god8 profile image60
      Messenger_of_god8posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      some do some dont but most are greedy and they hoard thier money and they cant get enough of it. They do nothing good for another with their riches!

      1. lady_love158 profile image58
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hoard their money? Where? How? Do you think they keep billions of dollars in their mattress and cookie jars or coffee cans buried in their yards? They invest their money to make more money and that my friend puts people to work, in other words they are distributing wealth, at least the wealth that the government doesn't confiscate from them!

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Big companies are NOT investing money in any kind of growth that would spur new jobs.

          "U.S. corporations are piling up cash at the fastest rate in half a century. But instead of signaling a new wave of spending, that cash pile may mean tough times ahead.

          Non-financial companies in the United States had stacked up $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, the U.S. Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash made up 7.4% of the companies’ total assets -the largest chunk since 1959."

          http://www.thetradingreport.com/2010/12 … -51-years/

          1. lady_love158 profile image58
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So? Again, where is this cash "pile"? Is it actually a pile in a room where greedy CEOs go to roll in it and throw it into the air?

            Why are they piling up this cash to begin with? Could Obama fiscal and economic policy have anything to do with it?

            The uncertainty in business is why companies are "hoarding cash", because of foolish government spending and regualtion. This cash "hoard" is not sitting in a pile it is obviously in accounts in banks and investment firms and is being used to grow profits and employ people. Wake up man!

    6. Merlin Fraser profile image73
      Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have to add that I don't think the Poor give a Rat's Ass about the Poor !

        I came from a pretty proud but humble background and am happy to say that everything I have I worked for.  I took my knocks and opportunities with equal grace, I've had my share of luck both good and bad and tried not to blame anyone but myself when I screwed up.

        If the work and opportunities dried up in one place I moved while those around me bitched and moaned saying somebody's got to do something.

         Life isn't fair, anyone who tells you different is lying to you !

         For most of us Life is what you make it, and you're not going to like a lot of what you will have to do to change it

      However one small observation I would make all the people I know who moan about their poverty all seem to manage to smoke cigarettes, drink with their friends and watch big screen TV..... Funny That !

      1. Pandoras Box profile image67
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is true. Not in a blanket sort of way, but true enough that us bleeding heart libs are fools if we deny it.

        Yes, alot of people REALLY DO NEED HELP. But yes, alot of people -- RICH AND POOR ALIKE -- will truly take every advantage they can to keep from having to do any real work.

        And another set of folk are quite satisfied with their very limited lives, and make it something to be quite proud of. Others accept their own self-placed limitations, because it's their right to do so, dammit.

        But it's also true that power-hungry politicians have found that catering to the rich is a good way to stay in power.

      2. profile image0
        awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have to add that I don't think the Poor give a Rat's Ass about the Poor !

        I agree with you on that!

        I am not a fan of poverty because many symptoms of the poor are self inflicted and just helped along by the rich!

        My preference is to jump in with the well to do crowd, but it is sad to see the huge advantage given to them by idiot politicians who know nothing about economics!

    7. iamalegend profile image72
      iamalegendposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who knows. Some may some may not

    8. idamac profile image59
      idamacposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. I am amazed at the different views that are expressed here. Free thinking individuals getting together to discuss the woes of our society.

      In my opinion, class warfare does nothing to advance any individual or group. What it does though, is promote envy and greed, which can only profit those who wish to control the masses. If you take a good look at today's political climate, you will find that some idiot politicians are manipulating the poor by promoting class warfare.

      Each individual has the right, and responsibility, to do everything they can to create their own wealth in order to care for themselves and those they are responsible for. Worrying about what others have is not in the realm of responsibility of anyone else.

      Yes, giving a hand up is a great occupation, but giving a hand out is not. When you take away the pride of an individual by making them dependent upon, let's say big brother, you remove their reason for, and ability to, fend for themselves, making them SLAVES of the system.

      So, how does this relate to the subject at hand? Envy leads to blaming others for what we are unwilling to do for ourselves. We all have the same opportunities to build a better life. If you do not believe that, you really should take a look at those who choose to relocate to this country.

      Just like we citizens do, they make whatever they can of the opportunities they find here. Many come here with a different mindset than those who have been here all their lives. They decide to do whatever it takes to create their own wealth, with great success.

      Maybe we should take a lesson from them and change our mindset from envy and blame to self reliance and gratitude.

      Merlin, you said it very well.

      1. lady_love158 profile image58
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Very, very, well said!

      2. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Stop it, you're making sense.

      3. lxxy profile image59
        lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The difficulty here is that society has made it difficult for every individual to attain the most simplistic, basic needs.

        Can't plant food, can't raise animals, and then if disaster strikes your location--get to the stores now! Because what's on the shelf is all they have; technology has been kind to on demand inventory.

        1. idamac profile image59
          idamacposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You are right about that, but we don't have to allow it to continue to happen. Self reliance is a gift that we can give to ourselves.

          Janet Reno told us that we do not need to hunt because there is a grocery store on every corner. What she was trying to accomplish was to deny us our right to self reliance.

          Relying on that grocery store on every corner creates a society that can be led around like sheep.

          Everyone that has a place to set a pot of soil, can grow something to eat. What happens when we do this is learn how to become self reliant, teaching us what works and what does not. A spot in a window, on a terrace, patio or small yard affords enough room to plant some kind of produce.

          Anyone can provide for disaster relief for themselves by stockpiling non-perishable food as their living space will allow. Water, canned and boxed goods, as well as paper products that you will use anyway, are a good place to start so that you don't have to be part of the hoards who must "get to the stores now."

          That way we don't have to be left depending on "big brother" for our basic needs.

          Creative individuals can find a way to leave the big cities and raise animals if they want, and hunting is permissible.

    9. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      actually the percentage is more like 1% control the other 99%.

    10. thirdmillenium profile image60
      thirdmilleniumposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      An extremely dim view to take but the reality is that most rich are not given to ruminating about the poor. And, that is why not many rich people do not but care less. Thinking people, irrespective of their being poor or rich, do what they can to reach out to the poor; only the degree may vary

  2. Pandoras Box profile image67
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    I think the reality of poverty must be an extremely scary prospect to the rich.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image27
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Come ON!!! Let take the rich, we are smarter and have the more numbers of people.

      Wait a minute... they own the military too.

  3. brandonhart100 profile image84
    brandonhart100posted 6 years ago

    Some rich do care about the poor.  I have seen some incredible donations given by wealthy men and women who do seem to care. 

    Another interesting question similar to this one is that if you just "donate" money do you still care for the poor or is it necessary to "serve" the poor individually?  I think a lot of people are willing to donate money but few are willing to get on their knees and help "lift" up the poor out of their state.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image27
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      true too.

    2. profile image0
      awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In all the so called large donations, the loophole for the tax deductions exists! Let us truly eliminate charitable deductions gimmicks and then see how many large donations you hear about!

      I have a lawyer accountant friend and his knowledge about the tax code is amazing. You need to see the section relating to charitable foundations!

      1. Pandoras Box profile image67
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah this is all true. Business ethics as someone mentioned is another factor.

        But it all gets complicated by what all one thinks is the duty of the rich. Duty's not the word I mean, but I'm not up to par so let's just go with it.

        I mean, what duty does the rich have to care about the poor? What duty does the rich have to care about anything, and where does the line get drawn between protecting the ongoing well-being of their own family and giving it all away?

        I don't think it's as cut and dry as the rich vs. the poor. My original statement may have been misunderstood.

        What I actually meant to say was something along the lines of OMG if I was rich I'd never want to be poor again. There's a huge, vast, indescribable difference, I must imagine. I've been poor, I was raised poor, really poor, not just like lower middle class, like never knowing if the electricty or water is running, or if when you get home from school -where you had your one meal of the day- you'll find landlord locks on the front door poor.

        If I was ever rich, I'd do my best to stay that way. I wouldn't knowingly involve myself in being evil. But I wouldn't be all eager to share my good fortune with the world at large either.

      2. lady_love158 profile image58
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think you need to go here and see how many rich are giving away their wealth!

        http://givingpledge.org/#enter


        And by the way, in their life times how many people have made a living thanks to jobs created by rich people. Jobs that have fed and housed and clothed their families allowed them to put kids through college and save for retirement, and jobs that provided them with health insurance! I'm sick and tired of the people on the left hating on the rich that have done so much for this country just because they have more than you! Grow up! Quit bitching and go out and get rich yourself then lets see how generous you are!

        1. Pandoras Box profile image67
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, now, see it's this extremism on both sides that gets us nowhere.

          1. lady_love158 profile image58
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Extremism? Where do you see extremism? You think my view is extreme? It's the truth!

            1. Pandoras Box profile image67
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Most of those jobs are gone, first of all, cut to increase profits. I'm not saying that's wrong, necessarily, just the reality of your reality. The rich did not create those jobs in the first place to help people, but to get richer. It's not that they've "done so much for this country", that's just crazy talk, they did it to get richer. When they found out that instead of making a 100% profit here in America they could make a 1000% profit by moving all those jobs elsewhere, they did it.

              Come on, get real, the rich aren't selfless heroes, that's just a stupid argument that can only come from an extremist point of view.

              Who's got time? Damn I need another cigarette, and couldn't even smoke the first one.

              Pleasant diversions... Going back to the living off the land thread. This is raising my blood pressure, which probably isn't good for my lungs..

              1. Shadesbreath profile image88
                Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have to say, I don't think Ladylove's intent was to paint the wealthy classes as purely egalitarian. I think the point was that the wealth is still having a net benefit for the poor, regardless of it being used for the purpose of generating more wealth.

                I could be wrong, and don't mean to speak for Ladylove, but that's how I read the post.

                And I tend to agree with the positions stated above that, if we were to just dump all of the wealth of the rich out into the streets in poor neighborhoods, all of it would be spent on the trappings of wealth, and would shortly be back in the hands of people who understand trade and commerce.

                Possessing money is not enough. One must be motivated to learn how it works, and that requires a great deal of effort, discipline and study--the foundation of which is provided for free by tax dollars, even in the worst schools (they are teaching math and economics, whether any of the students choose to pay attention or not). If there is a reason that students don't avail themselves of that information, that can't be blamed on the tax payers. Tax payers merely provide the funding for the buildings, salaries and books. It's up to local families to make a suitable learning environment out of the free stuff they are getting in that deal. Until families value the skill set that makes and holds wealth, we will be listening to people bitch about how the rich are holding them down.

                1. Pandoras Box profile image67
                  Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think it was the things like "the rich have done so much to help this country" and "people on the left mad cuz someone has something you don't" which struck me as extreme.

                2. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Right on! I think the hate of the rich is based upon jealousy and envy and by the perception that having more than you need makes you "greedy". This view is promoted by liberal, socialist, progressive, democrats, in an effort to fuel class warfare and garner support for their agenda, the destruction of America by the instillation of a socialist society. These people are evil manipulators and evidenced by the comments here, extremely effective!

                  Man up people and face the TRUTH! You are being used!

                  1. DTR0005 profile image79
                    DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow... you're right - without the socialist media and the Democrats, none of us "poor black, white, or Hispanic trash" would EVER  realize there are indeed wealthy people in our country or such a great disparity in wealth. Can I fetch yo horse ma'am?

    3. dutchman1951 profile image59
      dutchman1951posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      brandon, you are right on the money with your comment.

      donations are good for conscience, but street level work to break the poverty cycle is hard and not many want to get that close.

      it is a shame and a sham.

  4. Aficionada profile image90
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    It's hard to say what "most" do or feel, unless we have actual studies to back up the statements; but it's also understandable that one's background and experiences will affect their perceptions.  The rich people I know personally are pretty varied in their attitudes towards the poor.  Some keep themselves separate, and some definitely do not. 

    My older sister (retired, nearly 70 years old) was in a highly-paid profession.  By my standards she is rich (not obscenely so, but definitely rich).  For years, she would make sandwiches and drive around her city to hand them out to homeless people during cold months.  She did that on her own, without any prompting from anyone else. 

    Now she engages in a frequent activity to help out impoverished people who are trying to find work to lift themselves up out of poverty.  She may be the exception, but I don't know that for certain, and I'm really not sure anyone does. 

    I think it's helpful to remember that bad examples often outweigh good ones in our understanding of each other.  I also think that that is very unfortunate.

    1. Lita C. Malicdem profile image59
      Lita C. Malicdemposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Most" of those rich but not "all" of them don't care for the poor. Just like "most" of the poor, but not "all" of them don't care for a fellow poor. Indeed, if we exhaust our actual observations and studies of documentaries of the rich helping the poor, we might discover yet that there are only few bad examples who are outrun by the "rich with a big heart" for the poor.

      I'm not rich, but I care for the poor especially the children. It's a legacy from my parents to share the little we have, feed the hungry everytime we see our chance. When they died, I'd been on my own helping out the most needy. It doesn't hurt me if I share with them the food I eat or bail them out of an urgent need with a little cash.

      Every Christmas, it's a family tradition to share our blessings to the neighborhood kids and their families, relatives or not. We throw a Children's Christmas Party for them, let them play games, give prizes, gifts of giveaway grocery items and a little cash to the most deserving.

      I really don't bother myself if the rich don't give to the poor. Everybody can, anyway. I have recorded on CD our December 25 Christmas Party and gave it to them. And their happiness in  viewing it has more than given me back the joy of sharing. My proof is written in one of my blogs so that others might consider doing the same.

  5. Pandoras Box profile image67
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    Chances are that more rich people care for the poor than poor people care for the rich.

    1. profile image0
      awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think the reverse is the truth! Remember the poor feed the rich!

      1. Pandoras Box profile image67
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe so, but we don't care about them one wit. Unless they're famous in some way, and then they likely have as many poor haters as lovers.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image27
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How dose the rich care about the poor?

          About 44% of the world population makes less than $2 a day and 1/3 of the world is homeless

          In Canada in around 1965, a CEO made 25 times more than the average person wage Today a CEO makes 350 times greater than the average persons income.

          I made $20 an hour as a brick layer. My wages today would have remains the same if I was still working as in the stated in the 1970s. Then housing has gone up by 30 times or more since 1970. So what gives with the rich?

          Is it all about profit, by owning most of us? Not the freedom I signed up for with the Government, and they hasn’t the expensive slick lawyers to confront the very rich on it. We all need to stand up for our selves, people,

          1. Pandoras Box profile image67
            Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I understand what you're saying, and I agree it's bad and I am a dirty progressive liberal. Sign me up, man.

            BUT.. Do you think the rich are truly heartless? Do you think rich people as some sort of rule do not care? The question here isn't is everything right in the world, or even should the rich help the poor, the question is do they -the rich- care about the poor.

            A blanket no is dumb. Just as dumb, no doubt, as a blanket yes.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image27
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Michel Moore did a common general questionnaire comparing the low income and the rich

              The low income won 26 to 6, we are smarter than the rich and we don't know it.

  6. Jed Fisher profile image87
    Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    Awe, it's actually worse than you think. 2% of Americans control over 90% of the wealth. Historicaly, when the 80/20 threshold is crossed, (80% of wealth held by 20% of people) a bloody revoloution occours. But in modern times, that is hard to gauge. The quality of life enjoyed by a modern "poor" person is not really that bad. A fast-food worker can afford an apartment with heat, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, internet-cable-phone, HD tv, smart phone and a gaming console, and a decent little car like a Hyundai Accent. Compare the quality of life for a millionare in 1911 to that of a minimum wage worker in 2011. The modern "poor" have it way better. The joke is on the modern rich; they forefiet the most important thing in life, their freedom sacrificed at the alter of the great Money religion, on their knees worshiping the Almighty Dollah.

    1. Pandoras Box profile image67
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good points, and it brings me back to my original comment on this thread.

      Although to be fair, the trade-off there is pretty nice.

    2. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do tell who normally wins that "revolution" sir. What does history tell us?

  7. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    I care about you all very much

    1. profile image0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's that heart of gold that you have!

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        many of my body parts have the same look and feel as metal

        1. profile image0
          klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I hope you registered to be an organ donor!

    2. JustMike profile image43
      JustMikeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      let's say your correct and the rich care nothing for the poor they are still forced to spend an far greater amount of money on the poor in the form of taxes than the poor will ever spend on themselves. As far as tax breaks for donations well then close them all. If you want to better yourself then do it it's not the fault of someone who has something that you don't that you can't get ahead. Go and better yourself. No matter what I have. Only you can make your station in life better. Someone said they were working for under minimum wage. QUIT, that job and get a different one. If all the rich donated all the money to all the poor how soon do you think the poor would be broke but would have the fattest HDTV and the biggest SUV out there. Then how long would it take for the rich to become wealthy again because they have a lot of human capital. Education and knowledge that's valuable to others.

      1. profile image0
        awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You want to close tax breaks for the well to do? Not in America for sure! You have to understand how the system work!

        I urge everyone to find a good tax accountant or just look it up yourself and you will be amazed at the tax breaks built into the system!

        Personally I do not blame them, but I do think it is unfair how the financial game is rigged to favor the well to do!

        If the USA eliminated all tax breaks (all of them) The long term debt would be paid for in less than 10 years!

        1. Pandoras Box profile image67
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If we eliminated all tax breaks, nobody would do business in america anymore and everyone capable of it would move elsewhere.

          It's not that simple.

  8. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    Let’s just evaluate two words

    Charity and Crime

    Then lets see, who is it that contributes to charity?

    Who benefits from Charity?

    Okay

    Who participates in crime?

    Who benefits from crime?

    God the Rich are terrible!

    Let’s string them all up steal all their wealth and spend it.

    Okay, now what do we do tomorrow?

    1. Pandoras Box profile image67
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Okay actually the answer to each of your questions is both the rich and the poor.

      1. readytoescape profile image61
        readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The answers are, (without being philosophic about being philanthropic)

        The Rich
        The poor
        The poor
        The poor

        1. Pandoras Box profile image67
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Naw you're fudging it. Rich and poor alike.

          1. readytoescape profile image61
            readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            New answers just for you!

            Who is it that contributes to charity?

            I’d say it is those that have something to contribute, primarily the rich.
            Not to say the poor don’t contribute but really can you eat time or a volunteer? Didn’t we outlaw cannibalism?

            Who benefits from Charity?

            Those that need it, typically not those that can care for themselves.


            Who participates in crime?

            Those that want and are not willing to earn it. Pretty sure that does not apply to the rich.

            Who benefits from crime?

            Those that have stolen from others and profit by not earning. Now the rich as a result of crime do get to pay higher insurance premiums, increased security costs to protect their property, and increased taxes to pay for police and prisons.

            1. Shadesbreath profile image88
              Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I take it you never heard of Bernie Madoff.

              1. readytoescape profile image61
                readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                As we appear to be debating in social generalities basically the rich vs. the poor, your example doesn’t exactly fit the parameter.

                However if we were to compare those that have committed crimes on an individual basis, I don’t think there is enough bandwidth to list all the names that could be attached to the  “poor” classification that have committed crimes.

                Thank you for allowing me to demonstrate my point.

              2. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Or the global banking system. Or insurance. Or college education loans. Or credit cards. etc etc etc

            2. profile image0
              awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              percentage wise, the poor and middle class give more to charity than the well to do!

              1. readytoescape profile image61
                readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I agree with the middle class, but then again the middle class is considered rich.

            3. kirstenblog profile image74
              kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              So offering our time and car and its petrol when we were poor goat farmers in Missouri to drive to the big city to collect food donations from poor nuns, baking treats to sell at church bingo's on Friday to raise money to pay for that food was not the poor contributing to the charity in our little town of Willow Springs? Interesting, guess we where wasting our time then!


              so the rich do not benefit in the form of a stable society with less need driven crime then?


              Never heard of white collar crime then? Haliburton? Hali-who-then? roll


              It is just silly to assume the rich all got that way through hard work, not the slavery that built Americas wealth in the first place, not white collar crime, or selling dangerous things like cigarettes while adding more and more deadly chemicals. There are criminal wealthy people, there are criminal poor people (I somehow feel more sympathy for the poor criminals for some strange reason). There are rich people that contribute to charity, there are poor people that contribute to charity and sometimes there are charities that are started by the poor, supported by the poor that serve the poor that have never seen a rich person donate once.

              1. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Many poor people have no choice but to turn to crime as a means of making money. And this should increase right quick, with the way things are going around here.
                Or they are forced to go through garbage to find food.
                Homelss families, homeless vets, homeless seniors.....it makes me furious!

                In the GD "richest country in the world".

                Cause by golly---we don't give things away for free...except those big incomes we let the Ubers keep by taking more money from the less well-off.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  you always have a choice. Don't enable criminals.

                  Minimum wage is one reason why people can't get jobs.

                  Inability to be frugal with money is a reason why some people "have no choice" -- but really they just made the wrong choice countless times.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But we've proved that the minimum wage has no negative effect on jobs.
                    It could be argued that by stimulating demand for goods it has a positive effect on the availability of jobs.

                    Think, if you are on a very low wage and you can only afford one loaf of bread, then a pay rise means that you can afford two loaves of bread, how does that destroy jobs?

                    Anarchist!

          2. Kotori profile image71
            Kotoriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.  You'd be shocked, readytoescape, to see my poverty-stricken students hold fundraisers and do philanthropic activities!  I have only 60 students, yet when I held a holiday card drive for deployed military, my students brought in cards, stamps, and envelopes, as well as filling out the cards.  We mailed 75 cards!!  You underestimate the poor.  Many of them give far beyond their means!

            1. readytoescape profile image61
              readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Actually I would not, I have seen it as well, since I do a fair share of benefits per year, but I have also seen the opposite on the six-o-clock news and in the newspapers or at the mall everyday.

              And sometimes shockingly, it's the same kids. 

              It is a rather sad state of affairs that there is this much disparity in common values, those that are upheld and those that are ignored. Perhaps that is the difference between the “rich” and the “poor.”

              Further these two words, so easily thrown about to describe societal groups, are too effortlessly applied without a defined truth as a demarcation between them.

              1. Pandoras Box profile image67
                Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That's true, that last sentence anyway. One need better define rich and poor when making comparisons.

                But I'm intrigued by the third paragraph. Which in your mind is which?

                Doesn't matter. Either way I disagree.


                I don't know. Overall, I am just amazed by the length of this thread and the many people who are quick to agree that 'the rich don't care about the poor.' As a blanket statement like.

                Come on, really?!! It's not so much that I think they're out there in a constant state of worry over the poor, but don't care?

                I think it's like ya'll think they catch some sort of disease once they become rich. Human nature -- I think -- makes it very obvious that a great many of them indeed would, actively. I mean, actively with their wallets.


                And after dwelling on it a bit, I'm highly offended by the person who said that the charitable giving of the poor or middle class is of no value.

  9. brandonakelly profile image60
    brandonakellyposted 6 years ago

    I believe that even if we were to vote a poor person into office, they would become corrupted. Largely in part, due to becoming wealthy and drunk with power themselves. They also would have a hard time changing things that have been in affect, well, forever. So, the only thing we can do is try and better ourselves and not worry about what the rich do.

    1. JD Barlow profile image60
      JD Barlowposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Your survival and well being is your responsibility and no one else's. If you are a brick mason still making $20 per hour and are upset about it, then create an new profession or job for yourself. Most millionaires in this country are people who worked and saved all of their lives, did without and invested so they could get ahead and they are first generation rich! If you want total security in food, housing, etc; then move to a nation that will provide, but this nation is one built upon the idea that we are not only able, but willing to stand for our freedoms and with those freedoms, run the risk of failure. Remember what was once said, "any government willing to give you anything, is able to take anything", including your life, so becareful what you wish for as you may get your wish if this nation continues upon the road it now travels.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image27
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Once I was a millionaire and yet still been an artist for 35 years, Living in the middle ground lifestyle from it all, is best.

        That's is all I ask, is move people toward the middle grounds of their desires.

        1. Pandoras Box profile image67
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You know, I don't even care. I don't think anyone else ever really cares either, how the rich live, what they do with their money, we don't care. Never did, until people started making a them vs. us issue out of it. We watched lifetsyles of the rich and famous and shook our heads in amazement and that was that.

          As long as the system allows everyone a viable living -luck and foolish choices aside- most of us are happy enough.

  10. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    As a previous poster stated. Poor is now a relative term. You have to narrow down the definition of "poor" to  answer this question. Some here are saying that a third of the world is homeless. Are they including nomads and tribal peoples living off the land? They still exist in some parts of the world.

    1. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      for the un-politically correct definition of the "poor" agenda insert "jealous" "envy" "covet"

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It has nothing to do with jealousy envy or covet. It's wanting to be able to provide for your family, and the prices keep going up, while the wages stay low.

        Wages have stagnated for the working class...yet ceo's are earning 500 times that of their workers.
        It's not envy, it's outright outrage at the injustice!

        Poor people have kids too you know.
        Poor people work too you know.

        Quality of life is as different as night and day.

        And why? Because those who have want more and more and more and more. And the system serves them.

        1. Rafini profile image87
          Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          totally agree with you chris - also, ceo's insist on receiving annual cost of living raises of say $25,000 and an annual bonus/perks package of $100,000-$500,000 while enforcing a $0.25/hour annual increase for low level employees.


          the rich are greedy, no question about it.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sounds a lot like envy to me.

            As for greedy, well...

            1. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              lol lol lol

          2. lady_love158 profile image58
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            EVERYBODY is greedy! Everyone wants MORE than what they have! Have you listened to all those here bashing the rich and complaining how they should give up their wealth to the poor? Do you hear them complaining how their wages aren't rising fast enough? They are every bit as greedy as the rich, they just aren't...well... RICH! I mean that in every sense of the word, economically as well as morally!

            1. lxxy profile image59
              lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't disagree; a lot of jealousy can be had of riches. It's why the Viking's got a kick out of the down-and-out plague-stricken europe. Run in, loot, pillage, destroy...and many of these gold items were stolen from territories back "east." (See: Crusades)

              I don't personally see the value of money. I see value in gold, as a mineral. Fine conductor! Why would I want to wear it around my neck? I need it for circuits.

              Do I fear having not enough resources to live off of? Indeed. Especially long-term. The values placed on materials confuse the hell out of me. I see how and I get greed (being a form of power) but does my species need resources (food, clothing, medicine, new technology to replace useless tasks) or bottom line returns on financial investments?

              1. lady_love158 profile image58
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                This is why I am so opposed to property taxes and other regulations limiting private property rights! I don't think the government should be allowed to have an interest in MY land! At least then I could support myself in definitely without asking the government for anything.

            2. lovemychris profile image81
              lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are clueless lady.
              Maybe if you ever saw a hungry kid, or one who is freezing in the cold winter, you would understand.
              Or maybe a senior on a fixed income who has to choose between heat, food or medicine.
              I guess they are greedy for not wanting to suffer.

              Tell you what....we have new rules around here now. New austerity for all but the wealthy.
              You will get to keep your money...you will just take all from the middle class.
              Owners can pay what they like, businesses can charge whatever they feel is right.
              So what if millions go cold and hungry...America is all about the bottom line for business owners and the bankers that fund them.
              Oh, and don't forget that new war we need to get involved in (Iran), and don't forget that we need to stay in Afghanistan permanently (Graham). TONS of  tax money spent there....but hey--at least it's not going to those dam greedy poor people, huh?

              1. lady_love158 profile image58
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, it's not the role of government to help the poor. They just aren't good at it! Just look at Haiti!

                If you want to help the poor then get government off our backs and out of our wallets. Let's open America for business again! Cut corporate taxes, eliminate regulations that are driving business out of the country. Shrink government let the people keep more of their money, now everyone that wants a job can have one and with all the extra money in our pockets we can contribute more to our churches and organizations that help the poor! That's what will work lady!

                1. profile image0
                  awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You do have a point in that the govt cannot help the poor, but they do help the rich in tremendous ways!

                  Actually, corporations never had it so good tax wise!

                  What we are going through is the phenomenon of globalization and how it is reducing American wages to peanuts!

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "Actually, corporations never had it so good tax wise!"

                    If paying the highest corporate tax in the world is good then they are having a great time.

                    But it ain't.

                2. Rafini profile image87
                  Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Wouldn't it make more sense to heavily tax corporations that choose to outsource their labor to foreign countries?

                  1. lady_love158 profile image58
                    lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    They ARE heavily taxed, which is WHY they left in the first place! Taxes and burdensome and costly regulations....and BTW, who do you think pays those taxes? We do, the consumers, as those "costs" to do business are passed along to a great degeree in the price of their products!

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                charity exists. Use it instead of theft through taxes.

                Taxation =/= charity.

            3. Rafini profile image87
              Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              well...I don't necessarily consider someone who is earning $10.00/hr & wants a legit annual cost of living raise of (say) $1.13/hr to be greedy....

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                But some rich person will have to pay that $1.13 an hour and that might mean that the boss can no longer afford his second home. It is your duty to provide them with plenty, not their's to provide you with enough.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image27
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      CJ

      Yes

  11. Rafini profile image87
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    I have to agree with awesome77 -

    the rich don't give a rat's a$$ about the poor, otherwise they'd willingly pay increased wages to their employees rather than forcing them to quit in order to pay lower wages to someone else who can't do the job half as well as the person who just quit.

    However, there are some exceptions...the rich who give all their money away, such as Bill Gates & the Facebook dude.

    As for the rich donating to charity - how many do you honestly think would continue to donate anything if they didn't receive a tax deduction for it?  If it doesn't cost them anything, they're going to be willing - just like anyone else who willingly takes things for free.  Think about it, charity wouldn't have to exist, to the extent it does now, if the rich employers willingly increased their employees pay to a living wage.

  12. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    Everyone seems to be so concerned with the rich now because of the political promises being made about distributing the wealth. And the politicians need to create the illusion of civic pressure to increase taxes on everyone, by using the rich as the bad guy.

    Everybody loves the Robinhood theme, how many friggin movies have been made.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Historically speaking, they don't have a terribly good record. I geuss they're happy as long as we don't die on the job.

    2. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's the reverse Robinhood that bothes me. Which your "new" Congress is trying to make permanent.

  13. Misha profile image73
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    - Do You Think The Poor Care About The Rich?

    - No, I don't think so

    - Then why do you think the rich should care about the poor?

    - I don't care, they just should

    - Ah, OK, good luck then...

  14. Don Simkovich profile image60
    Don Simkovichposted 6 years ago

    I know some rich people who have helped start nonprofit organizations and sit on the board of directors. Unfortunately, to say the "rich" don't care about the poor is way too general a statement to be meaningful. I sometimes do feel like the rich don't care but I think many do care but do not have time to be hands-on.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think many are so  detached from life that they don't realise what poverty is.

      When the minimum wage was being discussed in the UK a noted liberal Judge came out in favour of the minimum wage but said he thought £5 an hour was a ridiculous figure. "Surely there was nobody left earning as little as £5 ph"!

      1. Kotori profile image71
        Kotoriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're right, John Holden.  Most wealthy people are detached from what the rest of us consider to be "real life."  They can't even connect to the middle class.  That's probably why we have politicians who are still voting to give themselves raises in economic times such as these, when the rest of America has been on wage freezes for three years or unemployed.

  15. Kotori profile image71
    Kotoriposted 6 years ago

    I grew up as a middle class girl from a very wealthy town.  We had the eyesore house that everyone wished would get torn down.  We had a comfortable living in a single family home (albeit with carpenter ants and other issues) on a busy street in a town with great schools near a major city.  My dates to dances had olympic size pools, marble floors, grand pianos, Lexuses, and the like.

    I worked for rich people for a long time.  For three years I worked as a hostess and waitress at a restaurant in one of the richest communities in the nation.  I also worked directly for an octo-millionaire.  Some of my in-laws are also wealthy.

    Now I am a teacher in a community with an 80% rate of reported poverty.

    What I can say is that you can't put rich people into a category any more than you can poor people.  Most rich folks believe they have a social consciousness and funnel it into donations and volunteerism.  Since safety is a main value of rich culture, that necessitates separating them from many of the more dangerous, or poor elements of society.

    But yes, many wealthy people couldn't care less about the poor, take their own success as a point of pride, and believe that poorer people are merely less hardworking, rather than less lucky.  It is this attitude of believing that their success is deserved that keeps them from caring more about those without success.

    As our old friend Emily Dickinson once noted,

    "Success is counted sweetest
    By those who ne'er succeed.
    To comprehend a nectar
    Requires sorest need."

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "What I can say is that you can't put rich people into a category any more than you can poor people."

      Well said, Katori.  I also have a problem with the OP, on the point you express so well. 'Care' is an individual trait, not one of class.There ARE people like Bill Gates, putting his time and fortune to the best use they can - but I don't think they are the norm. But they must be recognized and the OP fails to do that.

  16. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I've known wealthy people on a first-name basis, including family members, and they represent both the best and the worst of humanity. Some will claw and scrape for every penny they can get, with no thought of who is ruined in the process. On the other hand, I've known some who have done amazing things for needy individuals, without ever using them as tax deductions.

  17. 2besure profile image85
    2besureposted 6 years ago

    There are some rich who donate a lot of money to their personal causes.  Some even give to the poor.  I wonder how much they would give, if they could not write it off as a tax deduction.  In short, no, basically the rich do not care about the poor.

  18. lrohner profile image83
    lrohnerposted 6 years ago

    I guess I just don't get the big deal here. Why should the rich care about the poor? If they do, good for them. They are better people for it. I just don't get the whole "obligation" thing. If I became rich by working my arse off, does that obligate me to donate money to those who prefer to watch television all day and collect a welfare check?

    Taking it one step further, do the poor care about the sick people? Do those making minimum wage go out of their way to help the homeless?

    1. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Seems to me, it is mainly the poor or the bleeding hearts that appear to be doing all the complaining. So the liberal politicians jumped on board so they could demonize the wealthy in an effort to raise taxes. Then the liberal media picked up the banner and started thumping the political drum, THE EVIL RICH.

      Now here we are at hub pages debating a trumped up issue that is nothing more than envy and jealousy.

    2. profile image0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Irohner,  The original post asked if the rich care.  Nothing was said about any obligation.

      Then you ask about people on minimum wage going out of their way to help the homeless.  Have you ever tried to live on minimum wage?  Most people who get minimum wage have to work more than one job, and don't have the time or financial wherewithall to help the homeless.  They are just one step ahead of being homeless themselves.

      Get real.

    3. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, people ,earning no more than minimum wage are willing to help the homeless - most likely if it's someone they know personally - and are willing to lend a couch or floor with a sleeping bag/blankets.

  19. profile image0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    The rich feed off of the labors of the people.  We live under a debt monetary system, where all M1 money, (The only money that the people, businesses and government are allowed to use to pay their everyday bills), is created through the extension of credit from private commercial banks, or in the case of government, through other debt instruments, such as bonds. M1 money consists of coin, currency, and electronic transfer.

    This system is rigged so only so many can achieve vast fortunes.
    The rest of the people must remain financial slaves of varying degrees, or the system would go bust. If we quit borrowing, we begin an immediate economical collapse. If there is no debt, there can be no dollars.

    Money and wealth are two different things.  You can have wealth in the equity of your home, your vehicle or in stocks and bonds.  You cannot however, spend that wealth until it is converted into M1 money.  To accomplish this, you would have to either sell some of your wealth to someone, or take out a loan against some of your wealth in order to convert to money.

    One way money is created.

    Let's take for example, a person buying a house. That person goes to a bank and applies for a loan.  The banker says "you are a good risk, so we will accomodate you".

    The person then signs a loan or mortgage agreement, Mortgaging a portion of his earnings for the next 30 years. For simplicity, let's say that the person wants to borrow $200,000. 
    The bank, upon the signing of the agreement, puts 200,000 numbers in that person's account, so he/she can pay for the house. How was this money created?  The banks operate under fractional banking, and only have to have 10% in reserve in order to make the loan.  The only explanation on how this money was created that I can see, is that it was created on the borrowers promise to pay, and the numbers were created out of thin air, by pressing on computer keys.

    Let's take it a little further.  The banker, over the 30 year life of the mortgage, for having done approximately two weeks of pre-mortgage paperwork, and sending out monthly statements for 30 years, will collect approximately $400,000 in interest, on the original $200,000 loan.  NO money was created in this financial deal, to pay the interest on the loan.  Where did the money come from to pay that interest?  It came from the debt principle of other people's loans, that was spent into circulation, and captured through commerce by the original borrower.

    If the borrower fails to pay the mortgage off, the banker can foreclose and resell the same property in the same manner.

    We have to keep borrowing to keep this ponzi scheme going.  We cannot pay down our national or state's indebtedness.

    The cost of interest, goes into the cost of living and/or higher taxes. Nothing will change until we change from a debt monetary system, to a wealth monetary system.  So you see, the wealthy do have an advantage over the poor, and make sure they keep that advantage by plying favor from politicians in return for campaign contributions. 
    Little do they realize that slowly but surely, they are killing their own markets. Their own wellbeing is their only concern, and they don't realize that by not caring for the hand that feeds them, their fortunes may one day disappear.

    Just my 2 cents worth

    1. profile image0
      awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You're more informed than the average Joe! Reading some of the answers on this topic, most people really have no clue how this system operates!

      1. Castlepaloma profile image27
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Times are tough, I saw a homeless man buy cup of coffee for a dollar used an bank interact card costing $1.50 and gave a tip of $1.50,  If you multiply that coffee price by a ½ million, that’s how middle class person would buy a house for in Vancouver Canada, add mortgage, taxes and running cost.

        I have No wonder why the middle class are becoming homeless.

        North America’s obsession with big houses has lowered the consumer confidence of 2/3 of the population in the USA that can not afford housing,

      2. profile image0
        jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        awesome77,  They don't teach this in highschool and college.  They want to keep the majority of the sheeple dumbed down.  The PTB are afraid that the people will revolt if they actually knew how this system operates.

        You are right.  most people have no clue.  They think money is just out there.

        When I ask people how money is created, most of them say, "I work and my boss or company pays me".  I then say to them, your company or boss didn't always have money. Where did they get the money?  Their answer is that the boss or company sells their product or services to people.

        Then I say that people didn't always have money either!  I tell them that money has to have an origin.  It has to be created, and there has to be a way to get it into circulation.  When we get this far into the conversation, most people don't want to talk about it any longer.  It's like their belief system is being destroyed.

        It is, in my opinion, that some of  our founding fathers were no better than the greedy speculators of today.  They allowed a debt monetary system to be put into place.  Hamilton was the chief proponent of the debt systems.

        I find it ironic that congress gave the power to control our monetary system over to the federal reserve, which is not a part of our government.

        The government can create money by borrowing on the citizen's credit card.  This is done constantly.  It is revealed to the people every time congress raises the debt ceiling, but the people just shrug and say, "what can I do about it"? 

        Our problems are the greed of the speculators and the apathy of the people.  It's no wonder that your question about the rich caring about the poor came to mind.  The wealthy always seem to blame poverty on the people's laziness, when the monetary system itself, keeps the majority of the people in a financial quagmire, just making enough  to keep their noses above water.

        Well, the greed of the speculators in the high tech and housing bubbles, have shown us just how fast this system can bring us to the brink of financial ruin. Most people are living 1 or 2 paychecks away from the poorhouse!

  20. pisean282311 profile image53
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    do poor care about rich?...i guess it is human nature to care about oneself and one's loved ones..so it is more about individual than being rich or poor..some rich might care a lot about everyone including poors and some might not...

  21. profile image55
    ichliebe12posted 6 years ago

    As my opinion,common prosperity is  true prosperity.
    So I think the richer should help the poorer.
    Actually ,it's very helpful to the country's developing.!

    1. pisean282311 profile image53
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      well i dont think rich are obliged to help poor...yes we may think it is but it is not...every person is responsible for his/her life ...rich is not government..helping is personal choice...if i have billion dollar  , i would open institutes which would help middle class and poor to work their way up with proper training but that is what i choosed and not that i am obliged to...

  22. BillyDRitchie profile image59
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    Yes, if we have means then I believe we should help those who are in genuine need.  However that ios a personal view and I don't expect it to be shared by everyone, and I certainly don't believe that the rich should be forced to contribute at the point of a gun.

    Many wealthy people give in great amounts to charity, while others hold onto every cent they have.  It is their money and it is their decision.

    I'm not sure how anybody arrives at the conclusion that we should be able to dictate how people above a certain income level should use their money.

  23. Joy56 profile image59
    Joy56posted 6 years ago

    I am pretty poor, i do care about everyone.... I have been richer, I enjoyed sharing my money with family.....

    If i was rich, i would be happy to share, until i become poor again, when nobody would share with me.....

      Me Me Me that's all i think about., 

    A lot of rich people are not happy, so we poor ones can share our happiness..

      What am i talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  big_smile

    1. kirstenblog profile image74
      kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You ain't wrong saying a lot of rich people are not happy big_smile
      I rather like being somewhere in the middle smile

      1. Joy56 profile image59
        Joy56posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        yeah somewhere in the middle is a cool place to be............

  24. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Let's see what the rich people do for the poor:

    Henry Ford provided a cheap car that let millions (billions?) of people move around the country at their own pace and find jobs wherever they needed.

    Rockefeller helped fuel those cars. He helped get people to the jobs they needed.

    Bill Gates produced computers that have revolutionized the world.

    Whoever owns Wal-mart (it doesn't matter) provides cheap goods to just about anyone in the US.

    And countless other examples match this description.

    ---

    People who think that the "rich" are evil simply don't understand economics. It really is that simple.

    Understand that if you have a flushing toilet, a warm home, and lighting in your home, that you lived better than every King in history.

  25. Jim Hunter profile image60
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    There are new rules in the 112th Congress, pay as you go is now cut as you go. In other words, if new spending is to occur cuts have to be made elsewhere.

    All new legislation will have to be posted on the internet for 3 days before it can be voted on.

    The debt ceiling can only be raised by a vote instead of being raised automatically.

    1. profile image0
      awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would not bet on that happening! The incoming congress is bought and paid for by special interest groups! It is pay back time!

      If they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, then i know things might change!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The problem isn't the companies.

        The problem is the fact that our government has no incentive to NOT pay the companies.

        Despite the 10th amendment outlawing just about everything our federal government pays for, they still do it. They are able to get away with it because they twist the language of words.

        When you require laws to be written down, the only way to get around a law is to change the definition of laws.

      2. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "The incoming congress is bought and paid for by special interest groups! It is pay back time!"

        I'm part of the special interest group.

  26. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    Wow I am amazed at all the folks claiming to be poor here in the discussion.

    It’s a rather odd conundrum though, I didn’t know the poor could afford computers and internet service or were even educated well enough to use them.

    I wonder if there is an agenda or they are all sitting in a public library somewhere?

    Oh wait, here we are at jealousy and envy again.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      But from which side?

      Margaret Thatcher said in so many words that the rich needed to be given more money to motivate them, the poor needed to be paid less to motivate them!

      I'm sure not many people consciously think that way but from remarks made by many, including some on this forum, there are plenty who sub-consciously share that belief.

  27. kephrira profile image58
    kephriraposted 6 years ago

    Of course the rich care about the poor. If there weren't poor people then they wouldn't be rich, so they care very much about people being poor. Just not in the way that the poor people might hope that they care.

  28. Daniel Carter profile image91
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    The rich care about the poor only to the extent that it effects them. They don't want people in dire poverty because then it means they have to do something about it. The rich are not completely amoral. They have a conscience inasmuch as it may send twinges of guilt and they would have to give up their conveniences to help the sad plight of others.

    However, there are exceptions to this, obviously. There are people who have untold wealth who have left it all and spent their lives helping those less fortunate than themselves.

    The problem as I see it is entitlement. The rich believe that they worked hard for their riches, and believe that the poor are deserving of their condition. They are not all wrong in that regard. However, there are plenty of poor who, through shear bad luck, must muddle through their circumstances as best they can. In these cases, it would seem they need a good opportunity to turn things around. This where the rich should do some mentoring.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "They don't want people in dire poverty because then it means they have to do something about it."

      They don't HAVE to do anything.

      Where is it written that they HAVE to do something?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Couldn't agree more, let the rich spend their money as they will, ban all charities, can you imagine anything more obscene than one of the richest nations in the world having a charity day involving national TV and radio to raise money for children and not third world children but children of that very nation.

        Making any section of society dependent on charity is obscene, obscene, obscene!

        Pay everybody a living wage.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe people need to learn to live on what they are paid.

          If a job is only worth 10 bucks an hour why should anyone pay more?

          By the way, you are not entitled to a job.

          1. lxxy profile image59
            lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't understand why you continue to employ each other for menial tasks? Why not continue to replace these jobs with automatic means? This would free you up to pursue more laudable goals than pouring a double mocha chai latte.

            You are correct, however, in stating that a "job" is never a guarantee in life. Which is plenty fine, because you don't need one to learn how to grow food and build shelter.

            1. Flightkeeper profile image72
              Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well someone has to help me make my latte, I don't know how to work the machine.

              1. lxxy profile image59
                lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That alludes to the design not being user friendly. That's a flaw that can be fixed. wink

              2. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Then you are only worth minimum wage.

                1. Flightkeeper profile image72
                  Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh then I'm gonna end up owing.  I drink far more than the minimum wage. lol

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You are my kinda woman.

                    I get prettier when I drink.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              When a shovel can pick itself up and dig then I guess we'll stop.

              When a bulldozer can move itself around and be aware of possible dangers to other things, we'll stop.

              When that double mocha chai latte can pour itself into a cup we'll stop.

              1. lxxy profile image59
                lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You can already attain these things; it's not the fact society can't be automated, you're just moving about it too slow.

                Like China--after their horrendous earthquake, it was simply more "economical" to employ all citizens and supply them with such rudimentary tools than to fly in items that could accomplish the 
                task quicker, possibly saving more lives.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But what if the pay is not enough to pay rent or buy food?

            If a job is only worth ten bucks an hour what right has an employer to expect somebody to do it?

            No, I'm not entitled to a job but neither am I entitled to squat and no longer is the life of a hunter gatherer practical for the vast majority. That leaves  me with only one option and that is to take off those with plenty, wouldn't they rather give a controlled amount than lose everything?

            1. lady_love158 profile image58
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Get a second job like I did! I once worked 20 hours a day to support my lifestyle. Why should I expect someone else to pay my way?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                For a start there aren't enough jobs to go around at the moment!

                Would you have chosen to work 20 hours a day for life?

                Did you not feel by working for so little that you were actually paying somebody else's way?

                1. lady_love158 profile image58
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  There aren't enough jobs because of government!

                  No I never felt like I was paying someone else' way.

                  I would have done what I had to do as long as was necessary without regret. We as a people have a moral obligation to reach our highest potential, to achieve all that we can, and to help others in need, that does not mean that we should support government as though it was a charitable organization. You see the mind set here is very different than in Europe. We left the Empire just for that reason. We want our government to keep us free and to leave us alone. We don't want our government to help us or to hurt us in our pursuit of happiness and prosperity. It's that simple. You people in the Empire want your King to take care of you all. That's fine, but that's not America!

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Where is the freedom in working 20 hour days to keep body and soul together?

                    BTW King! er we don't have one.

              2. Flightkeeper profile image72
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well you did it the honest way.  There's some people who in order to keep getting welfare benefits work a part-time job with benefits so that on paper it doesn't look like they're earning much.  Then they take another job where they get paid under the table so they don't have to pay taxes.  If they show half as much creativity trying to figure out how to get rich vs how to keep their benefits, they would be better off than where they are.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "But what if the pay is not enough to pay rent or buy food?"

              Then I suggest working two jobs.

              "If a job is only worth ten bucks an hour what right has an employer to expect somebody to do it?"

              Are you serious? If someone doesn't want the job someone else will.

              "No, I'm not entitled to a job but neither am I entitled to squat and no longer is the life of a hunter gatherer practical for the vast majority. That leaves  me with only one option and that is to take off those with plenty, wouldn't they rather give a controlled amount than lose everything?"

              "take off those with plenty" Who decides who has plenty? The rich pay taxes, maybe if your government weren't so damn greedy you could keep more of your money.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And use the extra money for what? Paying road tolls, paying health insurance, paying my local fire brigade, paying my local police force ect ect.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  How about food or anything you can think of, its your money.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But how much extra money would I have after providing essentials that were no longer covered by taxes and what would become of me if I lost my job and could no longer afford to pay for all those things?

                    Just health insurance would give me serious financial problems at the moment. I doubt if there is one insurance company that would tailor their premiums to my income.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I want to address this "livable wage" nonsense.

          Problem #1 - Please define your terms

          "livable wage" is completely impossible to define. That's the glory of using it as a term.

          The elderly man dying of old age -- what's his livable wage? His livable wage would be the amount of money it would take to find out a cure to old age and cure it in enough time to keep him alive.

          The boy born with a brain tumor -- what's his livable wage? It would be the amount of money it takes to find the tumor, destroy it, and do NO harm to the boy's ability whatsoever to live a full normal life in a time frame short enough.

          What about the drug addict who chose one hit too many -- what's his livable wage? Well, it would be the amount of money it takes to keep him alive and clean for the rest of his life in a way that would prevent him from dying young due to his addiction. Also, this "livable wage" is directly tied to the legality of the drug he is taking: if it's illegal, then it's more expensive.

          Problem #2 - Scarcity is real.

          A livable wage requires people to make choices. A $4/hour wage is still livable, it just requires people to make tough choices.

          "Zomg! Evan! Are you actually telling orphans to die?" -- no. Of course not. My argument simply relies on the fact that this Earth only has so many resources, and they have to be distributed in a fashion that puts them to the best use over time. Don't blame me for Eve's choice to get kicked out of Eden (or whatever belief you wish to use).

          I wish we could all have a private moon to live on with all the anything-you-could-ever-want on it. But that's just not the case.

          If you compare some of the poorest Americans today with the richest Kings just a few centuries ago, it would be a difficult task to decide which is richer.

          We don't live in the Garden of Eden.

          Problem #3 - Do we all deserve a living wage?

          I was born in a middle class neighborhood. When I went to the store, it was largely operated by a lot of teenagers who were there only to earn experience and have a few extra "leisure" bucks.

          Why should they be paid a living wage if they already have a doctor for a father providing them with everything they need?

          Experience was more important to most of the people there than the money (in fact, one person who used to work for $5/hour is now a head manager of a chain of the supermarket-in-question).

          ========

          A "livable wage for all" is not only un-definable, but it is also impractical, and also not even a goal of many workers.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why is it so difficult to define a minimum liveable wage? The drug addict is not chasing a basic liveable wage is he? Nor is the handicapped child.

            Everybody needs a roof over their head, a certain amount of food, clothes, recreation, all of which have minimum costs.

            Why is it impracticable?

            Of course the minimum wage is not the goal of many workers, those already on high wages for a start, and why should the wage levels of the needy be dictated by the unneedy?

            And of course as Rafini points out, the claim is for a minimum wage and not a liveable wage.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Why is it so difficult to define a minimum liveable wage? The drug addict is not chasing a basic liveable wage is he? Nor is the handicapped child."

              So, livable wage does NOT include the old man about to die, the child suffering from a brain tumor, or the man who was addicted to heroine?

              But it DOES include...

              "...a roof over their head, a certain amount of food, clothes, recreation, all of which have minimum costs."

              Indeed.

              but what should that roof be made of? where shall it be constructed? how many do we need? how large shall it be? how shall it be constructed?

              What should the clothes be made of? how much clothes does each person need? who should make the clothes? where should they be made?

              What type of food do they get? Does the anemic person deserve more food than the diabetic? Who gets to make the food?

              what if I sell my "roof" my "clothes" and my "food" for other items... do i still deserve the items?

              "Of course the minimum wage is not the goal of many workers, those already on high wages for a start, and why should the wage levels of the needy be dictated by the unneedy?"

              Why should they be dictated by anyone at all?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Er, the average cost of a roof, clothes made out of typical materials. No really, you are just being too silly now.

                Wages shouldn't be dictated by anybody at all but there are too many who will steal a man's labour and although you don't object to theft, many of us do!

                1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Wages shouldn't be dictated by anybody at all but there are too many who will steal a man's labour and although you don't object to theft, many of us do!"

                  Its not theft if he agreed to work for that wage.

                  Why can't you understand that?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So it's not theft if you agree to give the mugger your watch and wallet if he agrees not to stab you?

                    Why don't you understand that many people who take low paid jobs don't choose to take that job, they don't look at two jobs one paying $20 ph and one paying $10 and think, hm, I think I'll pick the lower paid one.

                    And before you start banging on about that's all they are worth, remember Love Lady saying how she once worked 20 hrs a day to earn enough, I hardly think she falls into the dummy who's not worth spit category do you?

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Er, the average cost of a roof, clothes made out of typical materials. No really, you are just being too silly now."

                  No, I'm not being silly. Average is VERY relative. Average 20 years ago meant something VERY different than it does now.

                  You are simply refusing to define your terms.

                  "Wages shouldn't be dictated by anybody at all but there are too many who will steal a man's labour and although you don't object to theft, many of us do!"

                  Yet, you tried to define a livable wage by saying "enough to have a roof, clothes and food". YOU tried to do the very thing that you now are objecting to.

                  This man has become a bit of a legend here in Ohio:

                  http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/mu … s-camp.xml

                  If you look at where he used to live, he met ALL of your requirements for a "livable" wage - he had a roof, adequate clothes, and apparently was able to eat for 3-4 years without a job.

                  Yet, you surely would protest that his standard of living was not "a livable wage", yet it met your definitions... yet it's not "livable"... yet... it is... but it isn't...

                  but it is...

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But I'm not trying to define a liveable wage, I'm calling for a minimum wage. Let that minimum wage be enough for the average person in average circumstances.

                    It's not so hard, we manage it in the UK and Americans being so superior to us. . .

      2. Daniel Carter profile image91
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You read what you wanted to read. Obviously they don't HAVE to do anything. But most people do have a conscience, and that conscience will prick them a little and they will complain about the inconvenience of having to deal morally with the poor. I pretty much stated that previously. Having to do something is a result of them listening to a nagging conscience. You didn't get that part.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I read what you wrote, debate it if you must but you said they would "have" to do something.

          1. Daniel Carter profile image91
            Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The horse died a long time ago. If you want to keep kicking, go ahead.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you, I will.

              Words mean things.

        2. profile image0
          awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong, most rich people do not care about conscience! Conscience about what?

          That we have homeless people all over

          They simply do not witness the poor! It is much easier for them, because most do not see the poor!

          Look at wall street, they lay off hundreds and then pay huge bonuses to the top people! Do you think the boss is thinking "maybe i should have kept Jimmy because he has a mortgage to pay"

  29. Flightkeeper profile image72
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    There are also poor people that feel entitled.  If I'm on line at a grocery store and the person in front of me is paying with a welfare card and then talks on an iphone where it costs at least $90 a month, and that person complains about not being able to pay off that section whatever rent for the month, I have no sympathy.  Poor people more so than rich people can't afford to make stupid choices.

    1. Daniel Carter profile image91
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm in complete agreement. Entitlement issues are irrespective of economic status, that's for sure.

    2. Rafini profile image87
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Generally I'd agree with you, but there could be extenuating circumstances, you know.  Perhaps a parent is paying for the iphone (or, in other words, there's no cost to the 'welfare card holder')  and maybe they can't pay their rent because they had to get brakes for their car so they could get to their $10.00/hr job the next day.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image72
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Even if there was mommy or daddy helping out with the iphone, that person should have told them to pay for a utility or part of the rent instead and get the cheaper phone service.  A cell phone is for making calls, that is it's major purpose.  Again, if you are poor you can't afford to make bad decisions.  And that $10.00 a day is not forever, it's a starting point unless you have very bad work habits.

        There are immigrants who come to this country starting with nothing and are able to get a $10 job and increase their salary from there.  It's ridiculous that people don't give thought to this.

  30. lxxy profile image59
    lxxyposted 6 years ago

    I think deep down most of your species what's to help "mankind." The issue isn't with rich or poor, it's with money and the concept there of. It's just not useful.

    But because you've all decided to give value to an inanimate object, you've artificially hampered productive workflow because if this imaginary object is in scarce supply, the whole system breaks down.

    Without money, so goes the theory, there is no society.

    But imaginary numbers made up by the Banking System, no matter how large or small--don't grow food, transport goods, or design products.

    Until resources are adequately shared and nurtured to the point of ubiquity you'll always have this system, and the ability to dole out inequality.

  31. mega1 profile image81
    mega1posted 6 years ago

    define "care"

    the only way you can exist without paying taxes? go on unemployment and die when your benefits are all gone!  Then, come back as a zombie and eat up all the benefits you would have had if you'd just gone back to work in some menial job, like a good little poor person.

    and no, the rich do not care.  Unless you have a different definition of "care" than I have!

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image59
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Tell that to Bill Gates, inarguably one of the richest men in the world who gives away a sizeable percentage of his wealth to charity.

  32. misscoles profile image60
    misscolesposted 6 years ago

    The rich can't be summed up as one group of people. We are all individuals with different concerns. No matter what we have in the bank.

  33. rebekahELLE profile image89
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    GREED is not wanting more than what you have. It's wanting more than you need. you've missed the point here. all you're doing is attempting to defend your political views and blast those you oppose. do you ever stop to think?

    1. Misha profile image73
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who's deciding what you need?

      1. rebekahELLE profile image89
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        come on misha, you know what I'm talking about. there's a difference between someone wanting more than $7.35 an hour to make a living wage to live adequately enough to pay the bills and feed their family and a rich man who owns homes on every continent and wants more.

        1. Misha profile image73
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nah, I don't buy that. I am pretty positive one person has no way of knowing all the circumstances of another person, even those who live together, let alone those that you only read about in newspapers. Surely you are free to think differently smile

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you're making $7/hour, and you buy a 2nd home...

          ...then you're livable wage is now defined as your ability to pay for that 2nd home.

          Arguing for a livable wage necessarily means ignoring the supply side of the economy.

  34. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    hmm:

  35. Jim Hunter profile image60
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    Looks like Obama may have found his inner Reagan.

    Seems he's for lowering the Corporate tax rate.

    Guess the little kick in the butt he received in November sparked this shift.

    2 years to figure out what Reagan proved 30 years ago, what a sharp man.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … lenews_wsj

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image59
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, Obama may yet be dragged kicking and screaming back to the political center.

      At least Clinton did it with some dignity after his drubbing at the polls.....

  36. mike71090 profile image59
    mike71090posted 6 years ago

    you know what guys..in reality,as of now, the rich are getting richer while the poor becomes poorer.

    If there's no poor,there will be no rich..For the rich to become rich..,there must be plenty of poor.

    1. profile image0
      awesome77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Will always be that way, as long as humans are blind and held back by many well crafted devices!

      I always tell the people that the "POOR FEED THE RICH"

  37. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    I think the rich care about the poor as much as the poor care about the rich (well, that's not totally true.. the poor like watching the rich on TV much more)

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The poor more than like the rich, they will actually give them more money even if it means doing without themselves.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The real poor don't have TV's.

      or internet connections,cars,etc.

      Most people who claim they are poor are really just bad with money.

      If you have a dime don't finance a quarter.

  38. fishskinfreak2008 profile image31
    fishskinfreak2008posted 6 years ago

    In a word "No". Just look at all this "Repeal" nonsense on HEALTHCARE REFORM

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Was health care reformed?

      1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image31
        fishskinfreak2008posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. CHILDREN with PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS now have to be covered and EVERYONE with PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS WILL BE covered by 2014. The legal challenges to healthcare don't seem to be going anywhere. Haven't you been keeping up?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You think thats a good idea.

          Is buying car insurance after you have a wreck and expecting it to be covered a good deal for insurance companies?

          Of course you do.

          As long as you get yours you don't care who pays.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            This is exactly why the profit element must be removed from health care.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You don't think people in the medical field should be paid?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What has that got to do with anything? Payment is a cost, not a profit.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Its a profit to the one being paid.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But it isn't a profit paid to shareholders.

                2. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  What you want is a total takeover of the US health care system by the government.

                  The same government that cannot run any program they ever started  efficiently.

                  You expect Americans to just give up what they know to be the best health care system in the world in favor of something like you have in the UK.

                  Unlike the rest of the world Americans are not passive and are not willing to give up our freedoms as easily.

                  You would think being British you may know that Americans will fight against a tyrannical government.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What is tyrannical about having health care that isn't capable of bankrupting even the wealthy?
                    What is tyrannical about health care that isn't a lottery open only to the rich?
                    What is tyrannical about living your life free from fear of the financial effects of serious illness?

                    Ah yes, how dreadful to have health care that treats everybody equally. How dreadful to have a health care system that doesn't write off some illnesses as unprofitable?

                    It doesn't seem to me that Americans fight off tyrannical governments, it seems that they positively embrace them!

                  2. DTR0005 profile image79
                    DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You know, you talk about this "government Takeover" of health care and how ours is the best in the world. And I won't argue with you over technological superiority in our system. However when it comes to access, we suck!
                    We are somewhere around 38 or 39th in the world in availabilty of service. And the availabilty is dictated by price. It's like being known for making the finest yachts in the world. - problem is due to cost, only the wealthiest can afford the best. Our healthcare is self-rationing already!

  39. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago

    The rich are not in the least scared of the poor.

    You are right, however, that the rich do not care about the poor. No, for the most part, they don't. However, there are exceptions to every generality, and there are those that are rich and they make a tremendous difference.

    The rich, however, do not dispense money to individuals. They dispense money to foundations. Unfortunately, mostly the people who run the foundations, get paid a very good salary indeed, especially the members on the board of the foundations.

    The rich are not scared of the poor because the poor tend to be poor in mind. Of course, not all the poor are poor in mind. With the shift of wealth in the last few decades, there are quite a few that are rich in mind who suddenly find themselves poor in pocket.

    If it reaches a point where the poor understand just how much bending of rules took place for those rich people to get where they are, the rich might have reason to tread a little more carefully.

    However, poor people continue to support rich people. They buy  into all the fables - gotta have this and gotta have that. It's amazing how many of those rich people would begin to lose some of their wealth if the majority just said a few simple words, "I can do without that..."

    1. lady_love158 profile image58
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! Yes, you're an independent thinker all right, which explains why you are always soooo wrong!

      But, I'm sure you will explain how everything you just stated is indisputable FACT.

      The rich are the ones in government. Supposedly they choose to serve because they "care" about the poor, especially the socialist liberal democrats which I'm SURE you support, because you of course also CARE deeply!

      I am willing to bet that the great majority of the rich care very much about the poor and most probably more than YOU do!

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think you need to go reread what I wrote. I think you also need to put your feeling of dislike against me aside and actually focus on what I am saying, and how I responded to the OP.

        I also think that you don't in the least make sense. In particular, you 3rd paragraph makes absolutely not one ounce of sense in response to what I wrote.

        The rich are not divided by party politics. Party politics have little to do with wealth. There are rich conservatives, rich liberal, rich tyrants, and rich every-type-of-people possible.

        You're quite welcome to bet that the great majority of the rich care very much about the poor. I made a big mistake when I was 25. I grew up with chauffers and servants and private schooling and all sorts of things that others envied. However, I didn't like the way those around me spoke about 'white trash' and the equivalent. So I dropped out of that secctor and now I'm very poor. You could say I've seen both sides. If I could play it again, I wouldn't have done that. I would simply have realized that there were nice rich people around, and found them. Because, of course, there are some incredibly nice rich people around. Just as there are some incredibly nice poor people around.

        However, during that time, I did have the privilege of dating a few lords, going to movies with a princess, flying in the cockpit of a Boeing 706 at the invitation of the captain, and lots of other stuff that very few people do.

        I also recall being educated that if one was born into privilege then one had the responsibility of caring for those who did not have that privilege. That is why I said that while most of the rich don't care at all, it is a generalisation, and some do.

        I have no doubt that you care very much about the poor. Bless your heart.

  40. starme77 profile image87
    starme77posted 6 years ago

    Some Rich people care about poor people and some poor people care about rich people , just depends on morals and who they are inside , Both rich and poor groups have loving groups as well as hateful, materalistic mean shit groups

    1. Right On Time profile image63
      Right On Timeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Totally agree.

    2. Right On Time profile image63
      Right On Timeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Any group has its deadweights. Also lots of rich people were poor once

  41. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 6 years ago

    There seems to be a wide brush which wants to paint the rich as something evil when in essence they have achieved the opportunity that our society offers to all. How do they think of poor....how do you think of the poor. I came from a poor background, managed to stay focused and gain a college education, served as an officer in the military, and earned my way up the corporate late to a comfortable middle class existence. From where I sit at the present, I can see some actions or steps that I might take to secure riches but it would require that I gamble most of what I have to achieve it and I am not willing to make that gamble. On that basis, I do not hold any ill will for those who have and won. Many successful people are from poor, meager backgrounds and once they achieve some level of success they realize that you first have to want it...you have to break the cycle, step out of the circle of poverty and struggle to stay there. It requires some choices and some sacrifices early on.  In the end, the richest man in America will fail attempting to rescue the poorest man if he has no desire to change his position in life. Unfortunately, as a public, we are too easily suckered into the the class warfare argument which breaks down our societal focus and distracts us from the true issues at hand. In fact, the rich of this country now pay far more of the tax burden that anyone else and there are those who want them to pay more and more and more until there is nothing to show for their efforts and they slowly rejoin the ranks of the poor...wow, what a successful outcome. WB

  42. sir slave profile image60
    sir slaveposted 6 years ago

    its time to eat the rich for lunch!!!
    progressive taxation that penalizes anyone who wants to accumulate over 5 billion dollars for his immeadiate family. huge incentives for the rich who want to invest billions in society on their own.....

    this era reminds me of the end of a game of monopoly, when one player owns everything and the rest of the players are screwed.

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image59
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Time to eat the rich for lunch.

      Wow, the wealth envy on these forums never ceases to amaze me.

      I want the rich to get richer, and I am all for tax breaks for the wealthy.  You reward achievement, you don't punish it.

      Maybe if we actually did that, we'd have more people working hard to get rich as opposed to villifying the rich for having the audacity to be successful and make good financial decisions...

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, in fact I so want the rich to be richer that I've just taken a pay cut. Don't worry, I can easily afford it, I've given up my apartment and moved into a cardboard box.

        1. lyndre profile image83
          lyndreposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nice one lol lol

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "You reward achievement, you don't punish it."

        That's quite naive. Here's what Adam Smith had to say on the subject:

        The interest of manufacturers "in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. to widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers...and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."

        Smith was a firm believer in public goods: he thought that the state has an obligation to build roads and bridges, establish an army, and do all the other things necessary for a sane polity in which the market can function naturally...

        Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker October 18, 2010.

      3. megs11237 profile image71
        megs11237posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Do good financial decision include the ones like Wall Street made?

        Like Bernie Madoff and the others?

        Even Warren Buffet has come out against the very things conservatives  are for...

        Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction.
        Warren Buffett


        A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought.
        Warren Buffett


        I just think that - when a country needs more income and we do, we're only taking in 15 percent of GDP, I mean, that - that - when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it.
        Warren Buffett


        How about we listen to the really rich people who actually made their money the hard working way???



        If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.
        Warren Buffett



        I mean gosh what does this man know about rich people right???

  43. shynsly profile image59
    shynslyposted 6 years ago

    Skipping over the multitude of replies and insuing debates, I'll get back to the OP's actual question... Do the rich care about the poor?

    Some do, some don't, and some are indifferent. In any case, another question has to be asked... when did it become a law that they had to care?

    Like the OP and many others, I myself came from an EXTREMELY poor background. I've tried to make something of myself, I've had my ups and downs (and am currently fighting my way out of a VERY down... "down").

    The reality is, I pretty well except the fact I'll never successfully join the ranks of the "wealthy". Doesn't mean I'll ever stop trying, just that I acknowledge my chances are slim to none.

    But how is that the fault of the "rich" whom I find myself so jealous of (hey, at least I admit it)? How is it their responsibility to help me out of the mess I currently find myself if? I made the bed, now I gotta sleep in it.

    Say, think, or believe whay you want... "rich" people not being willing to do more than they already are to support the "poor" is not a crime (for the time being, anyways... much to the dismay of some).

    It may be "immoral" or make them bad humanitarians by some peoples' standards, but last time I checked, this was still a free country and that was perfectly within their rights.

    "Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" (i.e.- "wealth", if that's how you choose to define happiness). That is our Constitutional guarantee... not the actual happiness (wealth) itself, but the freedom to PURSUE it based on your own merit. No one else is obligated to provide it for you.

    1. megs11237 profile image71
      megs11237posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No you shouldn't get a hand out but they shouldn't be able to form 501 c corps and spread propaganda about policies that negatively effect you.

      They shouldn't be able to lobby for more ways to amass their wealth and distance the gap between the rich, wiping out the middle class, and leaving just rich and poor.

      I consistently had excellent performance reviews and I was offered a promotion and denied a raise twice because of the economy but when our company printed out it's newsletter all they could talk about was how their quarter profits were in the billions.

      Give me a break. The reality is it used to be easier to gain wealth by building a business and working hard, but it isn't so much that way anymore.

      Even if you do save, even if you aren't a "victim".

      Even if you work 40 hours a week and then spend the rest of trying to further yourself. Even College degrees aren't worth what you pay anymore to the tons of bloated colleges.

      1. profile image66
        logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Those profits they reported, looked good on paper, but what was the reality.  The profit is what gets you shareholders.  If the company did not have shareholders they would not be in business, and you would not have a job.  Which is better, a job with no raise or no job?  That is the choice many are faced with anymore.
        As far as the lobbying goes, I'm with you there.  Lobbyists and the politicians that feed off of them are a bane on this country.
        Only when we have the brains to elect politicians that will get rid of the lobbyists or severely restrain them, will we remove the blight that they are.

  44. qwark profile image62
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    The worlds richest didn't get there by giving $ away.

    The richest understand that people are intimately involved in why they are rich!

    People are a replaceable "commodity."
    People can be used, discarded when unusable, and replaced like kleenex. Pullout one, and another pops up.

    The rich understand the plight of the poor and take full advantage of their needs in nations where politics can be controlled by $!

    The "super rich" are concerned with one thing i.e. making more money and becoming more controlling and powerful.

    There will "always?" be a more than an adequate # of human beings to insure the rich of getting richer.

    If you think the "super rich" give a rats ass about those who suffer and die, you have been living on a different planet than I.

    MONEY rules!

    The POOR are tools!

    Qwark

  45. sir slave profile image60
    sir slaveposted 6 years ago

    If they cared about the socioeconomic stratification in this country, then we wouldn't have 3 million homeless and 35 million jobless. wealth has been being concentrated continually for decades by the fiscal policies brought to washington, by the elite. see " atlas mugged, a portrait of america 2025".
    thanks

  46. mega1 profile image81
    mega1posted 6 years ago

    The rich ones I know all have their own pet poor.  They care!  And as soon as I get enough money, I'm gonna care too! smile

  47. profile image0
    snow_white88posted 6 years ago

    MMMmmm YES. I think the more money and wealth they gain, the more the feel they should give a little to the poor. Some might not give as much as we expect them to give. But they give "something" just to keep their minds and hearts at peace that they are helping that person with less. so they kinda care I guess.

  48. junkseller profile image90
    junksellerposted 6 years ago

    There are lots of different ways to be rich.  If we are talking about money then there are people on this thread who pretty clearly prove that some wealthy people could care less about others who are less fortunate, but than their bank account is empty in a different way.

    And so as a non-monetary rich person, I would like to offer some advice to my compassionately bankrupt hubbers who believe that the rich are always rich because they are awesome and the poor are always poor because they suck - that idea is hateful and hate is always internally toxic. 

    Cast off your hurtful aspersions - there is still time for you to become truly rich!

  49. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Hard to generalize about the attitudes of the rich toward the poor. The Wall Street banksters seem to me to have an attitude of "f##k the poor." However, there are plenty of rich philanthropists who care a lot about the poor--Gates, Buffett, Soros, McCarthur, et al. As Aquinas said, "Never deny. Seldom affirm, Always distinguish."

  50. Editor and Chief profile image60
    Editor and Chiefposted 6 years ago

    Do the rich care about the poor? No

 
working