The California Legislature full with Girlie Men

[Darth Wong]

Quite frankly, the rich already have more than enough advantages in life. You won't be so pedantic as to actually demand evidence of this obvious fact, will you?

No, I was just wondering if blocking the rich would serve any good as well.

Well, one could hope that someone from the middle class has more of an appreciation of middle-class issues than someone who's filthy rich. I'm always reminded of the case of a Toronto politician who scoffed at reporters' questions about massive traffic congestion in downtown Toronto ... it turned out that he never noticed downtown traffic congestion because he rode in a limo to the office and spent most of his time on the phone.

A more explicit question would be "What if this person were self made?"

I know it's bad to use anecdotes, but my uncle was a self-made millionaire, and if anything, he was even more dismissive of middle-class people than people who are simply born rich (and like most self-made millionaires, he got that way through a combination of luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money).

[Xenophobe3691]

Well, one could hope that someone from the middle class has more of an appreciation of middle-class issues than someone who's filthy rich. I'm always reminded of the case of a Toronto politician who scoffed at reporters' questions about massive traffic congestion in downtown Toronto ... it turned out that he never noticed downtown traffic congestion because he rode in a limo to the office and spent most of his time on the phone.

But then you get people like Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, who were rich their entire lives, and who worked their asses off to help the common, working class man, Teddy as a trust-buster and FDR with the New Deal.

A more explicit question would be "What if this person were self made?"

I know it's bad to use anecdotes, but my uncle was a self-made millionaire, and if anything, he was even more dismissive of middle-class people than people who are simply born rich (and like most self-made millionaires, he got that way through a combination of luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money).

Living where I do I see as much (Nothing like self-made millionaires to put down those unluckier than they), but some actually want to help and invest a lot of money in charities, or actually work. Example, Bill Gates. He's giving up his entire dividend to charity, along with a few billion more given before. Another example, Abraham Lincoln. Born in a log cabin, became a successful attorney for the Railroads before his Presidency.

[Darth Wong]

But then you get people like Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, who were rich their entire lives, and who worked their asses off to help the common, working class man, Teddy as a trust-buster and FDR with the New Deal.

And how many more people like that would there be, if most presidents weren't rich? I never said it was impossible for a rich person to help the common man, but it's less likely. And if he does so, he will do so based on third-hand information; he won't really have much appreciation of what it's like to be a common man. Many rich people who purportedly look out for the common man (particularly in Hollywood) actually have little or no sympathy for him and are actually thinking about the very poor, skipping over the middle class completely and often giving it the short end of the stick in their social improvement schemes.

Living where I do I see as much (Nothing like self-made millionaires to put down those unluckier than they), but some actually want to help and invest a lot of money in charities, or actually work. Example, Bill Gates. He's giving up his entire dividend to charity, along with a few billion more given before.

It's easy to give up impressive-sounding amounts of money when you can still live an impossibly lavish lifestyle anyway. Given all the harm that he has done to individuals and small businesses (Microsoft suing numerous boards of education for software licensing is a good example), I'd say this is just him paying back part of what he owes society.

Another example, Abraham Lincoln. Born in a log cabin, became a successful attorney for the Railroads before his Presidency.

Long before the era of million-dollar TV ads.

[Xenophobe3691]

But he was back in the day when he needed to drum up enormous amounts of support as well, and the only method of doing so was railroading across the nation; not that cheap a proposition back then.

Was it comparable to advertising budgets on the order of 2000 times greater than the average yearly family income?

[tharkûn]

Mike: How do you define "rich"? Does Clinton count as rich? He was mainly a public servant his entire working life (zilch for inherited money). Jimmy Carter was peanut farmer, so I'm doubting he ranks Bush, Kerry, Reagan, etc. The truth is US government positions are well paid and you will likely become a millionaire if you stay in high level politics for a few decades.

[HemlockGrey]

I think banning the rich from running period is going a bit too far, but I agree that something must be done to make it easier for the middle classes to run for major political office.

[Darth Wong]

But he was back in the day when he needed to drum up enormous amounts of support as well, and the only method of doing so was railroading across the nation; not that cheap a proposition back then.

Was it comparable to advertising budgets on the order of 2000 times greater than the average yearly family income?

ARRRRGHHH!! I meant to hit "quote" and I accidentally hit "edit" instead! I'm really sorry about that. The buttons are right next to one another.

[Darth Wong]

Mike: How do you define "rich"? Does Clinton count as rich? He was mainly a public servant his entire working life (zilch for inherited money). Jimmy Carter was peanut farmer, so I'm doubting he ranks Bush, Kerry, Reagan, etc. The truth is US government positions are well paid and you will likely become a millionaire if you stay in high level politics for a few decades.

Many people in the upper range of the middle-class are actually millionaires, if you look at their total assets.

[Stuart Mackey]

It's easy to give up impressive-sounding amounts of money when you can still live an impossibly lavish lifestyle anyway.

lol..that sounds just like a certain parable from the bible

[Perinquus]

I know it's bad to use anecdotes, but my uncle was a self-made millionaire, and if anything, he was even more dismissive of middle-class people than people who are simply born rich (and like most self-made millionaires, he got that way through a combination of luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money).

Honestly Mike, I wonder if you have a broad enough acquaintaince of self made millionaires to assert with complete accuracy that most of them got where they are by "luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money". Don't you imagine that hard work, delayed gratification, determination, and other such qualities may be what make many, if not most self made wealthy people wealthy? It's very easy to attribute these people's success to outside forces - that conveniently excuses one from not being equally successful - but it is not always fair. Many self made people got where they are because they worked their asses off to get there. And if they are sometimes dismissive of people who are less well off, it's because they think most people don't work hard enough to become wealthy - they have they natural contempt of the strong for the weak. When I was in college I worked for a guy like that. My best friend's dad was also a guy like that. Both these men were not very likeable personalities, but they both started being middle class, and I know from first hand observation that they did indeed work like hell - much harder than most people do. I grant you that some people do indeed just get lucky. But a lot of self made men got where they are because they are also damn hard working people.

[BoredShirtless]

I know it's bad to use anecdotes, but my uncle was a self-made millionaire, and if anything, he was even more dismissive of middle-class people than people who are simply born rich (and like most self-made millionaires, he got that way through a combination of luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money).

Honestly Mike, I wonder if you have a broad enough acquaintaince of self made millionaires to assert with complete accuracy that most of them got where they are by "luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money". Don't you imagine that hard work, delayed gratification, determination, and other such qualities may be what make many, if not most self made wealthy people wealthy? It's very easy to attribute these people's success to outside forces - that conveniently excuses one from not being equally successful - but it is not always fair. Many self made people got where they are because they worked their asses off to get there. And if they are sometimes dismissive of people who are less well off, it's because they think most people don't work hard enough to become wealthy - they have they natural contempt of the strong for the weak. When I was in college I worked for a guy like that. My best friend's dad was also a guy like that. Both these men were not very likeable personalities, but they both started being middle class, and I know from first hand observation that they did indeed work like hell - much harder than most people do. I grant you that some people do indeed just get lucky. But a lot of self made men got where they are because they are also damn hard working people.

Would a self made man contemptous of the middle class make a good President? I think you've just added a good piece to his opinion that there should be a wealth limit.

[Perinquus]

I know it's bad to use anecdotes, but my uncle was a self-made millionaire, and if anything, he was even more dismissive of middle-class people than people who are simply born rich (and like most self-made millionaires, he got that way through a combination of luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money).

Honestly Mike, I wonder if you have a broad enough acquaintaince of self made millionaires to assert with complete accuracy that most of them got where they are by "luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money". Don't you imagine that hard work, delayed gratification, determination, and other such qualities may be what make many, if not most self made wealthy people wealthy? It's very easy to attribute these people's success to outside forces - that conveniently excuses one from not being equally successful - but it is not always fair. Many self made people got where they are because they worked their asses off to get there. And if they are sometimes dismissive of people who are less well off, it's because they think most people don't work hard enough to become wealthy - they have they natural contempt of the strong for the weak. When I was in college I worked for a guy like that. My best friend's dad was also a guy like that. Both these men were not very likeable personalities, but they both started being middle class, and I know from first hand observation that they did indeed work like hell - much harder than most people do. I grant you that some people do indeed just get lucky. But a lot of self made men got where they are because they are also damn hard working people.

Would a self made man contemptous of the middle class make a good President? I think you've just added a good piece to his opinion that there should be a wealth limit.

So you want to discriminate against success? And you really think this is a good idea? What a great way of insuring that only mediocrities run for office. Egalitariansism is great, but there comes a point where you have to realize that some people really are achievers and some are not. Rigging the system against achievers is a bad idea.

[Perinquus]

I know it's bad to use anecdotes, but my uncle was a self-made millionaire, and if anything, he was even more dismissive of middle-class people than people who are simply born rich (and like most self-made millionaires, he got that way through a combination of luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money).

Honestly Mike, I wonder if you have a broad enough acquaintaince of self made millionaires to assert with complete accuracy that most of them got where they are by "luck and a bit of help from someone who already had money". Don't you imagine that hard work, delayed gratification, determination, and other such qualities may be what make many, if not most self made wealthy people wealthy? It's very easy to attribute these people's success to outside forces - that conveniently excuses one from not being equally successful - but it is not always fair. Many self made people got where they are because they worked their asses off to get there. And if they are sometimes dismissive of people who are less well off, it's because they think most people don't work hard enough to become wealthy - they have they natural contempt of the strong for the weak. When I was in college I worked for a guy like that. My best friend's dad was also a guy like that. Both these men were not very likeable personalities, but they both started being middle class, and I know from first hand observation that they did indeed work like hell - much harder than most people do. I grant you that some people do indeed just get lucky. But a lot of self made men got where they are because they are also damn hard working people.

Would a self made man contemptous of the middle class make a good President? I think you've just added a good piece to his opinion that there should be a wealth limit.

You know, the more I consider this, the more outrageous I find this idea. And the less surpised I am that it comes from a member of the political left. You seem to operate under the assumption that all wealthy people are crooks or assholes who screwed other people over to get where they are, so naturally they are moral defectives. Thus you justify this proposal to exclude them from politics. How bigoted of you.

Admitting that some wealthy people did get to the top this way, I reject the notion that all rich people became rich by such means. But you would be quite content it seems to tar all wealthy people with the same brush. You are willing to make assumptions and exclusions about people based solely on class. If that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is.

And this idea that there should be a wealth limit in any sense I find outrageous. Provided people don't acquire their wealthy by actually dishonest means, who are you or anyone else to tell them they are wrong? By what right do you or anyone else interfere with the ability of a man to reap the fruits of his own labors? Why is it wrong to work harder than other people and be more successful? Justify that position.

[Vympel]

Perinquus, I can see that gargantuan man of straw from allllllllllll the way over here.

[BoredShirtless]

Would a self made man contemptous of the middle class make a good President? I think you've just added a good piece to his opinion that there should be a wealth limit.

So you want to discriminate against success?

No, I don't want to discriminate against success. But in my opinion Mike is right in that after living a life of extreme wealth for a certain period most people can't connect to the middle class, even if that was their roots.

I don't know what impact that would have on a persons ability to be President because Presidents don't usually come up with ideas or form policies all by themselves. I'm just pointing out Mike is right about wealth changing people.

And you really think this is a good idea?

Not really; it's discriminatory on top of everything else too.

What a great way of insuring that only mediocrities run for office.

Don't be so quick to lose your brain; there are many people who are smart and innovative with a personal wealth less then 10 million.

Egalitariansism is great, but there comes a point where you have to realize that some people really are achievers and some are not. Rigging the system against achievers is a bad idea.

Jeez, if Vympel can see that strawman all the way from Aussieland...YOU GOT PROBLEMS PAL!!

[BoredShirtless]

You know, the more I consider this,

You know, the more you pounder on strawmans, the more straw you add. Don't let your emotions cloud your ability to read a persons post.

[Perinquus]

Jeez, if Vympel can see that strawman all the way from Aussieland...YOU GOT PROBLEMS PAL!!

No, because this idea does amount to discrimination against those who acheive financial success. And when you discriminate against a certain group, you create a disincentive for that group - in this case a disincentive for people who have achieved financial success to enter politics. Successful people often bring a lot of talent with them. Here in Virginia right now, we have a self made man as governor - Mark Warner - and he's a democrat. Conservative though I am, I have to admit, he's doing a pretty good job. I certainly don't agree with everything he's doing, but he's doing enough that I'd probably vote for him if he could run for a second term. He's helping to straighten out a rather severe budget crisis we have. To do do, he is using a good deal of the business acumen that helped him achieve his wealth. Now according to your idea, he would be barred from entering politics. In his place, we might have a governor with a lot less understanding of business and finance, and therefore a lot less able to help iron out the budget. But what the hell, he'd be able to "connect" with the middle class, whatever the hell that means. So I guess we'd feel good about him and that's what's really important, isn't it?

This idea of yours would turn out to be a sterling example of the law of unintended consequences. Not every man who stays in the middle class is a mediocrity, if you think that's what I am suggesting, it is you who are making a straw man of my argument. But it is nevertheless true that a lot of people who rise to the upper class do so because of talent, determination, and hard work. Barring them from politics amounts to nothing less than closing society's leadership positions off from some of your most talented and hard working people and why anyone would think that's a good idea, I can't imagine. It smacks of resentment toward the wealthy that seems to be common among left-leaning people, who are so often in favor of socialism and other wealth redistribution schemes.

[Slartibartfast]

If anything, self-made millionaires have MORE contempt for the class they started as, because they think they deserve to be poor because they didn't have the vision/hard work that they allegedly had.

If I can be rich, you can be rich. If you're not, you're either lazy/stupid.

[Darth Wong]

Jeez, if Vympel can see that strawman all the way from Aussieland...YOU GOT PROBLEMS PAL!!

No, because this idea does amount to discrimination against those who acheive financial success.

And as we all know, it's better to have the current system which discriminates against everyone ELSE instead.

In a democratic society, it makes sense that it is represented by someone who can understand the majority of that society. We generally accept this in the case of every social attribute EXCEPT for wealth.

[Perinquus]

Jeez, if Vympel can see that strawman all the way from Aussieland...YOU GOT PROBLEMS PAL!!

No, because this idea does amount to discrimination against those who acheive financial success.

And as we all know, it's better to have the current system which discriminates against everyone ELSE instead.

I never claimed the current system is perfect, but following this prescription of BS's is a cure that I think could well turn out to be worse than the disease.

In a democratic society, it makes sense that it is represented by someone who can understand the majority of that society. We generally accept this in the case of every social attribute EXCEPT for wealth.

Why is it indispensable for a leader to "understand" the majority of the people? Oh to a certain extent it is, I grant you. No leader who is too far out of touch with the people he leads can represent their interests well. But lots of great leaders in history have not been what you would call men of the people, yet they were still great leaders. Marcus Aurelius, for example, is rightly considered one of the greatest of the Roman emperors, but how well could he have "understood" a plebiean tavernkeeper or peasant farmer? George Washington was a great president, if for no other reason than that he showed immense restraint in using or keeping power at a time when it was his for the taking, but he was a wealthy planter who had never wanted for anything in his life, so how well would he have "understood" the average American of his day. Ditto for Thos. Jefferson, who was also born into wealth. Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were both filthy rich, and yet they did very well as leaders, despite the fact that neither of them could have "understood" the common man perfectly, never having been in his economic bracket. I could think of boatloads of wealthy, priveledged men, some born to it and some self made, who were excellent leaders.

Of course, there are examples of the "common man" who seemed to stay very grounded in their middle class origins, and became great leaders also - Harry S. Truman is an example of this. But I still maintain that a lot of people who become wealthy do so because they possess certain admirable qualities - drive, energy, talent, determination, a good work ethic, a willingness to make sacrifices in the present for the sake of the future, and other qualities, and these same qualties often make them exactly the sort of people you most want to have running the show. To close them off from positions of leadership would be to deprive the country of a vast reservior of human capital. History is full of examples of nations that squandered their human capital and saw their fortunes suffer for it.

[Darth Wong]

I never claimed the current system is perfect, but following this prescription of BS's is a cure that I think could well turn out to be worse than the disease.

Why? The current system makes it so that only the very wealthy and well-connected can possibly hope to participate. Are you seriously arguing that effectively restricting eligibility to the wealthiest 1% of the population is somehow better than restricting it to the other 99%?

Why is it indispensable for a leader to "understand" the majority of the people? Oh to a certain extent it is, I grant you. No leader who is too far out of touch with the people he leads can represent their interests well.

It appears you answered your own question, so I won't comment.

But lots of great leaders in history have not been what you would call men of the people, yet they were still great leaders. Marcus Aurelius, for example, is rightly considered one of the greatest of the Roman emperors, but how well could he have "understood" a plebiean tavernkeeper or peasant farmer? George Washington was a great president, if for no other reason than that he showed immense restraint in using or keeping power at a time when it was his for the taking, but he was a wealthy planter who had never wanted for anything in his life, so how well would he have "understood" the average American of his day. Ditto for Thos. Jefferson, who was also born into wealth. Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were both filthy rich, and yet they did very well as leaders, despite the fact that neither of them could have "understood" the common man perfectly, never having been in his economic bracket. I could think of boatloads of wealthy, priveledged men, some born to it and some self made, who were excellent leaders.

So you can think of some rich men who were good leaders, therefore it's better to restrict politics to rich men than to restrict it to the 99% of society which isn't rich?

More to the point, how does this change the fact that the vast majority of the population has been locked out of the political process by the machinations of wealth? In some of the older democratic societies which the Founding Fathers (partially) copied, people had to give up personal wealth in order to become leaders. The term "public service" actually meant something in that context.

Of course, there are examples of the "common man" who seemed to stay very grounded in their middle class origins, and became great leaders also - Harry S. Truman is an example of this. But I still maintain that a lot of people who become wealthy do so because they possess certain admirable qualities - drive, energy, talent, determination, a good work ethic, a willingness to make sacrifices in the present for the sake of the future, and other qualities, and these same qualties often make them exactly the sort of people you most want to have running the show. To close them off from positions of leadership would be to deprive the country of a vast reservior of human capital. History is full of examples of nations that squandered their human capital and saw their fortunes suffer for it.

That's a long-winded way of arguing that rich people deserve to lead, and everyone else is inferior. I still call bullshit.

[RedImperator]

I don't see how Perinquus is arguing that the current, desparately broken system is acceptable by saying that banning very wealthy people from political office isn't acceptable, either. Banning the rich from running for office will do nothing at all to fix the system we have on our hands; in fact, it can be said that at least a millionaire who can finance his own campaign isn't beholden to a thousand special interests or unelected party bigwigs who finance his campaign.

And let's not forget, the rich are taxpaying citizens same as the rest of us, and have the same political rights as the rest of us. The system is broken in a manner that they have too much influence, but banning them from office simultaneously violates a fundamental right of all citizens (one of the reasons I support amending the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for President, by the way) while at the same time not diminishing their influence as campaign contributers, lobbyists, and financiers of any number of social pressure groups.

The fact that only millionaires can afford to run for political office is the product of a broken system that can't be fixed by simply banning them from seeking office. A major overhaul of how campaigns are finances and conducted is in order, and perhaps even radical measures like forcing the networks to give free air time to candidates or totally financing the election out of Federal coffers are needed, but simply banning the rich will accomplish little and may even be counter productive. If Average Joe must beg for PAC's, wealthy donors, and the party for the millions he needs to conduct a successful campaign, is he going to be any better steward of the average man's interests than a millionaire?

[1337n1nj4]

Destruction of the two party stranglehold would be a good start.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Third parties sound a lot better then they are.

[1337n1nj4]

Well, true, but a lot of that is also because of the barriers to entry.

It just seems that if we had more than two candidates to choose from, which isn't true on paper but is what it boils down to, it wouldn't be so difficult for that wealth barrier to exist.