THE GOOD RICH AND THE BAD RICH

THE LOGICAL VIEW ^ | 3/1/03 | MARK A SITY

[logic101.net]

THE "GOOD" RICH AND THE "BAD" RICH MARK A SITY 3/1/03

Liberals always seem to be complaining about the "rich" not "giving back" to the community. But which rich are they talking about? Certainly not Oprah, she's exempt from such criticisms. Bill Gates is a favorite target as one of the "bad" rich. But really who "gives back" more to the community? Oprah does entertainment and creates a few jobs. Other entertainers do the same; they each create a few jobs in the movie industry, TV, and video rental industries. Bill Gates makes computer software which has transformed and caused a boom in an entire industry; creating thousands of jobs. Who "gave back" more?

It is not just rich entertainers who get a pass. The Kennedy's wealth is never put into question, yet how did it amass? It was gained through bootlegging, racketeering, mob action, and selling short on stocks during the Great Depression. What did old Joe Kennedy "give back"? Old Joe only took.

Our VP is constantly under attack for his wealth, yet how did he get it? By going to oil producing 3rd world nations and teaching them how to capture the clean burning natural gas that they were previously burning as a waste product. He should be hailed by the eco-nuts as a hero!

Now it gets interesting. Who else gets a pass on vast wealth? How about a former terrorist who now runs an impoverished and dilapidated terror sponsoring territory? Mr. Arafat is estimated to be worth over $300 million. How did he accumulate this wealth while in charge of the Palestinians? Certainly not by creating jobs and bringing prosperity! The area was more prosperous before he came to power. Most likely he skimmed off much of the "humanitarian aid" sent his way. His people still live in refugee camps; have little or no work, and little to eat. Yet he lives like a king; but he is one of the "good" rich!

Much the same could be said of Sadam in Iraq. His worth is estimated at $2 Billion, yet his people live in squalor and fear. But he also is one of the "good" rich.

It seems that to be one of the "good" rich in the eyes of the left, one must "give back" as little as possible, in fact; the more you take away from others the better rich you are! All this despite their constant complaint about the rich not "giving back"!

MARK A SITY http://www.logic101.net/

[trebb]

Exactly, and I was watching FOX the other day and they mentioned that Bill Gates (the creep) has about a $24 Billion charity program. Hard to get much badder then that...

[dix]

It's funny how all that works.

[davisfh]

"Bill Gates is a favorite target as one of the "bad" rich. But really who "gives back" more to the community? Oprah does entertainment and creates a few jobs."

As far as I'm concerned, Bill Gates is a national hero. Many, many people have jobs as a result of his efforts. I would even say that the jobs created, both directly and indirectly by him, number in the tens of millions. And, to his credit, a corrupt justice department and the evil woman who headed it were unable to bring him down.

[logic101.net]

I agree. However, I'll go a bit farther. That idiotic anti-trust suit was brought by Gate's competitors (so how can he be a monopoly?) and was the trigger that burst the economic bubble. High teck was the driving force in the economy and Microsoft was the engine.


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[Cicero]

It's simple. The evil rich donate to Bush. The good, generous, thoughtful altruistic rich donate to clinton/gore.

Actually Bill Gates spends most of his money on liberal causes: minority education, population control, all that other stuff. But he didn't give clinton/gore as much money as the trendy Silicon Valley/Left Coast socialists did. With his money, he should have spent at least a year in the Lincoln Bedroom.

[Diddley]

How shallow the Libs are.

[SamAdams76]

I was just reading a National Geographic magazine from 1980 and there was an ad for a Smith/Corona typewriter. The ad showed parents taking a kid to college and the father proudly carrying the typewriter into the dorm so that his daughter could "be proud of her work." While many of the other ads from that edition could be re-run today (with perhaps a little editing), that typewriter ad is about as out of place today as a 1900 ad for a horse buggy.

I think that ad illustrates just how much the world has changed over the past quarter century. At the time of the ad, Bill Gates was just getting Microsoft off the ground. Like him or not, he certainly did change the world and did more than anybody else to bring the personal computer into practically every home in the Western world. The amount of jobs that were created and the amount of wealth that has been created by the computer industry since 1980 is probably incalculable.

Even if Gates didn't give a nickel to "charity", he'd have contributed more to society than all these self-righteous Hollywood blabbermouths combined.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Logic is not a DUMMYcrat trait. They don't ever use it!

[wizzler]

The reason is that modern "liberalism" is informed not by the Enlightenment (which elevated freedom above all else and led to the birth of America) but by Romanticism (which glorifies human suffering as something heroic). In the Romantic view, only ordinary people in despair are truly humanized; this is why it's crucial for modern "liberals" to maintain the victim culture and to continue fueling class envy.

These are stark, glaring differences in philosophical roots, and recognizing these foundations can help explain a lot about contemporary life and politics. Understanding romanticism sheds light on why the Constitution has been chipped away, why we are so heavily taxed, why leftism has overtaken universities, and on and on.

It also provides an answer to your question: Why are some wealthy people targeted by liberals, and others aren't? It's all about perceptions. I suspect it's not the acquisition of wealth, per se, that bothers "liberals." It's all about the person who has the money. The Oprahs and Kennedys of the world are seen as maintaining a fondness for the commoner -- they've kept their romanticism intact and are thus seen as partners in Humanity's Heroic Struggle.

Contemporary art has strong Romantic roots. This can help explain the overwhelmingly leftist bent of Hollywood and rock 'n' roll. "Real art," in the Romantic view, is born of pain, and "integrity" is about never forgetting that pain. I suspect many Hollywood Romantics feel an acute guilt, maybe even a fear, about their success and comfort. It creates a paradox in their lives: The suffering required to create good art can disappear because of the success that results from creating good art. To ensure their own sense of credibility as artists, they actively champion liberal causes to help keep their Romantic infrastructure intact.

Most modern adherents of romanticism couldn't even tell you what the word means. But it is an alluring mindset, because it provides something of a mythic, valorous edge to life. It feels noble and righteous.

It's also a bunch of horseshit, and just one more thing to blame on France and Germany.

[wardaddy]

Were Bill Gates not arguably the world's largest private financier of infanticide, I would agree with you.


There are far more liberals amongst the very rich than there are conservatives.

I am trying but will probably run out of time. I would like to personally be one more "evil conservative industrialist"...lol.....for our side.

[davisfh]

"Were Bill Gates not arguably the world's largest private financier of infanticide, I would agree with you."

I plead guilty to being unaware of the "infanticide" thing. He must be a supporter of abortion.

[logic101.net]

Exactly my point, in earning his wealth he created income and wealth for many others. Yet he is derided for it. While Oprah gets applause for becoming rich whithout creating any significant economic impact on the nation.


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[logic101.net]

Please explain your charge that Gates financed infanticide.


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[wardaddy]

This is but one link. There are 100s on Google. I simply typed in Bill Gates gives to Planned Parenthood.

Not to mention that I would guess that Microsoft is a United Way contribution enforcer like many large companies. United Way claims to be neutral and declares that they insist that Planned Parenthood not use their funds directly to provide abortion. Sort of like it was ok to donate money to Pol Pot to plant rice fields but not to buy ammo.

Gates is sharp as a tack but like most of the "institutions" in this nation, he has infanticide blood on his hands......as do I frankly since I'm typing to you on a WIN 98 OS...pirated of course but nevertheless...vexing isn't it?

I find it hard to fathom why he and his wife with children of their own would have such a callousness towards this issue.

http://www.etters.net/Micro$oft.htm

Regards.

[wardaddy]

He gives to gun control as well.....and supports pro-tax groups such as groups that fought to roll back Washington state's income tax and he and his father's view on abolishing the federal death tax are well known.

Easy for them to say. Tax 55% of a 40 billion dollar estate and the heirs still get a paltry 18 billion to barely get by on...lol

Folks like me with more modest estates simply hope to leave enough to help with first homes purchases, medical care, and education of our children and grandchildren and that huge already taxed chunk the Feds take is punitive to us.

Gates is wily but a hypocrite or perhaps simply an elitist.

[wizzler]

+

[wardaddy]

#11 was sweet...

[brianl703]

Don't overlook IBM's decision to build the original IBM PC using off-the-shelf components as one of the driving forces behind there being a PC in every home. If IBM hadn't laid that foundation, history would be very different.