ThatDamnedPanda
Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MsConception , in a country in which only .09% of the general population are millionaires. Currently the estimate is between 1-1.5% of the US are millionaires, you misplaced a decimal, which makes a difference. Oh, shit. I misread my own source. I read 2,800,000 as 280,000. I have no idea how I did that. I guess I didn't have my contacts in yet. Thanks for catching that before it went on much longer. So yeah, you're right, but I think the point still stands. 1 out of every 100 Americans is a millionaire, and 2 out of every 3 Senators. A Senator is 66 times more likely to be a millionaire than is the average citizen. I still contend that that's grossly disproportionate. quote:
ORIGINAL: MsConception What I don't understand is that what some of you are saying is that because someone has money they should not be allowed to spend it. If those that have it don't spend it then the economy will never get thriving again. You want more jobs created, then those with money need to be buying to create more jobs etc. For the record, I don't have any problem with how Kerry spends his money. He can buy Guam for his granddaughter's birthday party as far as I'm concerned. To me, the issue is simply whether it's the best thing for the country if such a huge percentage of our elected leaders come from that kind of background. quote:
ORIGINAL: MsConception Ok...enough So the probem is the system, not the individuals. I don't disagree, but whatever the root cause, the result is the same. Our "citizen representation" is very heavily composed of the most elite and the most powerful of our citizens. I don't see that as a healthy system of government. It didn't work very well in Rome, and I don't like it in America.
_____________________________
Panda, panda, burning bright In the forest of the night What immortal hand or eye Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?
|