Tim wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:13 am, JLH wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:19:35 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:



On Aug 13, 4:34 am, Tim wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:03 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Aug 12, 8:19 pm, Tim wrote:
On Aug 12, 6:53 pm, wf3h wrote:
that's correct. i work honestly for my living. i don't sell CDO's,
derivatives, REIT, or other financial instruments that have made the
rich so rich, and, when they trashed their own bank accounts, they
came and raided mine
many wealthy do too!,
tell you what. you go find the record of how many middle class people
work their way into the top 2% of americans and get back to us on
that...
find out how many children of blue collar workers go to the ivy
league...the gateway to networking...actually i know the answer to
that. it's less than 3%
so, actually, many wealthy don't work. they take my money so they
don't have to work for theirs. they kill my pension plan, destroy my
401K, and get me to pay for their bailouts
THEN they get people like you to tell me how fortunate i am they let
me do this.
Well actually, "they" don't get me to do much of anything for "them"
and I'm not "they're spokesman, but your statement is correct when you
say "so, actually, many wealthy don't work. " and you're correct. I
wouldn't' work if I were rich either.
Now you keep saying things like "pay for bailouts"
hmmm, I think you are bagging those of wealth and labeling them all
as financial institutions employees, aren't you?
It seems that way or at least it does to me.-
uh...who owns those financial institutions? those folks are called
'wealthy'
Well, I'm part owner of a couple, and I don't consider myself
'wealthy' (in the material sense, that is).
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

John I suppose you could be right. We need to define wealthy, and rich.

Just ask Harry, in his fantasy narcissist world, he is both!