Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get the sense that wealthy conservatives are upset that wasting money and resources is something everyone does regardless of income. I'm sure there is a person somewhere who has already taken order for a 2021 Escalade who doesn't care of the premium they pay for that luxury and they will get upset when a person in line in front of them uses a food stamp card while talking on an expensive cell phone.
I think what we are witnessing is the downfall of money itself. It's not hard to come by and that's why no one saves it or feels the need to use it for their survival. People who have traded too much of their life to pile it up don't like think that a person can just beg for in the street and get by. Can you imagine in 1840 a beggar on the street begging for a slave from a wealthy plantation owner? Someone who would give $3000.00 to charity would never buy an acre of land and donated it to a poor family.
Money is just not worth what it used to be worth. Its too easy to come by.
Anyone is free to make any decision they wish, but not what many do not understand is that with that freedom comes the consequences. One is free to spend every last dime, but then when they turn around and claim they are a victim and believe punishing 'rich' people who save their money via increased taxes will somehow solve their own financial issue, then yes, that angers people.
Exactly! What is it with some of these posters who first claim that people who disagree with them can't entertain a differing perspective - and then are unable to see ours?
As I said from the outset, it would be nice to conduct this study by income and find out what percent of people earning more than $50,000 have nothing in savings but DO have expensive IPhones, go the theater frequently, go on cruises and to Hawaii, and have their weekly pit stop at the spa for a manicure?
I'm sure it's many across the income spectrum. Many people who live in the very nicest neighborhoods, with the largest houses and best cars are in the same boat. Again, 'The Millionaire Next Door'.
Doesn't seem to be working too well, but then again, it is not really a solution, it's a talking point.
If all people were personally responsible, out nation would be utopia.
Yeah, and what percent of that population can't save $400 but has their credit cards up to the limit with Iphones, cruises, and expensive dinners out? THAT is what we are saying.
Some people are truly needy. But a huge percentage of the people without $400 are irresponsible spenders who easily could have savings if they were just willing to go without some luxuries that they deem necessary for their lifestyle.
So people who believe differently than you - for example, middle-earners without $400 to their names should spend money on Iphones and cruises - are merely "parroting" talking points invented by others? Are you so unable to consider that other people who disagree with you make their own decisions?
Don't put words in my mouth. Its dishonest.
Anyone who is able to look at things from more than one angle would disagree that they problem is only about people continuously buying new iPhnones and taking vacations. Your view is a hyper-narrow talking point you learned from someone.
Everyone knows some people are irresponsible, that is the human nature, but MOST people also know there are more than one cause.
Are you assuming that the people disturbed when others without $400 in savings spend their money on expensive cell phones are "wealthy conservatives"? To the contrary, they are primarily middle-income earners who made prudent decisions, bought the cheaper cell phone and do their own fingernails, so they can put away savings for retirement. They are rightly disturbed when they see people without a penny to their names spend every last cent because they know that these same people will cry "poverty" when it comes time to get on the liberal receiving line for benefits - and paid for by the middle-income earners who made the responsible decisions.
Very similar to the father who confronted Largesse Lizzie about her college debt forgiveness platform. He worked two jobs and saved, his daughter worked and saved, and consequently she has no college debt. His buddy earned more at one job, took luxury vacations, bought the fun toys, so his kids had to load up on college debt, and Largesse Lizzie wants to reward the irresponsible spendthrifts and punish the responsible families - all just to buy votes with other people's money. The father to Warren?
Anyone who is able to look at things from more than one angle would disagree that they problem is only about people continuously buying new iPhnones and taking vacations. Your view is a hyper-narrow talking point you learned from someone.
Everyone knows some people are irresponsible, that is the human nature, but MOST people also know there are more than one cause.
No one is saying that buying iPhones is the ONLY problem. Of course, there are systemic issues in expensive places, limiting people's ability to save. They can however, relocate to a place that is less expensive and many of those people are also buying iPhones, Starbucks, etc.
I'm sure it's many across the income spectrum. Many people who live in the very nicest neighborhoods, with the largest houses and best cars are in the same boat. Again, 'The Millionaire Next Door'.
Yep. It's the 'big hat, no cattle' syndrome. Plenty of people in pricey neighborhoods with nice cars, designer clothes, shoes, and handbags, latest greatest iPhone, etc., are either living paycheck to paycheck and/or have to file for bankruptcy because even they are quite capable of irresponsibly living beyond their means.
Anyone who is able to look at things from more than one angle would disagree that they problem is only about people continuously buying new iPhnones and taking vacations. Your view is a hyper-narrow talking point you learned from someone.
Everyone knows some people are irresponsible, that is the human nature, but MOST people also know there are more than one cause.
That is exactly what I just said you are doing with me, so you turn it around? Unreal. It's that liberal way of accusing people of doing exactly what you are guilty of. (I know, I know....you're not a liberal. You've told me. But you do use their tactics and agree with their viewpoints.)
And again, you are very condescending in saying I learned my view from someone else - as if I'm too stupid (I actually have a very high IQ) to form my own judgments and viewpoints.
And, for the last time (!!), my view is not hyper-narrow. I said at the very outset that some people do not have $400 because they are truly needy, but many others do not have it because despite their middle incomes, they buy luxuries instead of saving even a tiny amount. (Hence, they need to borrow $400 when there's an emergency.)
And you consider what I said about a liberals a non-sequitur? Let me explain:
1) Liberals on this forum are defending middle-earners who, instead of putting a couple of thousand dollars away every year to build a retirement fund, spend every last cent on expensive IPhones and vacations, leaving them with less than $400 in savings.
2) Then we have another liberal who is claiming that you need at least $1 million in savings to have a decent retirement.
So which is it? On one hand, you defend people who choose not to save a cent and spend irresponsibly, and on the other hand, you claim that people better have saved up $1 million to have a decent retirement.
It seems you never get tired of attaching fake labels and strawman arguments. It comes across horribly dishonest.
Very similar to the father who confronted Largesse Lizzie about her college debt forgiveness platform. He worked two jobs and saved, his daughter worked and saved, and consequently she has no college debt. His buddy earned more at one job, took luxury vacations, bought the fun toys, so his kids had to load up on college debt, and Largesse Lizzie wants to reward the irresponsible spendthrifts and punish the responsible families - all just to buy votes with other people's money. The father to Warren?
Exactly! The responsible savers will be punished, and the irresponsible spenders will be rewarded.
Just wait. One of these days, a liberal will have the "solution" to the SS problem: let's restrict SS to people who really need it, those with minimal savings. Those who have $500,000 in investments (or whatever number they come up) or more can do without.
What they omit is that the people with $500,000 in investments did so by buying a house LESS than that for which they qualified, buy less expensive cell phones, do not buy a brand-new car every 5 or 6 years, and so forth - while those who ended up with little to no savings DID overextend themselves on a house and splurged on every little doo-dad around will collect SS benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
