The study says that rich people aren't as good as poorer people at reading
emotions on people's faces.And therefore (the conclusion is being
drawn), rich people are wicked people, and we are justified in taking from them
whatever we want.Now, that may actually be true, but as your math
teacher used to say, show your work. There's a bit of glossing over being done
between premise A and conclusion B.
I like Brigham Young's take on the sin of "covetousness." He said
that both the rich and the poor covet: The rich covet their own goods, and the
poor covet someone else's.That said, I look at the difference
between Brigham Young's houses, and the ordinary pioneer Utahn's, and I have a
hard time taking his preaching against wealth with a straight face. This
happens a lot, actually: Those who already *are* rich -- and can afford high
taxes, or more properly, have enough money that they can live opulently without
ever realizing any income to be taxed -- buy self-satisfaction by advocating
higher taxes on those of us who are *trying* to get rich. See also Buffett,
"Rich people see suffering all around them and are fighting to hold onto
every penny. They do not even want to pay taxes. This helps explain
why."Alternatively, the fact that they *already* pay a
disproportionate share of taxes, might help explain why they get peeved when
people who don't pay any, ask them to pay still more.Nice
stereotype, by the way. You might as well say all poor people are lazy thieving
I looked into the study's mechanism for measuring "empathy." Here it
is:"In a series of experiments, the new study found that
lower-class people were better at reading emotions on others' faces one measure
of what researchers call empathic accuracy than people in the upper
class."Interestingly, it is also true that rich people are
smarter than poor people. Before you freak out at how offensive this is, take a
"don't shoot the messenger" pill. It's true. Wealthy people, *on
average* (two words liberals frequently seem incapable of processing), have
statistically higher IQs than poor people.IQ is correlated with a
certain kind of intelligence -- verbal and numerical intelligence. Those
traits, in turn, correlate highly with success in an advanced society.I'd like to see it studied whether these traits are correlated with a lesser
degree of non-verbal intelligence, such as the facial-recognition abilities
mentioned in the study. The socially-inept nerd (who goes on to make much more
money than his peers) is a stock figure. Maybe there's something to this.
So what I see is a lot of scripture quotes and people calling rich people snobs
that hold onto every penny. However, I would like to disagree with this. In my
opinion, the "rich" in the scriptures refers to a mindset, where the
rich themselves are a different type of people than the poor. With the whole
snob thing, many "rich" people are really just in huge debt. This
article does not provide efficient information on the project, such as what
class of person they used, as classes are most comfortable when around each
other. Did the person ask for money, etc. Just because the "poor" are
more empathetic, this may be a biased testing group, as many "rich"
people I know are very generous and not at all snobs. The popular opinion of the
middle class is to resent the rich. While the rich may have had a better chance
at being rich than you did, it doesn't mean they are bad people.
I do not envy anyone in the higher socioeconomic classes. I want every to
succeed. I am happy for people that succeed financially. But I do believe that
the ultimate happiness has very little to do with being rich. Hanging on to
money is financially prudent and leads to economic security and self-reliance.
But ultimately, no one can save themselves through economic security or
self-reliance and we are all beggars in one way or another; whether we realize
it or not, we are all connected, and the rich depend upon the lower
socioeconomic classes as much as the lower socioeconomic classes depend upon the
rich. The rich cannot continue to ignore this.I believe that it is
true that we shouldn't try to redistribute wealth through governmental policies,
but considering the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and
noting the ever increasing problems with crime and poverty, one can easily see
that if things keep going the way they are, at some point things are going to
come to a boil over. Can we just keep building bigger prisons?
Life is not fair, decisions & actions (or inactions) have consequences, and
failure happens. Quit whining, dust yourself off, keep plugging,
rely on yourself, be grateful for but, don't expect help. Don't bite off more
than you can swallow. a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single
step.Governments are for protecting national sovereignty, keeping
order, and maintaining personal liberty. Government is subject to the will of
the governed not, the other way around. Quit complaining about
everyone else's lot in life and work on your own! We will all have to stand
individually at the judgement bar.
lost in DC | 2:21 p.m. Sept. 29, 2011 West Jordan, UT LDS Lib,do you honesty think anything out of UC Berkeley would agree with scripture? I
don't see the connection. I think you WANT so much for it to prove
your point that you are willing to stretch to make it so. ======================= I've proved my point.The truth is
the truth.This study - no matter WHO did it - backs everything the
Prophets, Apostles & Scriptures have always said.If it helps you
out of your denialism, even Lucifer [UC Berkley and UCSF in your case] can tell the truth from time to time.BTW - I'm not the believer
that "everything is a Conspiracy Theory" guy.
To "Truthseeker | 5:16 p.m." I am defending the idea of Supply and
Demand. If there are 100,000 teachers for every star in Hollywood, the actor's
time is more valuable because it is a limited resource. If you cannot accept
that premise, then there is no point discussing it further.To
"RedneckLefty | 6:00 p.m." if you bothered to read the analogy, it is
not just the poor. It is for all people who live off of government handouts,
rich or poor. You just equate it to the poor because of your bias against
conservatives and your desire to make tham appear as evil as possible.
I have some anecdotal evidence that supports the story's main conclusion.I worked for a real estate management firm for a while. We once had a
canned food drive, where boxes were placed on each floor to collect donations.
Most of the upper level executives, the highest paid folks in the firm, were
located on one floor. That floor's box was always the most empty box. In fact,
one day the boxes on the other three floors were overflowing, and the one on the
executive floor had 4 cans in it.Some commentors have stated that
the rich can't empathize because they haven't experienced hardship, and others
that the poor are simply to lazy to put forth the effort to improve their
status. While there are definitely folks who fit both stereotypes, in my
experience there are far more examples that buck both generalizations.Stereotypes are usually discriminatory in some regard, are usually wrong, and
paint the person spouting them as shallow, callous and limited in their
I know what it's like to be poor. I was once homeless and spent some time
without work. Wondering how I was going to get food or find work. Some nice
people gave me a can of rice and a can of oats, which I ate from 3 times a day.
I walked to the grocery store with change that I found to buy fruit. Friends and
family gave me meals occasionally that helped to supplement my diet.During that time I was still going to school, since I had already paid for the
semester.I took the first job that I could find. Which wasn't the
greatest, but, it paid the rent and put food on the table. And I paid cash for
my education.Anyone that can work a minimum wage job, can make it.
And there are still plenty of minimum wage jobs out there.If your
poor, that is a short time as long as you work hard. I didn't hang out with
friends, go on vacation, buy a roast. I worked as much as I could and studied
the rest of the time. I don't resent someone for being rich.
They should have named this article: "How to start a childish political
argument filled with insults, logical fallacies, bad analogies and lies, that
has really no real connection with the content of the article."Current title more catchy. Sells better.
Yes most rich people were born with a silver spoon since 100 years ago so many
Utahs were rich. Like what 3 families.
Interesting that few comments put caveats on who "poor people" could
be. I wonder how many folks really know anything about "poor"? What it
means to really wonder, can I afford a small roast for this month? Can we have a
birthday cake? How much do I have to spend, it's five weeks for food this month?
If you never had to ask yourself that, you aren't acquainted with poor. And
that's poor, not really poor. I don't even want to go there. But yes, I have
been there, and those are the people who will help you if you need it. And you
will do the same. The few neighbors with cars take the others to the store and
if someone gets a job or a raise, the whole neighborhood cheers. Do wealthy
folks do this? Maybe, in a formal way, but it doesn't feel the same, I'm sure.
You know, when you don't have much, that everyone is in the same boat, and you
won't be letting it sink.
That has to be the biggest pile of contrived classical liberal class warfare
rhetoric I have ever heard in my life. Based on the combative responses going
back and forth it seems that its working. So let's by all means just play into
their hands. Their strategy is to divide and conquer, and we seem to be herded
right into their game. Wealthy people are not careless thoughtless people as a
whole. Who do you think does all the charitable giving? Everybody works hard to
survive and prosper. The difference is whether you're merely surviving or
prospering. It comes down to choices early on. Remember, someone has to have it
in order to give, and the poor shouldn't hate the rich, because you can't become
what you hate, and you can't have what you envy.
Last postRe:JSFThere was a book by Arthur Brooks, President of the
American Enterprise Institute (conservative think tank) which reported
Conservatives were more charitable than liberals. However, Paul Schervish of
Boston College's Center on Philanthropy thinks Brook's findings were flawed
because there is an inherent bias against high income states. When Schervish
included cost-of-living into the equation he found a much different result. For
example, Massachusetts moved from 44th to 11th place. (note: Utah was in the top
10 in both studies).
RedShirt:If you're trying to defend the rich against the claim that
they lack empathy for the poor, comparing poor people to wild pigs is probably
not the best strategy.
Rifleman - You must be rich. Either that or about 18 years old. Do you really
believe that the only variable involved in getting rich is how hard one works?
Sorry, if that were true, farmers or day laborers would be the richest people on
earth. There are plenty of people that have great ideas and work
hard, but never become rich. Not everyone has access to the capital needed to
become rich. There are millions of people that work hard in jobs and businesses
that the pay is controlled by factors that are beyond their control. Are those
types of jobs important? Somebody has to do them for society to succeed. Not
everyone can be a Land Developer. And when everyone tries to be land developers,
we end up with situations like the real estate bubble collapse. It
is true that there is more than enough to go around, but in order for everyone
to be rich, that would require cooperation not competition. The United Order,
where everyone were living by the law of consecration would be the only hope for
people to have more than enough. Try to have a little empathy!
I think Liberals and conservatives could agree that the optimal approach is to
"teach a man to fish.". Welfare was reformed by the Republicans and
Clinton in the 90's toward that end. With any system, including the LDS welfare
system, there are those who take advantage. It isn't possible to devise a
perfect system. Furthermore, it is easy to judge from afar, but how does one
tell the difference between say, someone with depression and
"laziness"? And what do we do with those who just really are unable
to function in society? Most of the money the U.S. spends on social programs go
for the elderly, the disabled and children. Re:RedshirtYesterday you were defending Paris Hilton and today you are advocating for
Hollywood! I think someone hacked your account.
It appears to me that those who have the most complain the most and those who
have the least are often the most grateful. It's not the poor complaining about
taxes or gov't regulation. It appears that tbose who have money in the bank
will do anything to keep it that way. Even if it means being unethical or
dishonest. Be grateful for what you have. Everything is relative. The middle
class in the U.S. have a standard of living that is the envy of the world.
Another thought, you don't see people sneaking across a border to live in
Mexico. I wonder why that is.
@ Rifleman 2:39You wrote:"Liberals just don't like
the concept self reliance. Drives 'em crazy. People who depend on government to
support them will vote for the man who promises to give them the most"I confess, I'm a liberal, leftist, with strong socialist tendencies.
Most of my friends are liberals in a variety of degrees to the left. However,
none of us fit your description of a liberal.We work to the best of
our abilities (harder than expected, long hours. I used to have my own small
business until I decided to follow my dream in education.I have
never received a single penny from the government in the form of aid. We liberals don't ask for us. We ask to have a strong community so everybody
can enjoy and develop as a human being.I count myself as fortunate
as Chris8484 to have financial security. But not everybody has the same
opportunities or abilities. It is way too easy to accuse those in
need of being lazy. Reality is more complicated than that.Rifleman,,
how would you answer Cain's question " Am I my brother's keeper"
As far as giving is concerned, yes the poor give a higher percent of their
income. But then the same statistics show that conservatives and republicans
give more to charities than liberals and democrats. Why? That would mean
conservatives and republicans are poorer than liberals and democrats.
To "Truthseeker | 3:40 p.m." we will pay teachers the salaries that
movie stars and professional currently make once becoming a teacher is as
difficult as becoming a professional athlete or making it big in Hollywood.To "RedneckLefty | 3:44 p.m." if we are going to go on the
metaphore/analogy trip, here is one that describes welfare in the US:A pack of wild pigs has claimed a swamp/forest area near a town. The
townspeople want to get rid of the pigs. They hire a man to come and take care
of the pigs.The man feeds the pigs, and slowly builds a pen around
the pigs. The pigs become dependant on the man, so he eventually captures them.
Eventually those pigs are captured and taken, and lose all their freedom.Look up "The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp"You can also think of what the government does as Esau from the Old
Testament. He sold his birthright for a bowl of soup.
DeltaFoxtrot did you learn your economics at UC Berkley or USF? Maybe you need
to read some Dr. Sowell from Stanford to get a less obtuse vision.
I am going to read this study. My experience has taught me that the definitions
of terms such as "rich," "poor," and empathy have varied
meanings within a population. I have met "rich" people who are
"empathetic" and "poor" people who are not. The sourcing of
the study out of the Bay area schools could lead some to believe that the
definitions were made so that the point desired could be "proven."Generalizations of people are troublesome. I would agree with IDC. Might it be possible that those who conducted this study are trying to
validate their political philosophy?
The "teach a man to fish" metaphor kind of breaks down when all the
fishing ponds are either privately owned or polluted, the cost of fishing poles
is inflated, the bait industry is monopolized, and fish are taxed at a higher
rate than capital gains.Or, to invoke another thoughtless platitude:
it rings hollow to tell a man to pull himself up by his bootstrap if he can't
afford boots in the first place.It's like the old joke:Q. How
do tell if someone is a democrat or a republican?A. Give him a half-glass
of water. If he's a democrat he will say "This glass is half full." If
he's a republican, he'll say "Okay, what freeloader took half my
One theory I've considered through observation of who gets promoted to upper
management is that sometimes they are the type who "kiss-up" and
"kick-down." They excel at "schmoozing" but those they
supervise are miserable. I wonder if there is a disproportionate number of
narcissists in the wealthy class? Of course, there are very decent people too.
Society requires a wide variety of people and skills to function.
We shouldn't denigrate those who fill the most humble, yet often the most
necessary of jobs. It seems too many people equate salary level with the level
of hard work such that those at the top worked harder than everybody below them.
Sometimes that is the case, but often not. In our crazy mixed up world I
think teachers should switch salaries with movie stars and professional
Money makes you more of what you already are. If you're not an
empathetic person, money will make you more so.If you're generous
and kind, money will allow you to be more generous and kind.This
study is bogus.
Please note that these issues are not black and white. My husband and I are
hard-working and financially secure. We are blessed with good health, great
eduations, and good jobs. However, we have friends who are seriously ill or who
have significant mental or physical disabilities that make it impossible for
them. They would love to work and be self-sufficient, but they cannot.Ghandi said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its
weakest members." These members include children, the elderly, and the sick
and dying. I have devoted much of my life to serving these populations, and I
can tell you that there is great needs in our communities are not being
addressed by the church and country. There is much that all of us can do to
make a difference, but we need leadership on local and national levels to
address them all. By the way, for decades studies show that the
poor give proportionately much more of their incomes to charity than the rich.
Certainly, we can do anything we want to with our money, but we must also accept
consequences for the decisions we make, and some of them are societal.
You can't decide how other people should spend their money. Even though it
would be nice if they spent it to help others or the economy it is still their
own choice.We have all chosen the path we are on. It is our choice
to accept that rather than blame someone else for our misfortune.Coulda stayed in school. shoulda studied harder. woulda done something
different had we know this economy was going to collapse so hard. Whatever it
is we are trying to rationalize then it doesn't change the facts that we still
have enormous opportunity to change the course of our lives.Countless success stories are out there of people who decided to do something
about their situation and improve it.Money enables people to express
who they really are. Selfish or giving. Thank goodness for
generous people with means. They are awesome. Also, it is ALL relative. Most
of us are extremely rich compared to the rest of the world. No reason to be
sour about anything.Get motivated and go create some value
Re: Reasonable Person | 2:10 p.m. Sept. 29, 2011 To suggest
individual accountability these days isn't politically correct. The correct
Chinese Proverb is "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a
man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".Liberals just
don't like the concept self reliance. Drives 'em crazy. People who depend on
government to support them will vote for the man who promises to give them the
Kami,you are correct, I did little in my prior post but insult the source
of the study and call LDS lib out on their normal insults.However,
the majority of the comments the past 2 years or so that I have been posting
have had cogent arguments and expressed points of view other than just calling
those with whom I do not agree names or saying they are uneducated, as is LDS
Lib's wont.LDS Lib,do you honesty think anything out of UC
Berkeley would agree with scripture? I don't see the connection. I
think you WANT so much for it to prove your point that you are willing to
stretch to make it so.
Rifleman says "Its that old 'teach a man to fish' concept."....and how is fishing more worthwhile than waiting tables 12 hours a day?Cute catchphrases are meaningless, when the anti-government crowd
doesn't want to educate people. I can't teach you to fish;
however, I can instruct you on the proper use of the apostrophe.
DuhOf course Republicans will dismiss the findings because it came from UC
Berkley, the #1 nationally ranked public university (according to US News and
World Reports)and it doesn't fit their political positions. But,
just like the widow's mite, Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the poor are
the most charitable as a percentage of income. Statistics also show that
generosity among the poor decines less in hard times than the generosity of
wealthy donors. Additionally, the poor don't earn enough to justify itemizing
their charitable contributions. The effect is that every dollar donated to
charity by the poor costs them a dollar while wealthy donors who itemize the
dollar donated costs them 65 cents. Other findings:
disproortionate numbers of poor people belong to congregations that tithe.
Women are more generous than men. Older people give more than younger people.
The working poor, disproportionate numbers of which are recent immigrants are
America's most generous group.
This "research" coming out of UC Berkeley and UCSF is nothing more
than a softball pitch to President Obama in his attempts to get re-elected.
"Tax the rich and give to the poor" is not a long term solution any
more than the massive debt laid on the taxpayers, and at best will only garner
the President enough votes to get re-elected at the cost of a united nation. I
expect more garbage science to come out as elections continue to draw near.
The comments have really missed the pooiint of this article, and the research.
It does not say the rich are or are not charitable. It says only that they do
not have the same skill as the common man in reading the emotions of a subject.
To say they are evil because of this is to say autistic children who
can not read the facial emotions of people are evil. It's just talking about a
Somewhere, I think the Book of Mormon, tells a story about people who were taxed
at 50%. This was considered unacceptable and "in bondage". Mosiah
7:22 The Desnews will regret publishing this piece of "spread the
wealth" propaganda when the charitable contribution tax credit (think
tithing) is eliminated as part of Obama's plan.
Anyone who has ever worked for tips knows the truth of this study.
I consider myself so middle class, it hurts. But then, that's the way I like
it. But, I've been around long enough to observe neighbors, church members, and
society in general that I must agree with the study cited. I spent more than a
week recently in Utah visiting kids and grandkids and others. I went to
football games at Lone Peak High School and spent time in the area ward
functions. Honestly, when I left to visit family in Colorado, I said to myself,
"if these are the type of people that will inherit the celestial kingdom, I
don't want to go there. I was so put off by people who had a bit too much money
that I caught myself just shaking my head. It's true, in general---general I
said--wealthy people or those trying so very hard to get there have lost a good
bit of mooring. So unfortunate.
I don't know how the comments section turned into an argument about Democrats
vs. Republicans. It should come as no surprise that people who deal with certain
problems are more empathetic to others who experience the same problems. But
poverty isn't the only problem people have, and poverty certainly isn't limited
to one political party or the other. Sorry, I get impatient with people who can
only see the world through their favored political prism.
@RedShirt | 12:05 p.m. Sept. 29, 2011"Can a person who has
never known hunger identify completely with a person who has?"The problem, RedShirt, as I understand the report, is not just that many of
the rich don't (or can't) truly empathize, but that they don't SYMPATHIZE,
either -- which they COULD do, even as privileged persons, IF they weren't so
selfish, and unrighteously judgmental. In other words, it is
possible to LEARN what others are going through, and to learn why they are going
through it, and to think and respond well to it, without having to experience it
This scripture is quoted a lot in this type of debate:"It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of heaven."Which I truly believe. But what
of the rich man who *does* make it? What of the rich man who does become
converted? How much of a difference to everyone's lives can he or she make?I think there are different types of "rich" people, which
could probably be boiled down to a few general types. Those that follow the
hollywood/celebrity idea of what it means to be rich, where snobby, prima donna,
"who cares about you" attitudes prevail. Or those that follow their
greed and every possible profit on wall street regardless of the consequence to
others.Then there are those who many of us work for. Rich or well
to do by ownership of a business they have designed to run well, grow, and
compete in the marketplace, who are just as concerned about economic downturn
and its effects on everyone else, and don't go to extremes of extravagance just
because of their success.
Why do poor not give lots of money to charities? Let me see. hmmm. could it be
because they dont have lots of money period? Yet they will give you food off
their tables, clothes off their backs. They know what its like to not have
enough and dont want to see others suffer the same way. Ok lets be honest here.
Not they. Me. I would never want to see a family have to go look in garbage cans
hoping to find something to feed their kids that night. Ever. If I need help who
do I know will help? Well let me give a clue. Others who know what its like not
the rich for sure.
tom_e | 11:49 a.m. Sept. 29, 2011 Kaysville, UTDeltaFoxtrot - I
would guess the single mom who waits tables never finished college. Instead she
was in love at 16 had her first child at 17 and two more by the time she was 20.
Yet she blames others for her problems.What a horrible uncalled for
insult to all waitresses. You need to apologize to those hard working low paid
workers. Do you have such a low opinion of all working people or just
To "LDS Liberal | 11:33 a.m." since you claim to be an engineer, I can
safely assume that you have a basis in science. If you read the MSN article
that this story linked to, you can quicly find where the study becomes
biased.They describe how they showed pictures to rich and poor
people, then asked them to identify the emotional state of that person. The big
scientific question is this. How can you measure the emotional state of a
person? If a person has a frown, are they sad, is that just the shape of their
face, or are they thinking of something else and not paying attention to the
world around them?Just to be clear, the big question is this: How
do you measure the emotional state of a person in a photograph?Another thing that they fail to explain is the fact that you can't empathize
with somebody's problems when you have never had experience with those problems?
Can a person who has never known hunger identify completely with a person who
has? At the same time can a poor person empathize with the stress of running a
@tom_e: I didn't say anything in the example about who this woman blames. I
merely said that the rich man should walk a mile in her shoes before determining
whether or not she works as hard as he does.Perhaps she did finish
college, got married, had a family. But her husband ran off with his secretary
and, unable to find work in the field that she was educated in, she took to
waiting tables because when there are bills to pay and mouths to feed some money
is better than none at all. There's a whole lot of that going on these days.It is easy for people to assume the worst when they don't know the
DeltaFoxtrot - I would guess the single mom who waits tables never finished
college. Instead she was in love at 16 had her first child at 17 and two more by
the time she was 20. Yet she blames others for her problems.
Money truly is "the root of all evil"Do you think Jesus would
encourage a society based on money?I highly doubt it.It is hard to
comprehend a society where money isn't necessary, but in order for the world to
evolve and peace to reign, it is the only solution.
If rich employers are giving generously to the hungry, the homeless, the sick,
and the needy, if they are providing their employees with fair compensation for
their work, if they are paying their taxes fairly, and if they are providing
jobs with the money they have accumulated, that is good. If they are hoarding
their money, refusing to help others who are in need, paying their employees
less than they have rightfully earned, finding ways to avoid paying their fair
share of taxes, and overworking their existing employees rather than hiring
additional ones, then there is a problem.True, not all rich people
are selfish, but enough are that millions in our country--and throughout the
world--are suffering needlessly. Too many hard-working people are unable to find
work because of the greed of the powerfully rich. Too many sick are dying
because they cannot afford health insurance. As a Christian nation, we need to
stand up and address these issues rather than find ways to may the rich richer
and the poor poorer.
In a society of more, more, more there has to be limitation. People have sold
the future of this nation so they can make another buck. It has to stop while
there is a nation left to save.The purpose of high taxes on the rich
is they are paying for the country that gave them virtually unchecked ability to
make money. Would they have the same opportunities in Russia, China, Korea or
Mexico? No way. If our government didn't have programs in place to assist with
college, medicine, housing, employment, etc. Steve Jobs wouldn't have been able
to sell 300 million iPods and revolutionize how we listen to music.Our economy is driven by consumer spending. The rich don't spend money, they
save it. If we all saved our money the only people with jobs would be those who
provide us with food and shelter. Money has to be taken from the rich and given
to the not-rich, so they will spend it. This keeps our economy going so
eventually money will make it back to the rich.
Jon W. | 9:41 a.m. Sept. 29, 2011 Murray, UT UC Berkeley and UCSF?
I'm sure that study is unbiased! lost in DC | 10:22 a.m. Sept. 29,
2011 West Jordan, UT "research from University of California at
Berkeley and at San Francisco"The article destroyed its
credibility right up front.====================== What
the?...I don't follow you guys.This study is agreeing
and now Scientifically proving the Prophets and Scriptures have been true all
along -- And now you question the study just because it's from UC Berkely and UCSF somehow think it's biased?I don;t follow you
at all.Perhaps it is because you disagree with the outcome of the
study [which would mean you don't agree with what God has said],not
knowing the meaning of the word "biased"? or because your
personal bias against all things UC Berkley or UCSF has already automatically
judged the study as being wrong without ever looking at or considering the
facts?[Hint: that's called being biased]I've got news for
you.The Truth is not biased, no matter the source.....BTW - If you disagree with the Study, may God have mercy on
I know I am broke and I could care less.
King Benjamin strongly warned us not to think, "this person has brought
upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not...impart
unto him of my substance...for his punishments are just...."One
reason, of course, is that the rich man that thinks the above does so because he
also thinks that "I have brought upon myself my blessed state; therefore my
having more substance than my brother is also just...."Hence
the rich wards in the Salt Lake Valley, and the poor wards in the Salt Lake
Valley.And I have yet to figure out or hear any persuasive argument
on how we countenance or should countenance such things in Mormonism.
Let the class warfare continue...
@ Rifleman 10:40You wrote: "The solution is to teach the poor
how to become self sustaining. Its that old 'teach a man to fish'
concept."Rifleman, I am impressed and I agree 100% with
you.As a free capitalist society we believe that the final result of
our efforts as individuals will be different. Some will have more and some will
have less, right?However that is not really the problem here. The
dilemma here is how to equalize the beginning of the economic race.All children should have equal opportunities to first class education, safe
housing, nutritious meals and health protection to assist in their
development.All full time working parents should be able to receive
a payment that allows at least to cover the basic needs of their family.Nobody should be so poor that cannot afford nutritious meals or access
to medicine.All people are vulnerable to suffer life disrupting
experiences. Society should be able to provide a safe net to help those members
who need temporal or permanent assistance.The rich can continue
being rich. But, the poor must stop living in misery. Yes, we could
use and expand on the fish concept.
Money is not evil - the love of money is evil. Not all rich people
are selfish and not all poor people are humble. Generalizations are
dangerous and create division and anger.
This study fails to mention that the Republicans give overwhelmingly more to
charity than Democrats.......But if you ask a Democrat, he will tell
you he too supports charity......the charity that comes from stealing from one
who has achieved the American Dream by working their whole life.......
@lost in DC: yet your insulting the University of California at Berkeley and at
San Francisco is ok?
Re: DeltaFoxtrot | 10:02 a.m. Sept. 29, 2011 "Go talk to the single
mom who waits tables 12 hours a day"Life never has been and
never will be fair. To take from the rich and give to the poor is not the long
term solution. Give everybody an equal amount of money and it time some would
again be poor and some would again become rich.The solution is to
teach the poor how to become self sustaining. Its that old 'teach a man to
I think a lot of these sweeping statements are really unfair. Most
"rich" people actually work very hard. Most upper income people work
many more hours per week than less successful people. There are also many
working class people who work very hard each week. One of the
biggest factors is education. It takes a lot of work to get the education that
often allows people to be financially successful. Those who are willing to pay
the price for education are usually much more successful.I know many
wealthy people who are very compassionate--Bill Gates comes to mind. There are
also many working class people I have met who are very selfish.I
don't think sweeping conclusions are good. However, I do think there is a
serious danger in having money. Afterall, the BofM warns us about becoming
lifted up in our pride when we become rich. Following the Saviour keeps us
humble.We must judge others on an individual basis and not based on
their skin color, religion or.....their financial status.
Rifleman | 9:42 a.m. Sept. 29, 2011 Salt Lake City, Utah ...The poor
want what the rich have earned, but are unwilling to put forth the effort it
takes to achieve it. =============== I believe - to use
a psychological term - that you maybe "Projecting" here Rifleman. [When someone says something about others, wilst actually secretly desiring it
for themselves.]Most of us just want a fair shake in life.I
also believe where much is Given, much is to be expected.I consider
myself "poor" by way of material things of the world.But not
impoverished.and I would NEVER want what the "rich"
have.It comes with too high of a price tag.Most people I've
seen with lots of money, have rude, spoiled rotten kids who grow up to be drug
addicts, can't hold marriages, squander and waste their inheritances, and
usually fall away from the Gospel.I'd rather be poor and have my
Family solid in the Gospel, than have all the Gold/Silver in this
World.I don't know if you are "rich" Rifleman, but
you certainly need to be more Compassionate of the situation of others.
This research confirms what the new testament proclaimed centuries ago: It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of heaven. It is not about the money -- it is about pride and
the absence of humility and meekness -- "i earned this with my hard work, I
deserve it, it's mine, go earn your own", etc. The more we have it seems
the more we want. The eternal fact is that all we have comes from our maker and
and when we are given a bit more than our share, we should willingly share in
return and have concern for everyone around us. The principle of self reliance
and hard work does not come close in importance to those of pure charity and
lovingkindness. Easy to say, hard to do.
Maybe the rich would help and talk to the poor more, if there weren't soo many
losers that sue anything with a deep pocket. Which is a form of stealing.Why put yourself out there and have to constantly fight legal battles,
when you can go on vacation and not bother with it?Look at obama,
that's all he's doing. Do you see him mingle with poor people? He's always on
vacation, and they have actors and polished "poor" "regular"
folks for him to do photo ops with.
Rich people lack empathy? It took a scientific research project to determine
that? And don't talk to me about all the $ they give away -- as long as their
names are prominently displayed everywhere. "Verily I say unto you, they
have their reward . . ."
"research from University of California at Berkeley and at San
Francisco"The article destroyed its credibility right up
front.Rifleman,don't bother with LDS Lib. If he/she cannot
insult a republican, he/she doesn't bother to post. I'm just curious HOW he/she
knows what is said on conservative talk radio. I doubt he/she listens to it;
his/her interpretation must come through the totally unbiased filter of MNSBC or
the Huffington compost.
I prefer to call people broke - not poor. Poor sends a message of victim and no
way out. @Deltafoxtrot - check your facts. Most rich people are not
born with a silver spoon - do some research today and find out the truth. The
examples you site for jobs are good jobs that may not pay a lot but they
generally provide a wage that is livable. Who says the rich didn't come from the
trenches so to speak. My mom was a widow at a very young age and raised a family
of 4 children on her own. I never considered us poor but looking back we
probably were.The article gives no reference of what an income of
lower income vs. rich is. I'd like to know what the numbers are. Last, I thought it was life experiences that taught us empathy and such - the
rich aren't immune from illness and other woes that life brings. I
think the overall study on this topic is lacking and wonder if it was really
necessary in the first place.
So perhaps it might be better for leaders of churches not to be wealthy?
Afterall, according to this article they don't seem to be able to have much
empathy for their poor followers. Gosh how can they even be Christlike without
The bible says that it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a
needle than gain entrance to heaven. I believe tat a good honest days work
makes people more honset.Rich people see suffering all around them and are
fighting to hold onto every penny. They do not even want to pay taxes. This
helps explain why.
This study affirms my personal experience.
@Rifleman: Again it's you thinking that the middle class and poor don't work as
hard as the rich.Go talk to the single mom who waits tables 12 hours
a day so she can support her kids. Go talk to the construction worker toiling
away in 90 degree heat to bring home $30,000/yr. Go talk to the secretary who
spends all day on the phone scheduling appointments. Tell these people they're
not working as hard as the suits up in the boardroom. Tell the nurse changing
adult diapers in the cancer ward that she's not working as hard as the doctor in
the OR. See what she says. Better yet go work with these people for a week and
then say they aren't putting out as much effort.The rich think they
are superior because so many of them were born with the silver spoon. They've
never had to do an honest day's work in their life and if they had to come down
here and live with the rest of us they wouldn't know what to do.
Re: LDS Liberal | 9:42 a.m. Sept. 29, 2011 "Ya - Jesus must l-o-v-e
Republicans"As a professed member of the LDS Church you must
surely believe that Jesus loves everybody, even Republicans. It is some of our
behaviors He takes exception to: Unnecessary abortions, addiction to porn ....
Now there is a finding I would have never even thought possible- or did I read
that somewhere in scripture that this might be exactly the case? Hmmmm a
It's true -- Meanwhile - I'm shocked at how Utahns fawn over guys
like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck when they say things like "Compassion"
is the "Most Disastrous" word on their radio broadcasts. - Sept. 27,
2011Ya - Jesus must l-o-v-e Republicans.
The rich "think that economic success and political outcomes, and personal
outcomes, have to do with individual behavior, a good work ethic, he
said"Well don't they? The poor want what the rich have earned,
but are unwilling to put forth the effort it takes to achieve it.
UC Berkeley and UCSF? I'm sure that study is unbiased!