Just because someone is rich it doesnt automatically make them a bad person.

[Eko]

Sure, make the case for the person on a case by case basis, by all means. Its a bad argument when you just use being rich as a negative, bad form also. Treat everyone as a person first and don't stereotype. Commence the attacks I don't give a flick.

[cantbeserious]

1. Look Behind Where The Wealth Came From And One Typically Finds Malevolence Of Some Kind

eom

[Eko]

2. Im not going to argue that point,

but just because someone is rich and they donated to someone they are not automatically bad.

[cantbeserious]

57. Not Bad Per Se - However - Protective Of Their Wealth And The Resultant Status And Benefits

eom

[Eko]

4. I could just as easily say

Look Behind Where The Malevolence came from And One Typically finds men. Does that mean all men are bad? Of course not.

[cantbeserious]

54. False Equivalency - Study The Uber Wealthy And Where Their Wealth First Originated

eom

[Eko]

58. Changing the goalposts.

To uber wealthy from rich.

[cantbeserious]

62. Rich To This Citizen Always Represents The Uber Wealthy - Not Chump Change Wealth

eom

[Eko]

64. Well then

theres your problem.

[cantbeserious]

66. This Citizen Has No Problems

eom

[jberryhill]

91. Uber Wealthy is pretty cool

You just put the pin on the map where you are, and a wealthy person shows up in a couple of minutes.

[FrodosPet]

110. Too bad they park right where you put the pin, which is 3 houses away from where you really are.

And then cancel on you as soon as they can collect $5 for no show.

[CBGLuthier]

13. Malevolence? So all rock stars, writers, actors, actresses, sports stars,

software company founders, game company founders, etc are hostile, evil, malevolent?

Stephen King for instance. He earned every fucking penny he has made, has supported democratic ideals, gives to charities and he did all this writing books that people paid money to read or sometimes even borrowed from the evil malevolent libraries.

David Bowie? Elton John?

That's a mighty deep crock you got there.

[Eko]

16. Bam!

Thanks.

[cantbeserious]

59. Misplaced Response - Entertainment Figures Represent Chump Change Wealth

Compared to the uber wealthy.

[cantbeserious]

52. Those Are Not The Rulers Of The World - Small Fish In A Much Larger Game

eom

[Eko]

61. Again not talking about uber wealthy

just the rich.

[cantbeserious]

65. This Citizen Always See Wealth From The Vantage Of The Uber Wealthy - Not Chump Change Wealth

eom

[oberliner]

79. JK Rowling is worth a billion dollars

That is not chump change. She earned her money by bringing joy to millions upon millions of children with her creative storytelling.

[hobbit709]

81. And she puts a lot of money into worthy causes unlike the Kochs who buy governments

[oberliner]

85. Exactly

Just lending support to the "not all rich people are bad" concept.

[cantbeserious]

90. One Exception Does Not Make A Rule

eom

[MelSC]

18. What about hardworking physicians?

.

[cantbeserious]

53. Small Fish In A Much Larger Game - Chump Change Wealth Compared To The Uber Wealthy

eom

[MelSC]

63. Oh

So glad you give them the pass...

[cantbeserious]

68. Not Giving Anyone A Pass - HRC Represents The Uber wealthy - Always Has - Always Will

eom

[MelSC]

78. Wow

Still voting for her

[MelSC]

92. Who are you talking about?

The "uber rich" or the 1%? You know the 1% includes households that make $400,000+ annually right? Bernie isn't just going after billionaires and multi-millionaires.

You keep using vague statements of wealth...then when someone gives you an example you say "chump change" lol. You know a lot of billionaires got there by doing something they loved and believed in and had no idea that it would result in billions.

Now, the world of finance may have those unsavory characters you are alluding to since people attracted to finance are usually attracted to making money. Not all millionaires/billionaires are like you say though.

[TeddyR]

94. You really think that the vast majority of rich people

Got rich through "malevolence"? Care to expound on that claim? A starting point would be what do you consider "rich"?

[cantbeserious]

95. Rich = Uber Wealthy - Top 100th Of 1%

eom

[Dems2002]

3. Science has proven that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and steal

The wealthy's compassion deficit
Rich people are more likely to lie, cheat and steal than the poor, studies suggest.

We know that wealth does not always make people happy, but does it make them kinder? Studies suggest exactly the opposite. Instead of being more magnanimous, the rich are more likely to lie, cheat, steal and in general display less compassion than the poor. And this finding remains consistent even after controlling for gender, ethnicity and spiritual beliefs.

A large body of research point to a compassion deficit in the rich that plays out in big and small ways. As reported in Scientific American, for example, drivers of luxury cars cut others off at intersections at a much higher rate than those driving economy cars. Other studies have found that the wealthy are more likely to lie in negotiations and less likely to agree with statements such as "I often notice people who need help." And during simulations in which participants could divide up candy, giving some to children and keeping some for themselves, wealthier participants consistently kept more for themselves and gave less to children.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/08/opinion/la-oe-wolpe-wealth-compassion-deficit-20130908

[Eko]

5. sure,

but most likely doesn't mean they are all automatically bad.

[AZ Progressive]

6. The world of money is a brutal world, only the most cutthroat and aggressive get to the top

And you must bet that many if not most of those have done quite a bit of unethical things to get there.

[Eko]

7. many, most,

sure but not all.

[cali]

8. No of course not, but no, it's not a case by case matter

Sorry. And yes, I know the rich.

[Eko]

9. Sure it is.

And Cali you dont know anything. Logic escapes you way too frequently.

[cali]

24. Sorry, I do know

I grew up in New Canaan Ct. Went to Country Day alongside the Watson kids of IBM, etc. Prep school, just like Mother and Dad. To be blunt, I grew up in considerable wealth and it blindered me for the first 40 years of my life. Yes, I know that demographic.

[Eko]

34. I grew up poor as flick

and met many rich people in the music business. Some cool, most bad. But once again that does not make all rich people bad, Robert Reich, Stephen King, Tommy Chong? Bad because they are rich?

[cali]

40. And I clearly said not all rich people are bad

[Eko]

43. Ok,

what did this mean? "but no, it's not a case by case matter"

[cali]

47. It means, that there is too much concentrated wealth, and thus power

in the hands of the 1%.


My father certainly had his personal shortcomings but as early as the seventies, he would go on and an about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and how his manufacturing business would end with him. It did. He sold it and they offshored those jobs.

He actually used to scare me when I was young. I pictured mobs and torches.

[Eko]

49. and this is germane to

thinking just because someone is rich and they donate to a politician they are bad? Sorry to hear that by the way.

[cali]

75. Your Manichaeistic world view is not only ironic,

but it makes discussing this with you fruitless.

[Eko]

96. Funny thing

to call an atheist.

[cali]

113. Not really.

The terms "Manichaean" and "Manichaeism" are sometimes used figuratively as a synonym of the more general term "dualist" with respect to a philosophy or outlook.[83] They are often used to suggest that the world view in question simplistically reduces the world to a struggle between good and evil. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski used the phrase "Manichaean paranoia" in reference to U.S. President George W. Bush's world view (in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, March 14, 2007); Brzezinski elaborated that he meant "the notion that he (Bush) is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#Figurative_use

[Eko]

114. Well this athiest

for one doesn't believe in good or evil and most don't. There is probably one or two that might somewhere out there.

[Kalidurga]

77. This is the kind of thing rich people do in general.

So, if you want to carry a torch for the rich fine. But, when you use it as a weapon it seems you are killing your argument.

[Eko]

97. Thanks for generalizing.

Carry a torch for the rich? when all I am saying is don't generalize?

[Kalidurga]

109. Nah I am talking about you being a bully to Cali. But, you probably knew that.

And Cali you dont know anything. Logic escapes you way too frequently.

[Eko]

10. I only know of one person I would without a doubt call a berniebot

and you are it. Congrats.

[AZ Progressive]

11. Hillary supporters are sounding more and more like Republicans...

Now its defending the Rich, is defending lassieze faire capitalism next?

[Eko]

12. Ha!

Not a Clinton supporter buddy. More a supporter in logic and is not afraid to call it out.

[cali]

25. Logic? You exhibit a woeful paucity of that quality, my dear friend.

[Eko]

26. OOOOhh,

That hurt. Nice to know you can look up big words. Hope for you yet.

[Eko]

31. It is bad

that it took you over 20 min to look up those 3 words and how to use them, but like I said there is hope for you yet. Fingers crossed for ya.

[cali]

35. Oh, dear. It appears I've gotten under your very thin skin.

No need to look up such basic words. In any case, growing up in a house with a fantastic library, did help.

[Eko]

44. Im kinda fat

so my skin is thick, Where I work you would be proper.

[Eko]

14. I mean is

Robert Reich bad, he came out for bernie but he is rich. Too funny. All rich people bad, except for maybe him. Then not all bad. Derp. But still all bad.

[senz]

15. Whoever said all rich people are bad people? Where would that leave FDR? Or JFK?

However, rich people who subvert democratically elected governments to enrich themselves at the expense of the citizens are very, very bad people.

[Eko]

17. Here is one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511146350
Nothing about what they want, think, or have done politically. Just that they are rich and hence it is bad.

[AZ Progressive]

19. What are the chances that a Hedge Fund Manager is a good person?

Just because they give to charity doesn't mean that they are a good person. All that money is tax deductible and these people likely give to make themselves look good as well.

[Eko]

21. Its called stereotyping

and I would have thought all progressives were against that at our core, but evidently I am wrong.

[AZ Progressive]

22. Looks like you have little experience with the real world

And certainly no street smarts.

[Eko]

23. cool,

So, as a progressive, you admit to stereotyping? And you are a progressive?

[AZ Progressive]

29. If you go in a high crime area, your chances of being a crime victim are going to be higher

Your "not wanting to stereotype" may as a result cost you.

[Eko]

37. You have a long way

to go with being a democrat and even longer to go with being a progressive. Your words prove it.

[Eko]

28. Seriously, you are saying

that in the real world you need to stereotype. That is not any kid of progressive I know of, sounds more like what a fanatic would do.

[AZ Progressive]

33. Are you the type of person that will blindly trust anyone? The real world will eat you alive

[Eko]

38. At no place in any discussion

have I ever said nor implied that.

[senz]

27. Context, Eko.

Hillary Clinton claims she is fighting for the 99% and yet her time, effort, and social activities revolve around the 1%. This makes it hard for people to believe her when she says she is fighting for us.

[Eko]

39. Ah gahd,

Thanks for the context. I must of somehow missed that.

[MelSC]

20. Amazing

Shame on all of you who hate and judge others who have money. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

...pure jealousy mixed with self entitled nonsense.

[cali]

30. Lol.

Yes, I'm hateful because I recognize the dangers of concentrated power in the hands of those with concentrated wealth.

Jealous?


Here's where I grew up and attended school.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Canaan,_Connecticut
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Canaan_Country_School

[Eko]

32. Hateful

does not have to make you blind, it only can if you let it.

[cali]

36. Babble, babble from you.

[Eko]

41. Sigh.

Maybe you should at least think about it. Hopefully, all banter aside. Its funny we are for the same person but for different standards. Maybe its not so funny at all.

[AZ Progressive]

42. Here ya go, some articles

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/08/the-age-of-entitlement-how-wealth-breeds-narcissism

As we ponder Joe Hockey’s budget and his division of the world into "leaners" and "lifters", as we learn from Oxfam that the richest 1% of Australians now own the same wealth as the bottom 60%, we would do well to consider the implications of Piff’s studies. He found that as people grow wealthier, they are more likely to feel entitled, to become meaner and be more likely to exploit others, even to cheat.

Piff conducted a series of revealing experiments. One was remarkably simple. Researchers positioned themselves at crossroads. They watched out for aggressive, selfish behaviour among drivers, and recorded the make and model of the car. Piff found drivers of expensive, high-status vehicles behave worse than those sputtering along in battered Toyota Corollas.

They were four times more likely to cut off drivers with lower status vehicles. As a pedestrian looking carefully left and right before using a crossing, you should pay attention to the kind of car bearing down on you. Drivers of high-status vehicles were three times as likely to fail to yield at pedestrian crossings. In contrast, all the drivers of the least expensive type of car gave way to pedestrians.

Fascinated by these results, Piff and his colleagues then looked at what created these impulses to bad behaviour. In their laboratory, the richest students were more likely to consider "stealing or benefiting from things to which they were not entitled" than those from a middle-class or lower-class background. Even people simply primed to feel rich helped themselves to more sweets meant for children in a lab next door than those primed to feel disadvantaged.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/20/wealthy-selfies-how-being-rich-increases-narcissism/

Recent studies show, for example, that wealthier people are more likely to cut people off in traffic and to behave unethically in simulated business and charity scenarios. Earlier this year, statistics on charitable giving revealed that while the wealthy donate about 1.3% of their income to charity, the poorest actually give more than twice as much as a proportion of their earnings — 3.2%.

The study, which was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, showed that when asked to visually depict themselves as circles, with size indicating relative importance, richer people picked larger circles for themselves and smaller ones for others. Another experiment found that they also looked in the mirror more frequently.

The wealthier participants were also more likely to agree with statements like “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than other people” and place themselves higher on a self-assessed “class ladder” that indicated increasing levels of income, education and job prestige.

[Eko]

45. So

Is robert reich bad?

[AZ Progressive]

50. Your logic: not all rich are bad, so thus we should assume the rich are good

That goes against my street smarts of: "Many rich people didn't get rich without being assholes or being exceptionally aggressive and cutthroat, or being exceptionally greedy and selfish. Many are narcissists and sociopaths as well. At the very least they likely have gigantic egos. You have to be wary of them, and they certainly are more likely to use you than really care about you."

I have affluent family members as well, so I know a thing or two about these people.


People like Michael Moore and many other celebrities are rich based on their merits, but in the corporate world, in the political world, in the legal world, its a lot more likely that someone that is rich is corrupt.

[Eko]

56. Once again I never said nor implied such a thing.

I explicitly said not all rich are bad, that's it. Once again you put words in my mouth, you have a bad habit of doing that.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. +1 n/t

[EdwardBernays]

48. Nooooo. But.

People are inherently biased. They look after and surround themselves with people like themselves, as a rule.

Clinton has surrounded herself with lobbyists. Her campaign chairman owns of the biggest lobbying firms in DC. That firm represents weapons manufacturers, big pharma and Saudi Arabia...

Her highest bundlers are also lobbyists for corporations.

That's her crowd.

Money doesn't make you bad, but if you surround yourself, as a politician, with corporate money and lobbyists, to get money, then in my book you're a bad politician. Morally corrupt.

And if you care more about optics than reality eg postponing events that highlight this behaviour for political gain, then you KNOW you're doing something wrong and you're trying to cover it up.

[Eko]

51. Without a doubt

she has some people around her that are bad, but I read a post where they didnt even mention the politics of the person just that they were rich and implied heavily because of only that they were bad. Thats not right at all.

[EdwardBernays]

87. Money doesn't make you good or bad.

But being out of touch with 99% of humanity can lead you to making ridiculously bad decisions.

There's also the fact that bad rich people have the capacity to both do greater harm than bad poor people AND avoid the consequences of their bad behaviour at a much greater rate than the poor.

AND.

A huge amount of crime can be traced back to poverty. The wealthy have no such excuse.

So while a check for a billion dollars won't make you evil, you ARE more likely to not empathize with the MAJORITY and more likely to escape consequences and have less justification for - especially - economic crime in the eyes of the majority.

[Uponthegears]

55. I hate to pontificate

. . . oh heck, who am I fooling, I love to pontificate, but no one believes that the rich are automatically evil. What we believe is that the concentration of wealth concentrates power. We believe that the concentration of wealth concentrates opportunity. We believe the concentration of wealth concentrates freedom. We believe those conditions are evil. When we propose policies redistributing wealth and power, it is to correct those conditions. It has nothing to do with our judgment of any individual, but rather what is best for society as a whole. When we judge some particular wealthy person as evil, it is solely based upon how they accumulated wealth and what they did with it.

Quit weeping for John Galt.

[Eko]

69. I believe the same thing.

At no point did I ever say anything against that. Just that because someone is rich it does not automatically make them bad. I dont weep for Galt, I never have nor ever will. I want us to be better but that seems such a problem.

[mmonk]

60. Many of us worry about Wall Street's bought influence.

That's not the same as stereotyping or blaming all rich people. The Kennedys and the Roosevelts were rich but produced Progressive policies.

[Cheese Sandwich]

67. What does this have to do with the primaries? Who said "rich people are bad"?

[Eko]

70. Maybe read some of the threads.

It might explain some things. Im out, way too late. Have to be up in 6hrs for work.

[AZ Progressive]

71. I, as someone who wanted to be a rich, successful capitalist long ago, got disillusioned...

with the brutal capitalist system. I figured that for someone to really thrive and make it to the top of a brutal capitalist system says a lot about a person unless they were just naturally talented that they could make their millions while keeping their ethics intact, or plain lucky that they were able to find a route to riches without compromising their ethics. Since then I really have lost an interest in making a lot of money.

Anyone ever see the movie: Glengarry, Glen Ross? See this scene, it was personally recommended to be by a rich real estate person as the kind of attitude you need:

[My Good Babushka]

72. It's not about them being good or bad

It's about them dictating legislation for the rest of us. A democracy shouldn't depend on the "goodness" or "badness" of the rich people writing all the rules. Our legislation doesn't match the desires of the citizens, and it's not poor or working class people who are standing in the way.

[Lazy Daisy]

73. You're trying to equate 2 things that can't be equated

The line of thought you're trying to reach is just because Hillary takes large sums of money from people who have large sums of money doesn't make either of them wrong.

Why does anybody give money to a campaign? Because they want something from that candidate. .
And they expect a return for their investment.

It doesn't matter if you're a small dollar donor or a large donor, you are expecting that candidate to represent your interests if they win. If they don't they'll lose those donations.

Bernie has taken in more small dollar donations than any other Presidential candidate in the history of our country to date. If he was to get into office and do a complete turn around and started to represent the interests of Wall Street do you really think all those donors would be there for him when he runs for his second term?

Being rich doesn't make you a bad person. Pumping large amounts of money into the campaigns of Politicians is bad for our general population and our country.

Thinking Politicians who take those large sums of money will not represent those who gave it to them with more weight than those who didn't is naive.

[Recursion]

74. No, but it makes his life experience as remote from mine as mine is from a Bangladeshi villager's

It's precisely not about "bad rich people", but about people's wealth giving them blinders. To the extent that the "Clinton pals around with Wall Street" attack has any merit, it's that: spending time with people who make seven figures frames a lot of your worldview with their framing. Which, again, is not "bad" in any real sense, but just not very relevant to me, or to the Bengali.

[seaglass]

83. I feel that is too much of a generalization. We could probably name many who are rich and hang

out with rich friends who also either a.) remember where they came from because they didn't grow up wealthy and giving back is important to them or b.) like the Kennedys raised wealthy but also raised to be of service to others.

I think there are many different flavors of rich people and there are few assumptions that can be made just because someone is rich.

BTW not defending myself here, I am not rich and being rich was never one of my life goals.

[ladjf]

76. It all depends on how their wealth was acquired. nt

[PATRICK]

80. I've been waiting for this one

It's true that demonizing those with super accumulated wealth is a bad tack. Usually it twists this very twisty evil into the same us versus them warfare that typifies the disease of competitive greed to begin with.

To have more money than you need(and what is that boundary exactly?) begins a process of moral corrosion that few if any humans are exempt from. Outside inside, good guy or jerk, no one escapes the harm of having too much. That is why far from thinking them beasts though some the mammon made morons double down when confronted they instead provide compassion and sorrow(and OK, a lot of anger) for having a disease, a moral leprosy that has placed them beyond the reach of such odd "condescension".

Lately there was an example- using monopoly money of all things- that showed the decline of the social moral sense when in possession of personally owned currency. I have not needed such a study to see the effects of money, power, fame(sometimes closely related) on the human person, the beginning of an eclipse of soul that is more disturbing than the cranky, snide arrogance, sadism, mutliplication of self-entitled vice and pride that make make the super rich "great- like I suppose ebola compared to the common cold.

When we fail to share, support, dare we say sacrifice(as most of the 99% are forced to do for the delusions of monetary symbolism) for the benefit of others we lose ourselves and go down the path of ordinary bacteria, falling rocks or something accidental that causes harm. Then those who keep their hand in the cookie jar from hell destroy themselves as well. They become, tragically, not worth hating.

So regulation of our weaknesses, the rule of law is a basic sobriety test, the primacy of service an antidote to personal success of any sort. Bear each others crosses instead of building them. A radical wisdom that may help us overcome our failings and survive. Getting at the root of all evil is even more important than the fascist criminals who will lead the world to ruin, because we cannot beat them merely by jailing them. They have put a disease leading to extinction on a pedestal and the craziness itself must be torn down within each of us. The first and best way is in giving to the least whatever we have.

Ten years working in retail(for example) be the test whether any human should continue to possess value locked away in virtual digits.

[Sienna86]

82. Interesting read.

Thanks.

[99Forever]

84. What does this drivel have to do with the Democratic Primaries?

[PotatoChip]

86. What some people DO with their wealth is what I object to.

Not the wealth itself.

As a reminder, I said some [wealthy] people. For me, it's not about whether someone is wealthy or not. In fact, there are many non-wealthy people who, for whatever reason, are enablers of this corrupt system of governance that was once known around the world as "a democracy".




Ironically, this protest sign was originally posted here on DU in 2011. I found it on google images.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2209537

[Admiral Loinpresser]

88. Jesus might have a different take. n/t

[raouldukelives]

89. Exactly. As long as they aren't partial owners of the corporations

dooming us all, I have very few issues with them. But then, one doesn't need to be rich to do that.

Those who place being rich, who put the pursuit of wealth above the needs of the many, of being a decent human being, are the only ones I have issues with. They sit back and say "Who, me?" as our natural world crumbles, as our democracy is hollowed out, as our veterans and our least are tossed into the cold while they assist in siphoning all the funds to themselves in the form of subsidies.

As long as they aren't using their wealth and lives to make the world worse for others, they can start down the path of being a progressive.

[TBF]

93. You are missing the point. nt

[Eko]

99. How can I be missing the point

when I am the one making the point? What you mean is I am missing a different point.

[TBF]

111. Look, Marx was a ordinary guy and Engels was quite wealthy -

his family owned textile mills. The issue isn't whether one individual is "good" or "bad" ... the issue is whether this system is sustainable. For most of us it is not.

It is like that pharmaceutical schmuck Martin Shkreli - is he a "bad" guy? Everyone hates that guy. But is he really doing anything wrong? Well, they may find some legal issues, but they may not be able to make much stick. Sometimes it's the game itself that is rotton - not the players.

[Live and Learn]

98. When they tell others to vote against their own welfare so they can keep and make more wealth,

it makes them a bad person. Not all rich people do this but plenty of them do.

[Eko]

100. Sure,

never said anything different. Key point is "Not all rich people do this". So someone who gives money to a politician if they are rich is not automatically bad.

[Live and Learn]

101. Nobody said rich people should forfeit their rights to donate TO the candidate.

It is the Super Pacs we object to for good reason.

[SusanCalvin]

102. No, but that's the way to bet. nt

[TIME TO PANIC]

103. Eat The Rich!

[AOR]

104. The bottom line is this...

" It seems the most logical thing in the world to believe that the natural resources of the Earth, upon which the race depends for food, clothing and shelter, should be owned collectively by the race instead of being the private property of a few social parasites."

--Ralph Chaplin (labor activist)

[Lint Head]

105. Just because some rich people are greedy bastards

doesn't mean they all are. Who is saying "just" being "rich" makes someone bad. The love of money is supposedly the root of all evil. Not the money itself.

[JackRiddler]

106. It's not about bad people...

it's about the systemic and predictable effects of capitalism without limits.

[Odin2005]

107. Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

You don't get rich by being a good person, the "good rich" just have good PR.

[840high]

108. Of course not. Depends on how

they acquired their riches.

[saltpoint]

112. A situation like this calls for us to

seek wisdom from a variety of sources, including the Beatles, whose protagonist in one song suggests that he doesn't care too much for money because money can't buy him love. Prostitution notwithstanding, I take the point.

There's that guy from the Middle East a while back -- something about jamming a camel through a needle's eye or something.

Dorothy Parker weighs in, too:

“If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.”

--I think here she may have meant Donald Trump types and not John Kennedy types.

From James Taylor:

"Money money money money --
From the Money Machine
You can measure your manhood by it
You can get your children to try it
You can bring your enemies to their knees
With the possible exception of the North Vietnamese..."


And last from Salvador Dali, as surreal as they come, yet here very right-on:

"I'm surprised a bank teller doesn't eat a check."