This thread has become an interesting exercise in seeing how many different subjects one person can be absolutely ignorant of. We may be looking at a new world record here.
By the way, there is no such thing as free college or free health care.
So true.
Every decision to consume one product usually comes with the trade-off of giving up the consumption of something else.
This, of course, is denied in 'The Theology of Liberalism.'
The obverse can be found here:
'To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute
What a load of horse shit. I've rearranged an old saying. To make it fit the wealthy. See if it makes any sense to you. "They've got all the bread, but they want cake. There's no end to what they'll take." Do you know what doesn't have limits? How wealthy the wealthy want to be. But there should be limits. I am also reminded of a study done on children. Most of them, if in fact not all of them, were willing to take less of something. As long as it meant that some other child would receive nothing at all. This is probably because of an instinctual "status" thing. And it is something that apparently never really goes away.
I'm not saying that those who work a little harder shouldn't receive a little more. But as I said, there has to be limits. And even then, it brings up a problem that needs to be dealt with. Which is that the more you have, the more somebody else will figure out a way of taking from you. For example, by making things more expensive. But if things become more expensive for those who can afford it, those things will be even farther out of the reach of those who can't.
There is another problem that what you talk about brings up. Which basically is aristocracy. For some people, the only thing they need to do to have an advantage over others is just to be born. Just because somebody may decide to work a little harder doesn't necessarily make their children superior. And therefore, worthy of the silver spoon they were born with. Only one thing can truly perform that function. A eugenic breeding program.
1. Your vulgarity identifies both your political perspective and your lack of education.
2. There is no perennial group in America known as 'the wealthy.'
a. As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that
labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.
In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following.
Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.
b. "The wealthy"....No such class exists in an ongoing basis...merely as a snapshot in time.
"More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell."
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Investors.com
c. When all sources of income are included -- wages, salaries, realized capital gains, dividends, business income and government benefits -- and taxes paid are deducted, households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005. (See chart nearby; the data is from the Congressional Budget Office's "Comprehensive Household Income.")
This fact alone refutes the notion that the poor are getting poorer. They are not.
The data also show
downward mobility among the highest income earners. The top 1% in 1996 saw an average decline in their real, after-tax incomes by 52% in the next 10 years.
America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...536934297.html