Government policies prevent the middle class from accumulating any wealth. It
appears the goal is to have the middle class become dependent just as the poor
are on the government. The wealthy have lasted so far just because they have
enough to survive the governments efforts to get all that they have through
efforts of paying their fair share. The powers to be want it all, not just the
"This did not happen by accident." Roland apparently knows why it
happened, but he's going to make it his own little secret. Maybe one day,
if we're really nice, he'll tell us. Until then, we'll keep him
amused as we quibble amongst ourselves. C'mon, Roland, why would you give
us just a hslf-letter?
Roland, Contrary to your assertions it not just the middle class seeing their
prosperity evaporate. (CNNMoney) -- The number of millionaires is on the decline
in the United States, even as the number of wealthy individuals has increased
worldwide.Millionaire households in the United States decreased by 129,000
in 2011, according to a new study from the Boston Consulting Group. The report
defines these households as having over $1 million in cash, stock and other
assets, excluding property, businesses and luxury goods.Singapore has the
highest proportion of millionaires in the world; 17% of all households in the
Asian city-state have wealth of over $1 million. By comparison, 4.3% of
households in the United States had wealth of over $1 million, which ranks it
7th in the world. The United States also lagged when it came to the
proportion of "ultra-high-net-worth" households, defined by the Boston
Consulting Group as those with more than $100 million in wealth.The
Democrats war on the "rich" is taking the middle class with it!
The wealthiest group of Americans today are those 55 and older. But for some
reason this group will have their healthcare and SS checks subsidized by young
working people with no wealth and children to support to boot. But if you
really want to talk about wealthy then let's discuss retired government
employees. How much money would a person have to pay at age 55 for an annuity
that pays them well over 50 grand a year in retirement benefits? Since life
expectancy is approx 80 years then the present value of that annuity would be at
least a million bucks. So who are the new millionaires in America? Retired
THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND has shown that the people of communities and nations
among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of
liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the
least...ONE OF THE GREAT EVILS with which our own nation is menaced
at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a
comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers
contended…are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of
wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its
seductive influence ... It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both
State, and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not
be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of
riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and
want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for,
according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure
precursor of ruin." ~LDS 1st PresidencyAnd of
course --- The warning throughout the ENTIRE Book of Mormon [i.e., the
Re: ". . . all the wealth that used to go to the middle class now goes the
very richest people in our society. This did not happen by accident."No, it didn't. But, what liberal commenters invariably fail to
mention is that those rich people that are being further enriched at the expense
of the middle class are nearly all government bureaucrats and their affiliated
buddies in government services and government contracting.The
percentage of Americans who meet the definition of super-rich is negligible, as
it always has been. But those in the next 10% has ballooned rather
dramatically.The third most-common occupation in that category?
Government worker.And, we know that those in the 2 categories above
them -- services [including medical] and production/manufacturing -- obtain a
goodly share of their income from government.Meaning us.So, it's odd that big-government liberals so fond of bashing "the
rich," when it's clear that big-government liberals ARE "the
rich."We have met the enemy, and he is us.
"The wealthy have lasted so far just because they have enough to survive the
governments efforts to get all that they have through efforts of paying their
fair share."Actually, it's the opposite. The wealthy have
lasted so far because they own so much of the government!
Folks, isn't it obvious what Roland is talking about? Come on now, stop
acting like you don't understand.Roland is highlighting the
complete and utter failure of Supply-Side Economics (Reaganomics). This
"trickle down" effect? It's just a bad joke. Then again, what can
you expect from an actor and not an economics expert? It's merely stealing
from the poor and middle-class to give to the rich. For decades now,
we've seen this attitude of deregulation and tax breaks for the rich. What
has happened? Job creation has been squashed, jobs have been shipped overseas,
and wealth has been redistributed to the top.I had hoped that Obama
would stop this train wreck but has wilted to tea party pressure.Is
there anyone left to fight for the American middle-class? Who will fight for
America? Or are we doomed to continue on this path towards 3rd world country
status? I'm sorry folks, but the party is over. Supply-Side
Economics have failed. The rising tide is NOT lifting all of our boats. The
wealth isn't trickling down.
Listing all the reasons would take an entire other letter, but here are a few:
The refusal to enforce our labor laws which led to the destruction of unions.
The refusal to enforce the Sherman anti-trust act which allowed Corporate
America to eviscerate small local businesses. Shipping American jobs to
third-world countries. Allowing high levels of immigration, both legal and
illegal. Deregulation of the financial system which led to the financialization
of everything in our society. The list could go on and on.There is
no developed country on the face of the earth in which such a large share of the
national wealth goes to such a tiny minority of the people. We are even much
more unequal than most third world countries. Red State pride is
apparently incensed that a working person could get a $50,000 annual pension,
yet has absolutely no problem with the money-changers of Wall St. who make
$50,000 an hour, and no, that's not an exaggeration. That's where the
fundamental problem lies, the people at the very top are syphoning so much money
out of the system, that there is nothing left for workers.
Re: "This "trickle down" effect? It's just a bad joke."Only because an out-of-control Big Government is preventing the
resources from trickling down.Invest [by reducing taxes, not taking
ever more away from us and funneling it into that large government toilet] just
25% of what is criminally wasted on bloated, unaccountable, counterproductive
government, at all levels, and the American economy would be on fire!That trickle would be a Niagara!
@ LDS Liberal. Trickle down prosperity is far better than trickle up poverty.
Try Cuba where the only "rich" people are government dictators.
Redistribution is killing America economically, morally and socially. Don't
believe it, just step out of line and the IRS will contact you post haste!
Greed from the wealthy.Take a look at the Koch brothers. Their $billion$
doubled under Obama's first four years, but somehow that wasn't enough
so they put hundred of millions of dollars into creating the tea party &
defeating Obama. The middle class used to have money then in the 80s the
rules were changed for banks and wall street giving the wealthy all the breaks.
The US may recover but only after it gets worse.
Nice letter, Roland.high school fan: What country did you say you
lived in? It certainly isn't the U.S.Mman: Way to cherry pick
one statistic out of a million. Study after study reports that wealth is
steadily accumulating at the top and the divide between rich and poor is
widening (and has been since Reagan's implementation of supply-side and
trickle-down economics). Perhaps there are fewer millionaires because so much
wealth is going to the billionaires. But as a group, millionaires have done
quite well, thank you.
Mountanman,Neither trickle-down nor trickle-up economics works well.
The only realistic solution to our economic inequality is for businesses to
share more of the profit and the capital with those who actually produce and
sell the products and create the wealth. Sharing ownership with the workers
would address the cause of the problem. Redistribution through taxation
doesn't work well because the wealthy can always find (or buy) new
loopholes in the tax code, and, anyway, it just makes Republicans mad.
Q: So what happened to all that wealth?A: Ronald Reagan.
If the rich aren't dependent upon the government then why do they spend so
much money bribing errr lobbying?
Simple. More and more people are shifting towards government welfare and less
towards creating their own wealth. After all, creating your own wealth takes
time, discipline and a lot of effort. That is just not very appealing to a lot
of people these days. In today's instant gratification world, if they
can't have a million dollars by 5PM delivered to their home, they arent
interested. No one will get rich living off welfare. Blaming others for your
lack of wealth is reckless at best. Quite frankly, the lack of accountability
is one of the primary problems in this country. It is always someone elses
fault. 86% of millionaires in the US are self-made. So, it can happen, most
people are just too lazy.
Maverick and Sentinel,I know Reagan is your boogy-man, but he didn't
invent Capitalism. Capitalism didn't start with Reagan, and it
isn't the problem today. Capitalism and the liberty to engage in it... is
the engine that made America prosperous in the 20th century. If you're
really looking for what went wrong... might you not look at Progressive Agenda?
I mean that's what came along about the time our trajectory started to
change.I don't have proof, but like when I'm debugging
software problems... It sometimes helps to look at what changed about the time
the bad behavior started happening. I'm just sayin...----------LDS LiberalI agree that, "communities and nations among
whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of
liberty".Equal distribution is ideal. And ours is WAY out of
wack today. But the fix is NOT Government Redistribution of Wealth.I think LDS leaders would agree with me on that. Google "Ezra Taft
Benson speech on Socialism" (If you think LDS leaders are OK with Socialism,
and government redistribution of wealth).They would use voluntary
programs like fast_offerings, charity, etc, not Government force.
This is not about socialism or about government redistribution of wealth.
President Eisenhower once gave a speech in which he stated that the greatness of
American capitalism relied on the fact that an average worker could buy a nice
house, and a nice car, and send his kids to college on his income alone. That
situation existed because the business elite in this country realized that it
was in their own long term interest for their workers to be prosperous.Our current business elite thinks they should get it all for themselves, and
if their workers end up in penury that is no concern of theirs. We simply
can't have a stable society in which a large number of workers are unable
to make a decent living.President Eisenhower also stated that the
capitalist countries that were ripe for communist takeover were those in which a
tiny fraction of the country controlled all the wealth and the workers did not
share in the prosperity. That describes the U.S. today.
@high school fan"Government policies prevent the middle class from
accumulating any wealth."You expect me to believe that CEO pay
is many times higher than that of basic worker pay in this nation only...
because of the gov't? How does that work?
@2 bit"If you're really looking for what went wrong... might you
not look at Progressive Agenda?"Wealth inequality started its
upward trend in the early 1980s... so... Reagan's a progressive? I
don't think so.
Roland, and the liberals believe in unlimited personal freedom of choice while
believing in pooled financial consequences. Too many people are exercising their
personal freedom to not be productive or educated workers, and the liberal
federal government thinks the answer is to redistribute the bread/money of the
laborer to soften the consequences of the choice to be idle.The
equation is simple, we have too few producers and too many takers, and thus we
all have lesser share of a smaller whole. If those who seek the bread of others
would instead seek to be productive, we would all be better off.
I guess it's not totally false to claim that the government is the problem.
The members of Congress - the government - are beholden to or are actually part
of the wealthy class. They write the tax laws that make it possible for someone
with millions in income, like Mitt Romney, to pay a smaller percentage of his
income in taxes than I do, when I make 1/2 of 1% of what he made in 2011, simply
by how his income is categorized.. Roland's comments about not enforcing
labor laws is spot on in identifying the reason for the shrinking wages and
salaries of the middle class and once again, our tax laws have actually made it
profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas.Until our social
structure changes - most likely through government action - we will continue on
the path to becoming a third world nation where a tiny fraction of the
population has the majority of the wealth and the rest are scraping by. Think
of the societies that have fit that description in the past and then think about
what became of them. Now ask yourself - Is that the kind of society you want to
@Badgerbadger;Too few makers: CEOsToo many takers: CEOsThe actual "makers" are those who actually DO the work, not
those who sit at the top watching porn all day on their computers (this was done
by at least one CEO of a company I worked for).The actual
"takers" SHOULD BE those who are doing the making, instead the vast
majority of the rewards of the makers is going to the very top.
Enough with the makers, takers thing its the biggest farce in politics today. I
can't think of one person on unemployment that is happy and "living the
high life". Are you kidding me? Try living off of $100-$200 a week with no
insurance, and see how you like life. Republican voters are the real
"takers", just look at % of people on welfare and accepting government
assistance (hint: it aint the blue states). Be happy us "Libs" care
about you people and have a president that will fight for you even though you
continually barrage him with lies and deceit. If it wasn't for us
"libs" the tea party agenda would be complete and we'd all be
working for next to nothing, with no prospect of a good life. Get
over the makers vs takers, its a losing argument that shows how uninformed
republican voters really are!
"The equation is simple, we have too few producers and too many takers, and
thus we all have lesser share of a smaller whole."Factually and
verifiably 100% incorrect, the exact inverse is true. GDP per capita is higher
in the last couple of years than ever before - it is a larger "pie."
Further, by all measurements, American worker productivity and wages had
historically charted parallel along the same upward trajectory until Reagan;
then, while productivity continued to rise, wages essentially stagnated - there
are more producers and they are more effective than ever before, they are simply
paid much lower salaries now. Under Reagan, unions rights were eroded,
regulation was relaxed, gov't spending skyrocketed, and crony lobbyism led
to governmental policies aimed at aggrandizing the wealthy's share of the
pile, among so many other notable, measurable indices. Since Reagan, American
workers are more productive yet America's wealth gap is increasingly wider
and socio-economic mobility increasingly cartelized.Sorry
conservatives, you can argue against good, sound policy all you want but your
points are invalidated by reality.
atl134,Inequality in income started WAY before 1980. How old are you?
I've lived through it. It's been around as long as I've been
alive (1950s). I don't know where you got your news that it all started
with Ronald Reagan (MSNBC I suppose). But that's not historically
correct. I'm sure you can find a study that blames it on Reagan... but I
know you can find a study that says whatever you want it to say.Employers making more than employees didn't start with Ronald Reagan.
It's probably been that way forever except in societies that decided the
solution was to kill the farmers and business elites and turn the wealth over to
the proletariat (like Russia, China, North Korea, etc) and this fact of life
probably isn't going to change any time soon.I agree that
employers should share more of their wealth with their workers. The question
is... HOW to we do it? Kill them and take it (as the Socialists did), or teach
them that they make more $$ when their employees are happy and successful... I
think the latter.
To "LDS Liberal" just the standard reminder about that quote. It is not
referring to capitalism, but to socialism and communism.People
should really look at the wealth distribution in the US compared to other
nations. The US historically had the most even wealth distribution, while the
communist and socialist nations had the least even wealth distributions.Lets not forget what Spencer Kimball said, when he said "Remember
that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not compatible with radicalism or communism
or any other of the "isms." There could be those who would profess to be
your saviors. They could enslave you with their force or their strange
philosophies."Lets return to capitalism and reject the liberal
fascism that the Democrats are pushing.To "Ernest T. Bass"
look at Bill Clinton, his wealth has increased significantly while he shares
none, and only works to give himself a place of influence.
Does anyone disagree with me that our economy is upside down when the average
government worker makes more than the average civilian worker? If you do the
please explain how a system like that is supposed to sustain itself. Because as
of now, 17 trillion debt, it is not.
Re: "Our current business elite thinks they should get it all for
themselves, and if their workers end up in penury that is no concern of
theirs."Actually, you appear to be describing our current
government elites, not business leaders.Business leaders know that
they make more money when they sell more product, whatever that is. And they
sell more product, when consumers have more money to buy product. Henry Ford
proved that nearly 100 years ago.Government elites, on the other
hand, have as their object, having "workers end up in penury," since
that makes them more dependent on government elites, and correspondingly, more
loyal with their votes.Business leaders would be working against
their long-term success by harvesting and hoarding capital. Government elites,
on the other hand, ASSURE long-term success by harvesting, hoarding, destroying,
and redistributing wealth, which inevitably -- EVERY time it's been tried
-- results in workers' penury.
Re: "I agree that employers should share more of their wealth with their
workers."Why is it liberals never suggest that GOVERNMENT share
more of their [that is, our] wealth with its citizens?You can't
honestly believe a bloated, unaccountable, counterproductive government -- one
with a reverse midas touch that historically turns any gold it touches into
garbage -- can be good for America?I'll never understand how
liberals can fail to see that every nickel harvested and wasted by government is
five cents less the American people have to spend, while, at the same time
begrudging those who make the economy grow and produce most of the real jobs
that real people do, the incentive to continue to make it happen.It's just too, too curious.
Ernest T. BassBountiful, UTBlames this on "Greed from the
wealthy. Take a look at the Koch brothers. Their $billion$ doubled under
Obama's first four years, but somehow that wasn't enough so they put
hundred of millions of dollars into creating the tea party & defeating
Obama". If you're going to point blame at the Koch
brothers... should you not look at George Sorros as well? He has billions.
He put hundreds of millions of dollars into MoveOnDotOrg, Huffington Post,
Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation, etc, to defeat George Bush.
SO... is HE any different than the Koch Bros?No... this rich thingy
doesn't cut along party lines. If it's a sin to be rich... it's
just as much a sin to be a Rich Democrat (and there are plenty of them in
business AND in Washington DC) as it is to be a rich Republican.How
many millions does John Kerry (or should I say his wife the heir to the Hinze
fortune), Al Gore, George Sorros, the Kennedys, the Obamas, the Clintons, the
hollywood elites, etc, have? So... are they any better than a rich Republican?
If we can't all agree that government could certainly be trimmed a bit and
that our corporate system is broken (with wages slipping, jobs being shipped
overseas, CEO pay through the roof), we really don't have much to talk
about. It's not an either-or proposition. We can deal with both problems
together. But let's not trim government in a way that simply exacerbates
the pain the corporate system is inflicting on the lower end of the economic
Redshirt – despite my disappointment in the moral failings of Bill
Clinton, I can’t let your claim that he “has increased significantly
while he shares none” go without response. Bill Clinton served the people
of Arkansas for more than a decade living off the low salary of the governor and
attorney general offices of that state (average about $50,000 a year). Yes, his
lawyer wife made enough money to support them comfortably but Clinton himself
could have made multiples of his public servant salary if he was truly selfish.
And since leaving office he has made money selling books and through speaker
fees. But his Clinton Global Initiative has brought relief to millions in AIDs
research, in fighting child obesity, in reducing greenhouse gases, promoting
inner city entrepreneurs with small businesses and they are working in Rwanda
and Malawi to launch projects that generate income, increase agricultural
productivity, and enable sustainable growth to alleviate poverty. The Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative is working with the natural
resource industry to improve health and education programs and alleviate
poverty, starting in Latin America. So please don’t make false
accusations without evidence.
"You can't honestly believe a bloated, unaccountable, counterproductive
government -- one with a reverse midas touch that historically turns any gold it
touches into garbage -- can be good for America?"And yet...
Every time we try and trim the bloated defense budget, the most bloated and
unaccountable of them all, repubs like you claim that we are unamerican and are
leaving our country vulnerable. Just how many millions were wasted on the
NSA's newest Utah facility? Why can't we cut that? How many more years
will i, my children, and grandchildren pay for your president's war in Iraq
and bank bailouts? If I run my company into the ground I don't get golden
parachutes. Maybe I should become a repub? Or contribute to Bush's or
To "Edgar" unfortunately Bill Clinton is not giving much to his
charitable foundation.As President, Clinton was making $358,000 in
2000 then in 2001 he was making $16 million/yr. By 2007, the Clintons were
worth $109 million. (LA Times "Clintons disclose wealth"). When he
entered office, the highest estimates put his net worth at $1 million (NY Times
"THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help
to Clinton"). Can you explain how the clinton's personal net worth
grew from $1 million to $109 million if all he has done since 2000 is run around
for various charitable organizations?Seems like he knows how to milk
the system for his own personal enrichment. Various sources put Clinton's
speaking fee at $400,000 to $800,000 for a single event. (CNN "Bill Clinton
has most lucrative year on speech circuit") while Mitt Romney earned less
than $400,000 for an entire year of speaking events. (USA Today "Mitt Romney
earned more than $362,000 in speaking fees") You can't tell me Clinton
2 bits said: "I agree that employers should share more of their wealth with
their workers. The question is... HOW to we do it? Kill them and take it (as the
Socialists did), or teach them that they make more $$ when their employees are
happy and successful... I think the latter."No need to go all
murdery communist, how about we return taxable profits to those 50's era
tax rates, which forces those unteachable unscrupulous hoarders how to share
with those who have made them so prosperous instead of giving it to them and
hoping they'll do the right thing, ala reaganomics.Awe those
fantastic 50's, when employer's actually new their employees by name,
before corporations took over government, before corporations received
"personhood" from activist judges.
@procurafiscal,"[W]hat liberal commenters invariably fail to mention
is that those rich people that are being further enriched at the expense of the
middle class are nearly all government bureaucrats and their affiliated buddies
in government services and government contracting."Please tell
this furloughed government contracting officer where I can sign up to become one
of these fantastically rich bureaucrats. I'd really like to know how I can
join the 1-percenters who've gained almost a 400% wealth increase in the
past few decades, and take home 20% of the country's wealth every year.
This revelation comes as a complete shock to someone who's in the system
you're bashing."I'll never understand how liberals can
fail to see that every nickel harvested and wasted by government is five cents
less the American people have to spend"I assure you as someone
who signs the contracts, that "waste" is injected right back into the
economy by buying things like multi-million and billion dollar weapon systems.
The real wealth transfer that fiscal conservatives should be outraged about is
how much of their tax money has gone to pay wealthy CEOs of defense contractors,
not welfare queens.
Redshirts said: (USA Today "Mitt Romney earned more than $362,000 in
speaking fees") You can't tell me Clinton isn't greedy."Personally these fees are not worth either speaker, but I'm sure
Clinton is 100X more entertaining than mitt, I mean you've heard mitt speak
right? This is about supply and demand, not many want to hear mitt apparently.
You could take all the "wealth" in this nation, redistribute it so that
everybody had exactly the same amount (a leftists dream). 10 years from now, we
will be right back to where we are today, the same percentage and the same
people holding the majority of the "wealth" and the same people at the
bottom. Life isn't fair! Some are more successful then others, and we
don't need big government trying to be the arbitrary decider of what is
fair or not! Don't go on preaching to us about "trickle down
economics", when it really hasn't been tried. We have had socialism out
of control for 6 decades. We didn't get to the welfare president in one
giant step. We didn't get to obamacare in one giant step. We have been
fighting the war on poverty for 60 years. It doesn't work! Poverty still
exists and is getting bigger, especially under obama. We need 25 years of REAL
trickle down economics, before you can start making those kind of judgments!
If any of you knew what true wealth is, you would pity the 1%. Excessive
monetary wealth is a millstone around their collective spiritual neck. Very few
of them have figured out that the greatest joy in having lots of money is in
using it to help others, not to buy toys and multiple mansions, and, as James
put it, "consume it upon [their] lusts."
@HaHaHaHa,"Don't go on preaching to us about "trickle
down economics", when it really hasn't been tried. We have had
socialism out of control for 6 decades."Good grief, that's
so myopic I don't know where to begin, except to say that this is exactly
why the Republican party needs to search for the political center or risk losing
it all for at least a generation.@Curmudgeon,"If any
of you knew what true wealth is, you would pity the 1%. Excessive monetary
wealth is a millstone around their collective spiritual neck."My
sympathies are limited until they realize that they can ease their wealthy
burdens by hiring people, pay them a living wage, treat them like humans instead
of capital assets, and stop writing all the rules to favor themselves and their
accrual of a disproportionate share of the economic pie.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" who do you think is more greedy, the
millionaire that charges $80,000 for a speech, or the millionaire that charges
$800,0000 for a speech?Entertainment has nothing to do with it. If
you are a business, do you want a former politician to speak to you about how to
make money, or do you want a man who has consistantly made millions of dollars a
year through business?If entertainment was the goal, there are much
cheaper ways of getting it than paying a former President.But that
is just a distraction. The fact is that Clinton went from $1 million in wealth
to over $100 million in a few years. How is that possible if he is running a
Come on, I could design a statistical study to show almost any outcome I wanted.
Until we know the methods used in this study, its results are nearly
meaningless, and it's useless to debate this article.
Redshirt, you are confusing me. Have you suddenly become a liberal?Someone is greedy because they charge $800,000 vs. $80,000? I thought
you'd love that because it's capitalism in its purest form- you charge
what you can get people to pay for your product. Sounds like your just upset
that Clinton is able to charge so much. If the tables were turned and it was
Romney making that much per speech, I suspect you wouldn't be
complaining.And yes, in the speaking business the entertainment
factor IS important. There is a saying in the business- "You have to make
them laugh if you want to get paid." Businesses bring in speakers that
inform AND entertain- again and again. Doesn't matter what you're
speaking on, those who are the most entertaining consistently get the highest
To "Cincinnatus" no, I will never become liberal. I accept that greed
is present in capitalism, just as it is present in communism or socialism.The fact that Clinton wants to be paid that much per speaking engagement
shows that he is greedy.You missed the previous point where liberals
claim that Clinton isn't greedy and is just going around doing charitable
work. The fact is that Clinton is greedy, and is only out to line his own
Redshirt,Sorry, but you just pulled a liberal attitude that you so
often accuse others of on these boards.You accept that greed is
present in capitalism yet you criticize Clinton for charging that much for
speeches. How is that any different that what other rich capitalists are doing,
both conservative and liberal, in many walks of life- Wall Street venture
capitalism, Hollywood, etc. Many of those also work with charities and still
line their own pockets out of greed.I certainly didn't miss the
point- I just called you out for being hypocritical about one part of the
argument. No one said he was "JUST going around doing charitable work."
Doesn't he have the right, just like anyone else in the system we live in
to make as much money as he can? At least be honest and call everyone greedy
who is making more that YOU think they should- liberals and conservatives alike
To "Cincinnatus" sorry, I was just pointing out fact. As I stated
before, there is no political philosophy that is greedier than another. As I
stated before, the greatest income disparity occurs in totalitarian and
collectivist regiemes. Since when is is a dislike of greed a liberal attitude?
Can you explain that? You realize that Adam Smith before he wrote Wealth of
Nations wrote Moral Sentiments. You have to use both books together.You are wrong, "Edgar" said that Hillary made enough so that Bill had
a few things to make some money, but made it appear that Bill has been primarily
involved in chartiable work.The hypocrisy is on the side of your
ilk. From Clinton to Obama to Soros, they all say that we need to spread wealth
around. Then, can you tell us why it is that they don't?
How do they redistribute wealth in Communist China, soon to be the biggest and
most robust economy?