Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed, but wanting what you didn't earn isn't?

[MikeK]

Simply put Sir, Wanting to limit another person's income is truly unAmerican.

Go find yourself another country that might be more open to your socialist leanings.
You are against everything this country represents, so you would be better off in a country more to your liking....Unfortunately I can't think of another country that would take you.

If the Founders of this Nation were able to anticipate the kind of wealth its resources would one day be able to generate, mainly as the result of the Industrial Revolution, you may rest assured they would have included sanctions against excessive accumulation (hoarding) of wealth in the Constitution. As it was, several of those good gentlemen saw fit to denounce such accumulation even as it occurred within the relative measure of their contemporary economy:

(Excerpt)

1) The distrust of concentrated wealth was so great that, in an extreme sentiment, Ben Franklin argued "that no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." One could not accumulate vast wealth, in the republican worldview, simply through one's own labors. In small-scale agrarian freeholder society, where laud ownership was more widely distributed among men of European ancestry, there was a "natural distribution of wealth." Farmers, artisans, and other workers reaped the "fruits of their own labor."

2) In 1776, artisans from Philadelphia put forward a provision for inclusion in the original state constitution of Pennsylvania. They advocated for a limit on the concentration of wealth. "An enormous Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness of Mankind; and therefore any free State hath a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession of such Property."

TomPaine.com - Archives - The Very Soul Of A Republic

(Close)

James Madison had a few things to say about it as well:

(Excerpt)

Government, Madison wrote, should discourage the unnecessary accumulation of great wealth — especially “unmerited” fortunes derived from public patronage. Government based on republican ideals, he argued, should “by the silent operation of laws” work to “reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”

Above all, Madison wrote, government should act as an impartial umpire of the various interests that naturally compete in a free society. Madison respected the rights of property, but he understood that a moderate balance of wealth in society must be maintained. Self-government was not possible if the great mass of the people were impoverished.

Read more: Opinion: In the name of James Madison - Roger Hodge - POLITICO.com

(Close)

Your indictment of my "socialist leanings" ignores the uncharacteristically generous disposition of my kind of socialism, which allows for the accumulation of considerable wealth in the amount of twenty million dollars. While I do incline toward socialism in that I recognize and despise the inevitable effects of laissez faire capitalism, such as are emerging in our presently afflicted Economy, I am by no means a communist.

It doesn't call for academic letters in Economics to understand how hoarding of excessive amounts of the Nation's wealth resources will inevitably bring about the kind of collapse which almost happened in 2008. But because there are no Constitutional proscriptions against such hoarding I believe that for the survival of America it is necessary to impose a reasonable limit on the methodical accumulation of personal assets.

As previously mentioned in this thread, circulation of a nation's wealth resource is as essential to the health of that nation's economy as circulation of its blood is to a living organism. The hoarding of money impedes circulation, the effects of which are plainly visible today.

So unless you are among the super-rich who represent an emerging American aristocracy you obviously have been brainwashed by the kind of corporatist and plutocratic dogma as is typically put forth by the likes of such millionaire propagandists as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck. Believing what these people have to say will transform you into your own worst enemy.

 

[bripat9643]

.

We can certainly pretend that America doesn't now have generations of families who are stuck in a culture of welfare and dependency, why not. We can pretend anything. But we still know it's true.

The financial cost of welfare isn't all that much, in the grand scheme of things. The human cost, on the other hand, is tragic. I wonder why that isn't discussed.

.

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

Do you have any evidence that it did? Almost every person in this country can tell you stories of how their parents or grand parents were dirt poor and worked their way up to the middle class.

 

[Wildman]

does anyone begrudge me of my Military retirement ??

 

[boedicca]

And I am in favor of taxing income as well as confiscating excess. My concern is with the vast majority of citizens and with the health of America. I'm not concerned with the emerging American aristocracy. After confiscation they will still be rich -- just not as rich as before.

$20 million. No more.

A true leftist Democrat...
In fact you go way beyond that.... You are even in the wrong country.
Hell you are even left of Fidel.
You are entitled to your ideas, but you have no role in America.

Please tell me in specific terms what it is about my proposal to limit accumulation of personal assets to $20million that prompts you to say I'm in the wrong country and have "no role in America?" I don't know what you mean by that.

For one thing, the government controls the money supply and can manipulate the value of assets via inflation.

And then there is the aspect that such a limit would be unconstitutional. Why on earth do you think the government has any business telling somebody how much wealth he can accumulate?

 

[MikeK]

does anyone begrudge me of my Military retirement ??

Has anyone made any such suggestion?

 

[Oldstyle]

Simply put Sir, Wanting to limit another person's income is truly unAmerican.

Go find yourself another country that might be more open to your socialist leanings.
You are against everything this country represents, so you would be better off in a country more to your liking....Unfortunately I can't think of another country that would take you.

If the Founders of this Nation were able to anticipate the kind of wealth its resources would one day be able to generate, mainly as the result of the Industrial Revolution, you may rest assured they would have included sanctions against excessive accumulation (hoarding) of wealth in the Constitution. As it was, several of those good gentlemen saw fit to denounce such accumulation even as it occurred within the relative measure of their contemporary economy:

(Excerpt)

1) The distrust of concentrated wealth was so great that, in an extreme sentiment, Ben Franklin argued "that no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." One could not accumulate vast wealth, in the republican worldview, simply through one's own labors. In small-scale agrarian freeholder society, where laud ownership was more widely distributed among men of European ancestry, there was a "natural distribution of wealth." Farmers, artisans, and other workers reaped the "fruits of their own labor."

2) In 1776, artisans from Philadelphia put forward a provision for inclusion in the original state constitution of Pennsylvania. They advocated for a limit on the concentration of wealth. "An enormous Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness of Mankind; and therefore any free State hath a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession of such Property."

TomPaine.com - Archives - The Very Soul Of A Republic

(Close)

James Madison had a few things to say about it as well:

(Excerpt)

Government, Madison wrote, should discourage the unnecessary accumulation of great wealth — especially “unmerited” fortunes derived from public patronage. Government based on republican ideals, he argued, should “by the silent operation of laws” work to “reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”

Above all, Madison wrote, government should act as an impartial umpire of the various interests that naturally compete in a free society. Madison respected the rights of property, but he understood that a moderate balance of wealth in society must be maintained. Self-government was not possible if the great mass of the people were impoverished.

Read more: Opinion: In the name of James Madison - Roger Hodge - POLITICO.com

(Close)

Your indictment of my "socialist leanings" ignores the uncharacteristically generous disposition of my kind of socialism, which allows for the accumulation of considerable wealth in the amount of twenty million dollars. While I do incline toward socialism in that I recognize and despise the inevitable effects of laissez faire capitalism, such as are emerging in our presently afflicted Economy, I am by no means a communist.

It doesn't call for academic letters in Economics to understand how hoarding of excessive amounts of the Nation's wealth resources will inevitably bring about the kind of collapse which almost happened in 2008. But because there are no Constitutional proscriptions against such hoarding I believe that for the survival of America it is necessary to impose a reasonable limit on the methodical accumulation of personal assets.

As previously mentioned in this thread, circulation of a nation's wealth resource is as essential to the health of that nation's economy as circulation of its blood is to a living organism. The hoarding of money impedes circulation, the effects of which are plainly visible today.

So unless you are among the super-rich who represent an emerging American aristocracy you obviously have been brainwashed by the kind of corporatist and plutocratic dogma as is typically put forth by the likes of such millionaire propagandists as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck. Believing what these people have to say will transform you into your own worst enemy.

I've got to honest with you, Mike...just when I think I've heard the most "out there" proposals coming from progressives someone comes along with something that is SO illogical that it blows my mind.

Let me explain to you what would happen if you were to limit the amount of wealth accumulation in this country to 20 million. You would have an exodus of capital and brain power from the US like nothing the world has ever seen. Anyone with large sums of capital or the ambitions of taking an innovative idea and growing it into a thriving business would leave the US for another country that didn't put a ceiling on wealth creation. We would lose so many jobs in such a short amount of time it would make this latest recession look like a walk in the park!

Seriously...do you even put a little thought into what you post here? Or is this something that you've heard somewhere and thought sounded intelligent? People like you scare me because I think we've actually got some of you RUNNING our country right now.

 

[kaz]

I'll be happy to:

Most Americans and most of our Representatives (local, state and federal) collect taxes so what most citizens want (roads, sewers, clean water, police and fire and medical aid at the touch of 911, etc.) they get.

Of course a small, loud and (IMO) ridiculous percentage of Americans believe they can do all of that (roads, sewers, etc.) alone, or do without it.

BTW, I don't believe it's only liberals who want a clean and safe society. Of course a minority of others seem to have other ideas on how to achieve a clean and safe environment for themselves. Maybe they can, but I doubt 300 million or so other Americans would believe so.

Thanks! Now what about answering the question?

You're welcome. I'm sorry you feel the answer was not responsive; trying to explain the self evident is not worth the effort.

The question is about government taking the property of one citizen by force and giving it to another. You discussed why we have taxes that don't involve taking the property of one citizen by force and giving it to another.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

.

We can certainly pretend that America doesn't now have generations of families who are stuck in a culture of welfare and dependency, why not. We can pretend anything. But we still know it's true.

The financial cost of welfare isn't all that much, in the grand scheme of things. The human cost, on the other hand, is tragic. I wonder why that isn't discussed.

.

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

Do you have any evidence that it did?

I'm agreeing with you. Generational poverty didn't happen before welfare. In fact poverty didn't exist. Everyone was rich or middle class before welfare.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm agreeing with you. Generational poverty didn't happen before welfare. In fact poverty didn't exist. Everyone was rich or middle class before welfare.

Simply not true. As Jesus said "The poor have always been with us". There were always people who were poor, and the children of the poor were never considered to have much in the way of prospects.

Throughout history there have been poor classes - the Ancient Romans called them "the Headcount". The elite who governed them considered keeping the Headcount fed and entertained formed the foundation of the security of their wealth and power. In ancient Great Britain, the Serfs who farmed the land owned by Lord/Prince/King who protected his people from marauders.

And of course there was always a "welfare class" - the slaves. They had nothing, owned nothing, were beholding to their masters for their food, clothing and shelter. When freed, lacking the education and the skill set to accumlate wealth, and held back by segregation and racism, poor black Southern blacks knew generational poverty from the time they were freed.

The US had no history of generational white poverty until the Great Depression because an almost open border existed for white European immigration. When millions of people arrive at your doorstep with nothing and need to build a new life, well that drives a lot of jobs and wealth. At that time, it was possible to arrive with nothing and be comfortably middle class in a generation or two. Even into the late 1800's, it was possible to homestead land in certain parts of the US. In such an open economy, it is easy for hard workers with smarts to get ahead.

Today, the economy is closed. There aren't wide open spaces waiting to be settled, cities to be built, or a country to build. Now it's maintenance. You've outsourced all of the "Headcount" jobs to Third World countries so you can buy $10 pants at Walmart. Even the Ancient Romans knew that the Headcount needed bread and circuses.

 

[DiamondDave]

.

We can certainly pretend that America doesn't now have generations of families who are stuck in a culture of welfare and dependency, why not. We can pretend anything. But we still know it's true.

The financial cost of welfare isn't all that much, in the grand scheme of things. The human cost, on the other hand, is tragic. I wonder why that isn't discussed.

.

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

 

[kaz]

.

We can certainly pretend that America doesn't now have generations of families who are stuck in a culture of welfare and dependency, why not. We can pretend anything. But we still know it's true.

The financial cost of welfare isn't all that much, in the grand scheme of things. The human cost, on the other hand, is tragic. I wonder why that isn't discussed.

.

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

After trillions spent on the "war on poverty," poverty rates are actually the same as when it started. Though now most of the "poor" have TV's, cars, the general American issues with obesity, ...

 

[MikeK]

Simply put Sir, Wanting to limit another person's income is truly unAmerican.

Go find yourself another country that might be more open to your socialist leanings.
You are against everything this country represents, so you would be better off in a country more to your liking....Unfortunately I can't think of another country that would take you.

If the Founders of this Nation were able to anticipate the kind of wealth its resources would one day be able to generate, mainly as the result of the Industrial Revolution, you may rest assured they would have included sanctions against excessive accumulation (hoarding) of wealth in the Constitution. As it was, several of those good gentlemen saw fit to denounce such accumulation even as it occurred within the relative measure of their contemporary economy:

(Excerpt)

1) The distrust of concentrated wealth was so great that, in an extreme sentiment, Ben Franklin argued "that no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." One could not accumulate vast wealth, in the republican worldview, simply through one's own labors. In small-scale agrarian freeholder society, where laud ownership was more widely distributed among men of European ancestry, there was a "natural distribution of wealth." Farmers, artisans, and other workers reaped the "fruits of their own labor."

2) In 1776, artisans from Philadelphia put forward a provision for inclusion in the original state constitution of Pennsylvania. They advocated for a limit on the concentration of wealth. "An enormous Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness of Mankind; and therefore any free State hath a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession of such Property."

TomPaine.com - Archives - The Very Soul Of A Republic

(Close)

James Madison had a few things to say about it as well:

(Excerpt)

Government, Madison wrote, should discourage the unnecessary accumulation of great wealth — especially “unmerited” fortunes derived from public patronage. Government based on republican ideals, he argued, should “by the silent operation of laws” work to “reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”

Above all, Madison wrote, government should act as an impartial umpire of the various interests that naturally compete in a free society. Madison respected the rights of property, but he understood that a moderate balance of wealth in society must be maintained. Self-government was not possible if the great mass of the people were impoverished.

Read more: Opinion: In the name of James Madison - Roger Hodge - POLITICO.com

(Close)

Your indictment of my "socialist leanings" ignores the uncharacteristically generous disposition of my kind of socialism, which allows for the accumulation of considerable wealth in the amount of twenty million dollars. While I do incline toward socialism in that I recognize and despise the inevitable effects of laissez faire capitalism, such as are emerging in our presently afflicted Economy, I am by no means a communist.

It doesn't call for academic letters in Economics to understand how hoarding of excessive amounts of the Nation's wealth resources will inevitably bring about the kind of collapse which almost happened in 2008. But because there are no Constitutional proscriptions against such hoarding I believe that for the survival of America it is necessary to impose a reasonable limit on the methodical accumulation of personal assets.

As previously mentioned in this thread, circulation of a nation's wealth resource is as essential to the health of that nation's economy as circulation of its blood is to a living organism. The hoarding of money impedes circulation, the effects of which are plainly visible today.

So unless you are among the super-rich who represent an emerging American aristocracy you obviously have been brainwashed by the kind of corporatist and plutocratic dogma as is typically put forth by the likes of such millionaire propagandists as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck. Believing what these people have to say will transform you into your own worst enemy.

I've got to honest with you, Mike...just when I think I've heard the most "out there" proposals coming from progressives someone comes along with something that is SO illogical that it blows my mind.

Let me explain to you what would happen if you were to limit the amount of wealth accumulation in this country to 20 million. You would have an exodus of capital and brain power from the US like nothing the world has ever seen. Anyone with large sums of capital or the ambitions of taking an innovative idea and growing it into a thriving business would leave the US for another country that didn't put a ceiling on wealth creation. We would lose so many jobs in such a short amount of time it would make this latest recession look like a walk in the park!

Seriously...do you even put a little thought into what you post here? Or is this something that you've heard somewhere and thought sounded intelligent? People like you scare me because I think we've actually got some of you RUNNING our country right now.

Place yourself on the list of those who are in need of education.

If your concern is with those who would seek to remove this Nation's wealth resources to another place, have you never heard of the expatriation tax? If not, read this: Expatriation Tax

This presently is a relatively small penalty. But if we Americans decide to put an end to the hoarding of our Nation's wealth resource rest assured this tax can be substantially increased.

Keep in mind this is a radical proposal. So don't burn your powerful brain out thinking of ways to impede it by applying existing pro-corporatist laws and regulations.

 

[MikeK]

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

After trillions spent on the "war on poverty," poverty rates are actually the same as when it started. Though now most of the "poor" have TV's, cars, the general American issues with obesity, ...

War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Illiteracy, and on and on. All are redundant and wasteful federal programs which should be carefully evaluated before signing into law.

 

[MikeK]

It is impossible even for one with the least capacity for reason to misunderstand that money has become an object of worship in the Western mind, with particular emphasis on our extremely capitalistic culture. And while I am not suggesting there is something wrong with individual or collective wealth there obviously is something seriously (and dangerously) wrong with the way our Nation's exceptional wealth resource is being distributed.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if the Founders of our Nation were able to anticipate the kind of wealth their political creation eventually would produce I have no doubt they would have included provisions in the Constitution to impede the greedily systematic hoarding of that wealth by individuals or organizations. Because those great and noble gentlemen certainly were wise enough to understand the economically corrosive effects of excessive accumulation, which primarly manifests as an impediment to circulation -- the very lifeblood of any national economy.

The absence of any such regulatory provision has over time resulted in the indoctrinated belief by most Americans that (as Gordon Gekko has asserted) greed is good. And while there is nothing wrong with endeavoring to produce sufficient wealth to support a secure, comfortable, reasonably luxurious future for oneself and one's family, the critical concept of enough has lost its meaning within the world of American financial endeavor.

If the Founders of our Nation were able to foresee its productive potential, and the kind of gluttonous ambition to acquire limitless wealth it would foster, there undoubtedly would be Constitutional limits imposed on the accumulation of personal assets. I don't know if that limit would be the $20million figure I've proposed for the sake of discussion, but whatever it might be we may rest assured that by now it would be an accepted standard which those who have managed to acquire the maximum level would be happily resigned to enjoying without cause for complaint.

 

[Desperado]

If the Founders of our Nation were able to foresee its productive potential, and the kind of gluttonous ambition to acquire limitless wealth it would foster, there undoubtedly would be Constitutional limits imposed on the accumulation of personal assets. I don't know if that limit would be the $20million figure I've proposed for the sake of discussion, but whatever it might be we may rest assured that by now it would be an accepted standard which those who have managed to acquire the maximum level would be happily resigned to enjoying without cause for complaint.

Only in your socialist mind.
If this is the problem as only you see it, why has no other country successfully tried this before?
If there are any politicians ignorant enough to try implement this plan, and at the very least they can kiss their careers good-bye.
If by some strange way (Executive Order) this plan was implemented, that's when the sparks would fly.
So other than being some philosophical discussion, nothing else will come of it.

 

[MikeK]

If the Founders of our Nation were able to foresee its productive potential, and the kind of gluttonous ambition to acquire limitless wealth it would foster, there undoubtedly would be Constitutional limits imposed on the accumulation of personal assets. I don't know if that limit would be the $20million figure I've proposed for the sake of discussion, but whatever it might be we may rest assured that by now it would be an accepted standard which those who have managed to acquire the maximum level would be happily resigned to enjoying without cause for complaint.

Only in your socialist mind.

While you are correct in saying I'm a socialist that word is so broadly definable you probably mean it in the most extreme sense, which is not correct. The fact is I believe capitalism is a good economic system -- but only when diligently controlled by socialist regulations such as existed until Ronald Reagan began removing them, followed by Clinton, then by G.W. Bush. What we have now is increasingly wanton laissez-faire capitalism, which led to the near collapse of our economy in 2008 and eventually will transform this Nation into a plutocracy if something radical isn't done to alter the direction it's moving in.

If this is the problem as only you see it, why has no other country successfully tried this before?

What other nation has experienced our phenomenal economic success followed by the social and economic decline we've presently fallen into? The problem is our government has become almost totally corrupted by the influence of money. Money has become like a drug and we are looking at the effects of a tenacious addiction which has taken hold of a major segment of the population.

If there are any politicians ignorant enough to try implement this plan, and at the very least they can kiss their careers good-bye.

Under the present circumstances you are absolutely right.

George W. Bush was installed as President by the shadow government for the express purpose of weakening the middle class, which has been an effective impediment to the emerging plutocracy. Bush did a good job of disabling the middle class but his crude personal nature is such that he managed to offend enough people to create a political backlash -- which is why Barack Obama was positioned by the same king-makers to perform damage control. While things appear to be somewhat better now the same shadow government is still pushing all the buttons.

Right now the situation is under control. Obama, who happens to be a very proficient bullshit artist, has successfully calmed the stormy waters and under the present circumstances there is no chance of fomenting meaningful political change. I believe what we're seeing is the calm before the storm and things will need to get worse before they can get better. I am confident they will get worse and when they get bad enough is when we are likely to see a radical political revolution.

It's happened before and it can happen again.

If by some strange way (Executive Order) this plan was implemented, that's when the sparks would fly.

It's not a plan, it's an idea. And the flying sparks are what will cause it to happen.

So other than being some philosophical discussion, nothing else will come of it.

That same thing has been said in advance of every major political upheaval in history. But political history is alive with surprises.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

.

We can certainly pretend that America doesn't now have generations of families who are stuck in a culture of welfare and dependency, why not. We can pretend anything. But we still know it's true.

The financial cost of welfare isn't all that much, in the grand scheme of things. The human cost, on the other hand, is tragic. I wonder why that isn't discussed.

.

Because before welfare - generational poverty just didn't happen.

And after it.. it reduced and disappeared

Isn't the right wing always touting how good the poor have it in the 'ole U.S.A compared to other countries? You think that might have something to do with the fact they can get help putting food in their childrens' mouths if they need it?

If there is anything the housing bubble should have taught people, its that the success of other people around us is linked to our own. If a bunch of idiots write dumb loans to idiots and sell them to a bunch of other idiots that can affect my income, my job, my future, my prospects at financial success - even if all the decisions I make are rational and reasonable and well thought out. If a bunch of people are desperate to feed their children, its going to affect me when they start trying break into my house to get food (I'll have to pick up the mess left after my dog kills them) or when the price I pay for groceries goes up because they are robbing grocery stores. If you want to live in a place where the poor get shit, the wealthy have to hire body guards and buy armored vehicles to protect themselves from the poor, and the middle class is almost non-existent, I can recommend several South American or African nations. The wealthy there live extravagent lifestyles with no care for what happens to what you would classify as the lazy worthless underclass - until members of that underclass break down their doors with machetes. And you know what happens when the underclass overthrows the wealthy? Communism. That sucks, too, does it? In the end nobody wins when the poor are ignored.

 

[Mac1958]

.

There are people who claim to "care" for the poor who have a significant professional vested interest in keeping those people right where they are on the social/economic strata.

When I see those people challenging their constituents to raise their own standards and expectations, to stop making excuses and pointing the finger when they fail, to expect fathers to stay with their families, to create and enforce higher expectations on their children, to stop celebrating mediocrity and to sincerely aspire to improve their own lot in life, I'll believe that they truly "care" about them.

Right now I see precious little of the above.

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

.

There are people who claim to "care" for the poor who have a significant professional vested interest in keeping those people right where they are on the social/economic strata.

The people with the biggest interest in keeping the poor where they are at are the owners of big business. The poor supply an abundant supply of cheap labor that can be used and discarded when needed, an asset of immense value to the wealthy business interests. To affect this end, the conservative wealthy business interests oppose the minimum wage, oppose anything that requires them to provide anything of value to employees outside of wage (from health benefits to workplace safety, both of which eat into the bottom line), oppose laws that protect workers from discrimination and harassment, and they actively promote laws which enable some of the poor to freeload off of the hard work of other members of the poor - i.e. the right to freeload states. A key component, in fact, in keeping the underclass down is making it easier for members of the underclass to prey off of one another, and that is the sole purpose of anti-union legislation.

When I see those people challenging their constituents to raise their own standards and expectations, to stop making excuses and pointing the finger when they fail, to expect fathers to stay with their families, to create and enforce higher expectations on their children, to stop celebrating mediocrity and to sincerely aspire to improve their own lot in life, I'll believe that they truly "care" about them.

If that's what you want go see a preacher. The rest of us demand our elected officials actually do something rather than just standing up and telling us how it how great it would be if fathers never left their children and no one ever had to dig ditches for a living.

 

[Mac1958]

.

There are people who claim to "care" for the poor who have a significant professional vested interest in keeping those people right where they are on the social/economic strata.

The people with the biggest interest in keeping the poor where they are at are the owners of big business. The poor supply an abundant supply of cheap labor that can be used and discarded when needed, an asset of immense value to the wealthy business interests. To affect this end, the conservative wealthy business interests oppose the minimum wage, oppose anything that requires them to provide anything of value to employees outside of wage (from health benefits to workplace safety, both of which eat into the bottom line), oppose laws that protect workers from discrimination and harassment, and they actively promote laws which enable some of the poor to freeload off of the hard work of other members of the poor - i.e. the right to freeload states. A key component, in fact, in keeping the underclass down is making it easier for members of the underclass to prey off of one another, and that is the sole purpose of anti-union legislation.

When I see those people challenging their constituents to raise their own standards and expectations, to stop making excuses and pointing the finger when they fail, to expect fathers to stay with their families, to create and enforce higher expectations on their children, to stop celebrating mediocrity and to sincerely aspire to improve their own lot in life, I'll believe that they truly "care" about them.

If that's what you want go see a preacher. The rest of us demand our elected officials actually do something rather than just standing up and telling us how it how great it would be if fathers never left their children and no one ever had to dig ditches for a living.

,

So, they're victims and need the government to fix things.

I couldn't have asked for a better example of my point.

.