Presidents are fun and entertaining. Obama can be called the "Mars Attacks!" president. Listen for when he says things that fit this framework: "The constitution prohibits X. So we must be very careful with our new policy, X, so it does not do extensive harm." He can also be called the "horoscope" president. Any given paragraph can contain two opposing "truths." There's always something you can agree with. (A key feature of the comedy/sci-fi movie, "Mars Attacks!", is the Martians walking around saying, "We come in peace. We want to be your friend. Do not be afraid." All the while blasting anybody in their sights. Naturally, some of the movie's characters - notably the politicians - pay attention only to the Martians' words.)

Mary, I've wondered about that, too. I personally rank the candidates, P, R, O, G, S. So, if Paul has the same ranking, it's easy to understand. That said, Paul should switch to "morning in America". Yes, the US government is off the rails in many ways. But let's hear about how it could be better. Let's see a clear, compelling picture of a better government and society. To Tom's point, a non-sound bite "debate" might favor Paul. Why audit the Fed? Why not? "I think Iran is not a nuke threat." "I think that Iran is to the US." "i'm running for president of Israel. So there." Is the US government really running a deficit now? Etc. Where's the deep talk from these guys? And, yeah, letting Liberal MSM people run the debates? Spot on, Tom.

Of course a significant portion of population does not pass through making 400k/top-1% during their lives. Duh. And that's not at all Tom's point. Now, if most everyone worked 100+ years ... :) Tom notes that age differences are greater in wealth than in income, though he does not bother writing the self evident reason for this. His numbers are income numbers, not wealth.

:) Right there in Amendment 10, I believe. Let me just fetch my congressional reading glasses. Why, yes. Ten.

I agree there is more wrong than the sales job. It won't collapse, though. Baby Boomers won't get as much as their parents. But that will be a matter of some percentage. And, the Gen X'ers will probably do better because of both more riches in the world and the Baby Boom Echo generation's size. I'm inclined to like Chile's and Singapore's and HK's, too.

Well, OK, call it "robbery". I'd call it "charity", myself, and I would agree that there are very serious problems with enforced charity. If you're forced to do the right thing, you'll end up dodging it - "I gave at the office" - and you'll end up with the equivalent of atrophied charity muscles. Very corrosive to both individuals and society. I call it a pension program because that's what it is. That it's enforced is a separate issue. There are other pension programs where you manage your own pension, but the program is enforced, too. Whether they are better than a huge-pool, government operated pension is a matter of debate. I would like to think they are. But ... I've been wrong before.

Look below. One of the other comments even explains the joke: "... and a mule."

Walter, this is unbecoming of you. Why waste time trashing a bad sales job? As you well know, social security does not have a trust fund and it is not a savings/investment program. It's simply a national old age pension program. People with incomes pay a pension to old folks. Simple as that. That it has been sold otherwise is sad, but not worth worrying about. Now, should there be legally mandatory pension programs? Similarly, should the US have a national level pension program as opposed to state level? Should a mandatory pension program be run by a government at all? Should the start-age be 62, 70, 80, what? Etc. Good questions. No clear answers. Each probably worth a column from someone like you with experience and sense.

No they didn't, Earl. Alger heroes made their own luck and that process was emphasized in the books. But, yes, they did walk through the door when luck opened it. How often does the typical 16 year old save the rich guy's daughter, after all. :) Nonetheless, remember that they generally start down and out because of luck, too. So luck went both ways for them. Great books, BTW, if you keep in mind the intended audience. I especially love one book that described the poor, kindly landlady who the hero first stayed with: "Irish, but honest." Such a revealing window on the past!

Right. For instance, if 100% of companies that did *not* go bankrupt had going concern comments while 48% of bankrupt companies had the comments, then the logical implication of such comments would be different from the impression left by the 48% number alone. The problem is that, hearing the 48% number, our minds tend to assume the other number is very, very low. It's a cognitive illusion much like optical illusions in its ability to mislead.