In response to:

'The Defining Issue of Our Time'? Hardly

James64 Wrote: May 07, 2012 10:27 AM
When carrying on about the wealth of Gates, Jobs, Walton, et al; do any of these folk then compare that wealth with the amount 'given back' and the number of people affected directly- work and wages - and indirectly, through procurement contracts and construction? Do they recognize that these success stories weren't due to government benevolence, but in spite of the governmental hurdles?
Stuart95 Wrote: May 07, 2012 12:11 PM
Until someone can explain exactly why "wealth inequality" is morally wrong, treads upon the rights of others, or is socially destabilizing, one must assume that objections to wealth inequality are totally emotional. That makes wealth inequality ripe for political manipulation by the politically desperate.

It serves the manipulators to have the unwashed believe that rich people (a) acheived their wealth by taking from others, and (b) spend their wealth on booze and loose women. The concept of legal creation of wealth, and the subsequent benefits to society, is a difficult concept that the politically vacuous, like Obama, Pelosi, and Reed, do not wish promulgated.
There is nothing new under the sun, including politicians who seek to win votes by milking the gap between rich and poor.

Today it's Barack Obama, demanding a "Buffett rule" and decrying the harm caused when "the gap between those at the very, very top and everybody else keeps growing wider and wider and wider and wider." Not so long ago it was John Edwards, intent on riding his "Two Americas" stump speech ("One America does the work while another America reaps the reward") all the way to the White House. Earlier still it was FDR, lambasting the...

Related Tags: Barack Obama