Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth.  In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family."  Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright.  In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research,  author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth."  Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent.  They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright.  This further begs the question: then why are they in charge?  Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest?  Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school?  While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright.  In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society.  We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society. 

"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year.  Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest?  What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals?  Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves?  If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}.  It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse.  Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.

I have come to the conlusion from talking to peple of inherited wealth and hearing wealthy heirs talk that most of them sincerely believe they earned their achievements "all on their own."  Their family's wealth had little to do with it.

I assumed first that few people want to say, "I got into Harvard because my grandfather gave the college a million dollars, and I made vice-president at 28 because my dad is on the board of directors."

On further inquiry, it seems their idea of accomplisment is different because their entire world view is different.

Some scions of wealth work hard for the good of humanity.  Others are thieving scumbags.  Most are somewhere in between.

However, conservatives like to toss around the term "meritocracy" and "rugged individualism."  Bob Dole, the ever obtuse, went so far as to say "America is a classless society."

Well then shouldn't we have a 100% inheritence tax?  Of course not.  That's prespammersite.  All I'm saying is I would respect the conservatives more if they admitted guys like Dan Quayle and George W. Bush would not become leaders of nations if not for the power of inheritence.

When these clowns crow about "the death tax," they indicate to me they don't want their kids to have to work hard and that they fear their children might not be up to the task.  They are certainly not going to admit they are striving for neo-aristocracy.  That's why they play the puerile word game.  It's not a "death tax."  It is an "estate tax."  And nobody ever lost the old homestead because of it!

Bill Clinton.  Now there's a guy who rose up from humble beginnings all the way to president of the United State.  But... **** him!  We don't like him.  He's smarter, cooler, more charasmatic, and better looking than us, plus he gets laid way more often.  So we're envious and we don't like him.  In fact, we're gonna destroy him!

The Gates family favors the estate tax.  Bill Gates, Sr., understands it takes a village to raise a software billionaire and it's only fair that those who can most afford to should pay the most back to the system that helped them succeed in the first place.

The right-wing pundit's, again most obtuse, could only reply, "Oh yeah, well Bill Gates is sooooo rich, the death tax won't effect him."  Yes, they really said this.
:D

Gates said he didn't think it was good for kids to inherit too much money, so he's going to give away 90% of his wealth. Hmmmmmm.....
:-\\

Thomas Skidmore thought that there should be NO inheritance. His theory was that every child would be guaranteed an education and be set up in their field but they couldn't pass anything on to their kids. That is a bit extreme if you ask me. I like those family heirlooms (when my mother goes, I will get a dresser that belonged to my great-grandmother-not worth much but I will cherish it just the same because it was hers).

I do understand about wanting to help your children out but I think in the case of the Bush family, the Gates, the Hiltons, etc. etc. it is a bit excessed. I think maybe a happy medium can be found. Someone can only inherit so much or a % of their parents' estate.



Cat

There's two very different threads in the top post: the concept of birthright and inheritance, and the idea that democracy somehow leads to intelligent people being elected to positions of power.  The latter is more than a little bit laughable (especially on that side of the pond, though we're not much better over here): what you get with democracy are the people running the shop being those who are best at getting themselves elected.  There is no criterion other than that.  Of course, in America, the team that spends the most nearly always wins, so Bush's primary talent (the ability to raise money) is a pretty strong electoral asset, too.  But my favourite poll of 2004 was the one that showed that more than 70% of people supporting him in the run up to the election were wrong about what his policy positions were on all the major policy areas (and I believe it much was the same when he was reelected in Texas)... even after having him as Governor/President for four years, people were *still* wrong about what he's actually done.  And these are the people who choose who runs the country...

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) in his blog had (maybe still has, I've not read it for months) a regular feature where after describing some act of extreme stupidity would then add "... and then he voted" - sums it up perfectly.

On the inheritance side, I ain't convinced that making GWB, Paris Hilton, Lachlan Murdoch or anybody heir to megabucks is helpful either to their own lives or society as a whole; but it is definitely *not* the job of government to take it off them.  If the super-rich want to follow Bill Gates' example, so much the better - I don't often see eye to eye with him on Microsoft business strategy, but when it comes to his view of money (and too much money being about power rather than simply money), he's dead on.  And best of luck to him.

All I'm going to say is this:

When the government starts giving me my money rather than my earning it, they can start telling me what to do with it.  Otherwise, my kids are going to all have a nice little inheritance, and if the government decides to change the rules somewhere along the line, then I'll change my rules as well and make sure the  government gets none of it.

They get enough out of me already and they don't get one more red cent unless I willingly give it to them....period....

There's two very different threads in the top post: the concept of birthright and inheritance, and the idea that democracy somehow leads to intelligent people being elected to positions of power.  The latter is more than a little bit laughable (especially on that side of the pond, though we're not much better over here): what you get with democracy are the people running the shop being those who are best at getting themselves elected.  There is no criterion other than that.  Of course, in America, the team that spends the most nearly always wins, so Bush's primary talent (the ability to raise money) is a pretty strong electoral asset, too.  But my favourite poll of 2004 was the one that showed that more than 70% of people supporting him in the run up to the election were wrong about what his policy positions were on all the major policy areas (and I believe it much was the same when he was reelected in Texas)... even after having him as Governor/President for four years, people were *still* wrong about what he's actually done.  And these are the people who choose who runs the country...

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) in his blog had (maybe still has, I've not read it for months) a regular feature where after describing some act of extreme stupidity would then add "... and then he voted" - sums it up perfectly.

On the inheritance side, I ain't convinced that making GWB, Paris Hilton, Lachlan Murdoch or anybody heir to megabucks is helpful either to their own lives or society as a whole; but it is definitely *not* the job of government to take it off them.  If the super-rich want to follow Bill Gates' example, so much the better - I don't often see eye to eye with him on Microsoft business strategy, but when it comes to his view of money (and too much money being about power rather than simply money), he's dead on.  And best of luck to him.


Are the people fit to choose their own leaders?

When my party wins the election:  The people have spoken.
When your party wins the election: The masses are asses!
:D

As Kevin Phillips points out (and no red flag waving communist he), the Inheritance Tax is necessary for democracy because it keeps wealth distribution* in check.  If a democracy allows family fortunes to increase exponentially generation after generation, wealth distribution will become so concentrated among a few ultra-rich families that the inevitable result is plutocracy--rule of the people by the rich for the rich.  Allow corporations unregulated advancement of power, and you get fascism.  We are have seen this occurring in the U.S. since the Reagan Administration ushered in the new Robber Baron era.   Indeed, it is a collusion of the country's richest families pushing for repeal of the estate tax. 

The Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Mellons, the DuPonts, the Morgans, and other "robber baron" families gnashed their teeth and shook their fists at legislation such as the Clayton anti-trust act of 1914 (let's not forget trust-busting!) and the "Wealth Tax" act of 1935.  These kinds of laws certainly did not leave America bereft of rich families!  Furthermore, the "middle class" as we understand it did not develop until after these laws were enacted and has been shrinking ever since laws of this nature were weakened in the past quarter century.  The highest standard of living for the average person in this country from the 1940s through the 1970s.

It is easy to sell the idea that such legislation is anathema to the "free market" and "individual liberty" if you phrase the argument in terms of wealth/money as it applies to 95% of the population.  Right-wingers succeeded in doing just that: "It's YOUR money, not the government's money."  "You work hard for a better life for your children, and the government takes it all away when you die!"  "Let's get rid of the Death Tax!"  Basically, it is a primeval instinct to protect what is yours and not to let somebody else take your things away from you.  That was necessary in the stone age, but in present-day democracy, it is a destructive mentality when taken to exacerbating extremes.

"When I die, the government is going to back a truck up to my house and take all my furniture away!"
--Bill O'Reilly

IMO, if your estate amounts to $100,000, the Inheritance Tax should not apply to you.  At present it does not.  If your estate amounts to $100 million dollars, the inheritance tax must apply so that your grandchildren's estate will not be $100 billion, which is no longer an estate, but a plutocratic fiefdom. 

The case I make here is not as compelling as I'd like it to be.  I'm not an economist.  Read Paul Krugman, David Cay Johnston, and Kevin Phillips, they explain it much better!
;)

* Wealth distribution refers to the temporal array of wealth throughout the population not the act of the big bad government handing out the poor little rich boy's money to the udeserving layabouts.  Sorry Rush. 
:P

Property rights are human rights.

Bill Gates is a free man.  If he wants to give away his wealth, he's free to do so. 

Gates' actions don't match his rhetoric. Despite his support for the inheritance tax, he chose to set up a charitable trust to shelters his assets from the government in order to use his wealth to fund projects that Bill deems worthy of funding.  If he was really putting his money where his pro-inheritance tax mouth was, he would have have simply donated his appreciated securities to the Department of the Treasury, and received the same tax benefit with a lot less paperwork.

I don't blame the guy.  If I had a few tens of billions of dollars, I'd also prefer to set up a charitable trust for one of my pet projects than hand it over to the government.  Considering what the government does with its tax revenues, buying the collected works of DaVinci, Monet, and Picasso and incinerating them in the world's most expensive Burning Man stunt would probably be a more moral choice than handing that kind of wealth over to the government.

Shocked?  Offended? 

Republicans:  Imagine someone personally funding the portion of the welfare budget that keeps 1,000,000 crackheads high for the next year.
Democrats:  Imagine someone personally funding the defense budget that funds the war (and every casualty, civilian or military) for the next two weeks. 

The Mona Lisa is gone, but there are a few thousand crackheads who've starved to death and are now rotting harmlessly in the ground, a few dozen servicemen/women get to come home a few weeks early (and in something less cramped than a pine box!), some 500 civilians don't get killed, and the Louvre has $10B with which to go out and build up the rest of its collections.  All of a sudden, incinerating the Mona Lisa doesn't sound like such a bad use of $10B, does it? 

Thomas Skidmore thought that there should be NO inheritance. His theory was that every child would be guaranteed an education and be set up in their field but they couldn't pass anything on to their kids. That is a bit extreme if you ask me. I like those family heirlooms (when my mother goes, I will get a dresser that belonged to my great-grandmother-not worth much but I will cherish it just the same because it was hers).

I do understand about wanting to help your children out but I think in the case of the Bush family, the Gates, the Hiltons, etc. etc. it is a bit excessed. I think maybe a happy medium can be found. Someone can only inherit so much or a % of their parents' estate.

Cat


I think that the Marxists or communists already experimented with confiscating the profit's of one's labor and it failed miserably.

If my estate (howevere large or small) is not going to go to my heirs, why am I gonna bust my butt to generate money for the government coffers?

Besides, how many people would feel a sense of accomplishment knowing that their estate will simply go into a black hole of a government deficit?

Now the current issue of executive pay is absolutely absurd.  I can not understand why boards of directors put up with this.  Or, more to the point, why the stock holders put up with it.  If an executive wants to make $69,000,000 a year, let him start and own his own company and not leach off of mine.

I don't blame the guy.  If I had a few tens of billions of dollars, I'd also prefer to set up a charitable trust for one of my pet projects than hand it over to the government. 
And I fully support tax exemptions for philanthropy.  Greater philanthropy is a benefit to having estate taxes. The government still must verify that a philanthropic foundation is truly philanthropic and not just a tax shelter.  I don't believe the purpose of government is to help the rich get richer, I believe the purpose is to ensure the common good.  You, Ayn Rand, and Maggie Thatcher believe, of course, that there is no such thing as the common good, and for what it's worth, your propaganda has won the day.  Americans now have a knee-jerk reaction that government is bad, and right-wing politicians are so bad at governing that they fulfill the prophesy. 


I think that the Marxists or communists already experimented with confiscating the profit's of one's labor and it failed miserably.


I am not talking about *confiscating* the earnings from one's own labor.  I am talking about taxing the profits millionaires take from the labor of other people.  Taxes are the price we pay to live in a functional society.

And I fully support tax exemptions for philanthropy.  Greater philanthropy is a benefit to having estate taxes. The government still must verify that a philanthropic foundation is truly philanthropic and not just a tax shelter.  I don't believe the purpose of government is to help the rich get richer, I believe the purpose is to ensure the common good.  You, Ayn Rand, and Maggie Thatcher believe, of course, that there is no such thing as the common good, and for what it's worth, your propaganda has won the day.  Americans now have a knee-jerk reaction that government is bad, and right-wing politicians are so bad at governing that they fulfill the prophesy. 

I am not talking about *confiscating* the earnings from one's own labor.  I am talking about taxing the profits millionaires take from the labor of other people.  Taxes are the price we pay to live in a functional society.


Perhaps the millionaires should just close their businesses.  That way the laborers would not need to worry about somebody profiting from their work.

Of course that's silly.  Why not simply have the government "tax" the business owner by taking possession of his/her business?  Of course I do not propose confiscation.  What I am talking about is a tax. A tax in the form of property taking.  That way the workers will be assured that only the government will profit from their work.

This would be better for the community and as such they will no longer be called "places of business" but rather "communes".

Hmm... Seems maybe I have heard this before...

I am not talking about *confiscating* the earnings from one's own labor.  I am talking about taxing the profits millionaires take from the labor of other people.  Taxes are the price we pay to live in a functional society.


So, if a person is a one person business, then it's ok to profit, but if that one person decides to expand and actually employ others then they should be entitled to no profits other than what he/she themselves earn??  Wow!!  That sort of limits free enterprise and ANY incentive to go out and be more than a local scrunge working for his own good, huh??

I think my employees (who are all paid quite handsomely, and have their medical paid to boot) just might take issue with stupid logic like that.

I can't believe anybody would be stupid enough to even entertain a prespammersite notion like that, much less actually think it ought to be enacted. 

Maybe all the people who think this is a wonderful idea ought to go into business for themselves, hire a crapload of people so their profits can be confiscated, and solve all our national debts....or maybe better still, we just ought to voluntarily donate an extra 20-25% of our income to the government, irregardless of whether we work for a corporation, small business or for ourselves........talk about the hand wringers and their idiotic mind set.....

I'd like to see what incentive there is for contractors, construction companies, etc to stay in business....can't say that I can picture a one man construction "company" building skyscrapers, or new schools, or municipal structures..maybe instead, these company owners can hire 1000 or so individual "sub contractors" for a project like that.....

There it is again, the exacerbating extreme.  The knee-jerk hate-the-government flip-outs.

I have never heard of people of such privilege behave so persecuted as the American rich, and they're so good at it the American working class leaps to their defense.  It's ridiculous.
::)

You like capitalism?
Well, for capitalism to work, you need capital and labor and progressive taxation.  This failed experiment called "Supply-Side Economics" informs us thusly.

There it is again, the exacerbating extreme.  The knee-jerk hate-the-government flip-outs.

I have never heard of people of such privilege behave so persecuted as the American rich, and they're so good at it the American working class leaps to their defense.  It's ridiculous.
::)

You like capitalism?
Well, for capitalism to work, you need capital and labor and progressive taxation.  This failed experiment called "Supply-Side Economics" informs us thusly.


Yes...the extreme..and it is extreme, isn't it?? But it is also pretty accurate without having to stretch the imagination far....

Maybe we can get more jobs outsourced to China and Mexico if we really keep trying hard enough...and please don't start in about how the right is creating this situation unless you acknowledge the left is following suit....or did they lead in this instance??

It has been mentioned on here by others besides myself that there is getting to be no incentive to do well and make something if the government is just going to take it all away from you.  Call it what you will..

In short, this is all about jealousy.

I seriously doubt that those in here that have problems with inheritance would be talking this way if their last name was Rockefeller, Hilton, Gates, or Moore.  Or Roosevelt, Clinton, or Ford.

I always find it funny when I look at some of the forms of insanity that the Left in this country has.  They will scream about the evils of wealth and possessions, and at the same time embrace it.  Oh it is evil to inherit evil Oil Money if your last name is Bush, but it is OK if your last name is Gore.  And everybody wants to stop the evils of "Global Warming", but they are not about to give up driving their SUV, or running 3 TVs and living in their 4 bedroom 2.5 bath house in the suburbs.

Everybody in the world has a birthright.  It is composed of many things.  Their heritage, their culture, their religion, even various freedoms they may have based on the nation in which they were born in.  And part of historical birthright since Adam and Eve died and their land and belongings were split up between their children was the birthright of inheritance.

Some people work hard to get where they are now.  And anybody that has been involved in politics (as in the Corporate-Academic type) knows that for everybody that makes it, there are 3 or 4 that think they really deserved to be there more.  And for every child that inherits control of a business from their parents, there are 2 or 3 that think it should have gone to them instead.  And they may be right, but that was the decision of their parents, not of them.

I have no problem with inheritance.  I inherited nothing from my mother when she died, it all went to my stepbrothers and stepsister.  That was my mothers decision, and that is that.  And my love for my mom was in no way based on what she could give me when she died.  And I would have loved her the same, if she was rich or poor.  And she in no way died poor, leaving my stepsiblings around 10 acres of land and a real estate business worth a fair amount of money.

Some people are lucky to be born in rich families.  Their birthright is privlidge and education.  And a lot of people want to have that taken away, because they do not have it.  In much the same way, our birthright in being born in America (or England, or Australia, or Canada, etc) is a birthright of religious freedom and other liberties that the rest of the world is jealous of.  They hate our idea of religious freedom, and want to take that away so we all follow their idea of religion.  Or they see our freedom of speech as a form of anarchy, and want to see that taken away so that we all march lock-step with their idea of society.

In short, it is all the same.  Jealousy, and the desire to enforce their ideas on others.  But I have yet to see any of those willing to give all of their possessions and money to the Government when they die, and leave nothing to their children.

In short, this is all about jealousy.


The proper term would be "envy."  The ones who are "jealous" are the all those who feel threatened by the welfare state scheme to "redistribute wealth."

There are poor people who envy rich people.  Always have been, always will be.  But I am not talking about "envy," I am talking about creating a workable economic structure.  How I "feel" about Bill Gates or the Walton heirs in comparison to my own lot in life has nothing to do with it.

Our national dialogue on these matters, thanks to the influence of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, has been dumbed down to:  "Ungrateful poor people what your hard earned money."

If this mentality persists, our ability to understand the nature of wealth in democracy will be retarded and stifled.

Envy??  It's more an excuse of those that are unwilling/too lazy/or do not have the drive to put forth a concerted effort to pick themselves up and make a fresh go of things.  All these excuses we've come up with as of late that can be grouped into one big term, "it's not my fault, it's somebody elses" is just that, an excuse.

Does anybody who embraces this crap being spewed about redistributing wealth add an extra 10% onto their tax returns every year by April 15th??  I highly doubt it.  I wonder why that is??  If they truly believe that this ought to be the way things are, let them put their money where their mouths are and prove it.

How many of these "believers" go out of their way to find a better job, in order to make more money so they can send in a "little bit extra" in addition to their weekly deductions so they can prove they believe???

Lets see John Kerry step up to the plate and give his wealth in a lump sum to the government(oh wait, it's his WIFES money, not his, I forgot)  Sorry.  Lets see the proof starting with those who would shove crap like this down our throats take the first step.....when all the lefties have emptied their coffers and have taken a vow to never have anything, including returning their excess yearly salary to the government, then that may prove they are sincere in their beliefs...will we ever see this happen??  Will we ever see Gore moving into a double wide instead of his mansion, and worrying about turning off the light switch to save on his next months electric bill??  Not in my lifetime....

For those that can't pick themselves up, I feel sorry.  For those that make excuses and will spend their lives always blaming their situation on "somebody else"  and won't try for themselves, I feel nothing but rage.

I was not born into a rich family financially, but I was born into a family rich in values.  The first and foremost was concern for family and doing what was right, and then always making sure that you had a least what you needed in order to get by.  I inherited no business already establised, but I have managed to start up 2 businesses that are making a nice profit, due mainly in part from a lot of hard work, sacrifices, and a lot of 7 day work weeks..I was instilled with the drive to always have a job, even if it was something I didn't want to do until something better came along, and that "coming along" was accomplished by always looking, knocking on doors, and making inquiries until better came along, usually after the work day was done and after hours.  There are few areas in NY that are as economically depressed as upstate NY, and there is money to be made....

Maybe I'll start a 3rd business up this way, make a crapload of money JUST so I can donate it to the government, God forbid I should have the pleasure of a boat or something like that since not every person in America has one, why should I have and somebody else not??

Envy??  It's more an excuse of those that are unwilling/too lazy/or do not have the drive to put forth a concerted effort to pick themselves up and make a fresh go of things.  All these excuses we've come up with as of late that can be grouped into one big term, "it's not my fault, it's somebody elses" is just that, an excuse.

Does anybody who embraces this crap being spewed about redistributing wealth add an extra 10% onto their tax returns every year by April 15th??  I highly doubt it.  I wonder why that is??  If they truly believe that this ought to be the way things are, let them put their money where their mouths are and prove it.

How many of these "believers" go out of their way to find a better job, in order to make more money so they can send in a "little bit extra" in addition to their weekly deductions so they can prove they believe???

Lets see John Kerry step up to the plate and give his wealth in a lump sum to the government(oh wait, it's his WIFES money, not his, I forgot)  Sorry.  Lets see the proof starting with those who would shove crap like this down our throats take the first step.....when all the lefties have emptied their coffers and have taken a vow to never have anything, including returning their excess yearly salary to the government, then that may prove they are sincere in their beliefs...will we ever see this happen??  Will we ever see Gore moving into a double wide instead of his mansion, and worrying about turning off the light switch to save on his next months electric bill??  Not in my lifetime....

For those that can't pick themselves up, I feel sorry.  For those that make excuses and will spend their lives always blaming their situation on "somebody else"  and won't try for themselves, I feel nothing but rage.

I was not born into a rich family financially, but I was born into a family rich in values.  The first and foremost was concern for family and doing what was right, and then always making sure that you had a least what you needed in order to get by.  I inherited no business already establised, but I have managed to start up 2 businesses that are making a nice profit, due mainly in part from a lot of hard work, sacrifices, and a lot of 7 day work weeks..I was instilled with the drive to always have a job, even if it was something I didn't want to do until something better came along, and that "coming along" was accomplished by always looking, knocking on doors, and making inquiries until better came along, usually after the work day was done and after hours.  There are few areas in NY that are as economically depressed as upstate NY, and there is money to be made....

Maybe I'll start a 3rd business up this way, make a crapload of money JUST so I can donate it to the government, God forbid I should have the pleasure of a boat or something like that since not every person in America has one, why should I have and somebody else not??



I think it is admirable that you were able to start your own business. However, not everyone can do the same. And there are people out there who work very, very hard and have absolutely nothing to show for it through no fault of their own. There are many who work 2 or 3 jobs and can't seem to make ends meet. Housing, utilities, food, etc. etc. use up every bit they make and have nothing left over. When their employers make boo-coo bucks and probably don't work half as hard as their employees. I am not saying that you are like that. In fact, most small business owners are probably the best employers in the world because they are usually working right beside their employees and understand and care about the employees. I am talking about the BIG business like Walmart who only care about the bottom line and to hell with the employees just as long as I get mine. It wouldn't make me so angry if we had something in this so-called richest country in the world called a livable wage. I really don't think it is right for someone to work a full-time job (that is 40 hours a week), whether it be someone who cleans floors to someone who teaches, who can't afford to pay for the essentials in life. 



Cat

Not all of us agree it is a healthy thing for people to have to fight like Spartan dogs to the kill in order to make a living.  That leaves little time over for free thought/citizenship, and that's the way we like it!
:D

Not all of us agree it is a healthy thing for people to have to fight like Spartan dogs to the kill in order to make a living.  That leaves little time over for free thought/citizenship, and that's the way we like it!
:D


Then may I suggest you cease with your rabid dislike for those of us who choose to fight like Spartan dogs?

Make sure that your "free thought" continues to think that people like myself are the root cause of the problems in this country.

I would far prefer to do it my way rather than have the government intervene and tell me the way it's going to be, especially when they propose taking more of my hard earned dollars in order to give it to somebody whom my "free thought" may decide has the capabilities to do something for themselves instead of waiting for the government handout....

I think it is admirable that you were able to start your own business. However, not everyone can do the same. And there are people out there who work very, very hard and have absolutely nothing to show for it through no fault of their own. There are many who work 2 or 3 jobs and can't seem to make ends meet. Housing, utilities, food, etc. etc. use up every bit they make and have nothing left over. When their employers make boo-coo bucks and probably don't work half as hard as their employees. I am not saying that you are like that. In fact, most small business owners are probably the best employers in the world because they are usually working right beside their employees and understand and care about the employees. I am talking about the BIG business like Walmart who only care about the bottom line and to hell with the employees just as long as I get mine. It wouldn't make me so angry if we had something in this so-called richest country in the world called a livable wage. I really don't think it is right for someone to work a full-time job (that is 40 hours a week), whether it be someone who cleans floors to someone who teaches, who can't afford to pay for the essentials in life. 



Cat

I know not all of them can make it Cat, even though they do try and never seem to succeed.  I think my past posts on these threads over the months have clarified my position on this, and what I've posted in the past have made my position clear.

However, I DO have problems with those who are unwilling to put forth the effort and merely await the big government money bag to open up for them, and beyotch when it doesn't open up enough to suit their needs.

While I , with my "tunnel vision" can seemingly differentiate between the two, there are those "free thinkers" who choose not to differentiate between the "trying" and the "unwilling to try", and categorize them into the same class structure, if you will.  I'm pretty sure that if you spoke to the "tryers" who weren't quite making it even though they were giving it all they had, they would be insulted to find somebody categorized them into the same class as the ones who wanted nothing more out of life than to await the government dole as their sole means of getting through life...

good points

good points

Yeah, thanks for bringing ths thread back up like a rancid frankfurter I et three days ago!
:P

Bunch of petty judgments about the "trying and the unwilling to try" like he's got the score on everybody.

Yeah, thanks for bringing ths thread back up like a rancid frankfurter I et three days ago!
:P

Bunch of petty judgments about the "trying and the unwilling to try" like he's got the score on everybody.



If that shot was directed at me Max, thank you.  However, I fail to see where I've ever mentioned "everybody" as you so eloquently put it.

What I've done on this thread is differentiate between the willing and the unwilling, and have seperated them, as opposed to lumping them all together and making everyone seemingly in need of the governments prying fingers.  What I've seen on here are people looking for "case specific" examples, and then when they are provided, the original question is ignored, either by changing the subject, massive amounts of rhetoric or a smart azzed comment, all of which are pretty much proof that the individual posting the change/rhetoric/SAC has been talked into a corner and is desperately trying to avoid further discussion due to lack of real answers.

Cat posted a very nice comment about the differentiation between the two, and explained in words everybody could understand...nice to see.

However, some people on here do nothing but beyotch about government, no matter who's in charge at the time, and yet still continue to offer up the same old, same old about how it's the fault of big business, and that no matter who is in charge is doing it wrong, because partiality is being shown, at least in the mind of the paranoid few.  In their eyes, government should be doing something differently, no matter what position said government takes...perhaps those people who complain the loudest should be running for office, or are they afraid that they'd be labeled a crackpot if their views were seen outside an internet forum???

I do understand about wanting to help your children out but I think in the case of the Bush family, the Gates, the Hiltons, etc. etc. it is a bit excessed.


But what about the Gore family?  Or the Soros, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Michael Moore, or even John Kerry or Rob McCay?  They all inherited great wealth, and have lived lives of leisure.  Or is this kind of anger only aimed towards Republicans who inherit wealth?

And Bill Gates actually did not inherit very much.  His father's net worth was only somewhere in the $1.5-2 million dollar range.  He really is a case where he built his own wealth.  By the time he reached 25 and had access to his trust fund, his own net worth had already surpassed it's value.  And it is his intention to give most of it away before he dies.  So far, he has given away in excess of $10 billion, and his foundation is to recieve the vast majority of his wealth upon his death.  And his 3 children?  He has stated many times that they will inherit no more then $2 million each.

To some people that may sound like a lot of money, but it really is not.  If my parents had held onto the 710 square foot house we lived in when I grew up, it would sell now for over $600k (they sold it in 1975 for around $40k).

But what about the Gore family?  Or the Soros, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Michael Moore, or even John Kerry or Rob McCay?  They all inherited great wealth, and have lived lives of leisure.  Or is this kind of anger only aimed towards Republicans who inherit wealth?

And Bill Gates actually did not inherit very much.  His father's net worth was only somewhere in the $1.5-2 million dollar range.  He really is a case where he built his own wealth.  By the time he reached 25 and had access to his trust fund, his own net worth had already surpassed it's value.  And it is his intention to give most of it away before he dies.  So far, he has given away in excess of $10 billion, and his foundation is to recieve the vast majority of his wealth upon his death.  And his 3 children?  He has stated many times that they will inherit no more then $2 million each.

To some people that may sound like a lot of money, but it really is not.  If my parents had held onto the 710 square foot house we lived in when I grew up, it would sell now for over $600k (they sold it in 1975 for around $40k).

Erm, I don't have much more to say on this thread.  I'm just interested in what source is telling you Michael Moore inherited "great wealth."  Moore did not grow up dirt-poor in flint.  He grew middle-class when we had a middle class!
::)