Thursday, October 11, 2012

Huffington *ost Comments. 10/11/2012 Part II


What does "excessively wealthy" mean? Why is $1 million your number? Why have you decided that some arbitrary number is the cutoff between good and bad?

What gives you, or anyone else, the right to decide what is "excessive wealth"?

Prior to America you description of the problems of wealth would have been correct. Prior to America, the wealthiest people were those who acquired their income through the use of force to make others work for them.

Now, with capitalism, most people who have wealth earned it or their parents did.

All of the trappings of modern living that we have come to depend on have just come into being in the past 200 years. Ask yourself why. Why did this not take place in any of the other two-century stretches in the history of our species? They were smart, they worked hard, they understood mathematics, and the iron and oil and coal was right there in the ground the whole time. What changed?

America - that’s what changed.

For the first time in the history of the world, the person who “built it” got to keep it. Liberty – that is all that it took to free the unlimited human capacity for enterprise and advance the living standards of the human race beyond comprehension.

The places that allow people to keep what is theirs are the places where everyone is more prosperous.


Yes, they "Earned It", by getting Native Americans off their lands, by using the Minerals found on lands GIVEN to them by the Government via Homesteading or Government Leases. This boost up compared to food stamps hmmm who got more Government Help in "Earning IT"?

Oh we can remember Women and Black People could not own a patent for a long time. So their Husbands, Fathers and Owners got to pool the money as they saw fit. And USE OF FORCE... Slavery, Share Croppers, and Bonded Servants are part of our past and present labor force.

I am one of the few people I know that has zero debt. Own Property and am of service to others without regard for income it produces, or does not produce.

It is not the first time in history, and we can lose it as others have by allowing the extremes of wealth and poverty become our undoing. 

I would call excessive wealth Sam Walton's Kids having 47 percent of all the earned income in 1 Year while some people by that company are kept on part time status, and on incomes so low after working they still qualify for food stamps and medicare.

1,000,000,00 was the amount incomes were capped at during WWII, ok raise it to say 5,000.000.00 per year Income. BUT, agree no worker is paid less than 1/100th of the CEO's earnings.


Just like the "native Americans" took the land from earlier peoples. 

"by using the Minerals found on lands GIVEN to them by the Government"

This implies that the government owned the land and just handed out the resources.  People had to find the resources and remove them from the land.  It took labor to acquire the resources.  Nothing was "given" to them.

Slavery is indeed part of out labor force.  We work and the government allows us to keep some of the fruits of our labor.  You don't own your property, you rent it from the government.  Don't believe me?  Stop paying your rent (property taxes) and see if the government does not reposes it.

Did Sam Walton own slaves? Did he use bonded servants? Did he do any of the other bad things that you have said that the wealthy have done?

Or did he create his wealth by making various things cheaper and more available to a lot of customers?  Between the jobs and low prices I submit that Walmart has done more to help the poor than any government ever.

What difference does it make if someone makes more than another?  If both are making their incomes fairly and honestly (like Sam Walton did), then they should be free to keep the fruits of their own labors.

If I steal money from you, then that is theft.  If I steal money from you and give it to a poor person, then that is still theft.

Thou shalt not steal, unless you have a majority vote in congress.



Read the quote, those are their dates, not mine. He may have had the view and restated it in two different speeches. He was known to be a fiscal conservative at the time of his appointment. He always thought the budget should be balanced, but he also recognized that the financial collapse and the epidemic, and drought and world economic upheaval was extraordinary.

I don't really care about what his opinion was and when it was said, your overall application of it is in error. In addition I don't see you supporting that he thought rich should pay more taxes.

You can't say that 12 million hired by CCC and WPA would have been employed during the years they were. You want them to starve, die just go away? That is the only way they would not be added to the unemployment rate.


We agree that in 1937 Henry Moganthau, Jr. was in favor of government spending.  We agree that in 1937, nineteen thirty seven, that he was in favor of government spending.

But "after eight years of this administration," that's 1941, nineteen forty one, he saw the results and he saw that the spending only added to the debt.

His view in 1941, years after 1937 = government spending only adds to the debt

Earlier I took responsibility for you missing my point (his opinion in 1937 and his opinion in 1941 are different).  But now I'm suspicious that you are just pulling my leg about not understanding.

1937 - he thought government spending was good

1941 - (after years of results) he thought that government spending only adds to the debt

When the government doesn't"help" the economy recovers on its own.

If your goal is maximum employment, then what the government should do is hire people to dig holes in the morning and then fill them back up in the afternoon.  But this does not produce wealth, no food is grown, no furniture is built, etc.

When the government doesn't help the economy recovers on its own.

BTW, I'll be away from the internet until Sunday night, and therefore unable to respond.

BTW, We agree that in 1937 Henry was in favor of government spending.  But after he saw eight years of results, 1941, he realized that government spending only adds to the debt.


Is it me that is being dense?  You blog readers get that Henry Morganthau's (Treasury Secretary for FDR) his opinion was different in 1941 than it was in 1937, because of 4 more years of results.  You can see that right?

Is this commenter just yanking my chain?  Or is he /she just that stupid?

No comments:

Post a Comment