Conn. murder trial...

[KC Elbows]

we are all given the same opportunity to succeed. Bill Gates wasn't always rich, and neither was Steve Jobs. A lot of millionaires started with nothing.

The first assertion is not hard fact. I agree with the spirit of what you are saying(we are responsible for our own moral life), but the idea that we are all given the same opportunity financially is an unrealized ideal, not a point of fact backed by any solid data.

I'd also assert that some cultures conflate financial and fiscal issues, so that there is no chance of respect left to the poor, or the poor from certain demographics. That some manage to rise above this will always be true, but the ones who fail miserably in the face of the temptations facing them are not, by virtue of facing more daunting temptations and more dire alternatives, worse than those who do not earn what their society handed to them, and thus never faced the same alternatives, by point of fact dodging them entirely, even if we are harsher to the mugger than to someone stealing the pensions of thousands.

[Drake]

The first assertion is not hard fact. I agree with the spirit of what you are saying(we are responsible for our own moral life), but the idea that we are all given the same opportunity financially is an unrealized ideal, not a point of fact backed by any solid data.

If the poorest person in the country can become a millionaire based on his/her creativity and enterpreneurship, and the richest ones can suddenly find themselves penniless due to poor leadership, then how unfair is it?

I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them. Instead we are keeping inept leaders and inefficent companies afloat, similar to what brought down the USSR. We haven't seen a major car manufacturer pop up in ages, because we protect the "Big 3", no matter how poorly they perform.

[KC Elbows]

If the poorest person in the country can become a millionaire based on his/her creativity and enterpreneurship, and the richest ones can suddenly find themselves penniless due to poor leadership, then how unfair is it?

Neither really happens except in the most exceptional cases. Mostly, it's not what occurs. As I stated, movement down from the wealthy class was far more common under a different model of inheritance, and in the U.S. those who become uber wealthy are almost never that poor to start with, and those who fall from wealth almost never fall to poverty, whether they belong there or not.

I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them. Instead we are keeping inept leaders and inefficent companies afloat, similar to what brought down the USSR. We haven't seen a major car manufacturer pop up in ages, because we protect the "Big 3", no matter how poorly they perform.

Agreed. My point is that, in both wealthy families and their corporate ties, falling is prevented not by ability, but by a type of welfare that rewards incompetence. We're largely on the same page.

[BJJ-Blue]

I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them.

First off, your Post #30 was excellent.

Agreed. And in the situation we are in it would actually be Ford that would be ready to pick up the slack had GM been allowed to follow their path to bankruptcy. And if Ford could not keep up with demand, another company would have formed that would have. That's how capitalism works. When there is a demand, someone will always find a way to supply said demand and thus profit. If you forcibly take away the rewards from those individuals who take the risks involved in starting companies to fill demand, you end up with shortages. There is a reason people in communist countries are on food rations, wait in long lines, and are on waiting lists for major purchaces (cars, appliances, etc). And thats if they even have the products available. Notice you would be hard pressed to find any Cubans driving cars made since the 1960s.

[BJJ-Blue]

Neither really happens except in the most exceptional cases. Mostly, it's not what occurs.

So the solution is to let liberals/socialists take away that opportunity for all of us?

[KC Elbows]

So the solution is to let liberals/socialists take away that opportunity for all of us?

Confucian ethics predates socialism.

People acting as a society are the only solution worth pursuing. Economic and political theories are mostly rationales for what people want to do anyway. If the children of the poor lack opportunity by our acts, we are not in a society with them. If the idle rich take what they don't deserve, they are not in a society with us. If welfare queens rob the system, same deal. If we only resort to punishment as an answer, when there is no clear social contract between the myriad groups, it's NOT about a society with any clear rationale, but one group punishing another for its own benefit, by design or effect.

Billionaires who try to help and don't try to make their families de facto royals and poor families who maintain their honor and live good lives nonetheless are a worthier society to choose than rapacious money barons, welfare queens, and succesful conmen, yet the latter tend to have the greater representation with our politicians, mostly electioneers, well represented by the GOP, repeatedly running on small government and legislating on its opposite, saving failed firms and blaming everyone else for a lack of free trade, and the dems, running on opportunity for all but feeding their own moneyed interests and maintaining free rides for their voting blocks.

I tend to think that people admire those who truly help, and are shamed when they fail to do as much. If we don't look out for more than our own families in some way, we're not making much of a statement about what we feel about each other as countrymen. Trusting banks and political parties and businesses to represent that without shaming them for failing to do so goes nowhere, yet, with the two party system, we, by default, are stuck saying "Okay, last time you didn't represent my concerns with economics/graft/conservatism/general welfare, but now the other party is being just as bad and you're saying you've changed, I'll have to trust you, *******." Too many forget the importance of the last word.

/rant

[Drake]

Then what is the incentive to work hard if they have to give it away to those too lazy to help themselves?

Say I grew up poor, but through my intellect and progressive thinking, create a widget that is better than other widgets? Say this makes me a ton of money, but now I have to redistribute this to everyone else? Where is the incentive to make better widgets, since I have to give away the profits of my hard work? Why not just be a bottom feeder, since I'll make the same amount of money anyway? This has been historically proven to kill economies.

[KC Elbows]

Then what is the incentive to work hard if they have to give it away to those too lazy to help themselves?

Say I grew up poor, but through my intellect and progressive thinking, create a widget that is better than other widgets? Say this makes me a ton of money, but now I have to redistribute this to everyone else? Where is the incentive to make better widgets, since I have to give away the profits of my hard work? Why not just be a bottom feeder, since I'll make the same amount of money anyway? This has been historically proven to kill economies.

I'm not arguing for wholesale redistribution. I'm arguing that you can't really call yourself a member of a society that you contribute only the bare minimum you can to, and complain bitterly about even that bare minimum. Having a job is personal responsibility, not at all about responsibility to society. Aiding one's community when that aid is surplus or luxury to the community isn't real charity either. Stone buildings for schools is often more about legacy than that those schools need such an ostentatious building. If we do little of real value for anyone but ourselves and those we are hardwired to love, we are bad examples, especially if we consider that most of us lived through the best economic times our country ever saw. If we teach our families to do the same, we're worse examples.

Having a job is hardly sufficient to pay back society for what we have. IF I accept that it is each person's right to contribute how they like, THEN I also accept that, when one of us fails to contribute, or tries to turn so-called contributions that really are for our temporary profit, into something we call contributions, then the term disgrace can and should apply to our conduct, not success. We are not successes by making money for ourselves; no moral code, religion, or school of thought has EVER proposed a convincing argument that we are.

From that, I'm saying that the idea that we do our live's work only for the right pay is economically smart and morally empty, and often at odds with reality. We do a lot more based on our understanding of what our society is, we want that society, more than we want almost anything else in life, unless our society is a lousy one or our morals questionable.

This has very little to do with socialism.

[Kansuke]

If the poorest person in the country can become a millionaire based on his/her creativity and enterpreneurship, and the richest ones can suddenly find themselves penniless due to poor leadership, then how unfair is it?

I'd have to agree with BJJ on the idea of corporate bailouts, as it does show a bit of socialism's flaws (Funny how Bush pushed this one the most). These companies were irresponsible, and should have ben allowed to collapse. There's plenty of smart, able people ready to put in their ideas and company ideas to replace them. Instead we are keeping inept leaders and inefficent companies afloat, similar to what brought down the USSR. We haven't seen a major car manufacturer pop up in ages, because we protect the "Big 3", no matter how poorly they perform.

Good points, well said.

[BJJ-Blue]

People acting as a society are the only solution worth pursuing.

Tell that to the Founding Fathers. They set this country up so it was up to the INDIVIDUAL how he lived his life.

And their blueprint allowed this country to become the most free, and the most rich country on the planet, and all in under 200 years. Why you dump on proven success is beyond me.

If the idle rich take what they don't deserve, they are not in a society with us.

As long as the money/assets are not stolen form someone else, they are 100% deserved. As much I despise the Kennedys and other trust fund kids, it's their family's money and no one should be telling them how they can use it and/or that they don't deserve it.

If we only resort to punishment as an answer, when there is no clear social contract between the myriad groups, it's NOT about a society with any clear rationale, but one group punishing another for its own benefit, by design or effect.

But punishing the rich is the answer?

I've said it beofre and I'll say it again: You liberals go ahead and soak the rich and expect utopia. But what you fail to understand is that the rich are the job producers in this country.

[MightyB]

We should all have to read this before we graduate high school:
http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Defense...6566697&sr=8-1

The system is fubared. These guys had priors and had no right to be on the street in the first place. This type of crime is becoming the norm and is par for the course.

Men break in, isolate the largest male, use the love of children as a weapon, children and women help to subdue the largest male all the while believing the killers because they're saying "do this and we won't hurt you" and for some reason we're conditioned to go along because we want to believe these killers won't hurt us if we just go along with them... anyway - they isolate and bind the male. Then they go sadistic on the male often beating them to death. They bind the females to the beds, they rape and torture them. They then know they can't leave witnesses, so they kill them and burn them (they're recidivists and the next time they go to jail might be longer than the last time they went). It's a tired story and it's played out surprisingly often.

Do yourselves a favor. Read "Strong on Survival". Buy a gun. And, if you have the opportunity to kill one of these b@st@rds - do it without remorse. If you don't, and even if they get caught... because of our lenient system - they're going to get out and do it again.

[KC Elbows]

Tell that to the Founding Fathers. They set this country up so it was up to the INDIVIDUAL how he lived his life.

And rightfully so. This has no bearing on the right of others to judge him based on how he chose to live his life.

And their blueprint allowed this country to become the most free, and the most rich country on the planet, and all in under 200 years. Why you dump on proven success is beyond me.

I'm not dumping on the system they set up. I'm proposing that someone who gives nothing be back is dead weight and worse, a conclusion their system does not preclude.

As long as the money/assets are not stolen form someone else, they are 100% deserved. As much I despise the Kennedys and other trust fund kids, it's their family's money and no one should be telling them how they can use it and/or that they don't deserve it.

And everyone has the right to judge them for it. There's a reason that Bill Gates is currently one of the most respected rich people around, and it has to do with his philanthropy, not simply his riches. And there's a reason that a number of other billionaires are NOT respected by their societies.

But punishing the rich is the answer?

If contributing to your society is punishment, then that's a pretty clear statement about what one thinks about their society.

I've said it beofre and I'll say it again: You liberals go ahead and soak the rich and expect utopia. But what you fail to understand is that the rich are the job producers in this country.

I'm speaking of value judgements and concepts of society, not social programs. Social programs are only necessary if enough of those who benefit from their society do not give back of their own volition.

[BJJ-Blue]

Then what is the incentive to work hard if they have to give it away to those too lazy to help themselves?

Say I grew up poor, but through my intellect and progressive thinking, create a widget that is better than other widgets? Say this makes me a ton of money, but now I have to redistribute this to everyone else? Where is the incentive to make better widgets, since I have to give away the profits of my hard work? Why not just be a bottom feeder, since I'll make the same amount of money anyway? This has been historically proven to kill economies.

I also agree, and I'll go one further.

This is why I absolutely detest Barack Obama. Obama was born a minority, his father was not a US citizen, and his parents divorced when he was very young. His father was mostly absent from his life. Despite these strikes against him (and I myself do not call being a minority a strike, liberals do), Mr Obama went to college, earned a law degree, and became President of the Harvard Law Review. So despite starting out with these disadvantages, he achieved ALOT more than the 'average' American in terms of education and income level. And that's not even counting the fact he became a Senator and the Predident of the United States.

So how does Obama view this country? Does he look at this country as the great country where a man born in his situation overcame the odds and through hard work was able to achieve success even his own parents couldn't have dreamed of? No, he bashes this country as a land where only the rich, or the priveleged, etc can be successful. So that tells me that either he is worst kind of selfish, one who succeeded under a certain ruleset and now wants to change those rules, or he is the ultimate in arrogance, one who says HE can make it, but us stupid serfs can't make it without someone like him changing the rules to 'help' us.

[BJJ-Blue]

Do yourselves a favor. Read "Strong on Survival". Buy a gun. And, if you have the opportunity to kill one of these b@st@rds - do it without remorse. If you don't, and even if they get caught... because of our lenient system - they're going to get out and do it again.

And don't forget what political party is anti-gun either.

[BJJ-Blue]

And everyone has the right to judge them for it. There's a reason that Bill Gates is currently one of the most respected rich people around, and it has to do with his philanthropy, not simply his riches. And there's a reason that a number of other billionaires are NOT respected by their societies.

Speak for yourself.

So are you saying you have no respect for a law-abiding self-made billionaire who gives zero back to society, but you respect George Soros who gives back to society, but was a Nazi collaborator?