Thought for today

"Economic growth is the result of creating new wealth, not redistributing existing wealth." -- Jeff Jacoby

Cato wrote:"Economic growth is the result of creating new wealth, not redistributing existing wealth." -- Jeff Jacoby

That me be true for some people, but not for all people. The folks at the bottom of the economic ladder wait a long, long time for that "new wealth" to trickle down, and there's damn little if it for them even then.

And but for wealth redistribution, there would be none for some significant numbers of those at the bottom.

Blah blah blah, what a load of crap!!!

Did you get that straight from the manifesto?

I hate to be the one to break it to you but in America under a capitalist system, if you're on the bottom, you've certainly got more of a chance to move up the ladder then you do in socialist or communist style of government.

Hell, the biggest reason most are on the bottom in today’s America is a direct result of the government led entitlement mentality you and yours perpetuate and they lack the intestinal fortitude to break the cycle.

As it was in Jamestown where those who didn't work didn't eat, if people are forced to provide for themselves, ineviatably they will.

It is those to whom that much is given remaining at the bottom of the economic ladder, many for generations and the biggest reason is because they’ve accepted their lot in life, the so called hand they’ve been dealt and considering it is your kind doing the dealing, you should be ashamed.

That I should be ashamed?

You are the one who quotes Lincoln, who had a realistic understanding of the plight of poverty and of the value of labor, in your signature line.

“Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much higher consideration.”


“In all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have without labor enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong and should not continue….to secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a worthy object of any good government."

A. Lincoln

There's a difference in poverty and laziness and in America, the latter is reworded, in fact encouraged by the likes of you and it is they who are at the bottom that you claim the only way out is in income redistribution.

Those "folks" waiting on the wealth to trickle down are nothing more then a pawn in your political desires and when the truth be told, are purposefully kept down by vague and inconsistent government rules and regulations as a means of achieving your ultimate goal, a socialist/communist America.

My "ultimate goal" is a socialist/capitalist America- similar to what we've had from time to time for 75 or so years.

Your goal is failing miserably and it’s destroying everyone.

My 'fruits of my labor' which create my wealth are mine and you've got no right to 'redistribute' them to anyone for any reason.

That is one of the primary principals this country was founded on or for you to make any claim is pure bullshit.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:"Economic growth is the result of creating new wealth, not redistributing existing wealth." -- Jeff Jacoby

That me be true for some people, but not for all people. The folks at the bottom of the economic ladder wait a long, long time for that "new wealth" to trickle down, and there's damn little if it for them even then.

And but for wealth redistribution, there would be none for some significant numbers of those at the bottom.

Trickle down economics is alot like clean coal technology, its a fantasy. Aaron hits to the nail on the head however when he stated "Those "folks" waiting on the wealth to trickle down are nothing more then a pawn in your political desires and when the truth be told, are purposefully kept down by vague and inconsistent government rules and regulations as a means of achieving your ultimate goal, a socialist/communist America.

What we seem to want to forget is that each of us are responsible for ourselves. We are the result of the choices we make and we reap both the reward and consequences of our decisions and actions.

There is no reason on the face of the earth for anyone who truly want to succeed no to be able to. Yes, not everyone that tries does, at least the first time, but real effort has its reward. It always has and it always will.

All socialism does is make dependents out of people. People become dependent on the politicians instead of relying on themselves. As the population become more and more dependent on government entitlement they vote into office those who will raid the public treasury. This nation is a fine example of the damage socialism does. We are over 10 trillion dollars in debt and its getting wrose every day. We vote people into office who will bring home the bacon, instead of government properly, honestly and fairly.

Aaron wrote:Your goal is failing miserably and it’s destroying everyone.

My 'fruits of my labor' which create my wealth are mine and you've got no right to 'redistribute' them to anyone for any reason.

That is true only to the degree that the "fruits" you acquire are the product of your own labor- and not of someone else's labor.

What we seem to want to forget is that each of us are responsible for ourselves. We are the result of the choices we make and we reap both the reward and consequences of our decisions and actions.

There is no reason on the face of the earth for anyone who truly want to succeed no to be able to. Yes, not everyone that tries does, at least the first time, but real effort has its reward. It always has and it always will.

That is fine in theory only, Cato. An economy that declares an unemployment rate of 5 percent to be "full employment" guarantees (1) that there are some percentage of people who are not even on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, and (2) that more people are lower on the economic ladder than would be at an honest full employment level.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Your goal is failing miserably and it’s destroying everyone.

My 'fruits of my labor' which create my wealth are mine and you've got no right to 'redistribute' them to anyone for any reason.

That is true only to the degree that the "fruits" you acquire are the product of your own labor- and not of someone else's labor.

How would I aquire fruits from another's labors unless I owned a business and then, after a just compensation, I am most certainly entitled to them.

If I choose to combine my labor with others for the good of a company or a corporation, then I'm entitleded to my share of those as well.

The rest of the tripe you spout is bullshit you use as a justification for stealing something you, nor the receipants of entitlement programs has earned.

ziggy wrote:

What we seem to want to forget is that each of us are responsible for ourselves. We are the result of the choices we make and we reap both the reward and consequences of our decisions and actions.

There is no reason on the face of the earth for anyone who truly want to succeed no to be able to. Yes, not everyone that tries does, at least the first time, but real effort has its reward. It always has and it always will.

That is fine in theory only, Cato. An economy that declares an unemployment rate of 5 percent to be "full employment" guarantees (1) that there are some percentage of people who are not even on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, and (2) that more people are lower on the economic ladder than would be at an honest full employment level.

There is no theory to it Ziggy, We have seen it action in this nation for years. People have risen from poverty to rishes. People have wroked their way out of poverty. People who came from low background have went on the achieve great things. As I said some fail, but that doesn't disprove what I said.

ziggy wrote:My "ultimate goal" is a socialist/capitalist America- similar to what we've had from time to time for 75 or so years.

It's no coincidence that the past 75 years of American history, we drift further and further away from the constitution and deeper and deeper into debt.

If you truly want a socialist country, why don't you move to one? There are plenty of them out there.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

What we seem to want to forget is that each of us are responsible for ourselves. We are the result of the choices we make and we reap both the reward and consequences of our decisions and actions.

There is no reason on the face of the earth for anyone who truly want to succeed no to be able to. Yes, not everyone that tries does, at least the first time, but real effort has its reward. It always has and it always will.

That is fine in theory only, Cato. An economy that declares an unemployment rate of 5 percent to be "full employment" guarantees (1) that there are some percentage of people who are not even on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, and (2) that more people are lower on the economic ladder than would be at an honest full employment level.

There is no theory to it Ziggy, We have seen it action in this nation for years. People have risen from poverty to rishes.

SOME people have. But the system is intended to and does operate such that most will not.

People have wroked their way out of poverty. People who came from low background have went on the achieve great things. As I said some fail, but that doesn't disprove what I said.

Like the promoters of other ponzi schemes, you point to the few who "achieve great things", but you conveniently ignore the many more who are left at the lower end of the economic ladder and those, some who are counted but more who aren't counted, who are unemployed because the system demands that some percentage of the labor force always be unemployed.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:My "ultimate goal" is a socialist/capitalist America- similar to what we've had from time to time for 75 or so years.

It's no coincidence that the past 75 years of American history, we drift further and further away from the constitution and deeper and deeper into debt.

If you truly want a socialist country, why don't you move to one? There are plenty of them out there.

I was born into a socialist/capitalist nation. So why should I move?

If you want utopian, pure, unfettered capitalism, then why don't you move to the Marianas Islands?

Your rant to Cato is bullshit Ziggy. Those held down are done so by the very system you champion.

And perhaps you should give the constitution a read sometime. What you'll find is that it doesn't jive with your tripe.

ziggy wrote:

SOME people have. But the system is intended to and does operate such that most will not.

So you are saying that the majority of people in this nation cannot and have not achieved on their own? That's pure BS

ziggy wrote:


Like the promoters of a ponzi scheme, you point to the few who "achieve great things", but you conveniently ignore the many more who are left at the lower end of the economic ladder and those, some who are counted but more who aren't counted, who are unemployed because the system demands that some percentage of the labor force always be unemployed.

Again that is pure Bull cookies. You know just as well as I that the majority of people in this nation can and have achieved. Yea, there are poor poeple and there are rich people. However, there is avast majority in between that by the wrold's standard are rich. Additionally, there is little that holds a person back from achieving whatever they want, even in this entitlement driven socialistic climate. Instead of depending on government to dole out alittle bit, all one has to do is work very hard and be willing to take risk.

ziggy wrote:My "ultimate goal" is a socialist/capitalist America- similar to what we've had from time to time for 75 or so years.

Before you can achieve communism, socialism comes first. Your true colors are starting to show. From the young communist league.

Q: What is the difference between communism and socialism?
A: The short answer is socialism is "from each according to their ability and to each according to their DEEDS," and communism is "from each according to their ability and to each according to their NEEDS." The longer answer is socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. Socialism still has people working for wages, therefore monetary equality has not be reached. Socialism is the society that will pave the way for a communist society by setting a foundation of co-operation and sharing of all things in common. Communism is the realization of these goals.

Communism- at least as I understand communism- has proven to be a social failure. That is why I am a socialist-capitalist, not a socialist-communist.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SOME people have. But the system is intended to and does operate such that most will not.

So you are saying that the majority of people in this nation cannot and have not achieved on their own? That's pure BS.

That is not what I said, and I believe that you know it isn't what I said.

Using your example of people who have gotten rich, I replied that the system is such that most do not get rich. And for you or anyone else to pretend that everyone can get rich at the same time if they work hard enough is dishonest- especially when the cards are dealt such that some significant percentage of people are not even in the work force.

No one's said anything about getting rich. Considering that less then 1% of the people in America are rich, that's not a realistic goal.

But they can move up if they're willing to forgo government entitlement programs and work hard. As I've said twice, and you keep ignoring for some inane reason, it is the government that is holding down those they claim they want to help.

American entitlement programs are as much of failures as communism and socialism are. $60 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities proves it and only the blind cannot see.

Aaron wrote:Your rant to Cato is bullshit Ziggy. Those held down are done so by the very system you champion.

Abraham Lincoln, whom you like to quote, often said otherwise.

And perhaps you should give the constitution a read sometime. What you'll find is that it doesn't jive with your tripe.

The Constitution is like the Bible. What we read into it depends in some part on the biases we bring to it. You have your biases, I have mine, and Cato has his.

Hell, it wasn't that long ago- two or three years ago- that Cato was arguing that The Constitution did not sanction slavery. But even a casual read readily shows more than one section that deliberately sanctions slavery in the original Constitution. But Cato brought some pre-conception or other into his read of the Constitution and determined that it did not support slavery. To his credit, after I pointed out some of the slavery sanctioning sections, Cato did admit that his reading of it was incorrect. So yet today I try to give Cato credit for having the honesty to admit that he can be wrong about his understanding of the Constitution.

Aaron wrote:No one's said anything about getting rich.

Cato did, and that is what I was replying to.

Cato wrote:

There is no theory to it Ziggy, We have seen it action in this nation for years. People have risen from poverty to rishes. People have wroked their way out of poverty. People who came from low background have went on the achieve great things. As I said some fail, but that doesn't disprove what I said.

Please try to pay attention if you are going to participate.

Considering that less then 1% of the people in America are rich, that's not a realistic goal.

That is what I have been saying. But it is Cato who would have us believe otherwise.

ziggy wrote:
Abraham Lincoln, whom you like to quote, often said otherwise.

Abraham Lincoln did not live in the times of massive government entitlement programs and socialism.

If anything, hard work would take one further in Lincoln's time then it does today as one could always heed John BL Soule and Go west and grow with the country. A fresh start was much easier without all the government regulation we faced today.

ziggy wrote:
The Constitution is like the Bible. What we read into it depends in some part on the biases we bring to it. You have your biases, I have mine, and Cato has his.

We don't depend on the constitution to describe who the author's were and what their way of thinking was as is required of the bible.

No leap of faith is needed if one wants to understand our founding fathers thoughts about any of the issues in the constitution so any preconceived bias one has are thrown out the window.

Hell, that's probably the biggest problem you have. You're trying to make the constitution conform to your way of thinking instead of taking it for what it says.

You should really go into the fertilizer business as you're really good at spreading BS.

Abraham Lincoln did not live in the times of massive government entitlement programs and socialism.

If anything, hard work would take one further in Lincoln's time then it does today as one could always heed John BL Soule and Go west and grow with the country. A fresh start was much easier without all the government regulation we faced today.

So, as a percentage of the population, were there fewer, or more, or the same numbers of impoverished people in Lincloln's time as there are today? Why?