>> More interesting, more diverse, no.
I would have to disagree. I find life today much more interesting and diverse than it was 40 years ago. I can fly anywhere I want to go on any given weekend; I have access to almost unlimited information at a moment's notice, huge choices of entertainment at home, playing poker online with a group of people, literally, from all over the world? What could be more diverse?
Owning your own company.
I have been self employed since I was 24. Owned several businesses during that time, and done well with them. But my point is that ANYONE who chooses to do so can own stock. My daughter's boyfriend, 22, makes about 22K as a retail store manager. He has easily eeked out enough money to buy a few stocks. It really is a matter of one's determination to be successful and self-sufficient. Sure, there are some that just can't make it happen, but we don't live in a perfect world.
was just voicing my thoughts on income disparity, and where it might come from
Well, I would have no problem with the wealthiest Americans giving up some of their billions to help these people out on an individual basis. I just don't happen to believe they should be compelled to do so.
If George Soros wants to be a good liberal, he should take some of that money he's putting into this political campaign and give it poor people -- rather than insisting that I give them some of mine. Same with Ted Turner -- who, as you may remember, found it it his heart to contriute a BILLION DOLLARS to the freaking UN. How about helping out some poor Americans with that money? He could have made available enough money to hundreds of thousands of American impoverished to allow them to get some needed dental work, some basic skills training, and a few new clothes, thereby getting them off the street.
My point, in there somewhere, is that the wealthy liberals of the world are quick to tell us what WE should do with our money, but they haven't exactly stepped up to the plate to help out their fellow Americans when they could have. |
