Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (240434)	7/7/2005 5:37:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571973

Look......I posted two articles that discredit your happy cheerleading No there was no discrediting by articles you posted, or happy cheerleading by me for that matter. And even our slice has remained the same, why do they deserve a bigger slice of the pie? They don't "deserve a bigger slice of the pie". To say they deserve a bigger slice is to say that it should be taken from others and given to them. It shouldn't be and for the most part it hasn't. They do deserve not to have their wealth taken from them. For the most part because they either made the pie bigger, or where given the wealth by others who made the pie bigger. Paris Hilton was born in to wealth but her family created it, even if it happened long before her time. Its does not mean that.....you are quoting from GOP dogma. It sounds good but it ain't real. You said "it does not mean that", but the rest of your sentence seems to indicate you really meant to say "it does mean that". I will assume that you meant "it does mean that", in response to my statement "that doesn't mean that". If this assumption is incorrect please let me know. The fact that some people create more wealth doesn't mean they are taking it from people who create less. I don't think that is subject to reasonable dispute. You can argue that they are not creating more wealth, that they are in fact taking it from others, but even it that assertion was true, it would not make your (apparently intended) statement "that does mean that" a correct one. Or to put it another way I said A doesn't mean B. If you think that A isn't true, and/or that B is, it still doesn't refute the point that A doesn't mean B. Perhaps you really did merely want to say that the wealthy really are mostly taking their wealth away from the poor, not creating it, or even inheriting it. And all this "that doesn't mean that" stuff just got you confused. If you want to assert this idea you should have some argument to back it up. Showing that the rich are getting richer both in absolute and relative terms, does not support the idea that they are taking it from other people. And yes a few wealthy people really have gotten wealthy with scams and fraud, in a very few cases even theft and extortion, but its not reasonable to assert that this is the rule rather than the exception. As for my ideas being "GOP dogma", I don't really think that is an accurate statement either. It is not a matter of Republican dogma that income disparities will grow as the economy becomes more dependent on skills and education and less on simpler forms of labor. Republicans in general would be more likely to assert that income disparities aren't growing, or that if they are they are likely to even out. I'd like to believe that but I don't see any reason to think that it is true. Tim