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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (10418)	10/14/2009 11:07:20 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

John, that piece is about income inequality. This discussion was never an issue about income inequality. No one argues that inequality has increased. The qustion is the impact of that on the poor. Has their standard of living decreased as a result of the outrageous amounts paid to CEOs or not? If the CEO's aren't taking bread out of the mouths of poor people, then so what? If I have five pairs of shoes and Imelda Marcos has a thousand, how does that hurt me? I still have my five pairs of shoes, which are plenty. You're exactly right, but there is something so fundamentally wrong with this mentality. The poor are living better than they ever have, by a mile, yet THE LEFT is still not satisfied until some of the wealthy dollars move to the poor. How does this make sense? (Of course, THE ELITE LEFT [Michael Moore, Al Gore, Hollywood, Rock Stars, etc.] doesn't want to give up ITS money to the poor -- they just want those wealthy Wall Street types to give up THEIR money). It is as though the objective really isn't to improve the poor's standard of living. Nobody cares about that. What they're after is literally redistribution so that everyone is equal, and it defies logic.