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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (421781)	4/13/2011 11:34:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	3 Recommendations Respond to of 793840

In times past "we" seemed to do a better job relative to the national level of wealth. What changed? In 1900 average life expectancy was about 45. Today it is almost 80.

To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (421781)	4/13/2011 11:35:39 PM
From: Peter van Steennis	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793840

Joe: We use to bring our aging and sick relative in to live with us instead of out sourcing them. Peter

To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (421781)	4/13/2011 11:52:16 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793840

This is not what Obama is talking about. This isn't about a safety net for 90 year olds ( which is a state and local and personal problem). Obama is talking about providing Federal "benefits" for 30 year old healthy working people. That's what he defines as a great country.

To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (421781)	4/14/2011 6:46:26 AM
From: unclewest	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793840

In times past "we" seemed to do a better job relative to the national level of wealth. What changed? What changed is the national level of wealth. It has transitioned from a level of wealth to a level of indebtedness. Plus the reams of government regs for care centers has jacked up the cost.

To: Joe Btfsplk who wrote (421781)	4/14/2011 7:14:16 AM
From: Bearcatbob	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793840

"In times past "we" seemed to do a better job relative to the national level of wealth. What changed?" This whole issue of wealth distribution is something that I find everywhere in leftist discussion groups. It is largely used as a reason to justify higher tax rates - which I do not see would have any impact on wealth distribution. What has changed? First, I have never thought I had less because others have more. The left sees wealth as not earned but stolen. Perhaps the issue is in what is wealth. If wealth is counted in stock assets - clearly CEOs have a lot of wealth - but much of it is not cash. Should they be forced to give their shares to whom - the government? One thing that has seriously changed is what is required to prosper in our society - education and individual drive. An educated driven person can prosper. An uneducated and undriven person will not. As long as we have a capitalistic system there will be winners and losers. The change in the world economy has created an environment where it is far easier to be a loser - hence - the emergence of takers via the political system. If they cannot earn it - they simply want to take it via the ballot box. Bob