> cHat wrote: > Ahhh! Now I understand what you're saying - you're talking about QUICK > wealth, the kind that isn't EARNED it's GIVEN. I'm talking about > EARNED wealth, which in my opinion is more valued and more > appreciated. >
Exactly. And it's not materially different from, say, welfare. The big Obama complaint, the socialist complaint, is quite hypocritical when viewed in light of the totality of "socialism" that exists in America. This lesser understood, more opaque, but much more pervasive form of socialism knows no party limits and has existed probably since the beginning of America itself. The difference, in my opinion, is that it has exploded in the last 20 years to enormous insane and obviously unsustainable numbers. But it's the 'unsustainable' part I'm starting to wonder about. Nobody much seems to care that their class's wealth has been transferred through law and policy and they've gotten nothing in return. There's been no trickle down. Again, that's not opinion, that's fact. So maybe that kind of transfer of wealth in exchange for nothing is sustainable. Given people seem to be more concerned with Obama's spending on them, rather than his spending on bankers I'd say maybe it is sustainable ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:290150 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
