Why is it that I cannot work up even a teeny bit of sympathy for  lawyers
earning $ 249,000 ?  There must be some reason. I  just  can't figure it 
out.
 
Hell, if a lawyer was "only" earning a measly $ 100,000 I still  would
be unable to work up any sympathy.
 
The median income in the United States is somewhere between $ 40,000 and $  
50,000.
The bottom 20% live at or below the poverty level. The upper 7 % of  
households
earn about 33 % of all income. About 2 % earn over $ 250,000.
 
To argue that this income distribution is exactly how God wants it, that  
all people
who earn $ 250,000 deserve every dime strikes me as utterly  ludicrous ;  
they simply
work at occupations that the market over-values.
 
The counterpart concerns the lower levels of income. Let's say half of all  
people
on welfare don't merit what they get. This half consists of bums and ne'er  
do wells
and idiots, etc. About half seems roughly correct.
 
So no matter how you slice it, there's a lot of injustice / unfairness in  
the system.
 
This DOES  NOT say that central planning is better, in most ways it  
decidedly is NOT.
It just says that we don't live in anything like Utopia  ;   we live in a 
good country but
one with a lot of problems.
 
Abolish the government as a solution to the problem ? 
Hell, why not abolish the mega-banks and financial institutions ?  
Their execs deserves every penny of million dollar bonuses we all pay  for
each time we write a check or buy something on credit ?  Yeah ? O  really ?
 
Billy
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
 
 
1/1/2012 7:16:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]  
writes:

As Lady Thatcher once said: "Eventually you run out  of other people's 
money." When Obama was campaigning on taxing the rich making  over $250,000 per 
couple (they're millionaires you know, despite not earning  that million per 
year that I thought was required), there were some lawyers in  the blogging 
world who decided to stop working for the year when they had  earned that 
amount. Why? They figured that they could sacrifice the extra  income and not 
give it to the wasteful government. Due to the fact that  your employer 
deducts it before you see it, the only way to stop paying is to  stop earning. 

If I ever reach those lofty heights, that would be a  point to consider. 

David

  _   
 
“A society that does  not recognize that each individual has values of his 
own which he is entitled  to follow can have no respect for the dignity of 
the individual and cannot  really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek  



On 12/31/2011 8:22 AM,  [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])  wrote:  
 
There is only so much even the most well endowed religious charity can  
accomplish.
Basically they can help a small class of people extensively, like unwed  
mothers
or orphans, but when it comes to large classes of people, like the  
unemployed
in times of economic crisis, all that really is possible are food  boxes
and maybe spare clothing or bus fare.
 
The problem is the "I've got mine and screw everyone else" effect  which
self-reliance theories promote even as they also promote self  reliance.
This effect works directly against religious values and if the  
self-reliance
philosophy is strong enough it over-rides religion.
 
The problem is made worse when many people ( not a majority, but too  many )
take advantage of the system and won't work even when they can, or like  
some
women, have babies as a source of welfare income --which everyone  else
pays for.  The Left is generous with the money of the working  class,
the Right is unable to comprehend that its bromides for dealing 
with large scale social needs are ridiculously inadequate.
 
This is the  dilemma.
 
Billy
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
12/31/2011 2:00:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])  writes:

P.S.  The actual development of catholic charities make a topical
question of  the relationship between private and government  charity
programs.

On 31 dec, 09:38, cornucopianow _<[email protected]>_ 
(mailto:[email protected])  wrote:
>  Hello David,
>
> Just like you I would prefer charity by  private organisations.
> Of course the charities do a good job. But  the position of the
> churches in the 1800's was  another one  as it is today as well was
> that of the goverment. Or would you  prefer to return to the 1800's?
> Nowadays the churches may not be  ale to embetter the situation of the
> poor as much as would be  desirable and in my opinion there is a task
> for the government  here also. But I realize that the postion of the
> churches in the  Netherlands may be another on than that in the United
>  States.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
>  Walther
>
> On 28 dec, 21:29, "David R. Block" _<[email protected]>_ 
(mailto:[email protected])   wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello Walther,
>
>  > Good to have a name other than Mr or Ms Anonymous.  :-)
>
> > Communism lite refers to what it sounded like to  me. I can always 
change
> > my mind.
>
> > The  quote from Von Hayek appears on all of my e-mail, until I decide  
to
> > change it. Other alternatives are available from Neal  Boortz, Gerald
> > Ford, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Franklin,  Barry Goldwater, Robert A.
> > Heinlein, Thomas Jefferson, P. J.  O'Rourke, Ronald Reagan, Ringo Starr,
> > Mark Twain, and Will  Rogers. And von Hayek's family moved to the US
> > because of the  Nazis, not the Communists, although "escaping Tyranny"
> > would  fit either one.
>
> > They are for entertainment purposes,  mostly. Although one is slipping 
in
> > here below because it  seems appropriate.
>
> > More below.
>
> >  David
>
> > “A society that does not recognize that each  individual has values of
> > his own which he is entitled to  follow can have no respect for the
> > dignity of the individual  and cannot really know freedom.--Fredrich
> > August von  Hayek*
>
> > On 12/28/2011 9:09 AM, cornucopianow  wrote:
>
> > > Dear Mr. Block,
>
> > >  "Communism lite" refers to a non-existent society. It is certainly  
not
> > > a society which the Civil Manifesto  advocates.
>
> > > The quote of von Hayek  presumably refers to Soviet Russia. It does
> > > not  apply to a society based on the Civil Manifesto
>
> > >  - "Their existence is not my responsibility". Mr. Block would you  
like
> > > to live on a society in which thousands of children  have no
> > > satistactory food as is the case in the  Netherlands and certainly is
> > > the case in Great Britain?  I would rather not.
>
> > DRB: I give to my church for a  food program for the homeless. It may 
not
> > (definitely not)  make it to the UK or The Netherlands, but surely
> > someone in  the UK or The Netherlands can give to their local charities.
> >  No? I don't think that the government needs to be operating  charities.
> > This used to be done by churches in the 1800s, and  i don't really
> > consider it "progress" to move it to the  government. Doing that runs
> > square into a problem noted by P.  J. O'Rourke:
>
> > "There is no virtue in compulsory  government charity, and there is no
> > virtue in advocating it.  A politician who portrays himself as "caring"
> > and "sensitive"  because he wants to expand the government's charitable
> >  programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with  
other
> > people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes  pride in
> > supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do  good with his own
> > money -- if a gun is held to his  head."*--P. J. O'Rourke*
>
> > DRB: Charity, under pain of  IRS Audit, really isn't that charitable.
>
> > > -The  idea is not a mandatory retirement but to guarantee a decent
> >  > period of retirement for everybody. Of course many people ccan  
deliver
> > > their contributions until old  age.
>
> > > -Unemployment should be as short as  possible. The employment benefits
> > > should not hinder  returning to the workforce.
>
> > > -I have to study the  savings and loan debacle to see what actually
> > > happened.  Meant is a maximum mortgage of 400.000 dollars.
>
> >  DRB: There was a lot of non-existent property on the books of many
>  > Savings and Loans. Undeveloped developments (Clinton's Whitewater)  
were
> > carried on the books as having been developed, bogus oil  rigs were on
> > the books in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas, and  general shenanigans
> > prevailed pretty much nationwide.  $400,000 is a fantastic amount for a
> > mortgage in Dallas, TX,  but kind of low for Hollywood.
>
> > > -I think that  affordable health care for everybody is possible 
without
> > >  a giant government department.
>
> > DRB: I think that a  giant government department is what we are going to
> > wind up  with. And with the corruption evidenced by the US government at
>  > this time, that's not a good thing.
>
> > > -I am  very sorry for your daughter. It must be a very demotivating
> >  > experience for her.  It would take more space to analyse the  
situation
> > > in which this happens. The factors which are  responsible for this
> > > outcome should be  removed.
>
> > DRB: That would be "advisers" at the  Universities that she attended, 
who
> > obviously have some bias  towards encouraging continued enrollment-even
> > if the student  cannot afford it-THEY need the money, coupled with an
> > economy  in the dumper. Kind of hard to remove that last factor. I'm not
>  > exactly in favor of encouraging a college degree just for the sake  of
> > encouraging a college degree. Same thing with a Master's  degree, which
> > is where the debt was incurred. Somebody is  really "dumbing down" the
> > bachelor's degrees if everything  requires a Master's.
>
> > > -The exploration of mineral  energy seems to have a lot of
> > > disadvantages. The  fostering of green energy is a good idea.
> > > -You are  welcome! The idea of the Civil Manifesto is not to specify
> >  > the diet of whoever may be. The idea is that shifting the balance  
from
> > > meat to plant is advantageous for the wellbeing of  society.
>
> > DRB: As long as they are not about to go  bankrupt (Solyndra), I would
> > like to support it. Sadly, most  of the green initiatives that the
> > current administration has  chosen to promote seem to be chosen based
> > more upon their  campaign contributions than their financial stability 
or
> > even  the marketability of their products and ideas.
>
> > >  Thank you for your comments. You are the first one who reacts to  the
> > > Civil Manifesto. I whish your daughter may soon find  an occupation
> > > which matches her  education.
>
> > DRB: Well, I would hope so,  too.
>
> > > Sincerely,
>
> > >  Walther Micke- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven  -
>
> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven --  Tekst uit 
oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst  uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

--  






-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to