A new kind of social political thinking

[Traveler]

I thought to present some thoughts for comment.

One of the greatest problems I have with the so called conservative political thinking of today is that for the most part – anyone with a lot of money has earned it and deserves it. In contrast one of the problems I have with the so called liberal political thinking of today is the for the most part – anyone with money should be given the greater responsibility for taxes because it is only fair that those with more carry the burden for those with less.

It is my observation that many that have surplus amounts of money – it is because of two things. One – they work hard for what they earn and Two – they manage their resources carefully and with prudence. However, it is also my observation that an even greater many that have surplus amounts of many – it is because they exploit the resources around them – including the hard work and prudence of other humans that they can take advantage of. I would also point out that one does not have to be exorbitantly wealthy to exploit the efforts and work of others.

My thinking is that all should contribute and all should suffer. This is the essence of the concept that all are created equal. My point is – when we formulate laws in our political process – I believe all should contribute equally and all should benefit equally – if not then such political processes are in essence tyranny. Anytime any particular segment is required to give more (or give less) or another segment required to receive more (or receive less) – I believe such is in one way or another the essence of tyranny.

The other problem I have is that it seems that money is the only valued commodity within the political arena. I am thinking that for the wealthy money is no object and of little value – so why should we ask the wealthy to sacrifice money – asking the wealthy to sacrifice money is not sacrifice. We should demand of the wealthy their time and labor. Likewise for the poor; most have time and labor in surplus and for them to give time and labor is hardly a sacrifice – the poor should be asked to make a sacrifice of their money. In this way we can determine what is of true value to all of society in determining what citizens should be required to give for the benefits that government distributes equally to all.

The Traveler

[RescueMom]

The way I see it is...the Landlord owns the Planet, we are all just here as guests. We can work to make money, which in the eternity means nothing. We can make that money, buy our houses and live comfortably...and not share in our blessings or we can. It's up to us. We can not work and not make money, and share our blessings or not. It is up to us.

However, I have no doubt in my mind that, none of us actually own anything. I, for one, don't even own the body I am in, it's a rental and I didn't even pay the rent on it.

I think in the end it's how we treat each other, if we treat each other as political enemies and get bogged down in those issues...what exactly are we going to tell Christ...'well I didn't help this person because...he was a liberal democrat who was lazy' or 'well I didn't help this person because he was a republican...and heck he had all the money anyway'. When we face Christ, what will we say? Will the governments of the world matter when standing there in front of him? What will matter is how we treated each other. We are spiritual beings on a mortal journey, and it's a short journey.

[Gramajane]

Interesting, I was just in Seattle where twice I saw men walking along beside the cars waiting at a stop light, each had an empty paper cup in their hands and seemed to be doing a poor me look on their faces, which I took to mean they wanted the cars to put money in the cup.

Since I have learned about professional beggars, and that some just use the money for drugs or alcohol etc. I have not felt right to give them money. Still I have struggled to know how to tell? It seems that they would go to churches, or Welfare if they were really in trouble, I mean AFTER they went to friends and family? -- So then I thought, how about I buy some McDonald's gift certificates, good for a meal?

--- then I watched the video "super size me" -- though I think it was extreme- it still makes me wonder. I mean, I shouldn't give something that I wouldn't eat, right? But what can be preserved with out preservatives? Maybe some zip lock bags of nuts and raisins? - Which is what I concluded, but I'm sure open to more ideas!

[Gramajane]

Traveler-- I think that the word "demand they give" is maybe the problem here.

As then it is not "giving" it is "being taken FROM"-- and that is not freedom but the opposite? that is Satans plan?

What blessing does one deserve who has not *given* a gift, or offering?

I understand that people are WAY more willing to GIVE, than to have their free agency taken from them.

Yes, there are many who use others, and effectively steal from them in wages, etc. Let the law and God deal with them.

I think that to hold people accountable for their own sustenance is a good thing, and promotes them to work. I believe it is the parents job to teach the children this responsibility in the home and that giving a child "allowance" is not teaching correct principles. Though paying them for work BEYOND their minimum, of "those who walk on the floors help with the chores" is a good idea.

--- Let them work to earn their name brand clothing or fancy toys if they choose.

I read an article once about a teacher who proposed to his political science class that they use the "welfare" sty stem in grading. Those who got higher scores on their tests, would give some of their points to those who did poorly etc. Not surprisingly, those who worked hard for their grades protested greatly, while those who got the poor grades praised the plan. See any parallels?

[Guest]

The problem with today's social political thinking is that everybody - on either side of the wealth spectrum - thinks they are qualified to judge who is good and who is bad. And that's where ALL social political problems arise.

That's why free markets are so appealing. Not a single person judges if one person is exploiting another. Because - those who are exploited are free to get out of the market at any time if they so desire. It then becomes self-correcting. The problem is when some guy who is happy in the market all of a sudden thinks he is not happy anymore because some other dude happens to convince him he shouldn't be happy... and instead of correcting it naturally by getting out of the market, he actually tries to convince other folks that they're not happy and to force legislation to inject what they think would make them happy. Idiots.

[sister_in_faith]

Interesting, I was just in Seattle where twice I saw men walking along beside the cars waiting at a stop light, each had an empty paper cup in their hands and seemed to be doing a poor me look on their faces, which I took to mean they wanted the cars to put money in the cup.

Since I have learned about professional beggars, and that some just use the money for drugs or alcohol etc. I have not felt right to give them money. Still I have struggled to know how to tell? It seems that they would go to churches, or Welfare if they were really in trouble, I mean AFTER they went to friends and family? -- So then I thought, how about I buy some McDonald's gift certificates, good for a meal?

--- then I watched the video "super size me" -- though I think it was extreme- it still makes me wonder. I mean, I shouldn't give something that I wouldn't eat, right? But what can be preserved with out preservatives? Maybe some zip lock bags of nuts and raisins? - Which is what I concluded, but I'm sure open to more ideas!

I stopped giving out money to people on the road after I took a 911 call, domestic disturbance, when I asked (in casual conversation, just to keep the caller on the phone til the officers got on scene) what the husband did for a living. She told me he was a 'sign holder'. I asked what she meant and she said that he holds signs for a living. He made $300 - $400 on a good day, and that's just what he did. They were a normal family in all other ways, had a house, cars, kids, just when he went to work that's what he did. He put on scruffy clothes, drove to the corner, and stood out there with a sign.

It also drives me nuts when you see them fold up their sign and walk across the parking lot a car thats nicer than mine and drive away.

I'm not saying that all people who hold signs are this way, but there are enough of them (and my honey knows most of the local ones, so this is a fact) that do it just because it's easier than doing something else, that I don't like supporting them. I carry brocures for the local crisis center and hand them out if I feel the need.

In relief society the other week we were talking about how we SHOULDN'T give money to people on the street, because we don't know where it is going, and that giving them food or offering to give them a ride to the crisis center is more appropriate. We don't want to run the risk that our money is going to alcohol or drugs.

I guess I should admit that I still do give out money if I don't recognize them and they truly look like they are in need. A couple of years ago I was really financially strapped, and had finally saved up enough money to get some extra food for food storage. I also had bought myself a 'treat' a piece of carrot cake, ready to eat. As I was pulling out of the parking lot I saw this man who was holding a sign and looked like he needed help. I pulled around and parked, but then couldn't figure out what I was going to give him. I didn't have any money, so I took some of the extra food I had bought, rice and beans, and canned goods, and took them over to him in bags. I also gave him my carrot cake (broke my heart). I felt good because I knew he would have food for the week. Heavenly Father had blessed me, so I wanted to bless someone else.

Anyway, I ended up telling the carrot cake story in relief society a couple of months later, and the sisters baked me a carrot cake. It was really sweet.

[Just_A_Guy]

My point is – when we formulate laws in our political process – I believe all should contribute equally and all should benefit equally – if not then such political processes are in essence tyranny. Anytime any particular segment is required to give more (or give less) or another segment required to receive more (or receive less) – I believe such is in one way or another the essence of tyranny.

But how do we put this into practice? The essence of a law is that it compels all of society to avoid a certain type of behavior--including that segment of society that, left to themselves, would prefer to indulge in said behavior. So, almost by definition, a law will require one segment of the population to "give more" than another segment.

The other problem I have is that it seems that money is the only valued commodity within the political arena. I am thinking that for the wealthy money is no object and of little value – so why should we ask the wealthy to sacrifice money – asking the wealthy to sacrifice money is not sacrifice. We should demand of the wealthy their time and labor. Likewise for the poor; most have time and labor in surplus and for them to give time and labor is hardly a sacrifice – the poor should be asked to make a sacrifice of their money. In this way we can determine what is of true value to all of society in determining what citizens should be required to give for the benefits that government distributes equally to all.

For most of us, money is the direct result of time and labor. In many respects they're interchangeable; money is just time and labor in a more liquid form.

Moreover, from an efficiency standpoint, why would you take a $100/hour lawyer off the job and make him - say - clean up a park for two hours; when you could leave him on the job, tax him $100, and pay five unemployed people to clean the park for the same period of time? Which option will give you a cleaner park?

[Guest]

For most of us, money is the direct result of time and labor. In many respects they're interchangeable; money is just time and labor in a more liquid form.

Moreover, from an efficiency standpoint, why would you take a $100/hour lawyer off the job and make him - say - clean up a park for two hours; when you could leave him on the job, tax him $100, and pay five unemployed people to clean the park for the same period of time? Which option will give you a cleaner park?

It's also a misrepresentation to say that money is of less value the more you have of it. Money has the same value whether you are rich or poor - a dollar will buy you the same stuff whether you are rich or poor. Having more of it doesn't make it less valuable. What affects the intrinsic value of a dollar is what your perception is of its worth. And that may differ from person to person, but it surely doesn't differ due to the amount of money you have.

For example, a criminal lawyer might think that 2 hours of park clean-up is not as valuable as 2 hours of working to put a criminal in jail - regardless of how much money each job is paying him. Whereas, a park ranger would rather spend 2 hours cleaning a park earning $20 bucks than 2 hours worth of putting on a suit and tie and banging his head over lawbooks for $200 bucks. To him, it's just not worth it.

The disparity between monetary value is always... and I mean ALWAYS... a product of societal influence that promotes wealth envy.

Edited November 15, 2011 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

it is also my observation that an even greater many that have surplus amounts of many – it is because they exploit the resources around them

Ah, the poor word 'exploit'. So ill-used, so scorned as something horrible.

Exploit

1.to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.

2.to use selfishly for one's own ends

I have several questions to pose at folks who have a problem with the word 'exploit':

* What the heck is wrong with the first definition? Why does this pose a problem?

* If you don't have a problem with the first definition, then why do you have a problem with the second? What's wrong with getting a job so you can have money?

* If resources aren't to be exploited, what are they for? (Hint - when you exploit a national park, you build a road through it so people can selfishly take in the scenery and admire it's beauty. When you exploit land, you build a house or a farm or a school or a church on it, or mine resources out of it so people can make stuff or eat.

– including the hard work and prudence of other humans that they can take advantage of.

What do you mean "take advantage of"?

My thinking is that all should contribute and all should suffer.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you don't know any small business owners. How they tend to work harder, and longer hours, than their workforce. How they put their own livelihood at risk to make a business work, rather than just have a job where you get paid for working.

My point is – when we formulate laws in our political process – I believe all should contribute equally and all should benefit equally – if not then such political processes are in essence tyranny. Anytime any particular segment is required to give more (or give less) or another segment required to receive more (or receive less) – I believe such is in one way or another the essence of tyranny.

Wait - you started this post by taking issue with conservative thought. Now you're defending tax cuts for the rich, and taxing the poor?

You do realize that about half of all wage-earners in the US, pay no income tax, right? And that the more you make, the bigger percentage of taxes on those earnings?

I'm confused. Should I be arguing with you, or welcoming you into the party?

The other problem I have is that it seems that money is the only valued commodity within the political arena.

I can help you there - money is NOT the only valued commodity in politics. Money is merely one measure of political power, other measures being leverage, ability to motivate groups, fear, having something another group desires, likability, electability, etc.

we ask the wealthy

...

We should demand

...

the poor should be asked

...

In this way we can determine

I've got a better idea. Leave me alone - get out of my way - keep your "we should"s far, far away from me. Anytime someone complaining about conservatives uses the phrase "we should", they're either having an unrealistic expectation about human nature, or are talking ultimately about using force to compel somebody to do something they don't want to. The phrase is usually so immersed in irrational emotion, that it's often totally useless. I will pass.

[Dravin]

What do you mean "take advantage of"?

I wonder if he's getting at the idea of the surplus value of labor.

I can help you there - money is NOT the only valued commodity in politics. Money is merely one measure of political power, other measures being leverage, ability to motivate groups, fear, having something another group desires, likability, electability, etc.

You're talking about political capital right? Note I'm not trying to be cute by somehow implying since it's called capital it's money, just making sure I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Dravin

[annewandering]

I am going to take exception to the idea that the poor have lots of time on their hands.

Edited November 18, 2011 by annewandering

[HEthePrimate]

One of the greatest problems I have with the so called conservative political thinking of today is that for the most part – anyone with a lot of money has earned it and deserves it.

Agreed.

In contrast one of the problems I have with the so called liberal political thinking of today is the for the most part – anyone with money should be given the greater responsibility for taxes because it is only fair that those with more carry the burden for those with less.

Not agreed. I see no problem with asking more of those who have more. But then, I'm an unrepentant liberal!

It is my observation that many that have surplus amounts of money – it is because of two things. One – they work hard for what they earn and Two – they manage their resources carefully and with prudence. However, it is also my observation that an even greater many that have surplus amounts of many – it is because they exploit the resources around them – including the hard work and prudence of other humans that they can take advantage of. I would also point out that one does not have to be exorbitantly wealthy to exploit the efforts and work of others.

Agreed, but I would add that there are more ways of acquiring money than the three you mentioned. Some people inherit money, and others cheat or steal money. But yeah, you're right that some people earn money and are prudent, while others engage in exploitation.

My thinking is that all should contribute and all should suffer.

I don't believe in suffering for the sake of suffering, but I do agree that everybody should contribute as they are able.

I am thinking that for the wealthy money is no object and of little value – so why should we ask the wealthy to sacrifice money – asking the wealthy to sacrifice money is not sacrifice.

For me, the goal is not sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. My goal is to eliminate poverty and bring about a greater level of equality. For that to happen, a different redistribution of wealth is necessary. (The current redistribution scheme directs money disproportionately towards a certain small group of people.)

Likewise for the poor; most have time and labor in surplus and for them to give time and labor is hardly a sacrifice – the poor should be asked to make a sacrifice of their money.

No offense, but it's just silly to take more from those who already don't have enough. Perhaps you'd better rethink this.

Peace,

HEP

Edited November 16, 2011 by HEthePrimate

[HEthePrimate]

It's also a misrepresentation to say that money is of less value the more you have of it. Money has the same value whether you are rich or poor - a dollar will buy you the same stuff whether you are rich or poor. Having more of it doesn't make it less valuable. What affects the intrinsic value of a dollar is what your perception is of its worth. And that may differ from person to person, but it surely doesn't differ due to the amount of money you have.

Nonsense. Though $100 buys the same amount no matter who is doing the purchasing (in theory--wealthy buyers often get bigger discounts from vendors because the vendors want to encourage them to buy more), $100 represents a larger portion of a poor person's income than a rich person's. That $100 is therefore worth more to a poor person than to a rich person.

For example, suppose a person who makes $20,000 a year rents an apartment for $400 per month. That represents 24% of her income, and she has to struggle to pay all the other bills. Suppose someone who makes $100,000 per year rents the same apartment for $400 per month. That represents only 4.8% of her income, and she has an easier time paying her other bills, and may have extra to spare. That $400 per month is worth a lot more to the first person than to the second person.

[HEthePrimate]

Ah, the poor word 'exploit'. So ill-used, so scorned as something horrible.

Exploit

1.to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.

2.to use selfishly for one's own ends

I have several questions to pose at folks who have a problem with the word 'exploit':

* What the heck is wrong with the first definition? Why does this pose a problem?

* If you don't have a problem with the first definition, then why do you have a problem with the second? What's wrong with getting a job so you can have money?

* If resources aren't to be exploited, what are they for? (Hint - when you exploit a national park, you build a road through it so people can selfishly take in the scenery and admire it's beauty. When you exploit land, you build a house or a farm or a school or a church on it, or mine resources out of it so people can make stuff or eat.

There's nothing wrong with the first definition, but that doesn't deny the existence of the second definition. The fact that "good exploitation" exists is small comfort to the many people who are exploited by other people in the bad way.

[HEthePrimate]

Likewise for the poor; most have time and labor in surplus and for them to give time and labor is hardly a sacrifice – the poor should be asked to make a sacrifice of their money.

Also, where do you get the idea that the poor "have time and labor in surplus?" Plenty of people work long hours, but don't get paid very much for their work. Just because someone doesn't have lots of money doesn't mean they lounge around all day.

[Traveler]

Also, where do you get the idea that the poor "have time and labor in surplus?" Plenty of people work long hours, but don't get paid very much for their work. Just because someone doesn't have lots of money doesn't mean they lounge around all day.

If you are talking of the poor that are in part many of the current college graduates that are under-employed in our current economy trying to pay off student loans - you are mistaken in identifying them as poor but rather they are the bi-products of one of the most criminal mass exploitations in our time. And if you have any memory - something your beloved liberals (that you call yourself) were bragging about as an accomplishment just a decade ago.

I intend to bring to light a small part of the criminal exploitations of those that call themselves conservatives - later.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I would like to point out a couple of things from my experience. Often I have been involved in working with large companies in providing automation for their facilities. The process begins with a very detailed effort to access the needs and processes to be automated. It is interesting as we prepare what is called the requirements phase where what is to be done is determined. The customer realizes that a dollar amount will be attached to what ends up in that requirements document so often they make attempts to remove even things that are needed in order to stay within a budget. But in this process the customer often are foolish desiring things that will not benefit them near as much as some of the lessor expensive things they have eliminated. On more than one occasion I have been asked to leave because of things I have pointed out as being more important during this phase of design.

After realizing that because of my experience that I was right – after a project has been finished they ask that I come back and talk about providing the much needed things they demanded be eliminated. This is always a most difficult situation because to provide the needed elements at this point is always far more expensive. Often they demand that I provide the missing elements at my cost? Their excuse is that because these missing elements were so much more important than they realized it was my responsibility to insure that they were not eliminated. I have learned to begin these negotiations by simply asking them – what it is now worth to them to have these elements? How serious are they about securing these elements? Often I even hand them a piece of paper and ask them to wright down a dollar amount that they think the elements are worth to them as of today. Often they refuse to provide me with that dollar amount saying that they are not going to pay a dime and that they expect me to provide these elements without cost to them. At that point I begin to gather my things and reply – “Gentlemen, we are obviously done here. If these things you say you would like to have added are of no worth or value to you – they are certainly of no worth to me either.

When we ask the government to provide our society with services – it is wrong – it is a lie and a criminal mind that believes some (especially when they think it that that it is them that) should be spared the sacrifice needed to provide those services. So my question to liberals – if you are not willing to sacrifice anything for the services you think are needed – why do you expect someone else to make such a sacrifice that you have determined is not worth it to you?

The only way liberals can convince even the poor that government should provide certain services is in convincing the poor that the reason they should seek such services is because they will not have to sacrifice anything for it. But I ask in all honesty – If the poor are not willing to sacrifice anything for their health care – why should anyone else think for one minute that the poor will get any valued and appreciated benefit out of it. The only people in this country that were for what is called Obama care are those that were convinced they would not have to sacrifice anything for it.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

So my question to liberals – if you are not willing to sacrifice anything for the services you think are needed – why do you expect someone else to make such a sacrifice that you have determined is not worth it to you?

You've erroneously conflated the group who liberals such as HEPrimate classify as "those who already don't have enough" with liberals. There is overlap in the groups but they aren't the same group.

The only people in this country that were for what is called Obama care are those that were convinced they would not have to sacrifice anything for it.

Except I know people who would have paid more taxes (and I mean taxes that personally would have effected them) for a universal healthcare system which kinda shoots that in the foot. I'm sure there are some who thought, "Hey, I don't make enough to pay taxes, let's do this!" but that isn't the only group that was in favor of healthcare reform.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

Nonsense. Though $100 buys the same amount no matter who is doing the purchasing (in theory--wealthy buyers often get bigger discounts from vendors because the vendors want to encourage them to buy more), $100 represents a larger portion of a poor person's income than a rich person's. That $100 is therefore worth more to a poor person than to a rich person.

For example, suppose a person who makes $20,000 a year rents an apartment for $400 per month. That represents 24% of her income, and she has to struggle to pay all the other bills. Suppose someone who makes $100,000 per year rents the same apartment for $400 per month. That represents only 4.8% of her income, and she has an easier time paying her other bills, and may have extra to spare. That $400 per month is worth a lot more to the first person than to the second person.

NONESENSE right back at ya. A person who makes $20,000 a year living a $20,000 per year lifestyle has the same intrinsic dollar value as a $200Million a year person living a $200Million a year lifestyle. Especially here in America where the environment is such that a person who has absolutely ZERO dollars live a lot more comfortably than somebody having ZERO in the Philippines.

The disparity occurs when a $20,000 a year person lives a $200Million a year lifestyle. Keeping up with the Jones'es is an evil thing. Any Filipino living in the Philippines would love to have $20,000 a year. But, you will find a million of them living hand-to-mouth with ZERO dollars a year very happy with their lot in life. Because, they experience nature and appreciate God the more for it. They don't look at their neighbors and realize - whoa, I need to spend $400 a month on an air-conditioned, 3 bedroom apartment.

You know, everytime I see an American complaining about how life is so unfair and they are so poor while typing on their laptops using their high-speed internet makes me want to puke.

Edited November 16, 2011 by anatess

[Tyler90AZ]

The only way liberals can convince even the poor that government should provide certain services is in convincing the poor that the reason they should seek such services is because they will not have to sacrifice anything for it. But I ask in all honesty – If the poor are not willing to sacrifice anything for their health care – why should anyone else think for one minute that the poor will get any valued and appreciated benefit out of it. The only people in this country that were for what is called Obama care are those that were convinced they would not have to sacrifice anything for it.

Two quick things to remember:

The same people are not always the poor people. Generally poverty seems to be eliminated fairly quickly (one, two or three generations). At the time they receive welfare they are not paying taxes, but rest assured some of their progenitors have and posterity will.

The poor and middle class provide the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors.

[annewandering]

Good morning!

Edited November 18, 2011 by annewandering

[Guest]

Okay, my post above was written in acerbic tones. I edited it some to be more "decent" but I don't want to revise it all together because it was a very honest response. I read it through and thought maybe it did not convey my point in real terms.

So, this follow-up is an attempt to get HeP to understand why I think his point was nonsense.

Let me present this case:

There are 3 people - one guy (say Tom Brady's twin) makes $20Million a year. Another guy (say Hep) makes $20,000 a year. And then there's this guy, Juan Tamad, the Filipino, making ZERO a year.

Tom Brady's twin has a house that he spends $4M a year to upkeep - to replace a lightbulb for that place costs 200 bucks apiece. The electricity alone $10,000 a month. Plus the maid that has to clean all the bathrooms... So yeah, for Tom Brady's twin to maintain that place costs him $4M a year. 20% of his yearly income.

Now HeP is a simple guy - he has $20,000 a year. His meager apartment is only $350 a month. A lightbulb costs a buck. Only 2 bathrooms, so HeP cleans it himself. Electricity is $50 bucks. So that, HeP spends 20% of his yearly income to have a roof over his head.

Now Juan Tamad - he's a fisherman. He has no job. He makes zero money. He sustains himself by going to the seashore and casts his bamboo pole with a string. If he gets a fish, he eats that day. If not, he waits the next day. His house? This bamboo shanty given to him by the Catholic Carmelite Sisters. Nothing electric running that house, the bathroom is the ocean. So that Juan Tamad spends 0% of his 0 income to have a roof over his head.

The intrinsic value of their homes - the exact same. What makes it different?

Tom Brady's twin is getting pummelled every week at the football field. He can't quit because then, how is he going to live? He is still paying buckoo money to get his 2 kids to finish law school in Harvard so they won't follow his footsteps and get pummelled every week at the football field. They can at least have a chance at a better life. He can't quit! He still has to pay his doctors thousands of dollars just so he can continue to play because anyday now, he's going to get too old to play that game and then what is he gonna do? He wishes he has more money.

HeP looks at Tom Brady's twin and thinks - that guy should live in my $350/month apartment!!! How dare he have that big house! Spending all that money on that humungous house is an outrage! He can't have all that money while I slave away at my job in a $350/month tiny apartment!!!

Juan Tamad on the other hand, looks at Tom Brady's twin and HeP and smiles and says - I love my life - I spend 2 hours fishing in the morning, I sleep in the afternoon, I got the Carmelites for my friends. Life is good!

So, the intrinsic value of Juan Tamad's dollar is MORE than Tom Brady's twin and HeP's... So, who is rich?

Unfortunately, the American Affliction is the social political thinking that if Tom Brady's twin is living a higher lifestyle than me, then it is unfair and we have to redistribute his wealth so we will all be wealthy. Why bother living in America? You can move to Russia and get that exact thing!

ENVY. The root of all evil.

[Guest]

The poor and middle class provide the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors.

So does the rich. There are a lot of rich people in the Armed Forces. One of them even made big news when he left his $3Million football contract to serve the Army and ended up dead in Afghanistan.

[Guest]

why is it so hard to not spew hate at people who dont agree with a persons politics? sadly i remember this is why i left the site before and now i see it again.

i just dont get it. we arent taught that in this church. it constantly surprises me to see it from people who are obviously good members of the church.

Who spewed hate at who?

[Guest gopecon]

Anatess,

You can't just look at percentages to say that 20% of $20,000 is the same as 20% of $20,000,000. Tom Brady's twin has a lot of luxuries that can be cut back if necessary. HEP's $20,000 income does not have much wiggle room. They may both be spending all of their money each year, but one could have their income cut in half and make the necessary adjustments with relative ease. The other could have to go without some basic necessities. Does that make one happier than the other, or happier than the broke Filipino fisherman? No, happiness is based on a lot more than just money. One can be poor and happy or rich and miserable, but you can't just look at percentages.