In response to A, I wrote B. My answer to blaming the poor for all of our ills.

[rainy]

The following, A, came to me in an email:
My reply is below B:

A: These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?

Neither could I......


"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abe Lincoln

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill




B: #6. You can't have full employment in a capitalist monetary system. Therefore, some will not have jobs. The government that allows the capitalist system to operate within it's boarders, supplies its roads, schools, educated workers, bank security, police and fire protection owes to the ones who are disabled or unable to find a job, since there are no jobs, at least food, clothes, housing and water. Who's grandma will you kick off the cliff because she cant afford her hospital bills when most likely it was the polluting practices of those capitalists that made her sick? And those very polluters do not pay to clean up their mess so the people are sick and out of work through no fault of their own but we want to blame the poor for the crimes of the bankers, shadow bankers and greedy un-regulated corporations.

There are no jobs. College kids can't even find work. Capitalism is not the answer. In fact the belief in constant growth is unsustainable and is destroying our planet. A better way is possible. We have to stop defending the old paradigm and realize that the capitalistic system is flawed. Global capitalism cannot float all boats there fore there will always not be enough jobs for all. And if there was 100% employment we would use up all the natural resources so fast that we would destroy the planet anyway so the belief in constant growth is also flawed as an economic policy.

A new paradigm is the best way to envision a better world.

Sorry for the rant. I'm just so sick of blaming the poor for all of our ills.

What's your solution to create more jobs around the globe as we are now entering global capitalism where Americans are no longer needed as consumers so our jobs are not that important to corporations.

Plus, the wealthy are at the lowest tax rate ever in our history. We are spending too much and are involved in many wars. Our poor are the ones actually fighting the wars but we don't want to ask the wealthy to sacrifice? They have bought our politicians and all the laws made favor them.
The poor have no representation in our system.

[northoftheborder]

1. Excellent answer to A.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Recommended!

[drm604]

3. Great Answer.

I hate those kinds of letters.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

Other then a handful of people on the fringe, who is proposing that we legislate the wealthy out of prosperity? This is a straw man. Asking that they pay at least their fair share is not the same as legislating them out of prosperity. Anyone who claims it is is either lying or not thinking it through.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

When someone has worked, and paid taxes, for years, and then is suddenly laid off because their employer decided they could make more money with Chinese slave labor, they deserve more than being kicked out into the street with empty pockets. I think that if you faced that situation personally, your thinking on this would change rapidly.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

You mean like the financial speculators have taken from us and given to themselves? Or like CEOs making multi-millions per year are taking their money off of the backs of minimum wage workers? Is there something wrong with having these people give back some of what they've taken?

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

You cannot feed people by concentrating most of that wealth in the top 1%. In addition, I would quibble with the assumption that you can't multiply wealth by dividing it. It's possible to create wealth, that's what people are doing when they work. But people need the essentials of survival in order to work. Giving them a living wage can help them to be healthier and more productive thus creating more wealth (multiplying wealth!)

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I actually agree with this one. If this were to happen it would be bad for a nation. In what fantasy country has this happened?

[rainy]

6. Thanks, this is a great response! nt

[handmade34]

4. good response

my response:

1. No one, anywhere, is suggesting we legislate the wealthy out of prosperity… that is a fallacy perpetuated by the wealthy…
2. That is how many of the wealthy become prosperous, by exploiting the working people…
3. …happens all the time and has since our country’s inception… and that my friend, is what community (society) is all about.
4. …whether you can or not… is that our nation’s goal… to make a very few people extremely wealthy and impoverish the rest?? …or to just merely create wealth at the expense of our environment, common good and general welfare??
5. That is pure hogwash!! …not worth responding to…

...reason for not sharing this?... (because it is factually and philosophically incorrect)

((( …pervert the Constitution?? ...who my friend is doing that??)))

(((Socialism is an untried philosophy and Churchill’s statements are opinion, not empirical fact)))

[rainy]

8. Thanks, nice! nt

[warrior1]

5. You should tell him/her

That voting for republican will never make him/her rich. Doesn't matter how much he wants to believe that, I'll never happen.

[izquierdista]

7. #2 -- Paris Hilton

Except what she received without working for, not just one person, but thousands of maids, night auditors, desk clerks and maintenance people worked for without receiving.

[malletgirl02]

11. Exactly

What makes a hotel is its workers. Clean rooms due to the maids, good customer service due the clerks, and maintenance people to make sure the place isn't falling apartment, make a hotel a place people want to stay.

[1monster]

9. Won't sway anyone. Those who think and are capable of reason already understand this.

Those who are rightwingers, teabaggers, etc., are not rational nor capable of reason. They'll just roll their eyes and call you "pitiable."

[rainy]

10. True, I had a friend on fb that has defriended me because

he thinks I'm an un-thinking liberal out to destroy America and our constitution.

[1monster]

21. I had a friend of thirteen years who called me "pitiable" and when I mildly objected

and told her that I don't as a general rule discuss politics with her because of that kind of name calling, she told me I was a real downer and that any further e-mails from me would be deleted.

I think she was surprised when I did not follow up with an apology. The first time she blew up on me because she assumed that she knew what I thought about something, I wrote a very sarcastic e-mail to her apologizing forbeing such a bad friend. She took it as straight and forgave me for being so wrong-headed and told me not to be so hard on myself. Believe me, that e-mail was not subtle in its sarcasm. However, we agreed not to talk politics and that worked well for us with me ignoring her political bait 99% of the time until last year.

[JHB]

12. rebuttal for #4

If the grease and lube doesn't get to the moving parts, you might be able to turn the engine over, but it won't run well, or for long.

[Quantess]

13. That's the problem when people think about things too simplistically.

Our system is a lot more complex than simply working hard and earning a nice paycheck, in the exact amount that you deserve. Don't we all wish hard work was fairly compensated? Don't we all wish it were that simple?

[rucky]

14. Mine: You don't help people by making things harder for them. n/t

[JHB]

15. My own version of "B":

> 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

You can, however, legislate policies that make it less attractive for the already-wealthy to get even more wealthy by squeezing everybody else. We did these things in this country, and it worked out pretty well for most Americans and let them earn a middle class income.


>2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

So you understand the problems people have with hedge fund managers, credit default swap traders, Wall Street wheeler-dealers, CEOs with cozy relationships to those determining their compensation, and others who seem to worship at the alter of Maximizing Profit? Up to a certain point most of these people do provide a useful service in allocating resources for wealth creation, and deserve compensation. However, above a certain level they are extracting more wealth than their services are worth. It gets worse when that extraction becomes detached from how they make their money and to any outside accountability for how much they stuff into their own pockets.

In those cases they are "receiving without working for", and that removes resources available to those who do the actual work.


> 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Get back to me on that one when you apply it to government contractors, especially ones for the Defense Department with cozy relationships with politicians and plenty of lobbyists.


> 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

Horseshit. You don't run an engine without "dividing" the lube. If it doesn't get to all the moving parts, it's going to break down quicker and harder.

If someone never changes the oil in their car, are they being thrifty and efficient? Or a short-sighted idiot?

>5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other
>half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does
>no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the
>beginning of the end of any nation.

So is believing that statement when it's not true. Acting on faulty information rarely produces the desired results.

[rainy]

16. Well done! I think I'll combine these responses and reply one mort time

[JHB]

18. Make sure in #1 you mention...

...that we USED to do those things in this country, back in the 50s and 60s. Far milder policies are shouted down as "socialist!" these days.
Does that mean that WE were socialists back in the depths of the Cold War? If so, what were the Soviets?

[LeftishBrit]

17. Ugh. This sounds like a modification of a series of statements...

made by some early 20th century pundit called Rev Boetker, and sometimes falsely attributed to Lincoln.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp

As regards the statements:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

Paying a bit more in taxes will not make the wealthy poor! You *can* legislate the poor into having a basic safety net; and you can legislate practices that will prevent them from becoming poor in the first place.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Nothing like as simple as that. But insofar as it happens, it's generally the already-rich who receive without working (or at least without productive work) and the poor who work without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

No. The government takes from all, and gives (what it does give) to all. If you pay taxes, then the government gives you public roads; rapid assistance in emergencies; police protection; the opportunity for public education; a pension when you are too old to work; etc. Most of these things are used *by all*; it is not a question of taking from one individual to give to another individual.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

You cannot make any adequate USE of wealth WITHOUT dividing it. Even within a family, it is not feasible for one person to get and use ALL the resources.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

In which nation did this ever happen? Not even in Communist countries! And what those (in the UK too) who are obsessed with 'the workshy' are ignoring: there are not enough jobs! Many people who want to work are being laid off, not through their own choice. In a full-employment state, one might worry about people who wish to sponge off those who work; right at the moment, the main worry is those who wish to work but can't.

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?

Well, possibly that it's a load of old rubbish!


"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abe Lincoln

Presumably Lincoln was referring to those who 'perverted the Constitution' by secession, and with whom he was at war. It has nothing to do with current right-wing ideas.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

Well, Churchill *was* a Tory, and though an outstanding war leader who saved us from the Nazis, was actually a mediocre peacetime Prime Minister. I entirely disagree with him on this issue. It should, however, be pointed out, that he was at least talking about *real* socialism, not using the term for any modification of unbridled capitalism. For example, he never accused FDR (who was significantly to the left of Obama) of being a 'Socialist'.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. What was one of the greatest and most rapid overturns of private property in US history? ?

Hint: It worth some $3 billion at the time, over $1 trillion dollars in today’s monies.

[intaglio]

20. Point by point

1) False equivalence, all that is being asked is that the wealthy pay their fair share.

2) But if you give people food, shelter and clothes then they can seek work, without it they, and their children, will starve and freeze and not be able to get work.

3) But they can, they can give education without taking that from others, they can give fine roads without taking them from others - the list goes on and on.

4) Mark 4:3-8 “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”

5) And when the wealthy get the idea that they do not have to pay for the privilege of living in a secure, well regulated country then they should not be wealthy any more but reduced to poverty.

[mistertrickster]

22. Never forget that Churchill put Gandhi and Hitler together as the two biggest enemies of England. nt

[mistertrickster]

23. My response . . .

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

False dilemma. The wealthy as a class need not be "legislated out of prosperity" for everyone else to benefit. Requiring Wal-Mart to give decent health care would cost the company one-half-a-cent on every item purchased. That will cut into their profit fractionally, but the benefits to the workers and society would be enormous.

Same for living wage laws . . . or union card-check laws.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Unfortunately, this is all too true. When hedge fund managers make 1 million dollars an hour, they are stealing wealth from millions of workers in fields that don't even know they exist. All the profits that MEGA-CORPS make come from the wealth workers create that they are not paid for . . .

CEO's of large corporations are the epitome of "receiving without working for it."

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Partly true: for example, the government controls massive resources like gas and oil deposits, federal land, federal forests, bandwidth for radio-TV frequencies, off-shore fisheries, underground aquifers and rivers and lakes etc.

The fact that it gives these resources away to MEGA-CORPS run by fat-cats (see oil-rights to BP in the Gulf) with very little taxpayer benefit means that is indeed TAKING from us and GIVING to the MEGA CORPS.

Partly false: government CAN create wealth through institutions like schools. The small investment in education leads to massive wealth creation as educated workers start businesses, invent new products, and become more productive.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

The hell you can't. That's exactly what economists mean when they talk about "income multipliers" as money changes hands and spurs more economic activity. It has become obviously clear that allowing the rich to hoard massive amounts of wealth is sucking the life out of our economy. The middle-class buys much more than the rich do . . . because there's only so much food a person can eat and only so much house a person can live in.

Despite the almost obscenely extravagant lifestyles of the rich, they literally have more money than they know what to do with.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Heh, for a second there I thought the paragraph was talking about the British Royal Family ("they don't have to work because everyone takes care of them"), but I digress.

This is a canard, an irrelevancy. People do what they believe to be in their best interest.
Give people a way to make decent pay for decent work, and they'll take it.

That's what our so-called free market system hasn't been able to do.

[rainy]

24. Fantastic response!!!!!!