State of the Union question

[JD Barleycorn]

This may get combined with the other thread but I want the attention...

Before the SOTU address we all know that Obama is going to talk about "income equality". I KNOW what I think it is but I'm curious about what leftists thinking when they talk about "income equality". Care to inform us all?

[nevergaveitathought]

Leftist always have to use euphemisms or use words the public thinks means one thing but used to mean something else altogether by leftists. They co-opt common sense words, using them in corrupt ways without the courtesy of providing clear- cut meaning.

Income inequality or ladders of opportunity, to Obama, means more government intrusion and spending.

Rightly, the term income inequality could easily mean a person is not as athletic, or intelligent, or good-looking or hard-working or caring or willing to use their talents or as lucky. We are only equal under the law.

Slow and steady, conscientious and indefatigable, working hard and saving, these things build prosperity. These are the real "ladders of opportunity", obamas prescription is one of dependency and failure.

[Jackie S]

Income equality= "to each according to his needs, from each according to his capabilities".

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Income equality= "to each according to his needs, from each according to his capabilities".

Nice!

I was looking for a Marx quote but I couldn't find it, so I'll paraphrase: it is fundamentally wrong for one man to hoard food while his neighbor goes hungry.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Nice!

I was looking for a Marx quote but I couldn't find it, so I'll paraphrase: it is fundamentally wrong for one man to hoard food while his neighbor goes hungry.

. . . said Aesop's grasshopper to the ants.

[JD Barleycorn]

I suppose I could respond with the Ant and Grasshppper story. Is it right for one man to steal what another man worked for? You use the extreme example of a man who is starving taking from a man who has everything to excess. The reality is that the powerful (rich, connected, or elected) find ways to thrive but the poor guy (or woman) in the middle gets screwed. They have their goods taken and they go hungry so some lazy, thuggish person who serves the master (the state) can eat. That is how it has always, ALWAYS, been under Marxism, socialism, or communism and it will always be that way.

[i'va biggen]

Fucking dimatards can't even repeat one of Aesop's fables without fucking it up and missing the point.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Nice!

I was looking for a Marx quote but I couldn't find it, so I'll paraphrase: it is fundamentally wrong for one man to hoard food while his neighbor goes hungry.

But he Democrats and Liberal Establishment have morphed that into "it is fundamentally wrong for one man to get educated, work hard, and put food on the table for his Family, why some lazy ass piece of shit who won't get off his ass except to look for a Government handout starves".

[JohnnyCap]

The modern day ants aren't just taking enough for the winter, or four to five harsh winters; they're taking enough for generations of winters and then fencing the grasshopper out of the field.

Maybe a grasshopper won't learn a lesson, but many a hungry man can, and not every one is a lazy thief.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

The modern day ants aren't just taking enough for the winter, or four to five harsh winters; they're taking enough for generations of winters and then fencing the grasshopper out of the field.

Maybe a grasshopper won't learn a lesson, but many a hungry man can, and not every one is a lazy thief.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, "there you go again.". You keep going to the illogical extreme. You're concerned with the super rich. Here is some news for you. If you pass a law to confiscate their wealth, they will leave and take it with them. Once again, the people who get hurt are the middle class and the upper middle class. Think smaller and more local Mr. Cap. What does it gain you to take the money away from the man who owns the grocery store and give it to the man who dropped out of school and refuses to work? Easy answer to that one, a vote for a democrat.

[LexusLover]

Is the speech over yet?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

The modern day ants aren't just taking enough for the winter, or four to five harsh winters; they're taking enough for generations of winters and then fencing the grasshopper out of the field.

Maybe a grasshopper won't learn a lesson, but many a hungry man can, and not every one is a lazy thief.

The real problem -- since lib-retards have ridiculed public shame into oblivion -- is that too many today lack the self-discipline to defer immediate self-gratification or intelligently plan ahead in order to reap later rewards.

Impoverished teenagers, who put no value in education, continue to beget generation after generation of impoverished children to satisfy their need for immediate gratification, and that hurts the family unit and society as a whole. Currently, lib-retard social policies are geared to support; thus, encourage, rather than admonish, such behavior.

BTW, who said thieves were *lazy*? Thieves tend to be extraordinarily active in their misdirected pursuits.