Forcibly taking an innocent and productive person's rightful property away, without that person's current or prior consent, for the benefit of another party who is not productive and does not earn it, does NOT establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide a common defense, promote general welfare, or uphold liberty.Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Obviously you do not consider it 'justice', but IMHO, reallocating a small portion of wealth to ensure that those less fortunate do not starve on the streets, DOES insure domestic tranquility AND promote general welfare.There are many reasons why some are 'not productive' and don't 'earn it', you're lumping them all into one category. For example, do you really believe that someone who was stricken with polio during youth and is now confined to a wheel chair and uses their SSI to pay for their food and rent should be thrown out to the curb, without the wheelchair (SSI paid for that too), and forced to beg alms? Particularly while those more fortunate take advantage of all types of taxpayer-subsidized benefits, like 401K plans, IRAs, Roths, exemptions for children, deductions for home mortgage interest, lower capital-gain tax rates, etc.?2old
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<