Ps and Qs

"Some will argue we shouldn't even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans," said Obama. "It's just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut."


Who says the wealthiest people in this country are the most fortunate? Sure, many wealthy people are products of nepotism. But, many others are people who had nothing to lose in the first place mixed with a dash of ingenuity and ambition. 


Democrats see all the wealthy as robber baron tycoons who don't deserve their play things. And conservatives see anyone who is not a member of the wealthy elite as disposable human capital, those who lost out in the game of social Darwinism.


Surely there must be some sort of balance here. It is not, I repeat, NOT the responsibility of the wealthy to support the poor. No matter how unfair you believe it is for them to horde their millions while others suffer. Any idea that the wealthy have to or should engage in philanthropy is merely philosophical and not part of objective reality.


It is not the responsibility of the government to guarantee a certain level of income to individuals, though it has taken that burden on itself through social programs.  The idea that a government should do anything other than create laws in its best interest is merely philosophical... 


Have you ever said "no" to someone asking a favor of you simply because they made you feel as though you HAD to or you SHOULD? It's annoying right?


Maybe if the liberals asked the conservatives nicely...we'd get some bipartisanship in the legislative branch. And then again, maybe not.