Replies

I hear the same thing all the time (and not just in the People's Republic of Cambridge). An astonishing number of people have failed to learn that wealth is not a static quantity (e.g. - a pie to be divided), but a value that grows and spreads outward as the result of people taking risks and earning rewards. All they have to do is look around. Even in Cambridge, Mass. many poor people own cars, have air conditioning, dependable heat and hot water, home entertainment systems, and well-stocked refrigerators. How many of their grandparents or even parents could have said the same?

Oh, yeah, I forgot: it was "government" that did all that. When the same sort of people suggest that I'm not paying my "fair share", I ask them what they think would happen if I just decided to stop working and live off the government instead. What if all of the undeserving "rich" people did the same? To even pose the question is considered to be unspeakably selfish. It is apparently some people's duty to produce for everyone's benefit, you see. For her part, Hillary Clinton seems to believe this wholeheartedly. Of course, she's never earned an honest dollar in her life - which of course, explains a lot.

The key word in your post is "Selfish"--it is the stake through the heart of the debate, they believe.

And it never applies to those who want something someone else earned--it applies to those who have "been lucky in life's lottery" aka those who work for a living and make a decent living.