Share the wealth, musings and opinions

As Biden puts together his "redistribution" team of former Obama and Clinton failures, I was reading today the wisdom of a man who was writing during the Great Depression, Erling C. Olsen. He was not a political commentator, or pastor, just a layman who had a radio show about the Psalms which was later reissued as a book that went through a number of editions. His message on Psalm 62 included these remarks about pastors and politicians who were trying to make sense of those trying times (during which my parents went to college, got married, had 4 children and bought a home):

"Just now it seems to be a pastime of some to heap all manner of invectives upon those who are of high degree or great position. One voice cries out ". . . Salvation can only be had in the sharing of wealth." Another insists that it is not a matter of sharing wealth, but of sharing income. Still another, a clergyman, used to shout, "In silver lies our redemption." The fact of the matter is that salvation is in none of these, neither the salvation of the individual, nor of society. While we may see some distinction in men, and assume that by the simple process of equalizing wealth we can bring man into a paradise; in God's sight sin is the cause of inequalities. So long as sin reigns, just so long will these situations exist. It is sheer nonsense to talk about sharing wealth WITH THE SHARING IN THE HAND OF A POLITICIAN. It is the same as expecting a Millennium without the Messiah. Sin will reign, until our Lord Jesus Christ Himself rules over this world as King of kings, and Lord of lords.." (Meditations in the Book of Psalms, p. 468, 1952 edition)

Comrade Bernie is 50 years behind

“Europeans, then, having learned that socialism does not work, are trying to narrow our gap with the United States with various reforms—just as Bernie Sanders, 50 years too late, seeks to emulate Europe. Doesn’t Sanders know that his program has been applied in Europe, and failed? He must: and this would mean that his true ambition is not free health care or free college, but a deeper transformation of the United States. Perhaps he hates the free-market society and wants to replace it with a socialist, egalitarian one, overseen by the “tyranny of the benevolent,” which Tocqueville warned against.

Why would so many American voters find Sanders’s socialism attractive? For the same reasons that socialism was once popular in Europe: the love for equality over individual freedom; the illusion of a safe life, guaranteed by a benevolent state; the allure of transferring personal responsibility to a public nurse. Then as now, these offers exert a strong psychological appeal; the answer to them is reality. Socialism does not work—but perhaps one needs to live through it to be convinced.”

https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-socialist-vision

Poverty, then and now

"The problem of the poor is not the availability of jobs, for the economy has generated so many new jobs during the past decade that anyone who can't find a job just doesn't want to work. And the problem isn't taxes because most poor folks don't pay taxes, and many actually receive checks from the government in the form of the earned income-tax credit. No, to close the income distribution gap, the next president will have to have the courage to say that the path to upward mobility for the nation's least-well-off begins at the marriage altar." Joseph Perkins, Jan 26, 2000, black columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune (now retired)

And 19 years after this column and 55 years after the trillions spent on the War on Poverty, politicians don't want to believe it because they need the issue for votes, money and power.

There are 92 major government programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to poor and low-income people at a cost of $1.1 trillion per year [2017 figures]. But only 4 of those programs have work requirements, and even those have gaping holes. Yet to listen to Democrats running for the highest office in the land and Socialists in government, honest work has no dignity (i.e. doesn't buy votes). Only give a-ways matter. Let me give you free stuff and keep you poor. Vote for me.

https://www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/encouraging-work-lifts-people-out-poverty-the-green-new-deal-wont-do

Why does the left lie about poverty? Because they can. It's like lies that police shoot blacks and women earn less than men. We don't have a responsible media to call them out, to research it or correct the lies.

This report on the results of welfare reform is from 2016--before Trump was elected. But they were screaming lies then too, just like now. They were probably preparing for a Big Clinton Win and raising taxes for another battle in the 50+ year War on Poverty, our most expensive war in history. Politicians, non-profits, churches, authors and academics all "need" the appearance of poverty so they can make more. The wealthier got richer due to increased regulations and over sight by their friends in government, the poor got more transfers and paid no taxes, and the middle class got screwed.

https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/did-welfare-reform-increase-extreme-poverty-the-united-states

Since 50% of Americans don't pay federal taxes (they are too "poor" unless you add supplemental sources transferred from others, then they are too well-off to be poor), you can see why Democrats have to shout out "free stuff" and "raise taxes" to the middle class in order to get votes. Thus, they plan to impoverish about 3/4 of the nation so politicians can be the only ones with wealth.

What exactly are the Democrats’ policies?

The Democrat policies you say you care about are:  “Most are in the area of social issues: common-sense gun control, affordable health care for all (can't wrap my head around the fact that gun ownership is a right, but healthcare is a privilege), increase in federal minimum wage so it at least matches the poverty level minimum, pro-choice.”

They all sound rather vague, but that’s not what the Democrat party means with those words.

1.  We all know the issue isn’t “gun control,” because some of the worst disasters have happened in cities that have that.  The goal is confiscation for all except the government and private security guards to protect entertainers and politicians.  It’s never been anything else.  Democrats are almost as patient as terrorists—and it is always incremental.

2.  Healthcare—we already had 5 federal/state medical plans before Obama decided to make NOT having it a crime punishable with a fine or jail time. Native Americans have had cradle to grave health care for many years, and they are the least healthy and poorest of American minorities—at least if they live on the reservation. My brother-in-law was a full blood Indian who grew up in Huntington Beach, CA, and used all the rights and privileges the rest of us have, plus a few from his tribe. He had a public employee pension, but died at 73, not for lack of health care, but lack of agreeing to a colonoscopy.  I think it was the take over of one of the largest industries that Republicans objected to.  If he had begun without the mandate, or not forcing religious groups to buy contraception/abortion, he would have had no problem growing it to single payer. But it was never about healthcare, it was always about power.  Also, the government no matter who is in the White House is eyeing the deductions or credits for medical care by employers and employees—they (it) believe that is rightfully their money.

3.  We already have 123 federal wealth transfer programs, and many started out to help the sick, poor, elderly, etc., (those who tug at our heart strings), but as time goes on more people are added as they expand, until now we’re at the point that 62% of the people who receive entitlements or assistance are well above the poverty line. Nonpoor households received 48% of the $2.4 TRILLION distributed in 2015.  And about 31% were in the upper half. There’s just something about a government entitlement plan that is like our waist sizes (at least mine) and expands as we age.  These programs don’t necessarily reduce poverty, but they certainly employ a lot of middle class bureaucrats in state and federal government.  If poverty were to disappear tomorrow, on Thursday we’d have a new class of poor—all those folks who work upstream from the poor. (figures from “The high cost of good intentions” by John F. Cogan, 2017)

4.  As far as minimum wage goes, that’s another feel-good, guilt trip.  A tiny fraction of wage earners are at minimum—I think  it’s 2.9% of all workers.  And even at the old $7.50/hr figure, if a 2 adult earner household was working 40 hours a week at $7.50, that household has gone beyond the level for qualifying for most important benefits like SNAP, Medicaid, Section 8, WIC, etc. Low income doesn’t mean stupid, so if it were me at that job, I’d cut my hours or refuse a promotion so I could continue qualifying for about $22,000 a year in benefits. It’s quite possible for EITC for a man with a family to have a stay at home wife and 3-4 kids who is better off than the man earning $60,000/year because the government pays him to earn below $50,000 and it’s non-taxable. The average family income of a minimum wage earner is $53,113 and they are more likely to have some college than the average American worker. Why?  They are not the primary earner of the family!

5.  And pro-choice.? Well, there goes your concern for the weakest and most vulnerable in society. Again this is incremental.  All the talk these days from the left is that abortion is OK right through the full 9 months—it’s legal to poke a hole in the skull to make sure the baby’s dead on arrival, and the more radical Democrats have moved that to 2 years out from birth. It will come.  Soon the Democrats’ drive for euthanasia of the elderly and severely ill will meet up in the middle with their desire to end the lives of children who are not perfect or who come at an inconvenient time.  At the age of my readers and family, it might be wise to have your EOL documents stated clearly, because the Democrat party is coming for you.

https://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/LNQ59%20FINAL.pdf 

A response:

Norma;

I really like the point that you are making about the slow incremental loss of freedoms, rights and government intrusion in every facet of our lives.

And I share your concerns that will be happening to the old folks and agree that you need to work on a plan.

There is always this argument about being reasonable and accepting of progress and small changes but when you look at it over time the impact on the American Way of Life is significant.

While not directly germane to the border security discussion, it is relevant to the issue of slowly stripping law abiding citizens of their rights and putting government in control over every aspect of our lives, whether it is healthcare, education, physical movement, gun ownership, property ownership, etc. etc.

I see this with my two youngest kids in elementary school. We live in Maryland.   The school supplies that we buy become community property – property ownership is one of the hallmarks of capitalism and freedom (and communism the opposite).  The result is that the kids go through 100 pencils, 10 erasers, … a head per year and the teachers beg for more before the school year is over because they have run out.   Sounds like the Kolkhoz (State owned Farm) in the Sowjet Union that could never succeed of making a fraction of their crop plan and had to import most their grain from the USA.       

The kids and parents are highly discouraged to pay for lunch with cash out of their wallet – learning the use of money is fundamental to a capitalistic society.  Result, the kids have a lunch account and have no concept of what stuff costs and how to make choices. Sounds like Obamacare for the low income people.

  A month ago, I learned that the children are no longer taught cursive writing. I was told that WE ONLY TEACH PRINTED LETTERS for the last 5 years now.  When I raised the issue that they would never be able to attain a decent speed of writing, I was told, that the direction is that at some point the kids would only be typing.

DOES ANYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SETS UP A TOTAL SURVEILLANCE STATE?

  The children are undergoing mandatory behavioral testing annually which was part of common core legislation under Obama.   What does this look like. It’s frightening. It reminds of how the Communists identified those who were potential dangers for the dictatorship regime.

The kids read a story about some animal pet that will be put to death UNLESS a child is willing to say some lies. Only with these lies could the pet animal be saved.  The testing involves asking the children various questions about their opinions on this story.

I wrote a letter to the school that I am opting my kids out and they don’t have permission to be testing. They told me there is no ‘opt out’ allowed.  I met with the principal and was redirected to the assistant principal who is in charge of testing.  To my surprise, he confided to me that he as 4 children that will be tested soon and he has been thinking about how he gets around this because knowing what he knows he thinks it’s very dangerous too.  After he explained all of the rules to me we found a loophole around it and it has worked now for the last 3 years. Although I would not be surprised if the authorities will show up at my door step one day.  If you look at the parent group websites in protest of this testing, they have been largely unsuccessful protecting their children.

We had hoped that with a Republican governor this nonsense would stop, but it hasn’t.

So while I don’t own guns, don’t shoot, I have to completely sympathize with the people who want to uphold their constitutional gun rights.

But those rights have been slowly eroding piece by piece and have been converted to hunting rights and gun ownership. The Constitution was not about guns for hunting. It was about safeguards against an oppressive regime.

So it is important to recognize that there are consequences when you allow the forfeiture of citizens rights and you are not paying attention.

What if you actually won the Powerball?

Lots of us have been playing this mind game. . . "what if. . . how would I use it?" This is a good article. As a Christian, I'm daughter of the King, so I'm already rich, I have my inheritance, but even materially, as an American I'm very rich. "Did you know that according to the website, The Global Rich List, if you earn $50,000 a year you are in the top 0.31% of the world? You are richer than 7.38 billion of the world’s 7.4 billion people. If you earn just $11,700 a year – the poverty line in the United States – you are still richer than 6.8 billion people in the world. In other words, the poorest people of the United States are richer than 84% of the world." Caution: there are people who want to redistribute your peace of mind and faith in Christ, and your material wealth and give you nothing in return.

http://364daysofthanksgiving.com/lottery/

Obama got the gimmes

Obama wants just a smidgen more from the rich to support his failing pre-school idea (for over 50 years and trillions of dollars Head Start designed to end poverty has shown no permanent gains in education for children). I admire the foundations the super wealthy support, but really, they can do both--just don't take the tax deduction and they'll have Obama's wish that the wealthy pay more. Also, it's been known for years that conservatives and middle income people contribute... to charity at higher rates than the super wealthy. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy red states are more generous than blue states. The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama. So wanting others to pay more sort of goes with the political philosophy. "Am I my brother's keeper" was first said by Cain after he killed Abel. I thought this was not a good choice of words for Obama's big push to help black men and Latino men.

Time for Democrats to panic

Democrats are clearly panicking. There has never been a better time to be black in America, and if word gets out, they might lose their victim voter base. So we need new riots and protests.

In the last 2.5 decades crime has dropped drastically, so it's time to gin that up by complaining about the number of black men in prison (which is why the neighborhood is safer). Blacks are now over represented in many city governments and community protection agencies, so it's time to blame the white controlled system, micro aggression, etc. The college enrollment rate is higher for black high school graduates than whites, so it's time to berate the education system. More whites are killed in officer involved shootings at a higher rate than blacks, so it's time to get on social media and tell lies. With at least 5 government health insurance systems, no black need be without health care--so it's time to blame the GOP for not making even more money available. 126 wealth transfer programs for the poor, most of which recipients are white--but don't advertise that--Democrats don't want the world to know that millions of whites don't have that mystical "privilege" they tout.

Now the bad news is out there, too--AIDS among young black gay men is the highest for any group--gay and bisexual men represent approximately 2% of the US population, but account for three-fourths of all estimated new HIV infections and blacks account for most of those. Abortion of black babies is at an all time high--genocide rates--78 percent of the abortions in New York City were for black or Hispanic babies. Where are the marches and outrage? Black men are not marrying the mothers of their children leaving many kids to grow up without a male parent. Until the 1960s, blacks were more likely to be married than whites, and then came the "war on poverty" and Uncle Sam as a step-father. But, the Democrats can ignore every academic and religious study that says family is important to economic, social and political well being and just ask for more money.

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes?

What is fair? What is rich? Is rich Nancy Pelosi and Ruth Bader Ginsberg who are high profile multi-millionaires? Is rich a household with a doctor and lawyer married to each other with many years of education to pay for? Fair would seem be those who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on. But that's not the case. According to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income. The bottom quintile because of transfers for housing, food, health, education, etc., actually pay a negative tax--less than zero according to the CBO. Is that fair; are they rich?

Transcript of Prager University

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20811.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

Why do wealthy, single women vote for Democrats?

R.R. Reno observes:

“Thus we have the seemingly odd political instincts of a single, 35-year-old McKinsey consultant living in suburban Chicago who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life. Why would a woman whose 401K already exceeds $1,000,000 and who owns a condo worth almost as much be so concerned to expand public support for in-home care of the elderly? It’s because she’s not married and feels as though she’s going to have to take on all the responsibilities of life on her own—a prospect that is indeed daunting."
 
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/08/the-dilemma-facing-social-conservatives

She seems to think that if Republicans are in office they will somehow take away programs that help her?  She cares about the poor and thinks the GOP will slash benefits? 

I’d like to see the evidence that Republicans have ever NOT supported massive government spending (Obamacare was the first ever that didn’t have a single Republican vote). It’s a campaign lie that women and minorities are told to keep their vote. If they didn’t, all our debt and deficit would be only on the shoulders of the Democrats. Do you really want that responsibility? The best (and least) they’ve done is to vote against huge increases, but nothing ever decreases. The biggest social services president was GW Bush, until Barack Obama came along. His ARRA added $100 billion in federal aid to education in 2009, and yet when it wasn’t continued or increased, it’s called a cut and blamed on Republicans. Race to the Top is Obama’s program, but No Child Left Behind was Bush’s, both extravagant, wasteful interference in local education systems which now have to teach to the test.

If wealthy, white educated women are worried about their futures as they age, because they aren’t married, they need to be studying investments, markets, tax loop holes, etc., not supporting a president who cavorts with Hollywood celebs, lobbyists for banks, and Union officials and wants to take more of their hard earned money by raising tax rates or contemplating a wealth tax.

The federal government alone currently funds and operates 126 different welfare or anti-poverty programs. If even one is “cut” or “combined” there are screams of mean and stingy GOP, yet obviously they are not moving people up the ladder of prosperity (nor are they even included in studies of income, which they should be).

Medicaid and CHIP are the biggest with about 65,000,000 participants, and SNAP is next with about 46,500,000 (Oct. 2014)—and those don’t include Indian tribes who get cradle to grave medical support and a different type of nutrition support. SNAP has never come down after the big push of ARRA money to increase the rolls with more money for recruiting.  SNAP doesn’t include school lunch programs, or summer lunch programs, or breakfast programs, or WIC, or emergency food assistance, or commodity foods assistance, or special milk program (I think they had that even when I was in school) or farmers’ market programs, or community food projects. But name one that the woman in Reno’s example with a million in her 401-k would ever use, or even know anyone who used them. But she’s still afraid not to vote Democrat!

What happened from 1950 to 1965 was economic growth and big increases in family income. The transfers actually had a small effect on the rate of poverty in the War on Poverty. It just grew the government bureaucracy. The largest gains ever for the bottom quintile was before the War on Poverty. What happened after the War on Poverty was the slide in marriages and children being left in poverty.

By 1965 only 13.9 percent of American families were officially classified as poor, down from 32 percent in 1947 and 18.5 percent in 1959. The recession has been over for 5.5 years, yet the government is supplying about 32% of the income (in transfers) for the poor and the rate is still higher than in 1965. Lack of marriage of the parents is probably the biggest reason for children in poverty. Two adults working full time at minimum wage are well above the poverty line (although they might not get as much as those earning less because they might lose their eligibility for gov’t programs). Norma

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato- journal/1985/5/cj5n1-1.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/childpoverty/united-states

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0235.htm

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/econ_sec/2013/income-and-poverty-of-older-americans-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf

The big lie Obama tells again and again

Another favorite lie of Obama is the BIG ONE--income gap/inequality. Few remember this but Bush took office with the effects of the 1999 recession on his hands; income of the top 1% plummeted well before 9/11. You've probably forgotten because Bush didn't waste a lot of breath blaming Clinton. And the income of the top 1% has been going up since, and has really taken off under Obama.  Have you heard him mention how well they are doing—surely you’ve seen the photos of the parties.

Also, wealthier households are usually married couples and better educated. Why promote education as a solution to poverty if you demonize those whose parents, grandparents and self have finished college? And do the math. Two wage earners with college educations are better off than a single mom who didn't finish high school. There will be a gap!

The biggest loss in wealth in 2008 was from the housing recession. Progressives will argue this to the grave, but it was our own federal bank regulations (the 1977 CRA and its expansion)  intended to help the poor by putting them in mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford and punishing banks if the didn’t, that created that. Blacks and Latinos were hurt the most in the housing collapse. CRA was bad for the poor and bad for the country, and ended up hurting everyone.

Also, people are retiring at a baby boomer rate--that means pensions pay less than jobs and people move down a quintile or two. We certainly did. Our children now have incomes much higher than ours, but it wasn't that way in 2000 when we had two incomes. Boomers also have different work rates and divorce rates than pre-boomers.  Women earned much more than previous generations, and the men earned less. After divorce, they both have less.

Yes, Obama’s big one is the wealth gap—the gap has always been there, but his policies plus factors he had no control over because they began years ago are the reason.  Yes, the federal government discourages marriage and encourages dependence on hand outs, and that’s not a good formula for wealth building.

Transfer of wealth

Just heard a Social Security defender on Fox News say that for every $1 in benefits, Social Security payments generate $2 in the economy. What about the two workers paying in for every retiree drawing Social Security? Some working for minimum wage at Wal-Mart or McDonald’s.  How would they be spending that money taken from them? This is generational transfer from the young to the old, not drawing on an investment or "trust fund.”

Both the working poor and the upper income rich have their wealth transferred to the middle class, the group that is the beneficiary directly and indirectly of most government policies and taxes, many for the misnamed War on Poverty, (but Social Security is probably the oldest and best example). According to the catalog of federal domestic assistance, there are 2,199 Federal assistance programs and most benefit the middle class either directly, or by employment. HHS has 19 offices and 461 programs; each with its own bureaucracy. Please don't blame Obama for this, or any political party.

Does the federal government really need "To maintain and expand existing markets for dairy which are vital to the welfare of milk producers in the United States." We still have "separate but equal" when it comes to Indians and anyone who is 1/4 Indian, with federal grants galore, including Tribal Colleges and Universities. For 50 years the federal government has been funding "conciliation and mediation services" to local groups to reduce "tensions, conflicts, and civil disorders arising from actions, policies, and practices that are perceived to be based on race, ethnicity, or national origin." Imagine the community organizers who live well on that one! And yet 93% of murdered blacks are killed by other blacks, mostly young with no racial or ethnicity motives.

A tiny percentage of federal grant money goes to the poor; most goes to the middle class in the form of jobs, contracts, conferences, travel, research grants, academic salaries, indirect costs to the institution for utilities, staff, overhead (can be as high as 60% of the grant) and that doesn't even include the buildings that are required and the trades and unions who benefit. One Appalachian grant I read through (about $76,000,000 a year) supposedly was training 20,000 students a year; it’s been going on since 1965—why aren’t they all successful and free of poverty at that rate?  Because the money goes to the teachers, social workers, facilities, grant writers, conferences, etc.

I should know--I've made a very nice middle class living on special government contracts funneled through Ohio State or the state of Ohio. I have been employed on USAID funds, FIPSE money, JTPA,  Department of Aging of Ohio; I have published research funded by the state and federal government, which was then purchased by the institutions for which I worked, which were funded in part by the government; I have done some very nice travelling on your dime—Washington, DC, San Antonio, Kansas City, Seattle, Detroit and Chicago.  I also have a teacher's pension which pays far better than Social Security which non-government workers get. Don’t get me wrong--I worked hard, and you got your tax dollar’s worth, however, few poor people were lifted out of poverty.  Primarily the middle class benefited, including me.  Go to this website and type "library" or even something more exotic, like fashion or travel,  into the search window. https://www.cfda.gov/

Catty remarks

Of the top 20 wealthiest people in the federal government (Congress, Judiciary, Executive and appointments to cabinet, etc.), only 6 are Republicans. Two of the Democrats are not elected, but appointed by the President. Next time you hear the President talk about "fat cats," think of those who surround and protect him.

Open Secrets

None, however, are as rich as Julia Dreyfuss or Oprah, who both supported Obama and are worth $2.9 billion and $2.8 billion.

Why does the “caring” left discourage wealth?

The earthquake in Haiti was a magnitude of 7.0. According to Wikipedia, the 1989 Loma Prieta quake in San Francisco was either 7.0 or 6.9 depending on which scale is used. In other words, the intensities were fairly similar. Haiti is devastated. If the New York Times is correct, the death toll could be in the tens of thousands. The death toll in the 1989 quake was 63, if you include indirect deaths due the quake.

The difference is wealth. San Francisco is one of the wealthiest areas in our part of the world, while Haiti is the poorest. Poverty makes natural disasters worse. Wealth mitigates natural disasters. You would think that those who worry about the poor of the world would promote policies that increase wealth. Instead, they push policies that restrain wealth creation, and they do it intentionally and knowing it will restrain wealth creation.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/wealth-poverty-and-natural-disasters/

Class warfare in a graph—the Buffett rule

The tiny, almost invisible smudge at the top is the Buffett reduction of the deficit. This nonsense us purely to create anger and hostility toward successful people and lie about how much they actually do pay in taxes.

Occupy Columbus

A group has assembled in Columbus, the Occupy Wall Street wannabees, not to demonstrate on behalf of the poor, but to ask demand the stuff others have created or earned--their wealth, their companies and corporations, their money that goes to foundations, their lifestyles. They are calling themselves the 99%, saying 1% have 20% of the wealth (and pay 40% of the income taxes). Income isn't wealth, as we all know, and they demand a share of their wealth funnelled through the government, of which they will receive very little after the layers of bureacracy are paid their grand salaries and benefits. If they truly are representatives of the 99%, there would be Christians among this motley crew.

I find that hard to imagine, outside of the PAJAMA (Peace and Justice and More Aid) Christians. Christians, those called by the name of Jesus Christ, are those bought, purchased, ransomed with the blood of the Lamb who are a Kingdom of Priests called from every tribe and language and people and nation to serve God. (Rev. 5:9) They already have every possible riches, wealth, understanding, wisdom, and power to use in their worship of God, so why would they trade that for these trinkets?

No need to cut entitlements for the poor

Thomas Sowell suggests Congress start with entitlements for the rich. If you saw John Stossel's program on Fox last week, he suggested the same thing.

Sowell writes: "My plan would start by cutting off all government transfer payments to billionaires. Many, if not most, people are probably unaware that the government is handing out the taxpayers' money to billionaires. But agricultural subsidies go to a number of billionaires. Very little goes to the ordinary farmer. Big corporations also get big bucks from the government, not only in agricultural subsidies but also in the name of "green" policies, in the name of "alternative energy" policies, and in the name of whatever else will rationalize shoveling the taxpayers' money out the door to whomever the administration designates, for its own political reasons. The usual political counterattacks against spending cuts will not work against this new kind of spending-cut approach. How many heart-rending stories can the media run about billionaires who have lost their handouts from the taxpayers? How many tears will be shed if General Motors gets dumped off the gravy train?"

To Cut Deficits, It's Best To Pick Low-Lying Fruit - Investors.com

How to promote a social agenda with medical statistics

If I were to tell you I still have my 1955 waist measurement, I wouldn't exactly be lying, but I would be measuring my thigh and not my waist with a tape measure and my fingers crossed. So it is with "developed countries" medical statistics like this one--"The U.S. spends more money per person on medical care than any other developed country in the world." (JAMA, July 28, 2010 citing OECD 2009 statistics). Notice, that's "per person" and not per citizen as it is in most countries. Someday I'd like to see a breakdown, by developed country, of non-citizens in their health care system, people who arrive with exotic diseases, not knowing the language, and with unfamiliar cultural patterns. Of course, it's a bit difficult to flee to Ireland or Finland from Guatemala or Haiti, isn't it?

And since we have so many ethnicities in the USA, I'd like to see a comparison of health and disease of Scandinavian Americans as compared to their 2nd and 3rd cousins once removed in Norway, Sweden and Finland, or 2nd generation middle class Mexican Americans compared with their peasant cousins still living in the home village in Mexico. Or Haitian American doctors and rock stars compared to working family in Port-Au-Prince. Oh, those aren't developed countries are they? No, but those new Americans had American healthcare resources at their disposal.

Obamacare trumped up measurements did not just come in since he took office in 2009--his plans have been in many government plans and planning for decades. Here's one of three "medical models" (the others being clinical and public health) currently in place, according to JAMA, July 28 (Commentary, p. 465, R. H. Brook)

1. Redistribution of wealth; 2. meaningful guaranteed jobs for all adults to have the income to pursue healthy behavior; 3. helping children feel safe and be healthy and ready to learn; 4. empowering women and communities so that they can work more effectively to increase the health of the population.

I'd truly love to see a medical study of Americans with meaningful jobs, able to afford the best health care and education who are politically empowered, who also are obese, who smoke, and who engage in dangerous and risky behaviors. Now that would be a study for the books, because I know a lot of people with unhealthy lifestyles who have all the perks of life that Dr. Brook describes in his commentary.

The deep desire to control others' behavior and lives (for their own good and the betterment of society and mother earth) is not just ingrained in the government--it's in medicine, academe, education, religion and just about any other field that requires a college education.

Oprah and Orpah

Oprah (no last name needed) is the richest woman in the United States. . . and no, the lists don't say that because they include women who got their wealth from their family status, and inheritance--wife, widow, daughter, granddaughter, etc. Oprah actually earned her billions. And then there's Orpah, the check-out clerk (not her real name). Orpah is a Biblical name, the daughter-in-law of Ruth (means "she who turned back") and Oprah is probably a misspelling of that Biblical name on her birth certificate.

Poor Orpah behind the cash register is about Oprah's age, but she's white, skinny, with a long gray pony tail, a sullen grimace for all the customers, and no fashion sense at all, unless baggy t-shirts and work boots are in style.

So, here's a question for all you Democrats and liberal Republicans. How much of Oprah's wealth should be redistributed to Orpah who didn't get the personality, looks or education to become a successful talk show host and media mogul? She's a victim. Maybe her parents died; maybe she had an abusive husband; maybe she was a single mom.  Just because she rarely speaks to the customers and isn't photogenic, didn't pursue an education (although I really don't know--perhaps there were no scholarships or loans for skinny, unathletic white teen girls in the 1970s) doesn't mean she deserves to have so much less money than Oprah. She'd probably enjoy a few of those acres by the ocean in California, or attentive personal assistants, or dining out in fancy restaurants, or even Oprah's health care plan.

So, liberals, how would you redistribute Oprah's wealth to Orpah? And how much before Oprah would notice it was even gone?

The Wealth Gap, Research and Policy Brief May 2010

THE RACIAL WEALTH GAP INCREASES FOUR FOLD shouts the headline of the liberal think tank at Brandeis, the Institute on Assets and Social Policy ( IASP), May 2010 report. I looked around for a definition of a "household" but couldn't find one for this wealth gap study. Nor could I find a contact to ask. Also, I haven't seen any mention in the news reports I've seen that the gap between wealthy white households and middle income white households is much bigger than between middle income whites and blacks. Someone needs to look at marriage. Even in middle class white households, children before marriage is becoming socially acceptable--but it's still financially a bad, bad idea, especially for the children. The women's movement just hates to tell women this, but "marrying up" is the best way to go for women. Postponing marriage until you're 35 and moving up the career track doesn't necessarily "create wealth." And savings rates--couldn't find anything in the summary. Also, someone needs to ask one of these think tanks on the left if all the social programs put in place since Johnson's War on Poverty have been working against minorities or have they just been buying votes.

http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Racial-Wealth-Gap-Brief.pdf

Who do they come for next?

The Obama administration has gone to a great deal of effort to destroy the livelihood of many well-off, well-educated, talented people--for no reason other than they are rich people who supply jobs and investment opportunities for others. Even the most radical appointments and groupies around the president have come from very comfortable, middle class or upper class life styles. Since most people in the U.S. didn't inherit their wealth or life style, what's all the anger about when people move up the quintiles to the next level? I've been in four of the five myself. So if they kill off the potentially poor before they are born because they believe they will have a miserable life, and the unacceptably rich after they become successful, who will they come for next. You?