I'm not offended by successful people at all. Of course, I don't define successful by their bank balances, but by their happiness in what they do and their ability to sustain themselves with a relatively small degree of struggle.

 

I'm offended by people who tell me that my duty is an American is to ensure that someone else is successful because those that have somehow support me.

 

I believe you have nothing to be offended about. My statement was about how some people do not like others simply because they have been an economic success in a business venture. Some act as if it is an evil thing to make a lot of money and want to take it from them in the form of taxes, as a punishment for daring to have have more than others.

I'm not offended by successful people at all. Of course, I don't define successful by their bank balances, but by their happiness in what they do and their ability to sustain themselves with a relatively small degree of struggle.

 

I'm offended by people who tell me that my duty is an American is to ensure that someone else is successful because those that have somehow support me.

 

I absolutely, truly don't think that I have ever heard anyone make that claim in my entire life.

Edited May 25, 200917 yr by rockmom

I fail to see the difference you cite from the places I noted where it seems government intervened and empowered the business owners and power barons. If there is a difference it would be that the ones in power are losing more today and in those other moments it was the ones out of power being squished out.

I disagree. Using troops to help maintain a strike would empower the workers. Taking over and running businesses from the White House is empowering the government.

Both parties favored the same basic agenda for different reasons - the "to big to fail" concept. The former administration liked it since it rationalized mergers, especially in the banking industry. These mergers lead to larger companies with (surprize) greater efficiencies (through layoffs and staff reductions) and thus greater profits (the end goal). The current administration has used the concept to now justify keeping GM out of "formal bankrupcy" and basically replacing the natural system for dealing with a financially broke company. In the mean time they were able to make a quick payoff to their key support base - the UAW leadership. They are also now in a position to payback others in their base since they can control the action or reactions from 2 of the major car companies. Environmentalists are payed off through the new milage standards. These standards have been fought by the car companies for years. Guess who is no longer fighting the standards since the government is the owner....

 

So the free marketplace has been turned on its head by both parties. Monopolies and ologopolies are almost always bad and almost alway corrupt the concepts of the Adam Smith and the free marketplace. Some do it for just plain greed and profits, some do it for other reasons. Regardless, dont expect the people or the workers to benefit. In regular bankrupcy pensions are tossed out like yesterdays paper. In the current government driven version contracts are scrapped and dealers are left stranded with no legal recourse.

I indicated in the above post that the current administration used its power to reward those who were key in its political victory. Here is interesting and possibility disturbing evidence to the extent the Chicago-style political pay-to-play is working on a national scale.

 

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/did-chrysler-target-republican-dealers-for-closure

 

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html

 

From the second article (like to it in the first article):

 

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

 

Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

 

In fact, there may have been other criteria involved: politics may have played a part. If this data can be validated, it would appear to be further proof that the Obama administration is willing to step over any line to advance its agenda.

 

It bodes poorly for America and the rule of law.

I indicated in the above post that the current administration used its power to reward those who were key in its political victory. Here is interesting and possibility disturbing evidence to the extent the Chicago-style political pay-to-play is working on a national scale.

 

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/did-chrysler-target-republican-dealers-for-closure

 

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html

 

From the second article (like to it in the first article):

 

Boy that's disturbing but it's just a wild story at this point. I guess the truth will come out in the bankruptcy court.