Personal Responsibility is definitely a two way street. But if you believe in free will then you also believe in letting others make their own choices. I'm all for everyone being responsible for themselves and me being personally responsible for helping the poor, that's why I give to various charities throughout the year and volunteer my time in various programs to help the less fortunate. I don't do it for praise most don't ever know any of the things I do on that nature and I rarely talk about it, but I do it for my own personal responsibility. God blessed me with an education, financial stability, and the good sense to manage my money, so I have my own responsibilties that come with those blessings.

 

^ This.

What does personal responsibility have to do with income?

 

Silly! Didn't you know that only the wealthy are responsible people? The most irresponsible people in the country are the lowest wage earners. The more responsible you are, the greater your wealth. Because nothing else impacts wealth but one's personal responsibility.

Giving to charities and volunteering are great, but neither of those change circumstances or systems that actually harm people. It gives them some short-term reprieve, but the system we have set up now is harming the poor and working class. Good Christians need to work to change the system.

 

I guess not all of us can be the perfect becon for Christianity that you are Ace.

Silly! Didn't you know that only the wealthy are responsible people? The most irresponsible people in the country are the lowest wage earners. The more responsible you are, the greater your wealth. Because nothing else impacts wealth but one's personal responsibility.

 

You joke about it, but if you actually looked at the majority of those that are wealthy, you'll find they are extremely responsible with their finances. Obviously there are other factors, but personal responsibility plays a huge role in it, whether you want to believe it or not.

I think that this issue is much more complex than simple "personal responsibility" or "capitalism". The point of the chart is to show the discrepancy between the growth of the wealth of the top earners versus the growth of the middle and low earners. At play here is the increase in costs as well. It is an interesting discepancy, and the answer is not simply that capitalism is good only for the wealthy. Nor is it that the middle and lower levels are not responsbile. Wages, in particular, have not grown at any significant rate in far more than just the last 2-3 years. The wealthy, despite the ups and downs of our economic cycles still have shown far greater growth in their accumulation than any other segment. What is the answer? I don't know. But ignoring the obvious, or eschewing the data as anti-capitalism is wrong.

 

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

You joke about it, but if you actually looked at the majority of those that are wealthy, you'll find they are extremely responsible with their finances. Obviously there are other factors, but personal responsibility plays a huge role in it, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

 

Another factor is opportunity and the opportunity to attain wealth is not the same for lower end of the chart as it is for the upper end. Factor in education and you tell me whose kids are getting a better education. Higher end or lower end?

Silly! Didn't you know that only the wealthy are responsible people? The most irresponsible people in the country are the lowest wage earners. The more responsible you are, the greater your wealth. Because nothing else impacts wealth but one's personal responsibility.

 

No one has even come close to saying anything like that. But you are foolish if you don't believe personal responsibility has a huge impact. Personal responsibility for yoru financial situation can go beyond just how you spend your money. Did you choose to get an education or did you drop out of high school? Did you do your best at work so that you could be in the runing for a promotion or did you just show up and try and get through the hours? All of those things are personal responsibility issues that will impact your financial situation. Now on the flip side there are things you can't control that affect it to, like the wealth of your family or some harsh medical disease that leaves you penniless, although if you get some sort of insurance out of a budget it can help prevent this. But again personal responsibility plays a big part.

Another factor is opportunity and the opportunity to attain wealth is not the same for lower end of the chart as it is for the upper end. Factor in education and you tell me whose kids are getting a better education. Higher end or lower end?

 

Financial Aid today won't deny anyone an education if they really want it. The wealth excuse for not getting an education just isn't a good one anymore, if you want an education you can get one.

Let me ask this, when it says avg income of family what does that mean? How many families are we talking about total? What I am trying to figure out is when it says .01% is making $25,000,000 what is the actual number? 100, 200, 1000, 10,000 families?

The poor in this country are mostly that way because there parents were that way and there parents before them. They went on government assistance generations ago and found it not to be so bad. The children know the system and they have children and they have children. The more they have the more money they get. It goes on and on and on. By the way, Paul says to the early Christians if you don't work you don't eat. He was not talking about the elderly and sick. To many able bodied men and women in todays society that want a free ride and know how to get it.

Let me ask this, when it says avg income of family what does that mean? How many families are we talking about total? What I am trying to figure out is when it says .01% is making $25,000,000 what is the actual number? 100, 200, 1000, 10,000 families?

 

There are 105 million "households" in the U.S. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

 

We don't know what the number of wage-earning households is (as opposed to retirees, et. al.) but lets just use 100 million. That gives you 10,000 "households" in the U.S. making $25 million or more. That's 200 "households" per state. Doesn't seem like all that many to me.

There are 105 million "households" in the U.S. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

 

We don't know what the number of wage-earning households is (as opposed to retirees, et. al.) but lets just use 100 million. That gives you 10,000 "households" in the U.S. making $25 million or more. That's 200 "households" per state. Doesn't seem like all that many to me.

 

200 hundred households would be 800 people in a state. Even in Kentucky that is a very small number.

I guess not all of us can be the perfect becon for Christianity that you are Ace.

 

Really??? That is what you thought I was saying and that I exude those? Really, or are you just being hateful because I struck a nerve.

Really??? That is what you thought I was saying and that I exude those? Really, or are you just being hateful because I struck a nerve.

 

Definitely not hateful ace. I interpreted it to be you saying "this is what I do, and it's better than what you guys do."

200 hundred households would be 800 people in a state. Even in Kentucky that is a very small number.

 

I think we're agreeing, but 200 households under the census figures = about 560 people (2.8 people per household). That includes children. Not all of the people are wage-earners. But we agree its not many peoople.