What is the bottom line?

I had a nice Thanksgiving Day, and I hope you did too, Kode.

I'm not going to agree that capitalism and profit are the root cause of our problems. I think a government that is elected by the 80% I spoke of should be seeing to it that the 80% are able to thrive and succeed because of capitalism and profit. But the government elected by the 80% simply doesn't do that. And the reason it doesn't do that is that we have a flaw in our system, and that flaw is that members of congress may remain there in congress for a lifetime - if they play ball. Play ball with whom? The ones who bribe them with their "donations", that's who.

Government is the real power. Capitalism lives within the laws of the land created by government. But if government is corrupted ... see where that's going?

If the U.S. ever fixes that flaw, it will transform our government for the better. We could entirely change the motive for wanting to do congressional service.

Like I said, give me any major problem our nation faces, and I can link it to the actions of corrupted career politicians who either deliberately do the wrong thing or deliberately do nothing - because everything they vote on, they vote on with an eye on the next election, and, therefore, with fealty and subservience to their biggest donors. What's best for America is irrelevant.

 

Preoccupation with the present state of our economy has overshadowed the importance of intangible values, and materialism has replaced these as the new standard. The sanctity of the individual has been compromised, and the extent of availability of our inalienable rights is now contingent upon our credit ratings and bank accounts.

Therein lies the problem. Our people build our economy. Money is the by-product of the labors of a coordinated effort of a unified labor force existing, ideally, in a value-oriented society. Money is our own invention. Money exists to serve us; we do not exist to serve money. WE, THE PEOPLE, are the United States of America. WE, THE PEOPLE, define the values of our nation, and our values define us. Political arguments which consider the economy of primary importance, minimizing the human factor, are obviously falling short of the principles of idealism that our forefathers deemed necessary to maintain our unity.

 

Economically, the challenge is international competition. The 1950's are long gone when the U.S. had between 30% and 40% of the world's total output (depending on what source you read). Today, there are many countries that are worthy competitors (who would have thought South Korea would have advanced so far?). The U.S. can still compete with anyone, but we need fair rules and a level playing field.

Internally, our problems are a difference in governing philosophy. One side believes in equal opportunity for all Americans and one side desires equal outcomes for all Americans. This is a fundamental gap that is not easily bridged. I have no answer for it. It will always be a source of tension.

 

There is no auch thing but if you are talking supply side 1996-2000, 2003-2007. When did "trickle up" work?

 

Why does the Fed exist? Who wants it?

 

For whom did the state create the corporation and why? One sentence should be enough.

 

Nope national defense and the Tax ans Spend clause is about funding the federal government and paying its operating expenses ans debts jotbproviding you with sustinence.

 

Not in the least and are a key reason we have the western civilization we have.

 

And then what?

 

I think most people know that the DNC did a number of things to promote Hillary and demote Bernie. And analysts have concluded that on a level playing field, Bernie would have won the vote. So pro-capitalist forces of the status quo stole the election. Then it was Hillary against Trump and even then the Democrat got 3 million more votes than Trump. And Trump got votes from 29% of the voting-age public. That's all. That's who put him in the W.H. Yet the electoral college said "to hell with the people and popular vote; we're going to select Trump". So Trump wasn't the more populate candidate either. It's hard to see a "people's choice" anywhere in that.

Bernie certainly would not have ended capitalism. He said he was a "democratic socialist in the tradition of FDR". IOW he would have fought for reforms, and he listed them. But even then the "powers that be" said "no". They wanted someone who would go gang busters for major corporations and the wealthy corporate elite.

Why? What was so important about favoring that small section of the economy and population? Their power. Their money and the influence it buys and the campaigns it finances. They wanted the economy to continue going in the direction it's going with consolidations, mergers, monopoly, increasing wealth disparity, the diminution of democracy that increasing wealth disparity brings, and increasing poverty. But you think the economic system that brought us here and the wealth of the powerful are not the cause?

Again, Trump was "elected" by 29% of the voting-age public. From what I see your 80% is imaginary. It looks to me like a meaningless number except in theories.

So the electoral system "should" work, but doesn't, and the reason is that they are bought out by big money. I think I got that right. And why does big money work to get their way? ... for wealth.... extraordinary wealth.... and power to influence. And why do they have such outrageous wealth and power? Business. And why does a highly successful business reward them with such outrageous wealth and power? -the economic structure is designed to allow it and to preserve it and to keep it going.

Now, who is going to change that so it isn't our condition any longer? Is the DNC, RNC, and electoral college going to allow a Bernie Sanders to get in and undo it all? And if it is undone, will the powerful corporate elite lie down and roll over and give up? No. They are rich enough to own a department of lawyers who are dedicated to finding ways around it.

Do you remember that Clinton I believe it was, got a law through that said corporations could no longer write off any CEO salary in excess of $1 million? He was trying to keep CEOs from acquiring outrageous wealth and power. And what happened? Corporate attorneys went to work finding a way around it. And they found it. Now the corporations get around it by issuing back-dated stock options to the CEO as part of their compensation,.... –something you and I cannot possibly get, ... –and the corporation takes their retained earnings and buys back a ton of stock, boosting the share price, and the corporation can write off the cost of the options and the stock buy-back. Then the CEO sells his shares for a big, big gain. Hence, the CEO earns more than $1 million, the corporation writes it off as an expense, and the stock market keeps going up based on manipulation with no real business value behind it. (Of course QE1,2,3, and 4 helped too.) And you think term limits will fix this?

You fell for it. They would love you to believe government is the problem. But I think I've adequately represented the argument that government does the bidding of the top economic forces. Even FDR famously said "I saved capitalism". The government want very much to have a healthy, functioning, successful economy. Think about the raves and cheers when annual reports tell of increasing markets, increased sales, increasing profits, rising stock prices. That's what pleases government. What is government's reaction when the opposite is the case? They take action to rectify the situation. Government's job is to support, enable, and advance the economy.

Again, who will do it? And who will keep it done? And why perpetuate a system that is prone to problems like this when the system can be fundamentally changed to an entirely new and well-designed system? We saw most of FDR's reforms get eliminated or neutered to the point of ineffectiveness. We see that "we the people" have to keep fighting for fixes that we already won. We see elections get stolen and nothing done to correct the crime. So who is going to do it?

And I've shown I can link those politicians, career or not, to economic forces originating with the top corporate elite and the system they depend on to keep them powerful.

BTW, Trump is another "non-career politician" and again we see that inexperience brings its own array of problems.

 

Bookchin and Ocalan view hierarchies as giving one another mutual support by normalizing the form of domination. They believe that the permanent abolition of any one hierarchy requires the abolition of them all. Homophobia, racism, capitalism, statism, misogyny, etc.

 

Which people? And how?

Money is a condensed, concentrated representation of labor and its value, developed to simplify trade transactions and avoid the problems inherent in bartering for goods and work.

Didn't the iPhone and computer define our current values along with education and advertising, etc.? You speak nice-sounding and philosophical words of idealism but I'm not seeing reality in them. Our values are greatly determined by our culture, and culture arises in service to the economics. Think back about how we came to acquire some of our values. -do we value low taxation? two cars or more per family? Cell phones? Black Friday?

"Values of our nation"? Like off-shoring jobs, cutting services to the needy, transitioning to part-time jobs, phase-out of pension programs, global warming, oil pipelines through Native American sacred lands because the white community resisted, a seeming genocide against blacks, resistance to healthcare for all, increasing and outrageous wealth disparity, cutting taxes for the rich, inability to fund road repairs and other infrastructure needs, restriction of free access to the internet? You mean those "values"? See, if we take refuge in comfortable terms and ideas we can avoid looking at the upsetting realities, and we get nowhere other than where the powerful elite will take us. It leaves us disarmed and "pliable".

And in the context of our current realities, which are, after all, the subject of this thread, principles of idealism keep us out of the struggle to solve problems or even successfully define them.

 

ALL people who choose to or are allowed to participate in multiple coordinated efforts to maximize and enhance our nation's productivity.

. . . . Developed to AID people, not to enslave them.

The main factor precipitating our economic woes has been the gradual shifting of our values, once favoring the supreme sanctity of individual rights, but presently overshadowed by the now dominant force of money. This situation was foreseen by our founding fathers, who warned against the dangers of wealth overriding principles, but nevertheless, we lay all of our hopes and prayers upon the altar of the stock exchange. Despite our present extreme dependence upon money even for survival, we must not allow our lives to be ruled by it. By compromising these values, we are waiving our rights to dispute exploitive actions from a moral perspective, as well as forfeiting a common trust.

Idealism IS the foundation of our government; if you want to confine the discussion within the parameters of current realities, I suspect that you want to condemn the system, not repair it.

Socialism is an idealistic concept, too. . . . Also vulnerable to corruption.

 

Bottom line is....

Corporations own the government....Big oil....Big pharma....industrial military contractors....corporate farms....the S&P 500 list of corporations....and on and on and on...they own all the lobbyists, and all the congress and senate and White House. It would take all the billionaires in America to change it, and good luck with that...

 

The moment politicians and government institutions started equating corporations on par with constituents, the rules of the economy were tilted against the people of the United States. The Citizens United ruling sealed it.

 

Our system for selecting a president is written into the Constitution. It was written in a day when Americans wanted a very limited federal government and states that were very independent of each other. They wanted the states to elect the President, and they also wanted to dilute the power of large states. This, for example, is why the smallest states and the largest states may have two senators in the Senate. Originally, those Senators were elected by the state legislatures, not directly by the people. The only federal offices elected directly by the people were the members of the House. The electoral college system also dilutes the power of the largest states. But I think that is a debate for another time in another thread. I don't want to divert off onto a whole other topic.

As to your question at the end of this portion, no, I don't think capitalism is to blame for all those problems you listed. I think human nature is to blame for that. But we are a nation of laws. And laws are supposed to curb and control the dark sides of human nature. So, we elect representatives to make laws. And so, that brings us right back to the people who make the laws. If there is a problem with them, there will be a problem with the laws they make. And there is a problem with them. They are completely corrupted. And the reason they are corrupted is because of the opening the Constitution left for that corruption to seep in. IMO, the people also made a mistake when they enacted the 17th Amendment, allowing the direct election of state senators. When senators were elected by their state legislators they were beholden only to the interests of their state, in harmony with their state legislators. By changing that to a direct vote of the people, it opened the door for those senators to be corrupted by interests that have nothing to do with their state or the people of their state.

If it were up to me, I would repeal the 17th Amendment, bringing back the integrity of the members of the Senate, and I would impose term limits on members of the House. I might change their term to one 4-year term, or limit them to two 2-year terms. But, in any case, their time there would be limited, and the power that the big donors wield over them would be eliminated. These limits would attract a whole different set of people. They would be people who just wanted the honor of serving their country and representing the people of their districts. It would also absolutely gut the power of the two major parties - a good thing. If you're only going to be in congress for a few years, and the Speaker of the House is from your party, and he wants you to vote a certain way that you don't believe is good for the country or for your state, you wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't care if the Speaker didn't like it.

The reason the congressional leaders can wield power over the members, and the reason the big donors can corrupt them so thoroughly all comes back to the same thing. It is that congressional service is seen as a lifelong career, and, to continue and advance that career, you must be a loyal soldier to your congressional leaders and to the big donors who back your reelection campaigns. And so, our representatives are turned into liars and hypocrites. They spend their time telling us how they've got our backs, telling us how their fighting for our welfare, all the while doing just the opposite. Accordingly, and predictably, all of the inequities you talk about are legal. They are legal because our lawmakers make them legal. Why in the hell should 20% of the population have complete and utter control over the Congress if it isn't because of the established quid pro quo: "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." "We gave you a nice big donation to your last election campaign, and we're going to do it again at the next election. Vote no on this law. Vote yes on this law."

What I think is imaginary is the divide in this country. I believe that the vast, vast majority of us all want the same things, fundamentally. Peace, security, fairness, prosperity. As you know, I'm a fairly conservative fellow. But my neighbors ... committed progressive liberals. But you know what? I've lived next door to them for 33 years, and ya know what? They live just like my wife and I. They're peaceful, law-abiding, friendly, family oriented, financially successful. When our kids were little, they all played together. When my wife and I got news that my son had been wounded in battle, who came over and sat with us and consoled us? They did. We look after each other's homes when we're away on vacation. We exchange gifts on Christmas. We share news of our children and grandchildren. We don't discuss politics, but if we did, we would find ourselves identifying the same problems, and we would just have differences in what the solutions were. But essentially, we want the same things, we need the same things, and we both want our nation to do the right things.

IMO, the differences between the right and left (excluding the fringes) are blown way out of proportion. I also happen to think that this polarization benefits our corrupted members of congress. It doesn't hurt them; it helps them. It keeps us distracted from what they're doing, and, more often, what they're not doing. Have you ever noticed that problems in this country are allowed to just exist endlessly? They fester and bleed, and nobody does anything. Decades can pass, and nobody does anything. Ever notice that? Why is that? It's because "doing something" is politically risky. You can be held accountable for "doing something". And Congress only wants to get reelected and are therefore risk averse. Their calculation is that it is better to do nothing than to do something. Remember, you can always blame the other party for the problem. "The other party" is the excuse for doing what you really want to do ... which is exactly nothing. This is the calculation of a "career congress".

Kode, the lawyers can only find ways around it if the lawmakers give them ways around it. And only career lawmakers will do that for all the reasons I've already explained. You are making my case for me.

Term limited lawmakers would have no reason to support the laws that make these things possible.

You're right that government "does the bidding of the top economic forces", and I have explained why it does that. It is because of personal, long term self-interest and ambition.

I kinda smiled when you said "What is government's reaction when the opposite is the case? They take action to rectify the situation." Yeah, right, Kode. That's the dance they do. The crash of 2007 can be traced right back to the Congress, and the laws they passed for the banking and investment industry. And then they all acted like they were the heroes for taking action to rectify the situation. They are the ones who poked the hole in the ship, but they would like us all to forget that and only remember that they put a patch over the hole. This is the dance they do. This is the dance of the career politician, Kode.

Well, you asked what is the bottom line? You asked what is the fundamental underlying cause of our nation's problems, and I gave you my opinion as to what it is. So who is going to fix it? I have the same question as you. The politicians are not going to fix it, so who is? All I can say is that I am going to remain an Independent, and I'm going to continue to vote for "insurgent" candidates who I believe have the right ideas. One of the reasons I voted for Trump is that he said he wanted Congress to have term limits, and you now know what I think of term limits. Now Trump hasn't talked about term limits since his election, but he has had other things on his plate. I don't know if he is going to completely drop the idea, or if he's waiting. But there was zero chance Hillary would have made it an issue, so even if Trump drops the idea, at least I know it wouldn't have been brought up by Hillary, and so at least I voted for the one who talked about it. That isn't much, but at least I tried.

And I think term limits would be the way to "de-link" them. The lack of term limits is the underlying reason why congress must obey its masters. If they don't obey, they're out, and they don't want to be out. If they were all going to be out in a few years, those great economics powers would have no power over them. Congress would be free to craft economic and tax rules that benefited the majority of their constituents, not a small minority.

I don't think it's his inexperience as much as it's his personality. I will tell you that, in general, and with some exception, I agree with the policies he has voiced support for.

I don't care for certain aspects of his personality, however.

But I detested Hillary. I thought she was a total fraud, with a record of incompetence, a pathological liar, and irredeemably malicious. I'll take Trump's inexperience and personality defects over her any day. But let's not deflect off to an argument about Trump and Hillary. This has been a good discussion.

Seth

 

So our intangible values have largely been replaced by materialism (thanks largely to corporate advertising campaigns) and "our people build our economy". Sorry. This isn't coming together. The two ideas seem to be disjointed and separate issues but I think you're trying to paint a picture relevant to the thread. I'm just not seeing it. Yes we have become quite materialistic and yes people, -not magic and not creatures, -build the economy. And it all has one or more underlying causes.

Sounds philosophical but not very relevant to the subject. Am I missing something?

Ah!

While I don't see this as "the bottom line" since such shifts have an underlying cause, I don't know when individual rights enjoyed supreme sanctity either.

Well ok, I do see that it is true that money has taken a dominant position in things of importance for some. Some find money important because they have trouble keeping the family above water, and others find it important enough to horde far more than what can reasonably be considered "their fair share". And the latter seems to me to be the subject of that warning of the founding fathers.

We do?

I can understand a family with a member suffering cancer or other horror but lacking money to pay the do-pays, deductibles, premiums, etc. in addition to supporting the rest of the family having her thoughts dominated by money and how to keep the house. And I think her trust in the government to honor their claimed commitment to "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of citizens would be expected to diminish.

Idealism won't repair it. Idealism must be translated into practicality to solve problems and the first item on the list must be the need to define and describe the problem fully and accurately in order to fix it. Discussions of idealism is the domain of those wanting to obscure and bury problems they cannot solve and fear facing.

Everything is. And yes, socialism has its idealistic and philosophical side, but that is confined to books where it belongs. Socialists don't trot it out to divert and obscure issues. Issues are in their interest. And all systems are vulnerable to corruption but some are designed to lead to corruption from the beginning. Such is capitalism. It originated with its own seeds of its own doom.

So once again we arrive at the economy, -capitalism, -as the underlying problem.

 

Yes, and was it not big business and wealth that produced such a change? That would make big business the cause of that change, and the economic form, itself, is the cause of big business. So again, we arrive at the economic form of capitalism as the bottom line cause.

 

As Robert Reich explains, there is NO SUCH THING as a "free market". All markets are governed by the rules setup by government. There has traditionally been a cyclical period to how big business gets before collapsing in on itself, or the people pushing back. The problem is that ever since the 60's, big business has spent huge sums of money at rigging the system in it's favor, and now that politicians are addicted to this money, it isn't easy to get them off the lobbyists' opium.

 

Yes, well, that's all great but it doesn't change the fact that Trump was not elected by a popular vote of the people even if we only look at those who actually voted. So the 80-20 idea gets lost in it.

But can you go through my points where I connect the dots as I see them and refute them one-by-one? I've done that with your comments I think.

1. How does that mesh with the Lincoln's notion of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?
2. How can we be sure that keeping the election of senators in the hands of state legislators would prevent corruption?
3. Without enormous profits and enormous wealth, there would be no such corruption. So that makes our economic system the bottom line.

The rich and powerful find ways around just about everything we put in their path.

And the wealthy powers would be unable to find a way to buy off politicians. Really?
Bold face above: Without enormous profits and enormous wealth, there would be no such corruption and government would have no reason to do wrong. So that makes our economic system the bottom line.

Ok, let's cut to the chase. You're saying that there is a way to make politicians honest and keep them in service to the people. While I doubt the wealthy who run A.L.E.C. and who have far more resources than politicians have to rein them in, it doesn't affect the bottom line. You are still saying the cause of it is wealth buying favors even if you believe you have a way we can stymie them and that process. I suspect it would fail in the end, but that aside, the cause you are citing is still wealth, and wealth results from private ownership of business for private profit.

Now answer this for me: Which do you think would succeed sooner,... --the battle of getting someone to eliminate or effectively modify the 17th Amendment and then successfully raise support in congress to do it and pass it with the powerful fighting all the way to prevent it, or the broad establishment of more and larger worker-owned, worker-operated co-ops across the country?


[/QUOTE]What I think is imaginary is the divide in this country. I believe that the vast, vast majority of us all want the same things, fundamentally. Peace, security, fairness, prosperity. As you know, I'm a fairly conservative fellow. But my neighbors ... committed progressive liberals. But you know what? I've lived next door to them for 33 years, and ya know what? They live just like my wife and I. They're peaceful, law-abiding, friendly, family oriented, financially successful. When our kids were little, they all played together. When my wife and I got news that my son had been wounded in battle, who came over and sat with us and consoled us? They did. We look after each other's homes when we're away on vacation. We exchange gifts on Christmas. We share news of our children and grandchildren. We don't discuss politics, but if we did, we would find ourselves identifying the same problems, and we would just have differences in what the solutions were. But essentially, we want the same things, we need the same things, and we both want our nation to do the right things. [/QUOTE]
Reminds me of my wife and me and our neighbors next door. We help each other and visit and so forth. And we know about the age-old "divide and conquer" strategies.

BINGO!

Yes, it is one of my main points. What I see is an economic system that creates problems and that cannot solve them or allow them to be solved for fear of damaging profits or the business itself. I can list many examples.

Refer back to my comments about the $1 million write-off limit on CEO salaries.
Without the corrupting influence of extreme wealth, none of this would be a problem. There would be no need to such restraints and no motive to get around anything if the government only had the public to serve as best they can.

Great. Who's going to get that law through, or the modification of the 17th Amendment? Who?
But the "reasons" that you refer to are what if not extreme wealth and its influence and power?

Yes, and they allowed it to develop and happen for the benefit of those who benefited, and they pretended to be upset and busy "fixing it" for the same people's benefit AND for their own benefit in making the public think they were on top of it and doing their job. But without enormous profits and enormous wealth, there would be no such corruption. There would be no motivation. So that makes our economic system the bottom line.

Yes but really Seth, did you think he could find a way to get term limits through Congress? And didn't you hear how unhinged he was? That was a major warning flag to me. But we have to think about how it is possible or impossible to get these nice promises done. He has lied and misrepresented his abilities and intentions on a number of things that got him the vote.

Now, you ask who is going to fix it in my scheme of things. Workers. WSDEs will happen much sooner than any changes to term limits or the 17th Amendment. Research Mondragon Corporation in Spain. Look into Arizmendi Bakery in California. I have plenty of information on this. Ask me anything. And it's spreading in the US and around the world, fast. The pace is increasing as people see what WSDEs are. And it's in its infancy.

But you forgot to consider the chance of him getting it done even if he raised the issue. Bernie wanted the same thing but I knew there was no chance. No one or two or ten people will get it done due to powerful resistance. And that is mainly because of the power of extreme wealth and profits, which again brings us back to the economy. Without an economy based on private ownership of business and private profit, such extreme wealth would not happen, so it is the private enterprise that is the cause or bottom line.

It doesn't matter. The House and Senate would never pass it.

So do I !! But I also knew he was a bloviator, a liar, and emotionally disturbed such that he considers himself first and most, and would not keep his word.

I agree.

 

Easy.

Premarital sex.

 

The difference between perceiving you have a "problem" and not, is being happy and satisfied. Feeling good about yourself, feeling you can make your own way, control your own destiny. Everyone seeks the same three things- Success, Love, Happiness. They may define them differently of course, but to them, those are the things that make life worth living.
If you have two groups of people- small societies, so to speak- and one has this and the other does not, you would see the first group loving life and working together, while the other fights and bickers and often gets violent.

People were happy, and sometimes still are, before and without an economy as we know it. People can be poor and happy, just as they can be rich and miserable. It is how we see ourselves that makes the difference, and if we know how to run our own lives or not.

Truly strong people are in control of their own lives, and they usually are very happy. They have the power- and it comes from the inside; no one can give it to you. This is the power to he happy, to be in control, to deal with whatever comes- no matter how large or small the economy, the community, or anything else. Personal freedom and success.

Unhappy people lack that power. They believe that others hold power over them- and do not know that the only way that can happen is for them to surrender it.
Those people measure themselves by others, and regardless of the average of wealth in their society, they see their value only as relative to being greater or lesser than others.
Sadly- they believe that others control everything, and they are weak- and thus they blame others for the problems in their life, and they expect others to fix them.
These are weak dependent people, believing they are victims. Unfortunately, it is easier to be weak than be strong- and even though many of these people put up a front of strength, even to the extent of trying to control all others- they live in fear.

Economy is simply a convenient way of trading our productivity. As our civilization has become so large and complex, and the people so dependent on the balance of finances it appears to dominate life. However it is still just a way in which we navigate life, a tool we use. In order for it to work, each of us must understand it, must have the skill to make it work. If we don't- the economy seems to be running us, instead of the other way around. It appears to be the problem, as a thousand other things do. But the real problem is the way in which we are in touch with our own abilities, to be able to master our own lives. Unfortunately, that skill- and it is a skill- is becoming less and less common.

The problem is internal to each of us. The answers are internal in each of us. The symptoms are both internal and external. We are making the world what it is, not the other way around. The condition of our society is a reflection and product of the condition of our minds.

.

 

Oh wow, and here I was thinking it was caused by a preference for Coors instead of Bud.

 

And people I know who are poor and happy have no interest in politics and keeping up with what affects them.

I can offer my own situation as an example. I am married to the same woman for 35 years. We planned and worked the plan. We saved. We both had good jobs and saved far more than average. I retired at 61. She retired at 58. We bought a bigger house in the country so we could do what we wanted to do with the space and we paid cash for it, -no mortgage. We have enough income to do whatever we want and are much better off financially and in other ways than most. We succeeded.

But I see others not so fortunate. They also worked hard and did their best. But they weren't as lucky as we were. They barely have enough to get by while working for a wealthy businessman. That's not right.

Also, I see others with inadequate healthcare. I see others working two part-time jobs with no benefits who will not be able to retire when they're old and feeble. I see people who went to college affordably who are now struggling to put their child through college and going into serious debt. I see people who didn't realize their politicians were lying to them about their water being safe until it was too late, and now they and their children have been poisoned by lead. That's not right. And much, much more is not right.

I'm well enough off, but it's very hard to be happy while fellow man is suffering unless I bury my head in the proverbial sand and resolve to not care.

My spiritual convictions make me care.

 

If it helps, worrying about it never solved anything. There will always be poor people, and quite often, it's the bleeding heart do-gooders of the world that make their situation worse by taking away the incentive to do better.

A perfect example of that is the welfare trap. If you pay people 1,000 a month for doing nothing, and tell them that they will lose that grand if they get a job, they're not going to get a job unless it pays significantly more than a grand a month.