You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!!

[KNOWLEDGE]

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
                                                       
This piece of wisdom comes from Dr. Adrian Rogers.  It is really a simple concept but something the left cannot grasp.

[NCVol]

Interesting.  I put it into google to see the context and found this. 

http://dailymull.com/1284/The-Closing-Gap-Between-Right-and-Left

It's an interesting counterpoint to the meaning intended by those reading that passage.  But in reality, there is a truth to the premise that those making hundreds of millions do so by having others use their productive capacity to produce wealth for owners.  It's a fair question to ask, what is an appropriate share for an owner of a business to take that is mostly or completely generated by the efforts of dozens or hundreds or thousands of others.

The owner directs the efforts, and makes important and critical business decisions, and takes the risk of loss, but the wealth that Gates enjoys really IS the product of 10s of thousands of Microsoft employees.  Without them, he'd have no chance to be a multi-billionaire.  But of course, on the other hand, without Gates, those employees would NOT have a career at Microsoft, but would that niche have been filled by another company?  Who knows. 

Anyway, it's thought provoking, unless you're an idealogue, in which case the article will be seen as socialist propaganda at its finest. 

[LTC]

In the same vein, don't colleges...i.e. Tennessee, Alabama...get rich off the performance of the players?  How many of you neoconservatives believe colleges should pay their players...not just give them scholarships.  None, I guess, since that would be dividing the wealth.

[TheAngryVoice]

I dont have a problem with paying players, I should have been a bammer fan I guess.

[KNOWLEDGE]

Interesting.  I put it into google to see the context and found this. 

http://dailymull.com/1284/The-Closing-Gap-Between-Right-and-Left

It's an interesting counterpoint to the meaning intended by those reading that passage.  But in reality, there is a truth to the premise that those making hundreds of millions do so by having others use their productive capacity to produce wealth for owners.  It's a fair question to ask, what is an appropriate share for an owner of a business to take that is mostly or completely generated by the efforts of dozens or hundreds or thousands of others.

The owner directs the efforts, and makes important and critical business decisions, and takes the risk of loss, but the wealth that Gates enjoys really IS the product of 10s of thousands of Microsoft employees.  Without them, he'd have no chance to be a multi-billionaire.  But of course, on the other hand, without Gates, those employees would NOT have a career at Microsoft, but would that niche have been filled by another company?  Who knows. 

Anyway, it's thought provoking, unless you're an idealogue, in which case the article will be seen as socialist propaganda at its finest. 

Your response is well thought out but it doesn't address the issue at hand.    You are talking about owners making money off the work of their employees.     Rogers was talking about what will occurr when one group figures out they can be compensated for not working while another group figures out they will not be fully compensated for working.   

There was another famous quote that stated "a democracy will work only until the people figure out they can vote themselves money they didn't earn." (at least something to that effect).    The US is getting close to that point now.   This problem is made worse because one party has figured out how to use this to make over half of the electorate beholding to them thru welfare.

[NCVol]

If you read the piece, that premise can be taken two ways.

At the government level, we have SOME small number, tiny number, that depend on government for their livelihood.  A person working and making 18k who doesn't pay income taxes and gets some of his PR tax back through the earned income tax credit, which you'd call "welfare" is still working and getting paid for his work and is covering his own car payment and rental on his apt and in almost all cases paying substantial sums in all kinds of taxes, just not any INCOME taxes. 

But that's off the point.  From the tax standpoint, the billionaire is supporting a whole slew of others with his taxes.  But in many cases, isn't he supporting with his taxes some of the same low wage workers that allow him to amass BILLIONS largely through the work of others?  That flow of benefit works both ways.

It's an interesting subject to me.  What is a fair return on labor versus a fair return on capital and ownership?  It's the struggle of workers versus owners that's been going on for all time. 

[KNOWLEDGE]

However, when you reach the point (and we are fast approaching that) where a large percentage are not working but still reaping the benefits of those who are and the percentage of the highest earners are having more and more taken away, something will eventually give.

Name the great socialist societies in world history where the populace was a wealthy as America.     In this country, our poorest people own cars, televisions, computers, and eat 3 meals per day.    That's rare in most parts of the world and we are trying to become more and more like a socialist society just because "it's not fair that the rich keep getting richer."   

I don't get it.   Why continue to punish the successful and reward the lazy?   America is still the land of opportunity and anyone who truly wants to succeed can succeed to a certain level, if they are willing to work for it.

[NCVol]

There is a lot of truth to that, but what typically has happened in the past in this country is that wages increase as productivity increases.  Which makes sense.  When a worker adds more to profits by his labor, he gets to keep a portion of the amount that he adds, and the owner gets a share, and they BOTH benefit by making that job produce more wealth. 

With globalization, that equation has broken down, and productivity gains have NOT flowed to workers. There is too much competition from the Chinese and Indians etc. and productivity gains have hit bottom lines of companies with higher profits.  The rich HAVE gotten richer with the productivity boom of technology.  It's not arguable. The real "revenue" boom through 2007 was from corporate profits, but real wages didn't budge.

That is the issue that need addressing. 

BTW, I think "punish the successful and reward the lazy" is a simplification.  There are a lot of counties in TN where the median wage is around 20k, and all of those would be the "lazy" according to the simplistic republican talking points since they pay no income taxes.  Really, are all those people lazy when there are only jobs at their skill level that pay 20k or less?  I know lots of hard workers that make relatively nothing at all but get one helluva rebate from EITC because they have kids.  They pay no income tax, but work VERY hard and their field just doesn't pay, because so much of the work is now done by illegals and recent immigrants. 

And yes, there is tremendous opportunity, but because everyone CAN theoretically, it's impossible that they all WILL.  Who fills the 10s of millions of low wage jobs?  Is everyone above average?  We CAN all be President, does that mean that all of us who don't make it should be regarded as worthless and lazy because we simply don't make much money? 

[KNOWLEDGE]

NCVol, why can't the low wage earners look at those jobs as opportunities to prove their worth to their employers or to others.  An exceptional worker will be rewarded with raises and/or promotions to better paying jobs with more responsibilities.  Just because the entry level job is "fry cook" that doesn't mean the employee can't aspire to be the manager.    A lot of Mexicans come here and work construction and send a lot of money home.   They work long hours in hard work.   The best workers either start their own construction business or become foremen.    The laborer job is an entry level to better jobs (aka; AN OPPORTUNITY).

It's amazing to me how many immigrants come to this country, work long hours to save up enough money to start their own business.  Then work long hours building up their business to save the money to educate their children.  The second generation in America consists of Doctors, lawyers, etc.   

Why don't "community organizers" push EDUCATION on their constituents instead of wasting their time boycotting, marching, etc about how unfair America is.     A poor person can make money going to college today thru grants, scholarships, etc.

BTW, if a fatherless black man can go from not being able to afford a car to the White House in less than 20 years, then anyone can......Provided of course, that he sells his soul and falls in with a bunch of crooked politicians who are used to buying elections and twisting arms.

[NCVol]

We're actually not disagreeing much, but the thing that the "anyone can make it here" line ignores is some people are workers and followers, some people are actually not very smart, or have disabilities, or have burdens at home (single mom with deadbeat dad, care for mom or dad, etc.) where they cannot work 80 hours building a business a week.  They'll NEVER own a business.  They're not capable of doing it. 

If you say that is tough shiate, that's the price of being stupid or a follower, then that's fine, but don't say that BECAUSE he's only making 18k he's "lazy" and on "welfare" because he gets an EITC check in February.  SOMEONE will always fill those jobs.  Wal Mart has a FEW manager positions and a ton of checkout clerks and stockers and cleaners and drivers and greeters and departments workers and just about all those according to the republican rhetoric are on "welfare" because they don't pay income tax.  That's the rhetoric I'm sick and tired of.  No, they're low skilled, low wage workers who are poor but who work a job every day. 

Some people are bums but there has to be something to distinguish "working poor" from "bums."  There's a world of difference even if their income levels are often not that different. 

[KNOWLEDGE]

I don't entirely disagree with that.   However, I still say the people with the low paying entry level job should use that as an opportunity to advance themselves.    For some (probably even many), there is a ceiling but it's still higher than welfare.  However, these people should:

--instill in their children the value of education (they can get it for free)
--stay involved in their children's lives and keep them off drugs
--educate them about the problems with teenage pregnancy
--give them a work ethic

These are the values that should be taught at home, in schools, and by the "community organizers" like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.  There is no excuse for generation after generation to live in public housing and depend completely on welfare.

Part of the problem is, one party wants this to continue so they will have a political base.   Heck, they are trying to pass legislation which will give them an electoral majority of people on govt assistance.   This may be good for their party but it's bad for America.

[LTC]

If you knew anything about manufacturing in the south...what little there is remaining, you would know that in most of the rural counties that have a manufacturer, that manufacturer is privately owned and there is no room for any advancement, unless you are a family member of owners.  For the most part, those small manufacturers have very few management or lead positions any way The same for people who work the retail jobs at places like K-Mart, Wal Mart, etc. There are management training programs, sure, but the people who are hired for those jobs, normally do not qualify to be a manager. Face it, there are a lot of people who work very hard, but are just NOT capable of doing any better than a minimum wage type job.  It is not because they are lazy, as you want them to be.

You, knowledge, and the rest of the neoconservative movement NEVER see any gray areas in any issue...everything to you is either black or white...solid or clear...and that is why you are so misguided in most everything you believe.