Let me wish all PME Team a great 4 of July.

Very Best Regards

Alberto.

The founding of a new nation is hardly a "conservative" act.

Way to bring a modern political slant to something that has none.

Happy Independence Day (not July 4)all!

After reading that wonderful piece, that's ALL you can muster up Mattk? Thanks, Alberto!

What Adams said about equality and in equality is brilliant, and also just plain common sense.

Thank you RR, it's about time someone else feels the way I do about this.

It's Independence Day people. Not a date!

This is truly a fine document and a significant step in the right direction for our country. ESPECIALLY when viewed within the context of its time. It's ironic though, that one of the primary authors of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) who wrote the words "all men are created equal" was an unabashed slave holder.

His take on the concept of equality differs radically from mine. Clearly, "men" didn't refer to the greater concept of "mankind". I guess "men" meant only white males. Black males? Not men as far as Jefferson was concerned. Women? Not equal.

Thank goodness times change and society has evolved, but without the foundational work of great minds from times past, we wouldn't be where we are today.

RR & Falgore: agreed--happy Independence Day.

I don't understand why you're making the point about the inequality of men.

...in the context of this conservative blog, it appears to be a defense of inequalities in our society - inequalities of political power and wealth. its a popular belief among conservatives that the wealthy have universally earned and deserve their wealth. (it would therefore be unfair to tax it at a higher rate)

also, wikipedia states that jefferson wanted to include a statement against the slave trade.

during the period the DofI was drafted, there were no provisions regarding slavery included in order to curry support from the pro-slavery colonies. Make all the insinuations you want, allowing slavery in the southern states is one of the main reasons we were able to fight the american revolution. If it was so written to abolish slavery with the Declaration of Independence, the minutemen would have been more like 30-second men, because the size of the army would have been nearly decimated.

"All men are created equal" means that each individal born into the world has the same chance of success or failure as the next individual.

A chance.

Nothing more, nothing less.

To spin the statement any other way would be to politicize it for personal agenda.

its a popular belief among conservatives that the wealthy have universally earned and deserve their wealth. (it would therefore be unfair to tax it at a higher rate)

It certainly fucking is retard. They earned it - not you, or some dirtwipe bureacrat, or any other parasite.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here you have the perfect insight into the jizzbag, so-called mind of a leftist. The automatic assumption that anyone but the producer is entitled to his wealth and success. He says it too like it's an astounding and outrageous conclusion that one keeps what he earns. Pathetic.

did you notice that I said "universally"

has Paris Hilton earned her wealth?

mattk, careful, that's a slippery slope you are on with that comment. so now we have to justify who earned their wealth vs. who inherited it? paris hilton may not have earned it but her family sure did.

and that's the left's problem. the rich didn't get rich by working for it, they just woke up one day and their wallets exploded with cash...

but her family sure did.

And?

Way to lose the arugment dumbass.

I don't think the slope is so slippery.

The tax system makes a distinction between methods of aquiring wealth, so why can't we?

The simple fact of the matter is, while Paris Hilton may have done nothing but have been born, Paris Hilton's father earned the right to having a rich spoiled child.

So Paris did not EARN her wealth. But her father did, and this is how he chooses to use it (Giving it to her). She may not deserve to be rich, but he deserves to have her be rich.

You can knock on her all day long, but suggesting that her money should not be hers, is to suggest that her father ought not get the reward he worked for and deserves.

mattk wouldn't be complaining if it was he who got the inherited wealth. He's just a bitter "average joe."

if you want to complain about how people acquire their wealth, complain about the people who steal it. The fact is, wealthy individuals often give a hefty sum of their worth to their children. Is it right or wrong? If Mr. Hilton gives his slut daughter enough money so she can retire in her early 20s, so what? If you have a problem with this, than I suggest you pay back your parents every single dime, with interest, they ever spent on you.

This is how it works. Paris gets her fortune in whatever manner, and it's up to her what she does with it. Personally, I'd rather earn my money, but if i had a wealthy relative who left me a significant amount of money in their will, should I refuse it? Would you?

Matt K said "earned and deserve their wealth."

I think you can make a point that Bill Gates hasn't "earned" or "deserves" the billions of dollars he has. He's benefitted from Capitalism so that the work that he did made him very wealthy. There are people who work just as hard as Bill Gates and get no where near the amount of income that he has.

Now, I'm not saying Gates didn't work hard and is not some sort of genious, but he has benefited greatly from the people of this country and the world. At some point with the very wealthy, the amount they make exceeds the amount of work they do.

Perhaps a better example is the guy who "invented" the pet rock. I don't know if he's very wealthy, but he made a lot of money of minimal work. This happens to varying degrees with the very wealthy in this country.

I am not suggesting that Paris Hilton should not have her wealth. I am commenting on the right's notion that wealth is an indication of hard work - i.e. that wealth is an indication that some men have more power and faculties than others.

My point, Mattk, is that wealth IS an indication of hard work. What you fail to see is that it is not allways an indication of work on the part of the person who has the wealth, but work was done to accumulate the wealth none the less.

In this situation, Paris Hilton's wealth is an indication of her father's hard work. He worked for that fortune, it is his, so earned, and he may do with it as he pleases. He pleases to give it to his daughter.

Her fortune has been earned, not by her (for her), but earned none the less, and her ability to frivolously spend millions of dollars she was graced with at birth is the reward for which her father labored, and deserved. Paris's wealth is an indication of her father's hard work, and she is entitled to it because her father is entitled to the money, and he wanted her to have it. It's not her say, it's his.

A very important point to note here, you're i.e. is all wrong. Wealth is NOT an indication of a man having more 'power' whatever that is, or faculties then others. A good bit can be luck, a good bit can be creativity, a good bit can be diligence and persaverance. 'power' and 'faculties' need not come into play.

As far as they guy who 'invented' the pet rock, well, that man was a creative marketing genius. His creativity, his skill at marketing and advertisement, and the gusto and confidence that allowed him to seek financiers with an idea as stupid as a pet rock got him his wealth. He did what not many others could do, (sell millions of freakin rocks) and so made a fortune.

Ah....the mantra of the left. Take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" and call it "fair taxation"....what makes me want to strive to earn more, when the gubmint will just take it away?

When are y'all gonna figure it out that socialism stagnates personal gumption and creativity? No, income and wealth isn't directly proportional to work, but those who work harder will tend to do better in life than check-collecting slugs.

so tom, bill gates benefitted from capitalism, so now capitalism is bad?

that's the whole point. capitalism is great. if there is a need, and someone fills that need, then that person DESERVES what he gets. guess what, we all have that chance here in a capitalistic society. you CAN'T say who works "harder" than someone else. i bet i make more money than others who work "harder" than me. and many others make more money not working as "hard" as i do. who decides what constitutes hard work anyways? is it the physical effort? is it the mental capacity? the amount of money i make is from the product/service that i supply. and i'm okay with that. if i want to make more i can do something about that. that's what is great about this country.

but there are many who mistake someone's wealth with just being lucky. sure those like paris hilton are lucky to be born into a rich family, but her family built that fortune. they didn't just show up and say, woo hoo we are rich!

So, Sarge, your argument is that people on welfare stay on welfare because they don't see think there's benefit to working hard and making a lot of money because taxes on the rich are too high?

It seems to me that your argument is more against the welfare system, which has been reformed and may be in line for more. Ideally, it's a way the government helps out those who fall on hard times get back on their feet.

But I've never bought the argument that high taxes on the wealthy stifle people's drive to become successful.

Falfore, when did I say capitalism is bad? I don't think it is, and never said it was.

But I've never bought the argument that high taxes on the wealthy stifle people's drive to become successful.

Of course you haven't. Why look at lifetimes of history and virtually uninterupted evidence that excessive taxes stifle when instead you can feel and emote and scream "that's not right" like a shrieking spoiled child.

Idiot.

OK, RR, what exactly is this evidence you speak of?

has Paris Hilton earned her wealth?

Maybe not, but the gubmint hasn't either. But that certainly doesn't change your mind that the gubmint seizing it would be wonderful. Why does this not surprise me - this second rate socialist wants to arbitrarily decide how much of everyone's property they don't have seized?

Any doubt his wet dream is to issue consfictatory taxes based on how abysmally PC one earns his wealth (Hillary - 0% tax; Oil 100%)?

OK, RR, what exactly is this evidence you speak of?

Uh, I don't know, maybe compare the boom following the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts vs. the perpetually dismal economies of your utopian Cuba and Soviet Union amongst many others.

But it's always only been a coincidence, right?

Tom,

Re: Pet Rock

didn't you see Office Space?

The guy who invented the pet rock made a million dollars!

Didn't Bush I raise taxes, and a democrat preside over one of the -- if not the -- largest economic booms in us history?

And second, I'm not talking about capitalism v. communism or socialism, i'm talking about different economic theories within capitalism.

you citing the USSR and Cuba doesn't not disprove my theory that high taxes stifles people's desire to become rich and successful.

Didn't Bush I raise taxes

Irrellevant strawman. Is that the best you can do?

you citing the USSR and Cuba doesn't not disprove my theory that high taxes stifles people's desire to become rich and successful.

Nice try. Nobody ever said high taxes kill the desire to get successful, but they certainly discourage the risk and sacrifice needed to get there. Anyone with two active synapses should get that.

tom, wasn't saying you said capitalism was bad, but the way i interpreted what you said, was that you were implying that there is a problem with capitalism based on bill gates becoming wealthy.

No Tom...I'm saying "What's the point of working hard or at all if the Nanny-state is gonna just GIVE you money, housing, free healthcare, subsidized transit passes, free food....on the backs of the upper middle-class. Where's the push to actually go out and work? ...and you're a fool if you think that the "reform" actually "reformed" ANYTHING. Notice that as the welfare rolls went down, the SSDI rolls went up at the same rate during the same time.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Hilton

Her and grandfather and father inherited money as well. The one that created the wealth was her Greatgrandad.

He didnt want to leave them money either, the will was contested.

Why is the right always so supportive of lazy rich people? Oh and they tend to be ignorant as well.

This has nothing to do with the topic Um Yeah, I just enjoy illustrating your inanity.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={20B8B464-34A7-4893-8118-E17E22217F05}&siteid= http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421815/posts

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm739.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm408.cfm

Oh no, the economic sky is falling! Look at the deficit, look look, over there at the deficit.

How you like them apples?

Oh NOES!

Freeperville I am Skeeered.

BTW MJ since you cannot see my response (which is namely spitting at the screen) I ask you do you know what the deficit and the national debt are?

You know big those have gotten under Reagan and W?

Well?

In case I forgot, we grownups also know of something called a trade deficit. Do you?