At least they are the top two I've heard so far today.

1. "We must make the rich pay their fair share." The rich already pay well over 85% of fed income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes. The bottome 50% pay basically nothing.

2. "Most rich people inherited their wealth." Also flatly wrong. Fidelity did research showing that 88% of millionaires did NOT inherit their wealth, and about 2/3 of those worth 30 mil or more did not inherit their wealth.

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/28...-got-rich.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybu...h=301f19fa1bac

Dan Henninger has a relevant op ed today in WSJ . He makes the case that by what Quid says ,and not how he labels himself , Quid is a democratic socialist .

Joe Biden (D., Socialist) - WSJ

Rather sad that we are so quick to throw away what allowed such great wealth to be amassed in such a relatively short period of time. The homeless in America enjoy a standard of living that was only dreamed of by most people in the world just a hundred years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The homeless in America enjoy a standard of living that was only dreamed of by most people in the world just a hundred years ago.

---

If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now.

Quote:

---

If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now.

---

in the days before the nanny state decided it knew better how to deal with the homeless than private charity ?

Reply

A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat. That's the norm. There are exceptions of course, but that's the norm. In our area, homeless people only go hungry because they choose to. There are plenty of sources or clothing and food.

Interesting, JL. Had I said I'd prefer to be homeless nowadays, as was our longtime library visitor and my good friend Jerry, you would have shot that down in like manner. No matter what I post, to your way of thinking, it's wrong.

When you’re right I support you. When I think you’re wrong I try to challenge your thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

When you’re right I support you. When I think you’re wrong I try to challenge your thinking.

---

I've apparently never been right.

I would hope you would do the same with me.

And being right is relative, not a slam dunk. Same for being wrong. Unless you're doing math.

So if a person says it's wrong for a young man to kill and rob an elderly woman, then that statement is not right, but only "relatively" right? And the act itself is not really wrong, but only "relatively" wrong?

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.

Good news!! The 3.5 tril spending package proposed by the dems will, according to Mr. Biden, cost us nothing. So we can, in this brave new world, spend 3,500,000 million dollars without it costing anything? If the American people believe that, then all is lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.

---

Nope, you aren't. You and I constantly differ regarding opinions/points of view/ways of thinking, not morals.

Good! For a minute there I thought you had said, "...being right is relative, not a slam dunk. Same for being wrong." So I took that to mean right and wrong are both "relative". I am open to correction.

Please...no fog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Please...no fog.

---

You and I constantly differ regarding opinions/points of view/ways of thinking, not morals. I post something and you immediately play devil's advocate.

Give an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Give an example.

---

WG: "If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now."
JL: "A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat."

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

WG: "If I would have had to be homeless, I would have preferred to be homeless a hundred years ago -- even fifty years ago -- rather than now."
JL: "A hundred years ago, if you were homeless, you were literally homeless and hungry to boot. Now homeless people are allowed to set up tents in the middle of downtown areas, use the bathroom wherever they please, and have plenty to eat."

---

A better response would have been: "Why would being homeless a hundred years ago be more preferable to you than being homeless now?"