How much money is enough? A recent letter writer stated the question, backed it up with questionable statistics and did not understand why so much money is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.
The writer did have a moment of lucidity when he wrote, "I'm not saying seize money from the rich." But the Democratic politicians are not so understanding; they want all the money, from all the rich, all the time. But that won't be realistic until the nation turns to socialism, in which everyone exists at survival levels of income and surrenders their money to the U.S. Treasury, who will, as President Obama famously stated, "spread it all around," or words to that effect.
Anyone who has studied history of the 1776 rebellion against England understands that, at some point, things get bloody. Thomas Jefferson allowed that "the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its true manure." Seizing and spreading wealthy people's wealth around England was not popular then, and appears popular in today's society, but will reveal the same results.
The American Experiment has about run its course, it seems. Class envy only brings revolt because we can't really define who the "rich" are, and who are the "poor" are. As Walter Williams pointed out, "rich people didn't become rich by being stupid." Nor do they stand around asking stupid questions.
If I had room, I could explain about status, power and politics involved in wealth -- but I'll pass for now.
Richard E. Hogue