No, Informed.  best check out Dasini. Before calling the kettle black.

Nuff said.  The rest is just hokum.  But buy your snake oil anywhere you want, I will drink the same stuff from the tap for less.

First off, we prefer to refer to you as "white devil" rather than whitie foreigner.

Secondly, if we don't watch Dancing with the Stars, they might get canceled. Are you prepared to risk that?

I think for the people who work 60 hours per week (like I do) that the job has to be part of the fun too.  I mean, I make video games as part of my job. I get paid to do that.

There's a myth here that people just don't understand: Wealthy people usually have MORE time.

Hollywood tends to distort reality to the point where what they portray is believed to be real.

For instance, in the movies, nerds are clueless and unsophisticated and easily fooled by the "cool people". But in real life, yea, nerds "get it".  As a nerdy kind of a guy, it always annoyed me to see someone "subtlely" insult me at a party thinking that, as a nerdy guy, I wouldn't get it because I might be "book smart" but I wasn't "street wise" which was such ridiculous bullshit.

I know quite a few entrepreneurs and time and time again what hits me is how much more time they spend enjoying life and spending time with their families than most people do.

The difference is this: The successful business guy spends an extra hour or two a day at work over the average person but in return generates so much more income that they don't lose their weekends doing anything they dn't want to do. They don't spend their evenings doing anything they don't want to do. They get quality and quantity.

Sure, some guy might say "But people like to come home every night and spend hours working on their basesments" (rather than just hiring it out). And if that's really the case, good for them. But I don't think I've ever met anyone who could honestly say that they LIKE painting their walls or putting up dry wall or fixing the plumbing themselves. 

But if they do like to spend hours and hours doing grunt work around the house, fine, they like it. Meanwhile, I'll hold my baby daughter in my arms while someone else is edging my yard or trimming the bushes or whatever.

I said *I* don't know anyone who does. I didn't say nobody actually likes doing it. If someone wants to paint their walls themselves or fix cabinetry, then good for them.

The point is that having money gives people the option on what to spend their time on.

I don't think that's ridiculous at all. I used to mow the lawn with one like that too. Good excercise, out in the sun. No noise.  BTW I pay $25 per week for my lawn to be mowed.

I stopped doing it mainly because I'm lazy and just found other things I preferred to do.

I agree and frankly, people who look their nose down at others based on ones accumulation of material things are to be pitied IMO.

Differnet people have different philosophies. I use money to purchase time. Other people use it to purchase figurines. To each their own.

Getting back to the original article, what I don't like is someone tryign to say that the government can spend money they've confiscated from people better than the peopel who first earned it.

I prefer to see government work on projects that only governments could do. Only the government, for instance, could realistically build an interstate road system. I like the government keeping our food and medicine safe. I like the government providing a common defense. 

But taking the money away from the people who have demonstrated a knack for creating wealth to give it to people who have proven that they simply consume is not good for a society IMO.

Doesn't work that way.

You give one person $10 and they will spend it.

You give another person $10 and they will make $15 with it.

Wealth is created, it isn't a 0 sum game.

I agree. If you enjoy it and you are saving money and not polluting then it's all good.

My lawn is pretty small. It's still $100 per month. Not done by illegals, done by someone I know actually who lived in our old neighbhorhood.

That is indeed a challenge. My answer is that charities are more efficient with money than the government. The government is not answerable enough.

For example last year we spent $206 billion in aid to poor families in the United States (just federal spending).  That's not Medicaid or anything like that. It's food stamps, school lunches, and other such programs.   When obesity is a major problem with the poor, I can't help but think that this is not as good of a system.

There really isn't a great answer to that.  But the problem is, there are plenty of people out there who see no problem with "the rich" paying 80% of their income in taxes. Over in Europe there's been talk in various countries in having a 100% tax on income over a certain level.  That's slavery IMO.

If my taxes are 35%, then I am literally enslaved to the government for over 4 months just to the federal government. What are we getting back for that? It's destructive to society for the government to coercively take income away from one man to give to another man who did nothing to earn it.

I'd rather see the states handle this kind of thing as a first step. The more local the better. (I'd prefer if it were just private charities doing it but one step at a time).