I think, sir, that we are well down that slippery slope. The question is, are we smart enough to get ourselves off it?

Some people show their real feelings and philosophy by remarks that they interject into their prepared speeches. Obama showed those Americans who are not still star strucked by the man with a "silver tonngue", that we elected a progressive collectivism person who thinks our Constitution is flawed and that wealth must be distributed(aka taken away) from those who have "too much" and given to the masses. Some people would call this a communist!

A new research report from FAIR estimates that Illegal Aliens cost Arizona tax payers $2,700,000,000 billion dollars in 2009 (Fox News, May 2010)

So since the population estimates for Arizona are around 5,130,000, the tax burden on each citizen would be $526 each. Of course, every citizen doesn't pay taxes and the majorities are illegal. So the greatest tax burdens are on the minority, the people actually paying taxes, and small businesses in Arizona.

Want to stimulate Arizona's economy, encourage more businesses to plant themselves in Arizona, and give Arizona Americans more spending money to stimulate the economy, get rid of the illegal alien population. Or better yet, encourage them to move to California and San Francisco with Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps it will help bankrupt once and for all California and they too will get the message.

Now calculate this for each state with large or medium illegal alien populations, and imagine the savings for all citizens in tax dollars spent all over the country. The end result, Recession OVER!

When will Liberals get the message that we cannot cuddle, feed, and care for the entire world's population without dragging ourselves into poverty!?

Think anyone but Fox News reported this, yes you are correct, no other major News Outlet took on these important economical facts and presented them to the American people!

Enoughs enough!

"$2,700,000,000 billion dollars"? That's a lot of money...Maybe you mean $2.7 billion or $2,700,000,000 dollars.

Dr. Sowell;

To answer your question: "Are we really so eaten up with envy, or so mesmerized by rhetoric, that we are willing to sacrifice our own freedom by giving politicians the power to decide how much money anybody can make or keep?": the answer for the vast majority of the 'progressives' in this country is YES. They are consumed by the fact that others have more than they; becasue, after all, the 'progressives' are more understanding, sympathetic and eager to solve the problems of the "downtrodden." The 'progreesives are also more intellectually honest in their efforts to "make every one equal."

The problem with this sentiment is that it is nothing but hogwash (my apologies to the hogs). The American people are NOT equal. The word equal means that we are all the same. If that was the case, I would have been as great a golfer as Jack Nicklaus or Arnold Palmer; as great a hitter as Ted Williams, etc.

Every American is to treated with equal respect, equal courtesy and equally in all other respects. That is what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution call for. The American Dream is that everyone in this country has the opportunity to achieve greatness. The simple fact is that not everyone achieves this greatness.

The other simple fact is that those who do achieve greatness are compensated for that greatness. It makes no difference if that person in John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Bill Gates or LeBron James or Tiger Woods.

Yes!! Virgina. The envy and animosity runs depp in the progreessive circles in this country. I, too, am envious of the success that others achieve. The difference here is that I strive to make myself successful to achieve my own greatness.

The problem is that progressives would rather beat someone down rather that raise them up. By raising people up, everyone wins. By keeping people beaten down; the progressives vaildate their own ideals.

Hogwash!!!

Duke

Looking to for help in sponsoring a few billboards on Arizona's main highways and thoroughfares.

Billboards will say "San Francisco, San Diego, and California welcomes all Illegal Aliens, Al Qaeda, Terrorists, Smugglers, and Drug Dealers" and "Free Health Care, Food Stamps, Welfare, Emergency Room Hospital Care, Housing, and Education complements of the California Tax-Payers. Come one, come all to the land of everything's free." and California awaits all the world's illegal immigrants."

All other states with illegal alien populations, criminals, terrorists and others should encourage the same law as Arizona.

In one year or so California and sanctuary cities around the country will be overwhelmed with illegals, crime, terror, gangs and drugs, that they will be finally bankrupt beyond recovery.

Anyone want to help start a fund to sponsor billboards around Arizona? We owe our support to our Arizona brothers and sisters for their brave stance on crime, illegal’s, murderers, smugglers, gangs and potential terrorists and to assist them with their excessive tax-burdens.

It's so easy for O to stand there and say "at some point, you have made enough money", because he's not talking about HIS money. You can bet your last dollar that if the tables were turned, it would surely be a different response.

The man is a greedy maniac who won't stop until he has control over every facet and dollar in our lives. My question is how do we stop him before he does more damage? Does somebody want to tell me what we should do besides talk to each other? We can do this all day, every day and it does us no good. Then, of course, trying to talk to him does no good either.

Many good points. We all know what this is about. It's about power & control, of course. I don't have to tell you intelligent people this fact. It's all politics. NOBODY in Washington cares one iota about you or me. We're destroying ourselves. Want to hear something that scares me as much as the Bush-vs-Kerry election? How about an Obama-vs-Palin election. How pathetic are we? Again, is this the best we are capable of? Are these our best leaders? Are we insane?

I just read Lee Iacocca's book, "Where Have All The Leaders Gone". I don't like all of his ideas or opinions, but he has many good points. He was approached in the past to run for a Senate seat as a fast track to the White House. When he began "investigating" the idea, his appointed Dem advisor came to him with a stack of papers spelling out what his position was going to be on all the "issues". Lee asked if anyone even cared what his personal opinions were. His "advisor" told him it didn't matter. These were the positions he needed to take on the issues in order to win the seat. Lee told the Dem party to jump in a lake, he wasn't interested in being a puppet. Don't think it's different in the Rep party either.

The reason Obama and Pelosi are able to even talk about their "reforms" without being laughed out of Washington, not to mention having any of them pass, is because the Repubs didn't do their jobs when they had the chance. The reason this anti-rich, "you've made enough money", Wall Street greed and handout mentality is taking hold is because the Repubs let the rich and powerful corporations run everything. And they ran it into the ground. Profits for the companies were the only important thing. Jobs/Profits went to China/India/etc. The Dems were/are doing it as well. Look at special interests (Drug Companies, Wall Street, Oil Companies, etc). CEO's were allowed to run companies into the ground, cash out, and get voted onto the board of another company to do it all over again. While they were doing all this, they were voting in their cronies to the boards of other companies where the same game was being played. It's a round robin of corporate greed. When money and power join forces, you get what we have today. Total corruption. Whatever form it takes, it's all corruption. With no oversight or (ugh) regulation, the rich/greedy can easily control anybody they want for the benefit of the few.

Bush screwed up, big time. So, if you're "middle class", you're either giving all your money and freedom to the Dems (poor, uneducated, lazy, illegal) or you're giving it all to the Repubs (rich, greedy, out-of-touch). Either way, you're a mess.

My point to all this? I agree with KATHY. Talking to each other about it does no good. You can blame Obama all you want, but he's only playing the "game". Not unlike Bush did, and Clinton, and Bush. I like to think of myself as a Reagan conservative. I hope the Repubs pull their heads out of their behinds and find a "true leader". Put someone strong out there, lay all the facts out in front of the American people. Stop playing the politics game, and that will get you in the White House.

Dave

I agree with so many of your post. Thomas, I admire your construction of the article, showing the benefits of those like Rockefeller. Gosh, though Bill Gates makes tons of money, he gives it away by the ton as well.

Kathy, your point that bo.. barry obama, is delighted to give away your money and mine, I agree, he will not touch his. I've called him a liar time and time again about him saying he did not know his aunt is living here illegally. Has he helped her by contributing to get her off the welfare rolls? Has he helped to get his niece off the welfare rolls? They are his family. Not many Americans would not come to the aid of family and help in times of need. Where is his sense of family pride?

Lets start with actors and singers. For actors how about $100,000 a picture. Any good actor should be able to do several pictures a year. "I am Not Fonda Jane" should be the first to agree. As for singers, $5,000 a concert should be sufficient as they do several a week. Barbara Striesand should be the first to jump at it. Oops, I forgot all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal. I first read Animal Farm in elementary school, if I remember correct, in the fourth grade. Is it still required reading in govmint skools? Probably not as it is logical.

One would think that with this administration's aim of redistribution of wealth, they would want a person to make as much money as they are able. More to offer to those with their hands always out. While flipping through the channels the other night, I landed on an old film, "Doctor Zhivago." It had an eery resemblance to what this administration is working toward.

Mr. Sowell is truly a great man, patiot and Anerican, he's very intelligent and knows what he's talking about...

Dame Margaret Thatcher said (paraphrasing) that the problem with Socialism is at some time the social organizers/planners run out of other peoples money, & here we have the Social Organizer/Planner-in- Chief planning to organize society so that the some time the money runs out is ASAP! I am Awed at the Audacity of His Hopes. Remember O.P.M. (other people$ money) IS the Opiate of Those Who would be Your Masters.

¨That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed¨(Declaration of Independence)

Sowell’s erroneous argument comes from the wealthy who have in this economy avoid taxation as compared with ordinary working people. That’s you and I Paul, but you surely know this. Money buys special tax avoidance schemes used by the wealthy to avoid taxation. There is presently the greatest shifting of wealth from the “middle class” to the wealthy under the cheney/goofy tax code.

Use of taxation has always been used to “redistribute wealth” in this and most countries of the world. Its fairness has always been the issue from the perspective of the rich. A society which allows unlimited accumulation of wealth fails. World history is replete with failed nation states because of this issue.

Sowell argues that we dare not allow politicians to control the issues of allowable wealth accumulation. Think about what he has just argued. First he in fact recognizes that somehow wealth accumulation should be controlled, the issue in his view is who should do this task fairly. He asserts that we must not allow “politicians” to do so. Mr. Sowell would you please enlighten we mere morals as to how exactly wealth accumulation/concentration is to be dealt with?

Since Mr. Sowell you have excluded politicians/government from this function how will this important issue be resolved fairly? Mr. Sowell I don’t believe you want any control at all of accumulation/concentration of wealth. You recognize the issue but offer no solution other than the status quo. I don’t think Mr. Sowell you are a qualified arbiter of this issue. I think Mr. Sowell your argument is disingenuous and meant for simple minded people who have imposed upon themselves the security of ignorance.

Let us recognize a plain undisputed fact Mr. Sowell, our tax code created by politicians/government has long been used to “redistribute wealth”. The system works in a straight forward fashion, politicians are bribed by their benefactors (corporations and the rich) to draft tax codes which are beneficial to their financial interests. The present tax code is the result of such forces and private interests.

We did not hear or see your argument during the lower tax rates for the very rich during the bush adm.. Only now when “politicians” are removing some of those substantial tax breaks for the rich do we hear your voice. I think you, Mr. Sowell are an “expert” who’s opinion may be for sale to the highest bidder and therefore your ethics are suspect. I question your ‘expert” status in this issue and recognize you may be little more than a common street “hooker”, with no insult meant to that ethical profession

@Loren: After reading your post, I took some time to explain a few things. You will find your full text below, with my comments marked as "toadroller."

Thank you for being such a concerned comrade. I mean citizen.

Sowell’s erroneous argument comes from the wealthy who have in this economy avoid taxation as compared with ordinary working people. That’s you and I Paul, but you surely know this. Money buys special tax avoidance schemes used by the wealthy to avoid taxation.

toadroller: Why yes, the "wealthy" do pay the taxes. At a rising percentage rate, the more you make. Those who are not wealthy, receive unearned income from the government.

There is presently the greatest shifting of wealth from the “middle class” to the wealthy under the cheney/goofy tax code.

Use of taxation has always been used to “redistribute wealth” in this and most countries of the world.

toadroller: That is untrue. Taxes were used, in this country, to fund the limited and enumerated purposes of goverment as defined in the constitution ( see section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States").

Taxes began to be used for the re-distribution of wealth in this nation.. a) when the income tax was instantiated, 1916, and b) truly when Social Security was created, 1935.

Its fairness has always been the issue from the perspective of the rich. A society which allows unlimited accumulation of wealth fails.

toadroller: please explain and provide examples of this. Sowell's example of Rockefeller explains the fundamental concept of economics (especially in a price driven economy in a free market) that wealth results from providing an improved service, to the benefit of society.

World history is replete with failed nation states because of this issue.

toadroller: Again, please give some examples? While it is true that nation-states have failed throughout history, I wonder in which nation-states (most all of which have been, historically, states governed by fiat rather than deferrence to a higher power (that above man's government)) the citizens were "permitted" to accumulate wealth without "control?" And please, do not cite cartels as examples.

Sowell argues that we dare not allow politicians to control the issues of allowable wealth accumulation. Think about what he has just argued. First he in fact recognizes that somehow wealth accumulation should be controlled,

toadroller: that is projection on your part. You fundamentally believe that wealth accumulation should be controlled (or am I wrong here?), and since Sowell pointed out the dangers of governments controlling wealth (with specific examples), you assume that he believes someone should be in control of wealth accumulation. That's a bold assumption. And a very dangerous one.

the issue in his view is who should do this task fairly.

toadroller: again, projection. And what is this assumption that it is good to control wealth, be it fairly or un-fairly? How about a fair Opportunity. Opportunity in this country is as close as any government (nation-state) (limited and consented by those governed) is and, sadly, will likely ever be, to fairness. I would recommend equal opportunity, not equality in results. It's what has led to American success for which President Obama insists on apologizing to the world of nations.

He asserts that we must not allow “politicians” to do so. Mr. Sowell would you please enlighten we mere morals as to how exactly wealth accumulation/concentration is to be dealt with?

toadroller: via free markets, which raise the standard of living for all involved. Including governments who collect revenue from the resulting wealthy. It is ironic that you should have the typo of morals for mortals; it is human morals in free markets (see below) that is the solution.

Since Mr. Sowell you have excluded politicians/government from this function how will this important issue be resolved fairly?

It was resolved fairly in 1776, when leaders from these collective states and commonwealths risked everything, declared their independence from tyrrany, pointing out: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is fairness- equal opportunity, not redistribution of wealth and property. Our country was founded and thrived on the belief that you have a right to pursue (not necessarily achieve) happiness, and that right cannot/should not be infringed upon by the laws of men. Oh, and it works, too.

Mr. Sowell I don’t believe you want any control at all of accumulation/concentration of wealth.

toadroller: ding ding ding, you win the prize! “Our economy rests on a three-legged stool—political freedom, economic freedom, and moral restraint.” —Michael Novak. This is a lesson you should contemplate on long walks. If you will, this is a satement of optimism- that humans are essentially good. And, of course, that liberty is a good thing. You might not understand that if you wish to redistribute wealth for the "benefit" of others. Are you so cynical as to believe that people have no moral restraint?

You recognize the issue but offer no solution other than the status quo.

toadroller: Keep in mind, Loren, that the status quo currenlty is redistribution of wealth. The status quo is: Half of households in the US pay no taxes (they don't earn much money). The other half does, at a rising rate (10% - 35%), plus state taxes (5-10% depending on state, unless, of course, you live in NH, TN or another income tax free state), plus social security at 6.1%, plus taxes on all you consume (with a few exceptions). So, the status quo is roughly a 40% burden if you're a breathing wage earner. Is that enough wealth distribution for you, to take 40% of others for the purposes of running the state? Keep in mind that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 32% of the income taxes. Expand that to the top 5%, and we're at 51% of income taxes. Expand again to the top 10%, and it's 63%; top 20% is 78%. In other words, the status quo is that the tax burden is upon the rich. If you'd like fairness, how about spreading the tax burden around to the 80% of taxpayers who pay the other 20% of income taxes? Wouldn't that be more fair? More logical?

I don’t think Mr. Sowell you are a qualified arbiter of this issue.

toadroller: I think, Loren, you should read Mr. Sowell's book "Basic Economics," and then consider weather he is qualified to comment on economic concepts, which include taxation and wealth re-distribution. Oh, and you'll learn something, too.

I think Mr. Sowell your argument is disingenuous and meant for simple minded people who have imposed upon themselves the security of ignorance.

toadroller: the ignorant, who are note paying attention, have the right to vote. And they do. That has been to the detriment of America, especially so with President Obama, who was voted in by the ignorant for smething as vague as "hope and change."

Let us recognize a plain undisputed fact Mr. Sowell, our tax code created by politicians/government has long been used to “redistribute wealth”.

toadroller: again, 60-80 years (federal income tax through social security through welfare) is not a long time, especially in a country that is young- 234 years.

The system works in a straight forward fashion, politicians are bribed by their benefactors (corporations and the rich) to draft tax codes which are beneficial to their financial interests. The present tax code is the result of such forces and private interests.

toadroller- The rich wanted to be taxed at 35%?? Boy, the rich are dumb. Of course, it's better than the 50% tax rate Reagan repealed.

We did not hear or see your argument during the lower tax rates for the very rich during the bush adm.. Only now when “politicians” are removing some of those substantial tax breaks for the rich do we hear your voice.

toadroller: Should anyone complain when their tax burden is lowered? Let's implement tax rates (which is, mathematically, the same thing as removing tax breaks) on those not currently paying taxes and see if they complain. I'm willing to bet they would.

I think you, Mr. Sowell are an “expert” who’s opinion may be for sale to the highest bidder and therefore your ethics are suspect. I question your ‘expert” status in this issue and recognize you may be little more than a common street “hooker”, with no insult meant to that ethical profession

toadroller: Loren, thank you for ending with name-calling. That's mature.

Now, go to the library my taxes have paid for, borrow Mr. Sowell's "Basic Economics" book, and read. You have some thinking to do.