Rev. B,

In my reading, yes, conservatives consistently extoll the virtues of the 1950s with more than nostalgia, and as a value and lifestyle set we ought to seek to restore, with never a mention that it immediately followed WWII. And similarly, any questioning of free market capitalism - as fixed to favor the super-rich - is consistently associated by conservatives with socialism at best, Marxism a bit worse, and outright theft as repeatedly asserted by our own FP. Just read some of the posts in this thread, and you'll find statements that appear consistent with that view. Therefore I didn't regard Harris' statement as hyperbole at all. I assume you read some conservative literature, so I'm surprised at your conclusion, and I find that interesting and worth the discussion. I'll read his stuff again because I didn't find his reasoning so lacking in logic or things I could relate to. We appear to have considerable agreement about public education, however. It's interesting that we can be so close on some things and so far apart on others.

FP,

Your question about why the disparity in wealth distribution is a problem is a valid one. The reason I think it's a problem is because the super-rich are using their gains, both legitimate and ill-gotten, to continuously reduce their tax burden. Meanwhile, as they outsource and otherwise eliminate middle class jobs, the American middle class shrinks. I don't think Harris engages straw men and hyperbole when he states that someone's gotta' fund the national infrastructure. How is that supposed to happen with a shrinking middle class and a continuously declining tax burden on the rich?

I think the middle class has supported the development of the massive American infrastructure due to its size and collective affluence. As that affluence declines, and there's plenty of studies indicating that outcome, then who is going to pay taxes if not the rich and super-rich? The gov't. can't get tax revenue from people who have little or no money. The only alternative becomes one of taxing the rich. And they would have to be taxed to support the infrastructure used by all, not just by the rich. They don't like it now; they sure aren't gonna' like it then.

So part of what I find interesting in this subject is whether the current trend is sustainable. Is it feasible for 1% of the population to own 99% of the wealth? How about 99.9%? Or 99.99%? As the somewhat technocrat that you label me as, I'm somewhat interested in numbers and math. I'm not certain that this trend works or sustains itself. Hence, it might be a problem. It might result in nothing less than "storming the Bastille."

BTW, I didn't post this because I agree with everything or find it all convincing, but I find it persuasive enough to be worthy of serious discussion. I like to see information from both sides of the street; well not too much of the extremist crap, I don't have that much time to waste.

TJ,

Just remember that I'm not the smartest guy in the room because I say that I am, but because that you keep saying I am. Of course, coming from you, that's not much of an endorsement. In the past you've exhibited the ability to engage in intelligent discourse; it's unfortunate that you choose to fling sh!t instead.

Sg