What reader Ed Konecnik fails to understand is that the “haves,” who he is so enamored with, are not against welfare and socialism as it applies to them — only as it applies to the masses.
That would mean they would be obligated to pay a little more in taxes, etc., something they are reluctant to do.
When they get into financial trouble, they have no qualms about taking government welfare or seeking bailouts, but they do not or will not refer to this as socialism, as they have made the term “socialism” a dirty word.
And how then could they deny some largesse for the peons?
©2014 Community News Group
By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:
You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.