GingRich is just thinking of what's best for the children...

GingRich seems to think that poor people's children —for some reason the other people's children (rich people's) dont apply— have a degraded work ethic. he wants to increase those children's work ethic but for some reason he has no interest in building up the work ethic of rich people's children. somehow they are exempt from that critique. and what better way to increase the work ethic of poor people? ...cleaning the toilets that rich people's children use.
somehow rich people's children either would not benefit from that type of work ethic or would not best be suited for that kind of learning. obviously there are other opportunities that are being made in GingRich's mind; apparently poor people's children should be exempted from those other opportunities.

Regarding Kings and Princes

by now you have all read Common Sense by Thomas Paine. so you will likely agree with me that there is not a genuine reason to have kings, princes —or any hereditary title for that matter. so I would rather devote some time to the wants and wishes of man. those who have children are a force to be reckoned with. they have a deep love for their children. those that can put aside anything and everything they can afford to ensure a good life for their children. they sacrifice their own happiness for that of their child. they attempt to make a balance of joy during childhood for a solid quality of life after adolescence. AND they will go to hell and back before they let someone take away ANYTHING from their child's quality of life.

this is pretty easy stuff to understand. even those who do not have children will agree about those human conditions. I wont argue the wants and wishes of the parents. but I will argue the exploitation of those human conditions that give rise to the inheritant* aristocracy. the ones who align the roads of our society that benefit themselves and almost no others. passing virtually unlimited wealth down generations does not guarantee good people with good intentions will use that wealth for good. often those born into hordes of wealth are not only insulated from hardship, they will in fact not even know hardship exists. there are PR firms dedicated in preventing out-of-touch gaffes like"let them eat cake". no one likes to have their head cut off, least of all the aristocracy; its just beneath them to be executed by the rabble. but no matter how much publicity is scrubbed the fact remains that parents should keep in mind that there is too much of a good thing. the idea of insulating you children from any labor whatsoever produces a have and have-not society. furthering a split society is something that we should all condemn.

///////////////////////////Stop Reading Here, You've Been Warned//////////////////////////

I do have an idea to propose: parents bequeath a socially acceptable amount of money to their children. a tax exempt stipend for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc (but limited to family within the bequeather's* lifetime). that amount would be the median income salary of the people inheriting it but not more. and the grandchildren upon reaching the age 25 (I pick this age as it is the age at which someone can get state/federal college assistance) earlier if they join the military, have disabilities, dependents of their own etc. but all in all you cannot pass on the whole horde as a lump sum. essentially what I'm getting at is that a billionaire cannot birth another billionaire. your billions ARE passed on as a comfortable life but when that child grows and desires more wealth or desires to ensure that their great-grandchildren get that same way of life they must labor. it will be understood that if you have less money than monthly checks cover then the money runs out. but if you have even more then the money becomes part of the federal/state coffers. everyone involved gets to lead a decent life but no one gets to go berserk. clearly if we were nomads or hunter-gatherers we would not have to make these special social arrangements but ever since the earth was parceled out among the aristocrats of old we have been at each other's throats and there must be some form of acceptable equalization.

* yeah Shakespeare, I can make up words also

2011/03/09 - Rant

Greed is good

is it? good for who? everyone? really? what if everyone suddenly were wealthy? who would work? who would just live off the wealth? it is obvious the economy as it is would just stop if that were the situation. so it prompts me to ask: why is the nation's economy and incentive program geared toward the wealthy rather than the working class? the nation should have a disincentive to hoard wealth and should give true and direct incentive to live the other way. greed is not that great.