'Hated' new book intensifies economic inequality debate

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    Roland Kayser,

    I was only addressing the quote from the U.S. News & World Report article. I didn't include anything in my comment that stated or implied that the author argued one way or another about government involvement. I simply stated my own position.

    It is not a matter of how ordinary people can live better, as much as a problem with how that ordinary (or average) people act in deed and thought. We don't believe in what is good and virtuous and we act less on certain moral standards that are required for our nation to function. Our constitution is inadequate at governing a people who don't believe in some of the basic principles our founding fathers did. What I am concerned with, and continually state on the Deseret News comment sections, is with a decline in moral values. Our society is on a downhill slide and with every step we find new ways to evade accountability and responsibility for our own choices. Corruption and greed run free in all economic classes of our society today, but abandoning our free market will diminish our freedoms to choose for ourselves and our own acceptance of personal responsibility.

  • Dauly Provo, UT
    July 27, 2012 1:10 p.m.

    Good old Utah economics where when the rich are given huge tax breaks and incentives to gamble with money that is not theirs the money is 'earned' but when the poor are given help they are disparaged.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    July 27, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    I'm not an economist and don't understand all the ramifications of different decisions made by the government, but one thing is obvious: If results are any measure of the wisdom of decisions made by the present administration, then the Obama administration knows less about the economy than I do. I don't know what will happen if Romney is elected but he can't do worse than Obama has: unemployment, deficit spending, inflation, etc, etc, etc.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 27, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    I am a strong supporter of true capitalism. This is the idea that entrepreneurs and investors can take substantial risks by starting a new business or growing an existing one and reap great rewards if the business is successful.

    What is often cited by the anti-capitalist crowd (with plenty of real world examples) are its counterfeits. Crony capitalism where people get rich by who their friends are instead of what they personally have done. CEOs, bankers, and politicians who got rich by gambling with somebody else's money and took a bonus when they were right and never had to pay the price when they were wrong.

    What needs to be done is to root out the bad apples by making it harder to get rich by fraud, lobbying, or taking big chances with no "skin in the game". What we don't need to do is punish everyone who is successful by assuming they all got that way unfairly.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 27, 2012 12:30 a.m.

    To A Voice of Reason: "Poverty exists. But the "alarming numbers" are mostly people who consider themselves poor to feel justified about their financial recklessness and irresponsibility."--Perhaps you missed this, but the author is actually recommending more government aid for the bankers who practiced financial recklessness and irresponsibility. And by the way, those people already got hundreds of times more aid than the poor.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 7:45 p.m.

    From the article:

    "Some experts say it may be time to look at the problem through a new paradigm and consider that it may be best for the government not to intervene.

    "The trick is figuring out what ordinary people can do to make themselves better off,""


    There's really no "trick" to it. The LDS Church provides an exemplary portrait of the self-sustaining use of income; anyone wondering how to 'change' things ought to seriously consider that. The vast majority of people I've known who have every complained about how poor they are and how "No one understands! I can hardly pay for food and I'm always broke. I can't afford healthcare!" The vast majority I've ever heard say anything like that are somehow magically affording fast food and getting their nails done. It is truly astonishing. Feeling like you can't afford is different than ACTUALLY not being able to. We live in a country where anything is possible. More government control will only diminish that opportunity and our freedom.

    Poverty exists. But the "alarming numbers" are mostly people who consider themselves poor to feel justified about their financial recklessness and irresponsibility.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 26, 2012 5:08 p.m.

    "Hated" is right.

    These Conservatives hacks have sent us back 140 years back to the gilded age!

    Gadianton's anyone?!

    I'd never dreamed an anti-Christ could be a Mormon.
    Talk about wolf in sheep's clothing.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 4:57 p.m.

    Dear Rich People:

    Thank you for paying your share in taxes as well as the share of many people who do not pay income tax.

    Even if you have a 15% marginal tax rate, this means you are paying significantly more than the average person in a 25% tax rate because you are paying 15% multiplied by millions.

    I apologize that so many Americans think it is ok to force you to pay their bills.

    I was raised differently.

    I was raised to be 100% accountable for myself, and not force others to make up for my shortcomings.

    I am not rich, but I know that just because you are rich does not mean I should be able to take some of what you earned. After all, you EARNed it.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 4:53 p.m.

    "What politicians and policymakers really ought to be telling struggling Americans is this: You're on your ow"What politicians and policymakers really ought to be telling struggling Americans is this: You're on your own," according to U.S. News & World Report. "n," according to U.S. News & World Report. "

    Well ya, that's how is SHOULD be.

    I should pay for my bills(even if that means working 20 hours a day at 3 jobs)

    My neighbor should pay for his bills

    The rich are already paying way more than their share of taxes - making up for the 50% who pay ZERO income tax.

    Be definition, someone paying ZERO income tax is not paying their share, unless of course they've never drive on a road, never gone to or sent kids to school, and someone don't need fire, police, etc.

    Yes - buck up. It's your job to take care of yourself.

    Stop looking to uncle barack and asking him to make Mitt Romney pay your bills.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 4:50 p.m.

    Jealously is a nasty disease the liberals have in regards to how they feel towards the wealthy.

    I say job well done to those who have worked hard and make good(and sometimes risky) decisions that ultimately led to their great success.

    Advancement comes through people working hard and taking risks, and they take those risks and work that hard with the possibility of great success.

    Keep up the good work rich people!

    You make America the great country it is.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    July 26, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    The truth is that a good portion of this is biased slant. The other truth is that our current govt and president routinely lies about wealth and taxes.

    Most all of us knows that the truth lies somewhere in between.

    Unfortunately we do not have someone who represents that view to elect.

    Our current president literally uses the poor and disadvantaged as pawns in his game. Rules do NOT apply to the ruling elite only to us.

    The Republicans generally have the correct idea but they go too far. I have no problem with people making what they earn and they should not be forced to hand it to the govt. The problem is that there has to be reasonable controls put in place and govt is horrible at it. Pick a regulation the govt has in place and I can show you 5 unintended negative consequences.

    We need a free society with a clear set of rules that protect us all and then tell the govt to get out. If a company breaks those rules then the penalty should be so severe they don't dare cross the line.

    Where is someone with a sense of balance?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 26, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    "Conard suggests that we actually need stronger government guarantees for too-big-to-fail institutions, to encourage the kind of risk-taking that reaps long-term rewards," Douthat writes. "In a similar spirit, he defends the extraordinary wealth accrued by America’s richest 1 percent, arguing that such huge rewards are necessary to induce talented people to become entrepreneurs and investors rather than just white-collar time-servers."

    Really? stronger govt. guarantees to the too-big-to-fail?

    Maybe what we really need is to disincentivise risk-taking in our financial sector via the casino-like practices they've adopted. We are even losing some of our best and brightest graduates in math and engineering to the financial sector.

  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    "Indeed, against the current anti-bailout mood, Conard suggests that we actually need stronger government guarantees for too-big-to-fail institutions, to encourage the kind of risk-taking that reaps long-term rewards,.." What miserable hogwash! Then where is the risk that is supposed to be so richly rewarded. In this country we have socialism for the financial elite, and survival of the fittest for the masses. So this is Romney philosophy?