Originally Posted by aceventura3

We can agree on the above, but I think for different reasons. If you measure "better" in terms of monetary measures ( as opposed to other measures - i.e. my grandmother lived in a 3 room house in rural Arkansas without an indoor bathroom until 1966, but was the happiest person I have ever known - I visited her in that house as a kid and loved every minute of it with the exception of the mosquitoes at night, they really seem to enjoy "city" blood ) "rich" people will have the biggest improvements in absolute terms when the economy grows. But they are also the biggest losers in absolute terms when the economy shrinks. So, in a weird way you can pretend you support economic growth and pretend that you want everyone to participate equally, but that is pure fantasy. What I want, and what I think you fail to understand, is for poor people to have the opportunity to get "rich", or at least have the financial security to own things like their home, be able to pay for their children's education, retire without a drop in living standard, and to leave a little something for their heirs after paying for the funeral, all without having to worry about government programs.

The Bush tax cuts did more for giving poor and middle class the opportunity to get "rich" than you seem to be willing to acknowledge. In order for a poor or middle class person to get rich they have to be able to keep more of the money they earn and then put that money to work through investments. Very few, percentage wise, get rich solely through the wages they earn from working for others. The "system" works against a person getting "rich" through the normal 9-5, corporate, wage earner routine.