I liked later in the thread a CBS article with the same quote. If I had realizes so many people would care where two quotes came from, I would have taken the 30 seconds it took to find the CBS one, and used it to begin with.

And thanks for liking Libertarians. :) 

Although it could be argued we don't have any group's interest in mind, we have every individual's interests in mind. Protecting your liberties should not be a product of what color you are, or how much money you have. All your rights are yours. I would prefer you keep them all :)

       No.  The truth is at my last job most of those chosen to be managers were either the favorites or in some cases the relatives of the supervisors.

     When employers and those in charge have vested interest in staying in charge, then that makes those in the group that aren't in charge have fewer opportunities available to them to rise up to a similar position.

     That is just common sense.  Sure there are those than can get lucky and slip through the cracks on this, but there are many more people that work just as hard year after year but never see any significant increases in their income or standard of living.

The "poor me" attitude never did anyone any good.

The ones that do best in life are not the lucky. They are the ones that try the hardest. Many say that if you took all the money away from people. the rich today would be the people who became rich again.

it has nothing to do where where you start. Only your determination on where you want to finish, and the choices you make to get there.

Quitting because you felt cheated is not a good decision (unless you quit for a better job).

If the GINI coefficient has anything to do with political and economic policy, then its obvious that America is doing something wrong while other developed countries are doing something right.  Also note that those other countries are much more liberal and left-leaning that Obama ever thought of being.

Some of the image was cut off, but Denmark and Japan have the best GINI coeficients.

       Its easy for one person to make statements like yours but in one of your previous posts in another thread you said you didn't work as hard as some people were working at a former job, and I would suspect that at least some of those that did work harder aren't making $80,000.00 a year now.

      I know people that worked at fastfood restaurants for more than twenty years who were never given the opportunity to move up to manager and never had huge increases in their standards of living while working there.

I said I worked harder then everyone in my office. I always have. I did say there are million of people in the world that worked less then me, and make more then me, but I don't care about those people. I care about working hard enough, and smart enough, to afford a standard of living I am happy with. I accomplished that goal.

As for the fast food comment. There are two ways to live your life. Work 40 hours a week for 5 years in fast food, or work 70 hours a week in fast food and school so you don't have to work in fast food the rest of your life.

I bet I know what one they chose.

Getting ahead takes work. No one said otherwise, and it's the way it ought to be. Nothing in life is free, thus everything in life one has that another doesn't, requires effort.

       Yeah, of course the kicker is that many times at these fast food jobs to stay in good graces with the company, a lot of the time they don't want you to work eight hours and go home.  They oftentimes want you to work as much as twelve to fifteen hours a day or even more during their inspection weeks.  Then combine that with forty-five minutes to an hour I had to drive to work and th forty-five minutes to an hour I had to drive back from work each day, and  that doesn't leave much time or energy for studies.

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else" - Benjamin Franklin

The GINI coefficient isn't a particularly good metric because there is no real reason to believe that an unequal distribution of wealth is an undesirable outcome. Consider that a country where the bottom 20% earned $30,000 to $60,000 per year and the top 20% earned $1,000,000 (or more) would have a fairly unequal distribution of wealth, but everyone would still be better off than they would be if the bottom 20% earned $10,000 to $20,000 per year and the top 20% earned $50,000 to $60,000 per year (which is a far more equal distribution).

Now, the real goal of an individual should be to maximize their wealth and the wealth of society in general (at the fastest rate possible). Now, under the current economic system in the western world maximizing your own wealth is the same as maximizing the wealth of society being that our economy could best be described as a flow through system ... No one holds much (real) money for any period of time and practically every dollar someone earns is immediately spent on goods, services or investments which become someone else's income.

Shocking a teacher that is a Pro-Clinton/Pro Democrat honk.  Who woulda thunk it?       You do realize that the Teachers union begs, kicks and screams for it's teachers to vote Democrat.   Please leave your mothers opinions out of this.  After a life-long brain washing.