Re: A few points for Lat...

No, the real problem is that the super rich just keep getting super richer;

Why is that a problem?

(Hint: inequality alone is not an argument if all strata are improving their quality of life. Though the poorest Americans and Europeans probably are not doing so, the poorest of the Third World certainly are, so the case you have to make is not for Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but for Carlos Slim and Lakshmi Mittal.)

the 'gov't is too big for its britches' argument, while it sounds down-homey and appeals to people who do nor fully understand how gov't works, is a red herring. The old cliche about penises applies to gov't: it ain't the size but how you use it.

Yet for some strange reason, big governments have a tendency to collapse their countries way faster than small governments do. Part of it can be due to human error (whether that is from ineptitude or intentional evil - that is not the point), but since human error is a constant no matter how big the government is, some feature of big governments must explain why they fail their societies more often.

Ponzi scheme?

Whichever "saving" or "investment" scheme where more money is being withdrawn than deposited yet new investors are promised same or higher profits than current withdrawers is a Ponzi scheme. No matter if it is run by the government, and no matter what its stated or original purpose is.

I'm just against assholes who think having money means they have no responsibility to the less fortunate

How come Doctors Without Borders' expenditures are 15% administrative/bureaucratic/operative and 85% directly for its purpose, yet most government departments (everywhere, not just in one country, "big" and "small" governments alike) have about the opposite ratio? THAT is having no responsibility to the less fortunate. The taxpayer, rich or not, pays and no longer has any ability to control where the money is. The government departments very much have that ability.