Columnist Walter Williams describes such thinking like this

[ahbappy852]

By and large a beautiful day here in Burlington, Iowa. High of about 62. The Bees sweep a double-header against the Peoria Chiefs, 5-2 and 6-5.

LIBERALS TOLD YOU SO, PART II

Okay, I scratched out most of this in between innings of the Bees’ game on my notepad. So bear with me as I take another swipe at Richard Doak’s "We Told You So: The Tax ‘Cut’ Only Helped Iowa’s Affluent." (Part I is posted under May 12.) Doak displays his ignorance of conservative thought about and wealth and government in numerous ways. Here’s an example:

Today’s prevailing philosophy is that to whom much is giving, even more should be given.

This begs the question who is doing the giving. But one thing shop liberals are sure of: the rich aren’t earning their wealth; someone’s doling it out to them.

[One] vision of the sources of income might be that income is distributed. In other words, there is a dealer of dollars. In this case, the reason why some people are rich and others are not is that the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist or a multinationalist. Those to whom the mean dealer dealt too large a share of dollars should give back some of their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to give back, then it's the job of government to confiscate their gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a redealing of the dollars, what some call income redistribution.

But no one gave the likes of Bill Gates, Jack Welch, or Warren Buffet their immense fortunes. As Walter Williams states:

In a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. This claim is represented by the size of his income.

Doak view tax cuts as "giving" more money to the rich. Conservatives see it as letting them keep more of what belongs to them in the first place.