Reader wrong on haves, have-nots

What reader Ed Konecnik fails to understand is that the “haves,” who he is so enamored with, are not against welfare and socialism as it applies to them — only as it applies to the masses.

That would mean they would be obligated to pay a little more in taxes, etc., something they are reluctant to do.

When they get into financial trouble, they have no qualms about taking government welfare or seeking bailouts, but they do not or will not refer to this as socialism, as they have made the term “socialism” a dirty word.

And how then could they deny some largesse for the peons?

Joe Brooks


More from Around New York