In my opinion...

the dichotomy of the ‘have/have-not’ aspect

of our situationally ethical but

constitutionally amoral perspective

lacks the gradient value of a more

continuum-based model, in which the

‘have-nots’ may be poor without being

‘broke’

and the ‘haves’, without necessarily being

rich,

or even necessarily ‘well-to-do’, in most cases

are still struggling just to maintain

a sense of security that, anyway,

eludes us all.

in other words...

the dichotomy of the ‘have/have-not’ aspect

the rich get richer the dichotomy of the ‘have/have-not’ aspect

the rich get richer of our situationally ethical but the poor get poorer

strong constitutionally amoral perspective the the rich get richer the poor get poorer

survive strong constitutionally amoral perspective the the rich get richer the poor get poorer

lacks the gradient value of a more all

things lacks the gradient value of a more all

continuum-based model, in which the are relative things all

come continuum-based model, in which the things all

‘have-nots’ may be poor without being to he who waits come things all

and the meek ‘have-nots’ may be poor without being

‘broke’ shall inherit the earth and the meek

and the ‘haves’, without necessarily being possession

is 9/10ths of the law and the ‘haves’, without necessarily being possession money

is the source of happiness rich, is 9/10ths of the law possession money

or even necessarily ‘well-to-do’, in most cases is the root of all evil money is 9/10ths of the law possession

time is or even necessarily ‘well-to-do’, in most cases is the root of all evil money is 9/10ths of the law possession money

are still struggling just to maintain can’t buy happiness is evil? money time

what doesn’t kill you are still struggling just to maintain can’t buy money

a sense of security that, anyway, makes you stronger what doesn’t kill you can’t buy love money

eludes us all.