StrangerThan
Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales
Ever since John McCain made Joe the Plumber the poster boy for capitalism, conservatives have been screaming the words "redistribution of wealth" with the same horror as if someone had suggested a nice bowl of roasted puppy covered in baby sauce. And at the risk of interrupting the hysteria, I would like to pose a question.
In 1965, the average top executive earned 24 times the wages that the average worker made. By 2009, the average top executive earned. between 271 times and 431 times the wages earned by the average worker (both ends of the spectrum presented in the interest of fairness). Since 1995. the wages of top executives have increased at a rate %500 faster than the wages of the average worker.
This being the case, my question is: What is this other than a massive redistribution of wealth? The share of the economic pie has been redistributed from the average worker (not the unemployed "losers", the average worker) up to the top executive level. During the last decade, the average wage, adjusted for inflation, has actually fallen.
Since the middle class is the single most important component of any society's continuation, why should the idea of a redistribution of wealth away from the small upper tier to the dying middle class be viewed as dangerous socialism while the redistribution away from the middle class up to the upper tier be viewed as the American dream at work?
I sometimes wonder how people choose their profile names. I think you choose yours well spinner.
I'm not an avid captialist. Captialism without control is as evil, defunct and downright bad as socialism at its worst. Wage averages have nothing to do with the conservative notion of redistribution of wealth. Spinning this term with your hypothesis is just that, spin. Conservatives see redistribution of wealth as essentially, giving to those who don't produce, from those who do. Kind of like the welfare mom who recently had 8 children and wants more. Her wants are just fine by me. She can dozens if she wants them but there is no reason that I or anyone else should pay for her to have them, raise them, feed them, clothe them and eventually give them financial aid to attend college. She isn't a part of society. She is a parasite upon it. Good hearted and good meaning people will come to her aid, donate funds, clothes, and items to her, but the bottom line is that the responsibilty for her actions is hers, as should be the responsibility for future actions.
And while this oversimplifies the issue, it is also classical of the thinking on both sides. Socialist policies will ensure those things are done, that she is given food, given aid, that others produce for her even though her main contribution to society is more bodies for future generations to feed and clothe. I know, I know, someone come and say it, but the next Einstien may be among her brood. Granted. The truth is though, she can only pursue that type of action off the efforts of others. And that is the crux of the matter. You want to redistribute wealth. Well, who you going to give it to? You talk about the middle class, but the middle class is one of those arguments. Those being the sacred ground folks hanging off the end of spectrums find where they hope to mitigate debate by painting the issues in a light everyone can understand and hopefully most will agree with. If you want an example of one of those points, try an anti-abortionists video of a partial birth abortion. I don't care what your stance is on the issue, if you can sit and watch one of those and feel nothing, you have a lot less heart than I do and care less about people in general more than I do - which is saying a lot. You ague the middle class. I'd argue that the middle class would end up paying for your idea to enrich them and as a result, actually end up with less.
Basically what you're advocating is taking from those who have, and giving to those who do not. Great Robin-Hoodish plan I guess, but having traveled more than most people and being fairly open minded about things, I've yet to see anything better that has a chance of lasting longer. I spent 5 years working in Canada and watched droves of people slide across the border for medical treatments that they certainly could get in Canada if they were willing to wait the 1-2 or even 3 years it would take them to get them. In the vaunted realm of fashion and style that France is identified with, I was offered a blow job for a zippo lighter, sex for Levi's, outlandish amounts of money for American cigarettes. Granted it was 20 years ago, but give me a break. The middle east was occasional points of opulence surrounded by squalor. Africa was, well, a lot of restive and destitute people. Europe in general was quaint, full of old cities with tiny roads, smaller cars and an almost Berlin-wall type craving for things American. And those past the Berlin wall? Well, socialism and communism at its grandest.
Many American laws and policies make it easier for those with wealth to make more than it does for those who have little to even maintain a toe-hold. I'll grant you that, but robbing those with wealth isn't the answer. Supporting them isn't either. We've dumped trillions into failed banks, failed companties and failed people. By the time its all said and done, it would have been much cheaper to send every tax-payer - not every citizen as someone here once noted - but every tax payer a check for 40-50,000, something that would probably have stimulated the economy much more than simply trying to keep banks afloat and build bridges. The vast credit pool that once existed is now gone. Business has lived off of that for the past decade or two. All we're doing at this point is pumping money back into institutions who own that credit in hopes someone, somewhere will pay it off some day. Its not going to happen.
Your point, along with several other flash-point issues though will come closer to dividing and conquering this nation than any outside force ever will. Because we're at a point in history where someone has to pay the bill and someone has to bend. As a nation, we can't pay the bill and neither left nor right is going to bend. The question isn't if something will break. The question is when.
< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 2/23/2009 6:42:58 AM >
|
RE: Redistribution of Wealth - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread