Yeah, there is a lot people don't want to do for themselves anymore, and think that someone else should do for them. That is perhaps one of the most tragic legacies of the New Deal - the mindset that the government is there to solve all of our problems. Social Security was supposed to be a more limited program to aid in emergency situations - now far too many people look at it as their sole retirement fund. Government is supposed to get us a job when we are unemployed. Government is supposed to make it so we can afford everything we want - either by giving us more money to buy it, or forcing someone to sell it for less. Government is supposed to make sure that we all get a college education. Government is supposed to buy our bad mortgages when we make irresponsible purchases. Unfortunately, all those things cost money. Taxes can be raised on the rich few, but that will only go so far. The next step will be to increase deficit spending - you know, the stuff that got consumers into trouble. And then eventually less rich people will have to pay more in taxes. That will be when it hits home that maybe this plan isn't the best idea - and unfortunately we will also realize then that we may have gone just a little too far, and can't reverse course.
No, those are opinions. Some of the greatest legacies from the new deal are the ideas that we American's should help each other in times of need and that the rich should pay their fair share so society as a whole can benefit from the labor of our countrymen and women not just the tiny few connected elites. Unfortunately it hasn't worked that way since about 1981, but we can and WILL do better.
I don't want to get into debates like I did at B&B, so I'll avoid the political points here. But I do have to take issue with the idea that Americans only first had the idea to help each other in times of need beginning with the New Deal. Americans had been doing that for a while. There were numerous charitable organizations that were not drawing government funding prior to the New Deal, and there continue to be. I would argue that the New Deal, instead, created the idea that Americans could help others, not by digging deep and giving of themselves, but by electing politicians who would raise the taxes on some other "rich" person to help those less fortunate. It seems a bit strained to claim that most Americans want to help the less fortunate through government programs when the only taxes they want to see raised are on the "rich." If government spending helps the less fortunate, and more Americans want to increase that spending for the less fortunate, then they should want taxes from more people to increase. It isn't really generosity and wanting to help others if you just want rich people to pay for these programs. It is kind of like feeling really generous, and wanting to donate a lot of money to the Salvation Army at Christmas time, except instead of opening your own wallet, you have a police officer demand that someone "richer" than you make that donation. You then feel good, because you had the bright idea to help the poor, even if it wasn't your money that was given.
No one seems to be looking at the reasons why "need" a stimulus bill in the first place. Raging, festering and a constantly growing economic inequality with a sense of grande entitlement for those at the very top. The ultra wealthy can take only as long as we the people let them. Perhaps the New Deal was not so much a cure for the ills of society but a direct by-product of it? "In 1929, just before the Great Depression, the richest one-hundredth of 1 percent took in 301 times more than their equal share." http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/ Anyone paying attention can tell you we are right back where the country was in 1929. We don't need to beg for scraps from the rich we can take what we like and they should be thankful they were allowed to amass so much of our country when no one, apparently, was looking out for the bottom line. "The more unequal we have become as a nation, the more income and wealth have concentrated, the more difficult daily life has become for low- and middle-income Americans." http://toomuchonline.org/articlenew2007/Dec10b.html
OK.....since we're quoting authoritative sources: I am afraid THIS is we're were heading.................. from Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2: a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Well we do own most of the banking system already. I'm not afraid of Socialism when it happens from the bottom up.
By definition, though, socialism means government ownership, not "bottom up." So instead of the wealth being controlled by the "rich," it is controlled by a bunch of narcissistic individuals who comprise the federal government - a group that seems to have, proportionately, more scandals and ethics issues than the general public. Assuming you are right about what the rich have been doing, all we are doing is trading masters under socialism. At least the private sector tries to give us a product we want to maximize their wealth - the government gives us a product they like, or, in many cases, nobody likes.
Let me throw a little in here. If the rich make there money honest, then shy should they not have it. I am far from rich. But I do not think that those who are should automatically have to spread that around. That is just how a capitalistic society is right. The rich get richer usually because whatever got them their money is working. Why should they be required to give a larger percentage of there earnings then anyone else. There is a class of people that just want handouts. They do not care to put the work in. They simply think the rich, or the government should just give it to them. Would the stimulus package create Jobs for these people as well? I wonder if they would even take them. Goes back to an earlier post about the road and bridge building jobs that could be opened up. Or even ATV trails(which I still say are useless). Will unemployed workers travel for the jobs, or still expect welfare? Fuzzy
In my opinion you are mixing two things that aren't realated. As I see it, people that EXPECT to live off wellfare without any reason as their sole income isn't right. But that doesn't mean the taxation is voided. Those issues are not related imo. People that leech the system is just as much part of the problem!
I'll dip my toes back in the pond here for a minute just cause I like the Bunny. And throw this out there for the ladies and gentlemen of the board. Corporate risk is already socialized, it's only the profits that are capitalized. See Bear Stearns, Auto Industry, Airline Industry and so on. The last administration did not meet the standards being discussed here either. Where's Barry Goldwater when you need him right?
I agree with both. and said the same type of things with the previous administration. Just would be nice to see a package come out of there that helped the problem instead of continuing it. Fuzzy
I'd like to think that Pres. Obama really wants to enact "change" and in that, I mean....................change in politics, in general. I will NOT engage in party bashing because I believe there is good and bad on ALL sides. I will say that in order to get out of this mess we're in, it will take ALL sides discussing and debating ALL possible solutions. When will Washington EVER realize they are there to REPRESENT US !! ?? !! and not serve their small and selfish egos and self-interests?????????????
I will throw in 2 more cents on Fuzzy's comments. Those that are leaching the system are in the wrong and they don't deserve handouts. I totally agree with you on this Fuzzy. I would like to add a comment on the idea of people travelling long distances for work. In my area we are having a huge energy boom. We are lucky enough to have coal and coalbed methane and oil here. The companies mining these products are having a working shortage. Several of them have put job postings out on monster.com and other web based search engines. They have also travelled as far as Michigan, CO etc to hold job fairs. They have seen a lot of success and there are more Michigan and Coloradoans here than ever before. I don't think everyone will travel for work but some will. I think those that are working the systme will continue to work the system. The regular Joe that is hard working and seeing hard times will travel for work.
I could not agree more there. Tracy that is good to hear. All I hear about are farmers and such that can not get workers. The conditions are often not the best I know but you make what you want out of things. A group of people working together can make a camp liveable for a harvest. I hope that more people will get on board the projects if they come up like that. Less people on the system payroll is good for all. i will support programs aimed at that, and gladly see my tax dollars go toward it. Fuzzy
