In the period shortly after the Civil War known as the "Reconstruction" power and authority was given to those who demonstrated that they could with such power create and rebuild. The power was segregated from the masses because, and properly so, the masses were seen as unstable, unreliable, and quite frankly unable to make correct decisions.
Has this inability or ability changed?
I argue that the masses still are unable to divorce their own interest for those of the Union. This is not to say that I call for only white male land owners to be the only voters. I am drawing attention to the theory that redistribution of wealth can create more wealth. In essence, we are saying that by taking capital from those who know how to create more capital and giving it to those who do not we will in some way be able to create more capital. If that sentence was confusing to read then you are like the many who cannot understand the logic of the incoming party with their tax and fiscal policies.
In another example more personal to all of us it would be equivalent to ask a 3rd grade math student to perform calculus.
A larger more looming problem, which I believe to be the harbinger of it all which is the masses requesting indirectly a quick fix. "Quick fix"...is that not a neo-American principle circa 1960 that has driven everything from energy production to domestic cooking in America? Unfortunately, the masses want it and they want it now. The masses have spoken and they will get a quick fix; however, that is all it will be. Those who will be on the receiving end of the new policies (which I am apart of) will typically squander away whatever "leg up" is gifted, jolting the markets and industry only to face the same problems in another decade. Unfortunately, the concept of deferral in politics is rampant, so as to say not on my watch. It would be refreshing for a politician to take responsibility and do the hard thing, thus securing the American future as well as their name with the likes of Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln.
In short we are and will be facing serious problems in America until the tide of entitlements rescinded into the ocean me first's. Our legacy is built upon federalism or lack their of, state rights, separation of powers, capitalism, and liberty. These principles are in the very DNA that is America and the carcinoma that is socialism can and will destroy everything has been fought for.
President-elect Obama was correct a house divided against it's self will fall. Socialism vs. American values will divide and conquer all that we hold truly "American". Akin to Patrick Henry I say, give me capitalism, protestant work ethic, honesty, and liberty or give me death.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
This is traditional neoconservative technocratic rhetoric.
Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, started the progressive tax program. Where much is given much is required and expected. It is a foundational Christian ideal to care for the poor--without passing judgment. And yes that includes giving beggars money! Jesus never taught efficiency.
Max Weber, Mr. Protestant work ethic himself, said capitalists are becoming, "specialists without spirit, hedonists without a heart." You would have a difficult time trying to convince anyone that the so-called protestant work ethic which began as Puritans working for "God" is still intact. Capitalism has at its roots selfishness, greed, and fear. American capitalism has nothing to do with laboring for "God." If anything, Christianity is what has compensated for the flaws of capitalism. Ask the next person you see at work if they are clocking in for God?
The problem with your analogy and with capitalism is that it views the 3rd grader who is asked to teach calculus as incapable of contributing to society. Just because he cannot teach calculus does not mean that is useless to society or deserves less. Your arguments are nearing the idea that people deserve from society as much as they give to society. If God thought this way, we would all be lost.
Capitalism is as much American as atheism. Both developed from freedom of government. Capitalism did not produce American democracy nor did democracy produce capitalism.
This is the Christian work ethic I aspire to:
“But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.”
"For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves."
"Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment"
"In your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld"
As long as capitalism rules, its the dollar that votes and not the people!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWxjReQZuTI
Maybe we're defining capitalism differently, because I completely agree with (almost) everything you say. Yes capitalism has the ability to produce greed, selfishness and the like. Similarly, socialism has the ability to produce apathy, laziness, idleness, and an entitlement attitude. (Some scholars would suggest that is why African-Americans have taken the longest of any demographic to completely assimilate into the American fabric because of the entitlements and social services given to them and as such have contributed to the current stereotype). But my definition of capitalism is the ability to make something out of nothing. Or as a bad Heath Ledger movie said..."...yes William a man can change his stars...". That is what capitalism can offer. No system is perfect and anyone who believes such is ignorant and foolish. I find pros simply out weigh the cons over any other system. We need to be careful about where we draw lines with regards to religion and politics as they have two very different goals. In politics we make rules to govern and more equality, in religion we obey. Capitalism to me is not a replacement for religion but a system which allows to progress and advance the progress of those I see fit. Socialism to me and those that promote attempt to merge it into religion for its acceptability. I do not believe it is acceptable to concentrate powers of governance into such a few hands. I cannot see how socialism nor many of its components can be in harmony with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Gospel.
Scripturally, did not the Lord also say… “but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my bcommandments are cspiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.”
It funny that you would say it's the dollar that votes considering in order to get many not all but many of his votes President-elect Obama spent more than 2:1 over Sen. McCain. President-elect Obama spent nearly $700 million dollars.
It has nothing to do with religion. Those scriptures are not covenants or foundation ideas of religion. They are moral ideas, social standards. The problem with capitalism is they never answer the social inequality and the moral questions they are confronted with. What about the poor? What about the starving? What about the oppressed? What about the sick? What about those without opportunity?
It always defaults on the idea of efficiency, equal opportunity, and the "American Dream" versus handouts, laziness, "something for nothing." It is an amoral system that blinds people to the idea that there are millions of failures and deceives us into thinking we can be that one person who makes something out of this life. Nobody uses the fact that there are 500 billionaires who have a combined income of half of the entire world's combined income to promote their cause. They never tell you that there has to be losers for there to be winners--and over half the world is losing.
What they do tell you is that it is the best system we have! It is efficient, fair, and part of American democracy--and through it you become a millionaire with a mansion on the mountain.
You argue, "I do not believe it is acceptable to concentrate powers of governance into such a few hands." We are told China and Cuba are communist countries and it doesn't work for them. They are the evil empire, right?! They are not communism. They are nationalist dictators. They in no way practice socialist principles. They are labeled as such and used as a scapegoat to eliminate what would be a very viable competition to capitalism. Capitalism and Ayn Rand and Animal Farm are what sell communism as a scourge, a "carcinoma," when in reality it is a way in which people really do have the power. It puts ownership into the people's hands, not "a select few." The "select few" that I see are the fact that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.
When people are in control of their education they do what is best for people. When people control their healthcare plan they do what is best for people. When corporations are in charge of education, healthcare, oil, property--they do what is best for the corporation! When it comes down to it there is far less risk in putting ownership and power into the people's hands and not into the corporations.
We can't delude ourselves into thinking that money does not buy power. Money buys elections, it buys votes, it buys silence. It buys poverty!
Obama's average donation was something like $85. That is the power of people. He didn't accept lobbyist money.
He absolutly accepted federal funding and lobbying groups. Maybe not directly but moveOn.org donated close to $5mm dollars to DCCC.
But James who owns that corporation? The people! You are absolutely correct that different from foreign philosophies America places a greater emphasis on the corporation and not the individual. I am not saying that the proper thing is to take care of the needy, sick, afflicted, and the widow. If I am ever fortunate enough to be blessed with such financial stewardship that is exactly what I would do, because I have a moral compass. How can we force, take away the agency, of individuals? That does not sound like an appealing plan. It sounds as if you are saying that we need to take away choice from individuals because they don’t make the best choices and give their power to a government because they make better choices? If that is a semi-correct understanding how does one then combine that train of thought with gospel or with equality?
Changing gears…
I recognize there are extremely powerful people who have much of the worlds wealth. Those individuals have changed drastically in past 50, 25, or even 10 years with the emergence of the BRIC countries. However, I have a very big problem with your facts and figures. What you are not saying in your figures is that you are including the billions of people who live a life style circa 17th century in many part of the world. Should we really be counting those people? If so, you are then in effect placing them in the strata of first world countries at which time you are then saying that they should be first world? If you are saying they should be first world (i.e. Western democracy, are you not then pushing imperialism? Is that not what Pres. Bush has been accused of?) So really to use the “world” is not fair. Moreover, one needs not aspire to making millions but why not aspire to providing one’s family with luxury? Why not trips, vacation, and good education? If you argue against I call you a hypocrite in that you have traveled and seen much of the world to form such opinions. My friend your opinions have come at a cost.
(Sorry I’m scattered but I am trying to answer your questions in order)
Again, people are the corporations so you find yourself in a difficult argument. As well as the money thing. Barack bought his votes, you can do the average thing all you want but it still doesn’t work.
If corporations are made up of the people--then I ask one question: why do only a few benefit from the efforts of many? Why do middle class scientists on a bench discover the newest antibiotic while the CEOs of pharm corp walk away with millions? Why does Walmart make billions and can't provide health insurance to its employess? Why do we let oil prices bankrupt us while Exxon and Co. make billions every quarter? Why does the big guy, the rich and powerful always win and the poor always lose? Why do we pay embarrassing wages to the factory line workers who keep a company alive while the stock holders buy second, third, fourth homes?
It is a system set up to maintain the status quo: to keep power in the hands of the wealthy and privileged. Why would they promote a system that challenges their existence?
You are right we pay embarrassing wages to factory line workers. A GM factory worker can make 6 figures with overtime. You will make 6 figures saving lives. Who provides a benefit to society? Should they be paid the same?
Ultimately, I see that you want to fight against the natural man, I am with you. In a perfect world it would be great to have people do what the love (which such intrinsic motivation would lead to the same discoveries as financial reward would) and everyone receive compensation for what they need. I like that world, I have made promises to live in and contribute to such a world; however, that world cannot and will not exist in this world in its current stage. To invoke such would be to take away freedom, liberty, agency, or whatever else one wants to call it, which is where I am not with you.
Those with much will be required to give an account of their talents, and for those who own 50% of the world’s resources, may the Lord have mercy upon them for their blind eye and deaf ear. But the beauty of our system is that you can become one of them (maybe, maybe not the biggest of the big but up there. In fact, the majority are first generation, old money is an old concept) and you then can make a far greater difference then bitching about it with the rest of us on blogs. Even with socialism greed will always be prevalent, but under socialism there is no avenue to fight it. However, capitalism you provide such an avenue.
If you believe that socialistic societies can kill greed, then I cannot argue with you. I can only point to history to show you that you are wrong that socialism is not sustainable. If you still disagree all I can do is resort to name calling (ignorant & stupid), so I guess I loose.
I realize that neither of us is going to convince the other...even if our goals are the same, you focused your studies on business and accounting, I studied anthropology, international development, and medicine. We both come from different perspectives--just like Glenn Beck and Diane Rehm.
Maybe I just want the last word but I can't help but think that the numbers are in my favor. Does anyone really believe that a factory workers income is anyway comparable to a physician? Its apples and oranges. Your spinning the numbers. Even if a few GM factory worker do make six figures working OVERTIME (you didn't specify the hours), you forgot to mention that the average physician salary for EVERY specialty is six figures. I googled these:
pharmaceutical factory worker avg income--$38,900
food and beverage factory--$32,600
textile workers--$30-40 day
ER doc: $216000
Orthopedic surgeon: $459000
Pediatrician (lowest paid): $175000
http://www.studentdoc.com/pediatrics-salary.html
Surgeons make 10 times what a factory worker makes...
There has been no answer to the moral injustice and social inequality present in America and undoubtedly caused by our financial system.
"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%."
see report here: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
In the words of Walt Disney (father of Bambi and the most magical place on earth), “Don’t forget this, it’s the law of the universe that the strong shall survive and the weak must fall by the way, and I don’t give a damn what idealistic plan is cooked up, nothing can change that.”
I yield all further comments to hearnoevilseenoevilblognoevil.blogspot.com
Two very compeling arguments. Wealth is defined 1. a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.
2. an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery.
3. Economics. a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
4. rich or valuable contents or produce: the wealth of the soil.
5. the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence: persons of wealth and standing.
So if i am to understand coorectly we are talking about President elect Obama and his conversation with Joe the idiot (plumber) that he was going to spread the wealth around. Great sound bite in an election. I believe that our own Federal Government is of both houses. Capaitalistic as well as Socailism.
We have entitlment programs that do in fact help those less fotunate then ourselves. to quote Obama "i am my brothers keeper i am my sister keeper" This is an idea that is gone by the wayside. why give what i can for me. This tells me that our society has become selfish and uncaring.
Money earned or Money paid for service would likely depend on perspective. Do i want a Dr that only charges $50.00 for his service and more complete then the Dr chargeing $150.00 for poor service. sure I do. Does it bother me that a Gm factory worker can earn high 5 figures or low 6 figure job that can be auotmated for a better product. it concerns me in that we can outsource ourselves to a machine.
I am of the attitude that one can reap what one sows. If I were the Rich 1% I would be compelled to give to those in need.(part of being a Mason). To give to those less fortunate for me creates a wealth in my soul that has no price
So when one shares in the riches of success, other can see that by hard work dedication to their craft thay also can achieve. So in closing form a great movie "When someone does you a big favour,dont pay it back.. pay it forward" Or " The Dude Abides"
hey is my way of looking at it
Now you can rip my theory apart not each other...
Wow you guys can really go at it!
I think that the while government social programs have always been mediocre at best. President Clinton actually has been one of the only Preseidents to make positive strides in our welfare system. The workforce agenda he put forth where people on welfare had to work for thier checks has all but been eliminated. I know this program works because I was on the front lines of this program as a manager in a supermarket. I received 10 people to my dept that had to work for thier welfare checks. This was considered on the job training and if I liked thier work I could hire them and get them off of welfare. Unfortunately I only hired 2 of the 10. But I really feel this prgram was not brought to its full potential.
As far keeping my brothers and sisters, yes I believe it is notonly a Christian fundamental but a Humanitarian one as well. Churches and private organizations should be at the forefront of helping the poor. Private dontions with a little help from the government is the way to go. Privately run charities usually do not have the expense and red tape involved like government run programs and usually help more people.
I really think a workforce agenda is needed once more. The people on welfare that can work, should. On the job training, then hired.
See ya,
L
Sorry for the grammatical/spelling errors in my post, but I'm in a hurry to get to work!
L
It's not fair to credit ole Bill because he vetoed stronger welfare reforms bills twice. The one that was/is in place is the weakest of the three.
Good point J, I did not know there were three options. I did get the brunt of the workers NOT wanting to work for their welfare checks.
I got called names, and things were thrown at me and I got cussed out plenty. But being the prson I am, I did not take it personally and soon realized that this program would not be able to help all involved.
What did realize during that time is that we do need a program that puts people to work for their subsidy check. I do not know what the answer is?
L.
Post a Comment