Have you heard about the 14 year old tape of Barrack Obama favoring redistribution of wealth in this country? It was supposed to be an attack add in favor of Romney. What does Romney favor? He says he will create 12 million new jobs if elected president. He also has said that he wants every American to have a good job. By a good job it is reasonable to believe he is speaking about good-paying jobs. And by good-paying jobs one can reason that he means higher than minimum wage jobs. In fact, is it not reasonable to conclude that Romney wants all working Americans to have jobs that would allow them to join the middle class? I'm not a mathematician but it seems to me that the amount of money needed to employ 12 million unemployed workers plus raise the wages of the underemployed/underpaid classes would require at least several billions of dollars. From where does Romney think all those billions are going to come? It can't come from the low or impoverished classes. If Romney keeps his promise to shrink the size of the federal government and the federal budget and not raise taxes, those billions of dollars are not going to come from the government. The middle class is probably not going to be willing to donate the money to create all those jobs. That leaves the wealthiest Americans, the only remaining source of that much wealth in this country. Practically speaking, Romney will have to depend on the wealthiest corporations, banks, and individuals to redistribute a portion of their wealth so that the unemployed and underemployed workers of this country can join the middle class. So it would seem that Romney is, in fact, in favor of redistribution of wealth in this country.
It is hopefully clear that the President of the U.S. does not have a magic wand that can be waved in order to create jobs. If he did, President Obama would have already waved it. Nor does the President have the power to force big banks, corporations, and the wealthiest Americans to cooperate in creating any number of new jobs. If Romney has known a secret formula for doing so, why has he been guarding it like a precious secret rather than sharing his secret for the good of the country?
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
New Insight Part 5
My very own older sister gave me a new fresher answer to the question, "What is a Republican?". Thanks to my sister I now know that, at least some Republicans believe that President Obama is the figure that, after three and a half years in office, has failed to fix the mess that President Bush and the Republicans spent eight years creating. By "mess" they are referring to the economy and the fact that the median income of the middle class has decreased for seven of the last ten years. "Mess" does not refer to the setbacks suffered by the environment, women's rights, social issues, etc. during eight years of Bushdom. This accusation that Obama is responsible for the present financial crisis in America may sound unreasonable to more liberal thinkers. However, there is reasoning behind it which brings into question the appropriate function of government in our lives. The reasoning goes like this. If President Obama had not proposed Health Care Reform it would never have become law. Small business owners would not be anxious about whether they can afford the costs imposed by the new law in regard to their employees without laying employees off. This supposedly prevents them from hiring new people they may have to lay off because of the new Health Care Regulations. In other words, if business people felt confident about the future they would be hiring a lot more unemployed people. And the only reason they don't feel confident is because of Health Care Reform. Therefore, the person who originated Health Care Reform (not the people who made it the law of the land nor the Supreme Court that upheld it) is solely responsible for the current economic crisis. And he refuses to accept responsibility for the country's economic mess.
Business people don't like any kind of government regulations that interfere with their bottom line, i.e. profit. Expenses decrease profits . Anything that increases expenses such as fair wages, pollution controls, safety equipment and safety procedures for workers, decrease profits. If the government had not stepped in after the Industrial Revolution began, sunlight in Pittsburgh would still be a rare sight; mill workers would still be reduced to begging for handouts from their former peers. Pinkerton guards would still be employed to break worker strikes at any cost. Wage earners would be forced to work longer hours without overtime pay. Don't fool yourself. The only reason we have safer working conditions, cleaner air and water, higher wages, is because of government regulations. And despite hundreds of govenment regulations, the rich still have managed to get richer.
This argument about too much regulation of business by government raises the question as to what should the function of government be in regard to business. I don't recall the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution saying anything about the main duty of government being to maximize profits for corporations. I remember something written about our government being of, for, and by the people-not of, for, and by the corporations. There was also something about the individuals right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I think it would be appropriate for the government to protect those rights for all Americans, not just those earning over $250,000. You don't think corporations are trying to take over? Find out what is happening in Michigan. Corporate dictators taking over whole communities including Detroit, according to The Lowdown (see www.hightowerlowdown.com).
Governments need to create frameworks of rules, policies, etc. that serve the good of all citizens. An example of that good is every American having access to minimum necessary health care. Businesses need to figure out how to function within that framework without depending on government handouts. One problem I have with helping particular businesses, is that all taxpayers do not benefit from the services or goods any particular business produces. Besides that the government cannot afford handouts to business.
Businesses have no business trying to influence the framework determined by our elected officials for the good of all. The only motivation businesses have in influencing legislative or executive decisions is pure and simple greed.. If it were up to me, lobbyists representing the interests of for-profit corporations would be out of jobs. Nor would corporations be allowed to contribute to any one's political party nor campaign. Individual voters should determine who governs-not the amount of money a candidate has available. In the meantime, while corporations can still donate large amounts of money to campaigns, the amounts and donors should be disclosed to the public immediately. I would hate to spend money on a product or service that benefits the Republicans.
We have a time-honored tradition in this country of separation of church and state. We need to start another tradition called "Separation of corporations and government".
Business people don't like any kind of government regulations that interfere with their bottom line, i.e. profit. Expenses decrease profits . Anything that increases expenses such as fair wages, pollution controls, safety equipment and safety procedures for workers, decrease profits. If the government had not stepped in after the Industrial Revolution began, sunlight in Pittsburgh would still be a rare sight; mill workers would still be reduced to begging for handouts from their former peers. Pinkerton guards would still be employed to break worker strikes at any cost. Wage earners would be forced to work longer hours without overtime pay. Don't fool yourself. The only reason we have safer working conditions, cleaner air and water, higher wages, is because of government regulations. And despite hundreds of govenment regulations, the rich still have managed to get richer.
This argument about too much regulation of business by government raises the question as to what should the function of government be in regard to business. I don't recall the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution saying anything about the main duty of government being to maximize profits for corporations. I remember something written about our government being of, for, and by the people-not of, for, and by the corporations. There was also something about the individuals right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I think it would be appropriate for the government to protect those rights for all Americans, not just those earning over $250,000. You don't think corporations are trying to take over? Find out what is happening in Michigan. Corporate dictators taking over whole communities including Detroit, according to The Lowdown (see www.hightowerlowdown.com).
Governments need to create frameworks of rules, policies, etc. that serve the good of all citizens. An example of that good is every American having access to minimum necessary health care. Businesses need to figure out how to function within that framework without depending on government handouts. One problem I have with helping particular businesses, is that all taxpayers do not benefit from the services or goods any particular business produces. Besides that the government cannot afford handouts to business.
Businesses have no business trying to influence the framework determined by our elected officials for the good of all. The only motivation businesses have in influencing legislative or executive decisions is pure and simple greed.. If it were up to me, lobbyists representing the interests of for-profit corporations would be out of jobs. Nor would corporations be allowed to contribute to any one's political party nor campaign. Individual voters should determine who governs-not the amount of money a candidate has available. In the meantime, while corporations can still donate large amounts of money to campaigns, the amounts and donors should be disclosed to the public immediately. I would hate to spend money on a product or service that benefits the Republicans.
We have a time-honored tradition in this country of separation of church and state. We need to start another tradition called "Separation of corporations and government".
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
PART 4: Insight into Republican thinking
If you have been following this blog you know I have been trying to understand how an ordinary person would vote Republican. Thanks to the feedback I have been carefully listening to, I may have figured it out. It's not that these people are deluding themselves into thinking they will ever join the upper one percent of Americans who control 90% of the country's wealth, unless they win a mega lottery drawing. Republicans and Democrats have very fundamentally different attitudes and ways of viewing the world.
The simplest way to distinguish Republican voter thinking from Democratic voter thinking is to identify that which concerns them. The Republicans like to make it seem they are concerned about everyone. But they don't think women and homosexuals should have the same rights as the rest of us, us being real men, I guess. What they don't care about is the totality of life on the planet Earth. What does concern them is the economic status of themselves and their families. Democrats tend to care about the whole. Whereas Republicans tend to care for themselves and what is personally theirs. There is a difference between caring about and caring for. Whereas one can care for certain people, animals and or plants that one likes or loves, one can't care about just certain life forms. Caring about life transcends personal relationships. If one is genuinely caring, one cares about those living in poverty as well as polar bears. If one genuinely cares about, one favors solutions that help impoverished humans without endangering polar bears. If one is a Republican, the fate of polar bears as well as those in poverty is not one's top priority.
Republicans believe that if they take care to ensure their own personal financial prosperity, the country as a whole will be fine. When do Republican leaders prosper? When the richest people in the country are getting richer. I suspect there is some sort of trickle down reward system for loyal party members.
Why else are there so many millionaires in Congress? Of course, if your prosperity depends on the financial security of the upper one percent, it is reasonable to do what you can to protect the financial interests of the one percent, i.e. limited taxes, foreign contracts, awarding them government-financed projects, etc. The fact is the legal system, government institutions, the media in this country are all designed to protect, empower and enable the richest to prosper.
Republicans in government care for their wallets and they care for the people who have plenty of wealth. The people who vote for them value personal wealth as well and believe their chances of accumulating more of it are better under Republican leadership. Unfortunately, they they may be correct.
It is unfortunate for the poor and former members of the middle class. Wealth is not infinite. Not in this country nor in the world in general. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" may be interpreted as jest. This is why it is not jest. If a group of people (let's say 100) has a total of $1000 among them. One of those hundred people eventually gains control of $900 of those dollars. Five others gain control of $50 of the remaining $100. That leaves 94 people with a total of $50. If the 94 people have to borrow money from the richest six at high interest rates and have to pay a higher percentage of income tax to the government than the six richest of the group, one can understand how the total wealth available to the 94 would decrease as the wealth of the 6 would increase. That is a microcosm of what has been happening in America. The Democrats may not be able to stop this trend but I am sure that the Republicans aren't even going to seriously try. They will, of course, try to appear to be trying. They are good at that.
The simplest way to distinguish Republican voter thinking from Democratic voter thinking is to identify that which concerns them. The Republicans like to make it seem they are concerned about everyone. But they don't think women and homosexuals should have the same rights as the rest of us, us being real men, I guess. What they don't care about is the totality of life on the planet Earth. What does concern them is the economic status of themselves and their families. Democrats tend to care about the whole. Whereas Republicans tend to care for themselves and what is personally theirs. There is a difference between caring about and caring for. Whereas one can care for certain people, animals and or plants that one likes or loves, one can't care about just certain life forms. Caring about life transcends personal relationships. If one is genuinely caring, one cares about those living in poverty as well as polar bears. If one genuinely cares about, one favors solutions that help impoverished humans without endangering polar bears. If one is a Republican, the fate of polar bears as well as those in poverty is not one's top priority.
Republicans believe that if they take care to ensure their own personal financial prosperity, the country as a whole will be fine. When do Republican leaders prosper? When the richest people in the country are getting richer. I suspect there is some sort of trickle down reward system for loyal party members.
Why else are there so many millionaires in Congress? Of course, if your prosperity depends on the financial security of the upper one percent, it is reasonable to do what you can to protect the financial interests of the one percent, i.e. limited taxes, foreign contracts, awarding them government-financed projects, etc. The fact is the legal system, government institutions, the media in this country are all designed to protect, empower and enable the richest to prosper.
Republicans in government care for their wallets and they care for the people who have plenty of wealth. The people who vote for them value personal wealth as well and believe their chances of accumulating more of it are better under Republican leadership. Unfortunately, they they may be correct.
It is unfortunate for the poor and former members of the middle class. Wealth is not infinite. Not in this country nor in the world in general. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" may be interpreted as jest. This is why it is not jest. If a group of people (let's say 100) has a total of $1000 among them. One of those hundred people eventually gains control of $900 of those dollars. Five others gain control of $50 of the remaining $100. That leaves 94 people with a total of $50. If the 94 people have to borrow money from the richest six at high interest rates and have to pay a higher percentage of income tax to the government than the six richest of the group, one can understand how the total wealth available to the 94 would decrease as the wealth of the 6 would increase. That is a microcosm of what has been happening in America. The Democrats may not be able to stop this trend but I am sure that the Republicans aren't even going to seriously try. They will, of course, try to appear to be trying. They are good at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)