A Lot of Economic and Class Rhetoric going on these days (amidst the ongoing Obama bashing)
In a discussion on the “CapitalismInstitute” meme “Redistribution if not Fairness, it’s Theft”, one person points out that the only redistribution for the past 30 years has been to the top 1%. This leads to a debate between him and the person who shared it on Obama wanting “to steal it from the people who EARNED it and give it to those who are too lazy to work for it”, (and how a union worker could support conservative ideology) or whether a CEO does enough work in an hour to earn what his employees make in a year (or whether this is just the “crock” of the “liberal-biased media”).
I then pointed out that all the money isn’t going to people who “refuse to work”, which is a diversionary rhetoric, and that it’s not “liberal media” we get this from, because they’ve actually been really slow to respond to a lot of this stuff.
Another person mentions the global economy’s effect on public sector unions, and said we need to distinguish crony capitalists from those like Steve Jobs who play by the rules and design new products customers can’t want to buy.
He says another major problem is the feds rules constantly changing or generating uncertainty causing businesses to hold back from expanding and hoard cash, and concludes that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton created pro-growth economic policies that helped the average guy a lot more than Obama, who is more interested in wealth redistribution.
So I point out:
I still think that the parameters of how much people are “rewarded” for creating popular things (which conservatives attribute to “the market”, as if this were a conscious entity in itself) are set in part by a lot of string-pulling (hence the gap increasing). We see this in sports and entertainment, where their compensation has shot up phenomenally in the past century as well. But they are unionized workers rather than CEO’s, so I’ve noticed that conservatives will actually lump them in as “takers”, occasionally (but the focus continues to be the poor on “welfare”). Still the dynamic is the same. They have something people want, and use that as leverage to make boundless demands. And the costs pass down. Then [the new point I was introducing in my statements on politics], conservatives begin talking about “zero sum games”, which they deny. But that actually goes both ways. If nonworking poor are getting all this money, and then going and blowing it all (as that “Grasshopper” analogy suggests) on gold chains, cars, electronics, etc. all of that money is going right back into the economy. They are not the ones SITTING on it, or taking it out of the country.
So you admit people with wealth “hoard” it, but blame government policies, particularly Obama (Conservatives never put Clinton in the same category as Reagan; until Obama, he was seen as the virtual Antichrist and the antithesis of Reagan).
But that’s an excuse. As the Zeitgeist films point out, they have created an illusion of scarcity, and thus are the ones playing off of a “zero sum game”, which people are trying to blame on the poor, instead of them.
So if Obama is just trying to “redistribute” (and this is what Clinton was accused of also), then that is simply to counter the redistribution already going on in the OTHER direction. So maybe the way he’s going about it is wrong. But what else can he do? We’ve tried giving the powerful more, and it always end up with the same thing: them hoarding, and the poor and the government being blamed (even under Reagan this went on).
Another meme had Thomas Sewell’s statement “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money”.
But that hinges on what you consider “earning”. The premise is that the widening income gap is from corporatists pulling strings, influencing and then gaining special benefits from the government themselves, in addition to jacking up price, lowering quality and cutting jobs here for cheaper labor elsewhere. So the debate is how true that is, and whether taxing is the solution. But it stands that the people being defended here are no less human and prone to dishonest gain than anyone else, including the poor.
Another meme lumped Michelle Obama’s statement about being proud of the country for the first time, with Rev. Wright’s curse on America, and a couple of other things, the point being how the Obama’s “hate” America; and I pointed out “Michelle went from not being proud to being proud, yet staunch “patriots” like Rush go the opposite direction, and conservative Christian preachers have long ushered curses on America during every national tragedy!”
It’s like patriotism is conditional on the nation going the way you want!
Just this morning, someone posted this excellent meme:
If you think that’s some sort of exaggeration, look at this (from Capitalisminstitute):
They are really preparing for a civil war against the government!
It’s not a matter of saying no one should ever overthrow a tyrannical government; but rather what they’re interpreting as tyrannical, and why (again, refusing to look at all sides regarding who holds the power). Remember, this group is representing capitalism. Why are capitalists, as much as their leaders are profiting (despite the state of the economy), claiming they are under tyranny? What else do they want?
A couple of days ago: