"... how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit?"...
Patrick Buchanan
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29302
Maybe Pat Buchanan would like to see us drop all those programs. I don't believe the vast majority of Americans, including John McCain, would. I'll bet McCain doesn't oppose his first wife getting Social Security and Medicare after he left her with her long-term injuries from a terrible car accident. He knows she needs some help.
Yet, Senator McCain insists on calling Obama a socialist. Well, if believing in the general idea of social programs makes a person a socialist, then I guess I'm a bit of one too. For example, I believe in public libraries where anyone can go in and get a library card and check out books and CDs and DVDs. I believe those libraries ought to be supported by taxes.
It seems to me that those who benefit the most from America's economic prosperity ought to be required to pay more in taxes, to "give something back" to the country that gave them the freedom to become so wealthy.
Here's a question for the capitalist purist who wants to abandon all social programs and give huge tax breaks to the wealthy: How do most rich people make their money? Do they do it by their own hard work? Or do they make their fortunes profiting from the labors of others? Another question: Do they pay a fair wage to those workers? If everyone paid fare wages, then socialism would likely evaporate.
Joan Kroc was the widow of Ray Kroc, the McDonalds Drive-In franchise founder. She gave away tons of money to various causes, including National Public Radio; and she donated millions to build community rec centers, etc. All of that is commendable. But one day it occurred to me: Why should she have ALL that much money? Why didn't her husband or she require every McDonald's franchise operator to pay a livable wage to their employees, who flip the burgers and fry the fries? That would, of course, mean less profits for the owners and the Krocs. But, instead of that, a lot of McDonalds' employees are living under the poverty line. Is that what capitalism should look like? Looks like a crock to me.
And what about Cindy McCain? Did she work really, really hard for her $100,000,000 beer distributor fortune? Or did she benefit from the hardworking people who staffed the breweries and drove the beer trucks, etc.? Why should Cindy end up with such a huge fortune, while so many of those workers were no doubt living paycheck-to-paycheck? It wouldn't hurt Cindy to pay more taxes, so that social programs will have more to help the workers who made her rich.
Patrick Mulhaney, a sometimes semi-socialist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Patrick;
Socialism is the basis for both Democrat's and Republican's political agendas. Obama is a much more aggressive socialist; therefore a much more dangerous official. And, both McCain and Obama are warmongers, as well.
The moral evils of socialism are vast; allowing deviant, excessive behaviors to thrive, where no basis for support would otherwise exist.
It is a wretched excuse to to justify evil, even seemingly small evils, with the cover story that some good comes from socialism.
Corporatism is socialism for the wealthy. That is, government in collusion with business suppressing natural markets, (natural markets, as is seen on everyday Main Street, USA.)
Pointing to the wealth accumulated by others as excessive is wrong-headed. One may discover that a particular individual has accumulated wealth by crime, and as such deserves exposure, trial, and punishment. But, to claim that wealth alone is cause for confiscation, is plainly wrong.
Do you get my point, Patrick?
Yes, Jack, I get your point. I'm not a socialist purist, but maybe you can cure me of my minor infection by answering that question I asked:
Do most rich people make their money by their own hard work? Or by profiting from the labors of others? Or to put it crassly, do they build their fortunes on the backs of the struggling middle class or working poor?
My dear fellow;
I have to say that you cut too large a claim on 'people of money.' Would that be a hate-crime, here in America? If you could narrow your view a bit, your argument may have weight.
Now, then, seemingly most 'rich before 30' Wall Streeters probably do have crime as basis for their wealth. But, who are we to burden any group of people with taxes: putting on evil for their (supposed) evil? Gracious!
However, if the corporatist system were exposed of their theft by use of this 'socialism for the wealthy' then, prosecuted to the full extent of moral law (not the nonsense called law by the legal racketeers,) then, perhaps there would be justice. Well, enough fantasy!
Frankly, I do have the notion that the laws and moral conventions of society (business,) here in the States, are heavily skewed in favor the very wealthy and 'connected.' So, I will give you that sense of the problem.
However, there is a segment of wealthy society that do not exhibit the crass and connected nature of the very wealthy. That we can see in our own neighborhoods (such as, 'The Millionaire Next Door.') These are very stable, building-blocks of society; usually of meager origin. By living below their means, savings and thrift, these good folk contribute a building of wealth in local society, benefiting the community at large.
It's those 'OTC derivative quant,' 29 years-old shits (and, their bosses,) operating from Wall Street, plundering savings that goad me! This are the criminals we can readily identify as thieves.
There, so you have me outed! Are you happy, now?
IrishJack
Post a Comment