Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
92% Of Americans Are Socialists They Just Don’t Know It
Wealth inequality is as extreme today as it was during the Great Depression years. In real terms, the wealthy hold the majority of this nation’s wealth and income. The problem in this country is mass disillusionment. In a recent study by Duke and Harvard University they found many Americans believe that the top 20% of our nation’s wealthiest own 60% of the wealth. The real figure is the top 20% own 84% of our nation’s wealth and it is increasing every year.
When the respondents were asked to pick an unlabeled pie chart “How much should the top 20% own?” 92% of them preferred the Swedish model of income distribution over the current American economic model. The Swedish economic model, which is the top 20% own 36% of the nation’s wealth.
Americans Prefer Sweden
For the first task, we created three unlabeled pie charts of wealth distributions, one of which depicted a perfectly equal distribution of wealth.
Unbeknownst to respondents, a second distribution reflected the wealth distribution in the United States; in order to create a distribution with a level of inequality that clearly fell in between these two charts, we constructed a third pie chart from the income distribution of Sweden
We presented respondents with the three pair-wise combinations of these pie
charts (in random order) and asked them to choose which nation they would rather join
given a “Rawls constraint” for determining a just society (Rawls, 1971):“In considering this question, imagine that if you joined this nation, you would be randomly assigned to a place in the distribution, so you could end up anywhere in this distribution, from the very richest to the very poorest.”
As can be seen in Figure 1, the (unlabeled) United States distribution was far less
desirable than both the (unlabeled) Sweden distribution and the equal distribution, with
some 92% of Americans preferring the Sweden distribution to the United States.In addition, this overwhelming preference for the Sweden distribution over the United States distribution was robust across gender (Females: 92.7%; Males: 90.6%), preferred
candidate in the 2004 election (Bush Voters: 90.2%; Kerry Voters: 93.5%) and income
(less than $50,000: 92.1%; $50,001-100,000: 91.7%; more than $100,000: 89.1%).In addition, there was a slight preference for the distribution that resembled Sweden relative to the equal distribution, suggesting that Americans prefer some inequality to perfect equality, but not to the degree currently present in the United States.
92% of the respondents believe in the socialistic economic wealth distribution of Sweden. Unfortunately, Americans have been persuaded to vote for these regressive Republicans for the last thirty years who favor this income inequality. In Sweden the top income tax rate is 56%, which is far lower than the American tax rate of the 1950s.
This current Republican Great Recession has started to open the eyes of many Americans. These Americans that have bought into a failed economic policy of trickle down economics and crony capitalism and now realize the error of their ways, including Alan Greenspan.
Look around the country and you will see town hall meetings in predominately conservative districts erupt in anger over the possible implementation of a Medicare Voucher system.
The people are getting restless, the jobs are scarce and the jobs that are available pay lower wages than before due to a higher supply of labor in the market. Instead of focusing on jobs, the current crop of Republicans in Washington D.C. would rather focus on cutting programs that are keeping real Americans afloat during this Republican Recession. They would rather defend the Defense of Marriage Act and curb abortion right for women.
The Republicans are using this past election as an avenue to further a political ideological agenda rather than move this country toward a more prosperous future.
Related Posts :
Sen. Bernie Sanders told the Republican Party today that if they continue to push austerity, they will s ...
It seems to me that during these trying times, many people are talking about shared sacrifice. What do ...
How stupid do Republicans think Americans are? You can not blame President Obama for rising poverty, th ...
Sen. Bernie Sanders has seen his statements about wealth inequality come under vicious attack from the r ...
A week after the Census Bureau reported that American poverty has hit an all time high, America has lear ...
63 Responses to 92% Of Americans Are Socialists They Just Don’t Know It
Reynardine
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Post WWII, with the specter of Stalinism to hold out as a bugaboo, the plutonomists hit on the idea of persuading the idea that relative social equality = socialism, socialism = Communism, and Communism = Stalinism, whose evil was indeed patent. They indeed corrupted social discourse, and as long as social mobility and meritocracy were credible concepts, most Americans bought into it. The Naughts pulled the rug, but the discourse has grown ever more virulent. The future depends now on whether the voters believe what they’re being told, or the lying facts.
Darth Hen
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
I have been fighting this notion for a very long time. Most conservatives either don’t know (or just as likely don’t care) that there is a huge difference between socialism and communism. They had it drilled into their heads as children that the two were interchangeable when they clearly are not.
Salvatore
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I hate to inform you that Sweden is not a socialist country. “Socialism” as you people think of it is a lie. Its “Social-Democracy” not socialism.
Fredrik
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 9:02 am
I hate to inform you that “Social-Democracy” actually is a form of socialism. Socialism means the distribution of wealth from the deserving to the needy, and Sweden is an example of just that.
But the head start after not being in WWII isn’t there anymore, which leads to the conclusion that Sweden won’t be a particularly wealthy country for much longer, unless the political climate changes rapidly.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 9:29 am
you miss the entire point. It’s not about how the wealth is distributed to the needy, it’s about how the wealth is distributed in society. A country whose wealth is somewhat equally distributed throughout the classes of people will almost always be successful. the distribution of wealth in our country is extremely skewed towards one end. The wealth is naturally distributed ( not given but distributed) in Sweden far more equally. This means that all of the classes of the people from the poor up to the rich have opportunities to purchase and spend money. Any country whose wealth sets in 20% of the people such as ours does will not be successful for long.
Your conclusion about Sweden is unproven. But that is because your entire premise is nothing to do with the article. Germany, who is also considered to be a socialist state ( it isn’t) is easily outstripping the US coming out of the recession and has a far more equal wealth distribution. You must make the difference between distribution and distributing. Natural wealth distribution in a country is caused because all of the classes are working and share in the wealth. Meaning they all have purchasing power. Distributing wealth is when the government taxes the people and gives money to the poorer segments of society.
I would also suggest that you look up socialism and read the definition. Sweden is still going strong 66 years after the war, is constantly voted to have a better healthcare system than ours and is voted a better place to live. any so-called push that Sweden got from the war would’ve been gone a long time ago
Katie
Apr. 30th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
You also forget that Sweden’s size and population relative to those of our country is ridiculously tiny. It’s the same with public transport: Germany has amazing public transport throughout the entire country. There’s barely anywhere you can’t take a train or bus or mini-train, and all the systems are interchangeable with one type of ticket. Do you think this would work on a scale such as would be needed in the US? Absolutely not. Socialism is kind of like that. Take Russia as an example. There are too many people who will slack off to be supported according to their need. The wealth got the way it is in the first place mostly because some people didn’t work as hard as they could and some people worked harder than they needed to. My father was born into poverty and was a drug addict and alcoholic for years until he reformed, used student loans to get through college and medical school, and had me. Now I am extraordinarily privileged, go to a boarding school, and will soon matriculate to a wonderful college.
Furthermore, we earn the money that is being taken away from us. My father works more than 120 hours a week and barely sleeps to keep us in our relative wealth, and you would have 56% of that money taken away from him? If that were the case, let me tell you, many people like him would stop working and let the government give them money “according to [their] need”. Maybe there is an answer to lessening the massive divide between the rich and the poor, but socialism and taxing more than half of hard-working Americans’ income is NOT it.
If we want to make things equal what needs to be reformed is the education system. The Federal Department of education needs to go, as public education is run THROUGH THE STATES. There are hundreds of money-sucking, useless programs run by the federal government that only continue to exist because the congressmen who make money from them by being on their boards are the same men and women who VOTE on whether or not they should continue to be in existence. We need to cut the government budget where it needs to be cut, and keep its powers and money spending to the constitution. If, and I mean a big if, that doesn’t help our government deficit and allows us to spend more money on education and less on earmarks, we can try something else. But before we even THINK about adding more tax burden to the wealthy, we need to think about how they got where they are, and think about what we can do as a country to stop bloating of federal and state governments. No more earmarks, no more deficit.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 30th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Again, you are totally missing the point of the article. Sweden is not a socialist country .
The article talked about the distribution of wealth in the economy. Not taking money from people and giving it to others. Our country has a 80% of the wealth at the top class, and the rest split up between the other 2-3 classes.
Sweden and other European countrys have more like a 35% at the top then more evenly divided distribution between the rest. Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany are vastly more successful becuase ALL their monetary classes have purchasing power and the money to give for healthcare etc. To say universal healthcare cant work here is true, simply because the top 20% of the people have all the wealth. If this were the 1960′s when our monetary classes were far closer, universal healthcare would have been a breeze. So dont set there and say “socialism” isnt it. All you are saying is screw the people without healthcare, screw granny and screw everyone but you. The rich are not taxed at 55%. But they were very successful when they were taxed at 65%.
I just realized, you are just quoting the same talking point we hear day after day. Meaningless. BTW, if yout daddy would quit working cause he got taxed, poor you. Sucks to leave the boarding school dont it?
blurider
May. 8th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
In fact, note the correlation between the unequal distribution at the time and the Great Depression and the current state of wealth distribution and our current economic malaise!
Another point, Germany’s unions and guilds gave the country a foundation for the success and endurance of their manufacturing sector while our attacks and demonizing of such instruments has weakened ours!
Shiva notes correctly that both of you are just echoing Right Wing Athoritarion, political talking points with no ‘facts’ to even offer to the discussion. Lacking in foundation yu offet only dogma w/o any factual basis!
goofy's partner
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
I would find this incredibly amusing if it were not for the fact that our future depends on whether or not we can educate the masses about the truth. The stakes are high. The fear of socialism has been a steady drumbeat for over 50 years. To so many, it’s a dirty word.
But the “closet socialists” must be shown that there is nothing to fear in coming into the light. See this head-on confrontation here: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2113...
How much destruction takes place before people finally realize the truth is yet to be seen. But we can always count on one thing. The TRUTH Always Wins. Always!
The TRUTH
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Nazi Germany was a socialist state.
… nothing to fear?
Wilson
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
And Hitler was democratically elected. What’s your point?
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Actually i think you will find he was not democratically elected.
www.fff.org/freedom/fd040...
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-...
And a search list
www.google.com/search?q=h...
Cyryl
Apr. 29th, 2011 at 12:59 am
I would also like to add very relevant material about how Hitler was NOT democratically elected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nig...
The Truth?
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
No, it wasn’t.
Ben
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Nazi Germany was socialist in name only. Nazi Germany was actually a Fascist Totalitarian state. An extreme right-wing ideological state.
Himmler destroyed the actual liberal,socialist and communist parties. The Nazi’s were as much socialist as they were atheist – that is, only in the minds of the Christian Right attempting to rewrite history, and those infected by their lies.
Paul
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 12:14 am
Adolph Hitler was active in his church as a child. He called upon God to help him in his quest to eliminate the Jewish problem. Read “Mein Kampf.” His pogrom was no different than that of Martin Luther, yes, that Martin Luther. Finally, it was the Calvinist anti-semitism of the good German people that helped Hitler to carry out his Final Solution. Hitler was no atheist. He was a religious man.
Brian
May. 8th, 2011 at 4:13 am
He wasn’t saying Hitler was atheist.
Ray Medeiros
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Hitler abolished PRIVATE labor unions….how is that socialist?
Scott Bieser
Apr. 29th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also abolished/forbade private unions. How is that not socialist?
William
Apr. 29th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
How is “if the Soviet Union did it, it must be socialist” a logical argument?
Mike
May. 1st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Hitler (along with the German Government) also took control of 50% of every major corporation in the country.
Rick Shreiner
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Yeah, and Canada, Sweden, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and many others are all modern Social Democracies.
And every single one of them is OUTPERFORMING the US in a multitude of ways:
1) Education
2) Employment
3) Exports
4) Growth
5) Health care
6) Income equality
7) Non-discrimination of women, homosexuals etc
8) Health issues [obesity, longevity, infant death etc]
9) Personal/National – pride/satisfaction
and a host of other issues.
Paul
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 12:26 am
I agree. The economic growth rate of our country lags behind these countries, too, I think. But I’ll have to do some homework to bolster my contention.
Katie
Apr. 30th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
are you kidding? Canada, outperforming us in health care? I have spoken to more than 60 Canadian families about the topic, and if they want a procedure done in less than a year, they come to America! I don’t know where you get your facts from, but obviously you have never experience Canadian health care. Statistics can be twisted any way you want them to be, it’s experience that makes you realize. You go work a 12 hour shift in the ER like my dad does, making $90 per hour, watching death happen before your eyes and thinking that maybe, had you been a little bit faster, someone could have lived. Jobs pay better according to the work that goes into them but also the risk. Doctors and businessmen can be and are sued constantly. After you work those 12 emotionally, intellectually, and physically taxing hours, and make about 1080 dollars for it, I’m going to tell you that I’m taking away more than 500 of those dollars to give to someone who uses his food stamps to buy some penny candy to get the cash back, and then uses that moeny for cigarettes. When we can, we donate to good causes, buy food for soup kitchens, or work in the shelters ourselves. But if the government takes our money to fund into programs that pay the senators more than they get things done, there should be NO expectation that we will help anyone else.
B
May. 3rd, 2011 at 5:54 pm
No one here is saying take 56%…you conservs need to get off that. What we’re saying is…you need to stop complaining about 39.6% for income over $250K. Don’t forget, you still get taxed at the same rate as everyone else up to $250K…35%.
The USA is awesome at critical care…there is no doubt about that…but we are horrible at basic health and wellness, the kind of healthcare that most people need on a regular basis, and the kind of healthcare that helps prevent the need for more critical care down the road. Let’s not forget, we do already have universal healthcare…it’s called the triple-the-cost emergency room. Basic healthcare for all is a wise investment that will SAVE money.
Shiva (Moderator)
May. 3rd, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Im tired of their whining about taxing the rich. From now on if they whine I am going to ask them do they approve of taking the taxes away from the ones that can afford it and putting it on the backs of the poor and the seniors. Because thats exactly what is happening. If they say yes, they are not worth talking to.
Daniel Carlson
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
That same tired old claim that Hitler’s Germany was socialist… wait… let me guess. Because the name of the party that he inherited already had the name German Socialist Workers Party. And that translates to NAZI in English. OK, here’s where you went wrong so answer this: how much dog meat is there in a “hot dog”? Was the USSR a republic? If not why in the world did they trick everybody naming it a republic.
Until the past few years everyone knew the German and Italian governments were fascist (which by the way is close to corporatism). Some journalist for the National Review wrote a book about a Democrat “secret” that Hitler was socialist and Republicans were happy to believe it. And so Hitler murdered millions of people, so I guess that makes Obama a mass-murderer as well? Hyperboles like those make right-wingers look foolish. Thanks for the laugh!
Sean de Waal
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 3:36 am
People are very easily led astray by names, propaganda and their own foolishness. One of the most autocratic and race-based nationalist countries in the world (based on early Japanese fascism)is called the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea – or North Korea to you and I. Again, contrary to popular belief, they are not essentially communist – though they had strong political ties with the Soviet and Chinese communist regimes.
Reynardine
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 10:13 am
That it wasn’t. Roehm, and the rest of those who believed in the “socialist” part, were executed on the Night of the Long Knives and immediately thereafter. Hitler delivered completely on his bargain with the industrialists, even though he murdered Schleicher, who brokered it.
mark
Apr. 30th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
nazi Germany was a socialist state in name, while it was a fascist state in reality…. fascism is practically an opposite of socialism…
James
May. 2nd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
The Truth:
NAZI Germany WAS NOT a socialist state!!!
NAZI Germany was a Fascist state!
Fascism is “right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice”, further it is “an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government.”
There is an article all about Fascism and how America is headed in that direction at:
utbullmoose.jeroberts.inf...
Educate yourselves people. Just because Hitler co-opted the word “socialist” in his National-Socialist party, doesn’t make Hitler a socialist or the Third reich a socialist state.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
fortunately, there are very few true socialist states in the world. In fact, none I can think of off the top of my head except for maybe Venezuela. and that isn’t a truly socialist country.
People are constantly in fear of countries like Sweden, the Netherlands and other places like that and call them socialist when they are really not. They are constantly voted the best places to live in places such as the Netherlands are constantly voted as having the best healthcare systems in the world. Why anyone would shun things like that is totally beyond me. what the GOP is telling us is that they do not want us to be a healthy nation and they do not want others to share the riches that this country can offer. They are so afraid of losing a few pennies to someone else that they become someone else. I wish every person in this country had healthcare, and I would be more than willing to pay my share of that healthcare. If all the tax loopholes for corporations and people were closed. We would have absolutely no problem paying for that type of stuff. So in effect the GOP prizes corruption or loopholes over people
Daniel Carlson
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 12:24 am
It’s a sad state of affairs how the conservative voters always vote against their own best financial interests. I guess maybe some may have a different issue that drives them, such as abortion or they want the death penalty but mostly what you hear from them is taxing the poor wealthy people. I guess they don’t realize it’s a zero-sum game in that when they vote to lower taxes even more on bankers and the ultra-wealthy someone has to make up the difference and so they pay higher taxes.
The most powerful individuals and corporations have a louder vote than the rest of us, so they are able to convince folks that the middle-class doesn’t need money as much as the top dogs and they swallow that line. I saw a post from a man recently who says he makes under $50K/year. This man was posting some statistics about income in the US and he wanted to show how taxes had gone up for the top earners, so he gave the percentage in 1984 and compared it to a marginally higher rate at some point since then. He did not bother to go back to 1979 when the top rate was in the 75% range and is much lower now than then. I wonder why he didn’t list that one? Poor guy…..
Mike
May. 1st, 2011 at 2:51 pm
If Swenden was such a happy country why did the left-coaliation suffer its worst result since the first world war? The Center right group (along with a sharp increase with Far-right Swedish Democrats)has won re-election. I would be careful to compare Europe with the US. Greece, Ireland, Portugal are not countries we as Americans want to emulate. Besides the fact the euro will be lucky to survice as a currency, Most european countries are litteraly going broke; faster than the US I might add. In the case of Germany, I wonder how will the Germans keep picking up the tab for the rest of the EU. (Merkels coalition is getting defeated all around the counrty)
Reynardine
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
At the end of “Disasters of War”, Francisco Goya published three wonderful drawings. The first showed a beautiful lady in a coffin, with smirking, vulturish figures around it. Caption: Truth is dead. In the second, light was radiating from her corpse, and the “mourners” looked uncertain. Caption: Will she rise again? In the third, on a lonely road, a humble sojourner, a nobody, really, encountered her walking, alone, but alive and well. Caption: “This is Truth”.
I want to cry whenever I think of these drawings, which I first saw over fifty years ago, and which have been a light in the darkest times. Blessed be Francisco Goya, under whatever strange stars and skies he may wander.
This poll is a joke
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
This “poll” is stupid. Presenting a false alternative to people in the form of two pie charts and then concluding that they are socialists is about as unscientific and unreasoned as it gets.
“How much should the top 20% own?”
An ethical answer to that question: as much as they EARN, by their own merit.
The problem is not rich people versus poor people, the problem is the rich people that get the government to use force on their behalf (think lobbyists, etc.)
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
no, the problem is the distribution of wealth in the country. Period
Ben
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“An ethical answer to that question: as much as they EARN, by their own merit.
The problem is not rich people versus poor people, the problem is the rich people that get the government to use force on their behalf”
What about rich people who made their money unethically? Like those who created the derivatives banking that tanked the economy? The problem with notions of “as much as they earn by their own merit” is that it belies the potential for unethical business practices, legalized and legitimized by the system. It belies the inherent hierarchical nature of the system, and that some people are undeniably victims of such. It assumes that money earned, is money deserved and money earned justly. It assumes that meritocracy is legitimate, with presumes absolute equality in access to opportunities in life, and it denies social barriers of prejudice, poverty and the ability/desire to conform to society.
The problem is that neoliberal/neoconservative political and economic theory misses much of the inherent nature of societal construction and its detriment. It creates ideological bubbles that dogmatically insist on abstract theoretical discussion of interactions and products of society, but deny the potential greater complexity. Allow me to show you:
“An ethical answer to that question: as much as they EARN, by their own merit.”
Another ethical answer to that question is a just a fair distribution of wealth that doesn’t deny the potential detriment of society to some, whilst still allows for the self-determination of others to succeed to standards above their peers. An ethical society allows for increased prosperity at the hands of increased effort/ability yet doesn’t lose it’s humanity in the process and still cares for the well-being of all its members and doesn’t allow the influence of over-prosperity to give some unfair advantage to manipulate others in various ways. And ethical society wouldn’t let wealth disparity hit levels we see now and an ethical society wouldn’t produce rational members who attempt to justify fundamentally unethical modes of thought.
Ray Medeiros
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
A false alternative? Please explain how you come to that conclusion. The people KNEW the pie charts showed income distribution… and they picked which one they PREFERRED. 92% pick the Swedish chart as a fair income distribution
Scott Bieser
Apr. 29th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
The charts say nothing about HOW such distribution was achieved. And to everyone besides Shiva, this is an important point.
Americans may prefer the Swedish distribution level in the abstract, but what if the only way to get into that top 20 percent was by being a high-ranking government poo-bah? (Which is pretty much how it worked in the old USSR.)
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 29th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
out of curiosity, which distribution model do you think works best for any country as a whole? One where the wealth is skewed to the top or one who is more balanced throughout the classes
dan
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I’m not sure that anyone can conclude from this data that 92% of Americans believe that the means of production should be owned by those that produce, i.e. the working class. American pundits should consider not redefining ‘socialism’ every five minutes.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Its the distribution of money (in the classes of people)in the country of Sweden, not who owns the output
Tracie F Gib
Apr. 27th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
How would I have voted in that Duke/Harvard study? There’s not enough information for me to know. They say one would be “randomly” assigned but it’s not clear whether people understood that one would have an equal probability to land on each percentile. Instead, I think that after having looked at the pies one might think that they have the largest chance of falling on the huge piece owned by the top 1%. The researchers might have gotten even *more* people to choose the Swedish model.
It’s also not clear how much the subjects of the study considered their willingness to work hard and how much effect they could have upon their own wealth by working hard. Did the researchers explain the choices in terms of work? When they showed the “perfectly equal” distribution, did they explain that no matter how hard or how smart one worked they would get the same result as someone who did not work at all?
Anne
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 12:52 am
A lot of things we take for granted in this country are “socialistic” by nature. We take highways, clean air and water, clean food, police departments, and schools for granted and think nothing of it. Yet, the Republicans have been adept over the years at getting people to vote against their own best interests by making socialism a bogeyman. They are much more interested in their ideology than in the people who are impacted by it. That’s why they keep pushing policies that have proven either wildly unpopular or have been tried and failed. The effort to do away with Medicare, masked as an attempt at balancing the budget, is a case in point. In spite of all the negative feedback and anger the Republicans face at these town meetings, they are dealing with this as if it were a public relations problem. They are so obtuse that they are talking about changes in the way they sell this idea instead of admitting that it is a horrible one. It’s just like having an expensive blitz to convince people that fecal matter doesn’t stink.
goofy's partner
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 2:19 am
Well said, Anne. This is absolutely the truth. The idea that everyone should just be “more responsible” and you won’t get cancer, etc. is selling crystal balls from the back of the snake oil cart.
Never mind that your dad passed away when you were 13 and you had to help raise 3 brothers and sisters while your mom worked. Never mind that you worked in the factory for years to get those same brothers and sisters through school, and now you, yourself have a nagging cough… You’re taking care of your mother now, and she needs medicine. But you wouldn’t have gotten cancer if you’d have been “more responsible.”
Watch this video by Lawrence O’Donnell. It really gets to the heart of the problem. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2113...
Racist for Cain
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 8:09 am
Actually the whole premise of wealth “distribution” is flawed. Wealth, in a Free Market economy, is not distributed. It is created and it is earned. The only wealth that can be “distributed” is wealth that has first been created by someone. Once it has been created, the govt. seizes it through taxation and “distributes” it to those who did not earn it. That is Socialism. If as you say, the top 2% hold 80%, or whatever the number is, it is because they have created that amount of whatever amount has been created. The fact that I, or you, only created .000001% of the total amount of wealth in the country presently, has nothing to do with how much Bill Gates or Warren Buffett created. As for the commenter’s argument about wealth created unethically, it portends that a majority of wealth must have been “stolen” from someone else. How does someone steal wealth from someone who never had it? No, the reason I am not “wealthy” is because I have used my resources (time,skills,and my available capital) inefficiently compared to someone like Bill Gates or others who made the conscious decision to put wealth creation at the top of their priority list. I chose other, as did you more than likely.
Anne
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 9:00 am
That’s just the kind of thinking that has created so many problems in this country, including the fact that we are lagging behind other developed countries in a number of measures that Rick Shreiner has touched on in his post. There has been an UPWARD redistribution of wealth during the last 30 years, and not all people who are wealthy have earned it. Some have inherited theirs.
Reynardine
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 10:07 am
And quite a few have committed corporate crime, tax fraud, consumer fraud, and financial predation for it.
Scott Bieser
Apr. 29th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
And quite a few more have gained it legally but unethically, by gaming the system, making sweetheart deals with politicians, or enjoying the built-in redistribution effects of Federal Reserve policies (which creates vast sums of new money for the big bankers and their friends at the expense of savers and people living on fixed incomes).
Ray Medeiros
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Higher taxation actually acts a disincentive for the few at the top to take extraordinary salaries. Instead of taking that huge salary, those few at the top actually reinvest the profits back into the business and the employees, thus reducing the disparity of income
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 9:50 am
I think you are missing the entire point is well. You are confusing distributing wealth with the distribution of wealth. In America at this current time 20% of the people hold 80% of the wealth. That means 20% of the wealth is distributed throughout the middle class and lower class. In an ideal situation, each class of people should hold more representative or equal if you will amounts of the wealth. This produces purchasing power, and it produces the viability of each class. It means that even in the lower classes, the people are working. So basically when you have 20% of the people holding 80% of the wealth you could almost compare it to a feudal system in which the King has the money and the people down below do not. That is distribution of wealth. In Sweden, from memory I think the upper class holds 36% of the wealth which means that what is left over is divided ( not by the government) by the other classes of people. no country such as ours can survive with 20% of the people holding 80% of the wealth. This is not a matter of them earning it or making it. This is a matter of the rest of the country aside from that 20% having the ability to purchase cars, homes and other things that keep this country running because they are working.
by your definition we are an extremely socialist country. but you will find in almost every country that is somewhat civilized does distribute money from its taxation to the poor. Even ancient Rome did it. that is not socialism. Socialism is when the government controls the output of the country
anon
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I offer all progressives the same bargain… Pick any EU country to have the United States adopt their:
-Level of Taxation
-Level of Redistribution of Wealth
-Social Programs
-Healthcare System
-Labor Laws
-Immigration Laws
(Hint, this would require repeal of the 14th Amendment.) It is quite easy to guarantee a middle class lifestyle if your country only grants citizenship to the middle class, by and large.
Have a peak at the budget of the State of California, which includes no idiotic and costly wars on its ledgers. This is the prosperity American progressives will deliver to us, on a national level.
Anne
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Comparing California with an entire country is like comparing apples and oranges. I always have to shake my head in disbelief that anyone has a problem with the social programs that have helped to create and sustain a middle class, but somehow have no problem with the fact that the wealthy are getting wealthier while everyone else is staying at the same level or getting poorer. I seriously doubt that anyone wants to move to the EU countries. Those of us on this forum are about fairness, which is not what the GOP is about. If they have their way, this country will be superior only in military might, and it doesn’t have to be that way.
Shiva (Moderator)
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Yes I find it painful as well that the blue states have to pay for the massively successful red states welfare across the United States.
California is the sixth largest economy on earth. You have little point. California is hardly an example of a normal United States state.
There are many healthcare systems out there as well as social systems that could work easily in the United States if the US closed all the tax loopholes . the United States has no immigration system. You just come on in and we will give you amnesty. As far as level of redistribution of wealth. All I can do is say what are you talking about? All countries do that, including the United States.
Not only do states like California contribute to the red states welfare, they also pay the vast majority of taxes to support the red states wars. California has also given the most young men to the red states wars. I find it funny that the world constantly votes countries like the Netherlands and Sweden the best countries to live in and the countries with the best healthcare.
We smell your fear that the United States might become a better place to live in. But it’s certainly not going to get there by killing off our seniors, ignoring our veterans and preventing them from home ownership.it’s not going to get there by denying seniors the money they work for all their life. Nor is it going to get there by the wealthy owning 80% of the available wealth in this country.
Ben
May. 1st, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Shiva I am still confused at how you are going to distribute the wealth that the top 2% hold. You keep saying the same things in your posts but have no motive to enact what you desire. All I can assume is that you want to tax the wealthy more and then give the money to the “less fortunate” There is no other way I am aware of to do what you are advising, do you just hope that companies will simply start paying more money to all employees? In your vision then the bosses should make x amount of money and everyone under them is x-20% all they way to the least important job? Please enlighten us
Shiva (Moderator)
May. 1st, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Ben:
The point is, what is preferable? The way we are, or the wealth [somewhat]equally distributed. The only way to do that is with jobs and tons of them for people through the classes. Even the people who do not make much money. Did you miss out on reading 101?
of course all you can assume is by taxation because that is what you are told to say. And you do it well. And of course the wealthy will have to pay more taxes because the amount that middle class and lower class are paying is going down with their average wages. Along with their purchasing power.
Sarah Jones
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Take a peek at South Carolina’s inability to sustain itself for an idea of trickle down poverty. Oh, and California isn’t run by progressives….Arnold is a Republican.
tadhg
Apr. 30th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Only grants citizenship to the middle class???? Which EU countries would that be? Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone born in Germany, France, Spain, Ireland, etc., is not considered a citizen of that country if they aren’t sufficiently well-off?
That’s quite possibly one of the most asinine assertions I’ve ever read on any internet forum anywhere.
alephsvision
Apr. 28th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Conservative political policy, as expressed in today’s US arena, creates a sense of deep shame in my vision of society, what it *could be* … and what it has become.
thought I could add to the discussion, but after a day’s working at a slightly below median-income sort of job, feel disinclined to rant …
” I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness (and clever politics) …”
Rodney
Apr. 30th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Americans as a whole do not need to struggle being, as they are, part of the world’s strongest country. They feel as if they are the top of the pile and therefore ‘if it isn’t broken why fix it’ will prevail leaving a general state of mental apathy and a desire for quick fix answers. In politics this relates to very few learning more than simply ‘I am Democrat/Republican’ and leaving it at that. It is only through suffering and hardship do countries get the opportunity to either fold or flourish and some (Japan/Germany/Taiwan) as a people maximise their potential. The world is full of examples where countries simply fail (Haiti/most of Africa etc.,). Until the US has to sort itself out the people will continue to believe that Starbucks equals prosperity and the system in the US is the right one. Even if you show them that this is not even what they believe or want.
Mike
May. 1st, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Is there one EU country that is not heading for economic insolvantcy?
Cheryl
May. 1st, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I say we try a little socialism. Just a tad. If that doesn’t work out, we can go back to being ruled by corporations.