The small percentage of the population who are the wealthiest people in this country have a fiscal and moral responsibility to the people of the nation when they control 80% of the nation's financial assets. They are the caretakers of our country's resources, and it's their job to provide good-paying jobs and healthcare for the rest of us.
Corporate America has had an unholy alliance with China, a country that is responsible for killing over 100,000 of our soldiers in two wars. And even today they constantly launch cyber-attacks against us. But American corporations continue to send jobs to that country to increase their companies' profits for higher CEO pay. This and our corrupt banking system is what the Republicans support and stand for, they and the other richest people in this nation...the caretakers of our country's resources
For the last 40 years they have been failing miserably at their job, but we can't fire them if they're not elected officials. The only thing we can do is tax them to keep them from hoarding the nation's money supply, and to better circulate the country's wealth and resources amongst the population, so that we all can have a fair chance at the American Dream.
Some have said this is a form "socialism", and they say "spreading the wealth" is somehow evil, that it is "good" that only a few people get to keep most of the marbles and leave almost everybody else out of the game...that sharing is somehow a bad thing.
By what is any form of government if not sharing; we share the expenses for safe bridges and highways, clean water, safe food, safe working conditions, safe products on the shelves, safe cars on the roads, better schools, scientific research, space exploration, dams, power grids, safe medicines, shorter lines at the DMV, a strong defense, patrolled borders, national security, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits for those who had their jobs sent to China by corporations (or indirectly as a result thereof), just so corporations could increase their CEO salaries one-hundredfold over their worker's wages.
If capitalism is only working for a small percentage of the nation, for people who don't want to share (either the expenses or the pain), then that economic system must be broken if the wealthiest among us are allowed to create such a huge gap in disparity between the rich and poor.
Maybe the old notion of capitalism is no longer working because we have corrupted public officials beholden to the the wealthiest among us. Maybe the word "socialism" is no longer such an evil word anymore, like we've been taught to believe by the powers that be in this country.
What usually happens in other countries when their nation's wealth is cornered by the very few? In the past we've always associated this unfair dispersion of a country's wealth with dictatorships and despots...not in free and democratic "democracies". When our elected officials stop listening to the will of THE PEOPLE, what type of a society are we left with? When there's a constant rise in unemployment and poverty, how can we say capitalism is working?
What defines the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in a society? Is it the number of people who draw a consensus, or is it the people who have the control and power that defines right and wrong for everybody else. "I have the army, so I make the laws, and I decide that I am right!"
We were once called "revolutionaries"...rebels (the "bad guys") when the King of England was their tyrant, for taxing Americans for the benefit of England, not for the original 13 colonies.
Why do our leaders define some people as "freedom fighters" (good guys) and others as "insurgents" (bad guys)? Why are some uprisings in the Middle-East and North Africa condoned and supported by our government, but others are not? Why didn't we go to the people of Iran's rescue when they demonstrated, but later decided that Libya was ok? We supported rebels in Egypt but not in Tunisian. Who and why in our government decides which rebels, revolutionaries, freedom-fighters, insurgents, rioters, protesters, and bad guys to defend?
Why not also in Palestine, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere? All these countries are ran by brutal dictators who oppresses and uses violence against their own people. American has condoned it for years for oil and other "strategic" reasons that were considered "in the best interests of our national Security".
Afghanistan was ok to war in because the Taliban provided safe haven to Bin Laden who bombed the World Trade Center; but why did we go to war in Iraq if they had no weapons of mass destruction? Later, when none were found, we called it a "humanitarian effort". Why not this same effort elsewhere like in Sri Lanka and the Congo? (no oil, just diamonds.)
We know what the powers that be can do to other people in other nations; and many here in America are just now starting to realize what they can do to their own people here as well. I was sacrificed "for the good of the nation" because the richest living here in America didn't want to pay any more in income taxes, even though they have more money than they know what to do with...yet they would let me starve to death or live homeless rather than fund food stamps, Social Security, or unemployment benefits for me - - - unless they weren't forced to by law, in the form of income taxes.
And now the rich are continuing their long-fought class war against us with strong opposition against a new proposed tax hike....and their media propagandists like Fox News has been very busy in their efforts.
I know what "tax reform" is...it's taxing the rich their fair share; at the same effective tax rate as we pay. But what exactly is "entitlement reform"? This is what the rich want for us. Does that mean paying old people less than they're already struggling to live on with Social Security? Or does it mean eliminating the fraud that's being perpetuated in Medicare by big corporate hospitals, HMOs, and insurance companies?
The Republicans say that businesses are still struggling with constrained profits, new regulations and a tough environment for making money. But just what EXACTLY are the new regulations that big businesses and big banks are struggling with to make money fairly, honestly, and legally? I always hear about these draconian regulations, but no one ever mentions EXACTLY what they are. The rich always complain about never having enough money, even though now they already have most of it.
The small percentage of the wealthiest people in this country have a fiscal and moral responsibility to the people of the nation when they control 80% of the nation's financial assets. But they don't give one damn about THE PEOPLE...they want ALL the damn marbles for themselves...they don't want to share a dime.
Muammar Gaddafi had all the marbles too, garnered from oil revenues; and he
lived luxuriously in several
mansions palaces while the rest of
his people lived in poverty. He hoarded his nation's wealth, he didn't share,
and he financially oppressed his people. Libyan citizens didn't have a voice;
they couldn't tax Gaddafi for healthcare or other government services.
If a dictator (or if politicians representing only a small group of wealthy corporate plutocrats) controlled most of the wealth and a nation's army, does that make them "right"?
Or if a majority of polls in a true democracy showed that a majority of THE PEOPLE didn't want their jobs sent to China, wanted to earn a "living wage", wanted to tax millionaires their fair share, wanted government services, wanted to preserve Medicare and Social Security, wanted money out of politics, wanted a fair and honest banking system, wanted to end subsidies and corporate welfare for profitable corporations, and wanted their bidding done by their elected officials, would that make THE PEOPLE "right"?
And if we rise up in protest against the inequality in wealth distribution in our country (and the deaf ears of our elected officials), will the uber-rich have our U.S. Army suppress us, just to guard their excess money, and call us the "bad guys" - - - they way Gaddafi called his rebels the bad guys?
Or will our army come to our aid like they did in Libya when the
Libyan people were ousting their own greedy, brutal, and heartless
dictator? After all, Muammar Gaddafi was not only an oil baron, but he doesn't
seem much different than many of our own political leaders. He had all the money
and controlled his army. He didn't abide by his people's wishes either. Couldn't
he have just as easily been an uber-wealthy plutocratic Republican too?
My related posts: