Do the haves benefit more from the have-nots, or do the have-nots benefit more from the haves? If it is indeed the haves who benefit more, doesnt it seem appropriate that they should give back a larger amount into the system? Isnt this is supposed to be a Nation, not a collection of individuals?
This is the thing I find most disturbing about the current configuration of the Republican Party. Using the doctrine of Individual Responsibility, they are willing to let everyone in the Nation suffer, simply to avoid sharing something they could never have acquired alone.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
All Dave, All The Time
I'm a member of the
Anti-Tagging League
About Me
- daveawayfromhome
- in Big D
- he's just this guy, you know?
All Dave, All The Time
(and largely ignored)
Mutual Blogs
Frequent Reads
Blogs I read, but not enough to clutter up my sidebar (which I like to be nice and neat)
Media
Stuff
I'm a member of the
Anti-Tagging League
Dave's Faves
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(257)
-
▼
May
(30)
- confessional
- it's not a tag if it's voluntary
- today's quote
- today's reading
- let's do the numbers
- taste the difference
- the commencement speech they ought to hear
- confirmation of all that is bad in America
- Karl's evil genius
- Carnival of the Liberals #13
- spurned
- no guilt here
- The Fortune Cookie Game: the Dubya Edition
- Today's quote
- today's lexagraphical suggestion
- Dave's BlogTroll, v.3.0
- Impeach Bush, some more
- pop quiz
- A question
- (412) 381-1218
- Impeach Bush Now, before it's too late
- know when to hold'em, redux
- yet more comedy
- more comedy
- copying homework
- today's quote
- sidebar update
- time out
- life choices
- apologies
-
▼
May
(30)
Quote for the Timebeing:
“If Jesus Christ came back, and saw what was being done in His name, He'd never stop throwing up.”
words spoken by Max von Sydow in Woody Allan's “Hannah and Her Sisters”.
“If Jesus Christ came back, and saw what was being done in His name, He'd never stop throwing up.”
words spoken by Max von Sydow in Woody Allan's “Hannah and Her Sisters”.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Incidentally, this notice itself was swiped from Spiiderweb.
Incidentally, this notice itself was swiped from Spiiderweb.
4 comments:
You said it man! Remember the so called triple down economics of Reagan and Co.? It is the same line today. But these people only give back when they are guaranteed a huge tax break for doing so—this is the only incentive. But the American Dream was based on this emphasis of the individual over the collective—indeed the enlightenment movement was structured around this idea. We are now socialized to believe that living this way is “natural” and right. As long as we think in this mode, the divide between the haves and the have-nots will continue to grow. Funny when you really think about it, this economic insistence of the Darwinian theory of survival of the richest is against the basic tenants of democracy which focuses on the collective over the individual . . . the two ideas are at odds with each other.
I dont think there's that much of a dichotomy. In America, one is free to choose one's own destiny, to decide which path you want to take, and pursue that path to the best of your ability. That is fairly unique from a historical perspective, though it's much more common these days (perhaps because of the economic example America has set). That ability to choose your own destiny, combined with our educational system, created the wealthiest nation in the world by far.
Now, a group of people, who happen to be in charge of things here in America, have decided that the money and power which they have is theirs, and they arent going to share with anyone. They are incapable, or unwilling, to see that they didnt get to where they were alone. This, especially as it regards things such as Education, will adversely affect our ability to pursue whatever destiny we choose.
(Or, worse, that they know perfectly well that they climbed to their lofty position on the backs of others, but that they deserve their horded wealth and power by Right Of Conquest.)
I've had some accuse me of being a socialist. I'm not, really. I have little problem with the free market (assuming it truly is free, rather than manipulated), except in the case of infrastructure, that is, things upon which the country is structured upon: roads, utilities, education (all of it), and healthcare.
In fact, I might argue that one of the reasons that the Great Society didnt succeed in it's goals is for much the same reason that I chastise the wealthy now: Those who recieved didnt give something in return.
This arguement can certainly hold water in the case of welfare. But it is also being applied to education, especially higher education, where the financial benefits to the whole country would seem to be obvious.
Germany does an excellent job with this concept.
I'd say, bring back some form of the old WPA, perhaps more in the form of social services than forestry, and pour money into adult and higher education, so that anyone who wants to to learn, can.
Post a Comment