I have raised this question time and again in various forms. Without getting a half decent answer. When Republicans are clearly promoting the class warfare they accuse the Democrats of - between the 3% wealthy who pay disproportionately low tax and the 97% who pay their fair share or are too poor to pay tax at all - an unbelievable proportion of the 97% are willing to vote for the notion that the rich should be allowed get away with it. I have tried to find logical reasons for this self-destructive impulse in ludicrously out-dated American values of frontier individualism, personal responsibility, anti-Communism, states rights, small government and the rest of the conservative ideological panoply. The real answer seems to be that Americas voters are, by and large, clueless about where their best interests lie. Leaving aside the influential fact that more American voters than in any other civilized country are inspired by a (largely Republican) divinity myth to embrace socially regressive policies straight out of 10th century Europe, we seem to be left with only three vaguely rational explanations. 1. Scientists will one day discover the existence of a Republican gene in American DNA. This, subject to 2 below, is a cause for hope. Because it will then be possible to engineer a treatment for it. 2. Americans seem to suffer more than most from the most hopeless form of hope. Given a bad situation their natural response is to look for a way of making it worse. So perfectly naturally, they now want to re-elect the morons who collapsed their economy in the first place in the pointless hope, it seems, that they couldnt do it again. 3. Americans are motivated almost exclusively by self-interest. This should work in their favour. In the past, it has. But, as we see with the various America wars to bring Muslims and others to heel, it doesnt work now. America is probably the only country where self-interest is dining out on its host.
To me, it apears America has its own form of royality. Look at the wealthy families who pull the strings of government. Most is "old money" which is passed down throughout these families with a fight fisted iron glove.
That is an idea I missed. America has its own form of feudalism. Complete with knights of the Business Round Table. It is aligned in historical terms with the English barons of the 12th century with an overlay of religious nonsense from 17th century Puritans.
Just because I thought it might be interesting.... I thought I would look of the "rich" people that you are talking about. So I went to the forbes list of the richest people in the US. Here.... have a look for yourself.... http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list Strangely enough.... the vast majority of people on this list are actually 1st generation rich. Not people that inherited their fortunes at all. So where exactly are the people that you are talking about? No offense... but I think there are a lot of people that have really strange ideas about the "rich", who they are, and what they did to get where they are.
Ayn Rand called it hatred of the good for being good. It reminds him of all the things he will never have, and all the things that he will never be. And because it is far to painful for him to admit his own shortcommings, even to himself.... he would rather lash out at anyone that has more than he does. He does not want to be rich.... he wants you to be poor. He does not want to succeed.... he wants you to fail. He does not want to start a company from scratch.... he wants to take you company away from you ..... and grind it into dust. And so on.... and so forth.... I mean really.... I would wager I could leave this forum (and I am pretty close to doing that at this point) and come back 10 years later, and his life would be exactly as it is right now. No improvment... no better job, better house, better anything. A life mired in abject stagnation. Some people would rather complain than do anything to fix their own lives.... I leave them to it....
Most middle and lower class Americans secretly harbor in their hearts two fantasies and a misunderstanding, due primarily to stories in their childhood! A: They will start a business that will take off and make them extremely rich! They do not want to pay taxes on that almost always theoretical money. B: They fantasize they will have a rich uncle they didn't know die (a la "Mr. Deeds") or win the Lottery, and don't want to pay taxes on that windfall. C: They don't understand that the wealthy, in reality, pay lower tax rates than they do on their middle class income.
Smoke screen.. First generation or not, the wealthy industrialists in America still pull the strings of government. What's the term? Nest feathering?
Let's get this old chestnut glaring clear. I don't hate Americans. I hate most of the American neo-conservative propagandists that infest this forum. They are a blight on humanity - and they are incredibly dumb. That offends me on both fronts. If I met an American here that wanted to discuss a topic of my interest in a logical and rational way, I would engage him or her logically and rationally. But this forum is simply a podium for the insane rantings of the American right. Sane Americans, quite rightly, go elsewhere to debate their issues.
To the OP, I don't think the issue is that simple. For many Americans, free markets and limited governments are intrinsicly tied to their views on individualism and personal liberty. One needs to read Milton Friedman to see an articulate manifesto of the American right. It is neither irrational nor extreme. That said, the idea has been taken to an extreme where the rational basis for it has given way to irrational dogma. Markets are USUALLY much better at allocating resources than a central authority such as a government and USUALLY much less prone to corruption and incompetence. However, there is OFTEN a need to ensure that there isn't a market failure or an unfair outcome that makes the system unstable. This view was pretty widely accepted amongst economists up until 9/11 created a "race to the extreme" amongst the Conservatives (who were forced to be both SOCIAL and ECONOMIC conservatives). Since social conservatives tend to be dogmatic in their religious beliefs, they were similarly prone to dogmatic economic beliefs.
could it be that a majority of american voters are simply enamored with the idea that every man should have the freedom to do as he pleases? history has given us ample reason to be wary of the herd mentality, that anti-individualist ideology of centralized and absolute authority. how many atrocities have been committed in the name of "the people"? despite the revolutionary zeal of hundreds of would-be tyrants and their acolytes, there never has been that successful utopian dream of the happily humming hive. why do you suppose that is? do you think maybe it's because the individual is the basis of human society? without the individual, the sort of creature who is willing to risk and take personal responsibility for his choices, civilization ceases to advance. without anything to lose there is simply no point. the best interests of the american voter is best served by those values you find so outdated and most of them know it. the individual may kill, but he does not war. the individual may steal, but he is incapable of the sort of massive fraud that takes the wealth of an entire nation and simply fritters it away. where the individual creates, the state and the unruly mob can only use and waste. where the individual, taking personal responsibility for his actions, may fail and only harm himself, the herd, with no appreciable conscience, fails and takes everyone down with it. that's all fine and dandy if membership in the herd is voluntary, but the powers of centralized control make "choice" an impossibility. what is backward and primitive is the notion that we can be safe only if we are indelibly banded together. it is the leftover memory of tiny creatures scurrying through the night, huddling together for warmth and protection. we are no longer at the bottom of the food chain and you'd best get that through your head.
Your "free markets" collapsed the American economy. What will prevent that from happening again? Smarter "free markets"?
Awryly doesn't hate all Americans. He hates those Americans who prevent his vision of human progress from becoming real. He correctly suspects that his vision will remain inchoate. But he is mistaken as to the cause. He speaks out of frustration. I enjoy his frustration because I understand it. He doesn't understand American conservatives. He thinks we are all neo-conservatives without realizing the breadth, depth and variation of conservative thought and ideology. He doesn't realize that the neo-conservative school of though is discredited in America. Awryly is like many non-American Westerners who just can't understand that the world they want so badly will never be realized. Similarly, he doesn't understand the Han. But in time his people will.
Oh, Jeez, the "freedom" argument. How then do all those American "individuals" get together to wage war on other countries (in the name of "freedom" of course). The "indeliby banded" argument. Aren't you guys in danger of confusing yourselves to death?
Why do you HATE anyone? You come off as mean, condescending, and arrogant. It doesn't help your cred.
Rather than sidestep the point I was making... it would have been great to hear, "Hmm... that is a good point... I had assumed that most wealthy people in the US got that way because of inheritance. But looking at what Forbes is showing you are correct... most of the rich in this country did not get rich by inheritance. It looks like most of them got wealthy via starting their own companies." That was the point you made that I showed you was completely false. And then you could have gone on with your "nest feathering" comment.
Speaking from a lower middle class upbringing and a middle class existence now, I am not opposed to raising taxes, however, the USA government has proven that they simply "give" poor people gifts with the tax revenue. It has no lasting value and creates dependence. It is the complete opposite of "infrastructure". Rich Democrats (i.e. Warren Buffet (fatboy) or Mark Zuckerberg (gayboy) or Mark Cuban (jackass)) have plenty of options for charity. The United Way comes to mind. If these "Democrats" want to cut the US public debt, they can send a routing number with account number or physical check to: Bureau of the Public Debt ATTN: Department G P.O. Box 2188 Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
One reason Americans are so against raising taxes on anybody is because the government throws it away. FEMA built some storm shelters here in Alabama. Now they want to have the State tear them down because they are no longer needed...I guess we will never see another storm and we couldn't put the building to good use...like community centers for example. If the State doesn't tear them down the government wants to charge us for them. Our tax dollars at work. If we tear them down..no charge and will be reimbersed for the tearing down process.
"If the State doesn't tear them down the government wants to charge us for them. Our tax dollars at work. If we tear them down..no charge and will be reimbersed for the tearing down process." politicalcenter I heard about this one. Why didn't FEMA put some "Mission Impossible" explosives into the FEMA housing (i.e. this trailer will self-destruct in 3 years).
A failure of markets in one instance doesn't mean the failure of markets in all instances just as a failure of regulations in one instance doesn't mean a failure of regulations in all instances. The situation is far more complex for such simplistic analysis.
