Yeesh, this is a sticky topic--very inflammatory. I can see why it's being used to push everybody's buttons, though, because it works.
Thanks, blatantninja for answering me in detail. I know that you know more about the market than I will if I live to be a hundred, but I have a query about this sentence you just posted (over and beyond what you & Prime J are discussing cuz I 'm not equipped for that one):
It's not pure capitalism either, in the academic sense. In the academic sense, in a pure capitalistic economy, the government does little more than to make sure that the free market is not abused.
Are you not getting the sense that the government has indeed failed in just this way lately, though? That by not keeping a sensible framework of balanced regulations in place, the sharks and piranhas present in every level of society have been given free rein, with the end result that everybody is being penalized in one way or another? Don't you think it would be better to turn our ire towards the flaws and unfairnesses in the system than toward each other as classes?
That's debateable, especially since the labor of the 95% isn't being taxed more, and in most cases taxed less.
I don't see how losing your job or your home to a recession is less damaging than having your taxes raised, or that having a tax burden for umpteen years for this bailout isn't going to fall on everybody, big and small, in the long run.
Since when? The Founding Fathers obviously believed in class and capitalism itself will always produce classes. The only thing is that our class is based, at least theoretically, on what you can achieve yourself, not on direct hereditary entitlement (obviously some people do get inheritances though)
Since that "All men are created equal " remark. The Founders strongly opposed not only feudalism, but oligarchy and theocracy through bitter experience. As people of their time, of course they were molded by the idea of classes, but they seem to me to have indicated a preference for a society where those classes were fluid and bendable, not polarized into us and them.
I think hate is a bit of a strong word. It's more like both sides think the other isn't pulling their fair weight. The 'rich' think there are too many people getting handouts, not paying income tax at all, or paying significantly lower rates than them, while the not-'rich' think that since the 'rich' make/have more, they should pay significantly a larger percentage of their income/wealth.
I agree totally with everything you said here. I think there's room for error on both sides of these views.
I agree, which is why I think if we are going to raise taxes which I am not against, we should ALL be paying more, not just one group.
I think we need serious tax reform, and I don't want to see anyone punished for initiative and hard work. I don't agree with the idea that people should get a handout, but I think the well-off need an underclass of workers to sustain their wealth, and that those people are entitled to a decent life and the opportunity to improve themselves. It should be a symbiotic relationship, and both sides have responsibilities. I think you share this belief, just wanted you to know most of my 'class' feels the same way you do.
.
Having been poor--working poor--believe me, we all would like to be Bill Gates.
I realize that if I had more talent, more brains or were willing to take bigger risks in life, I could have been more successful financially. I admire those who do so, not resent them.
Maybe not you, but the sense of entitlement in this country at all levels is extremely high.
True--at all levels, and a lot is just human nature. It's gotten a lot worse in the last twenty or so years, also.
It's also a reliable flashpoint argument to rally people whose interests should be common to perhaps not "hate' but to dismiss and underestimate each other.