 |
| "Scrooge McDuck" |
Can you even tell me how much a billion is? The purpose of acquiring wealth should be to live comfortably, to live securely. Once you get past a certain figure, are those your real objectives any more? Or, are you trying to exercise influence?
The influence that can affect a presidential campaign? And why is that so important? You need to defend free enterprise? Because you figure, freedom is how you were able to exercise your talents to get so ridiculously wealthy? Is it all really due to hard work? Or at a certain point do you capitalize on networking with other well-heeled folks?
Free enterprise as opposed to what? Well, a system where government encourages a little re-distribution of wealth. The ultra-wealthy are revulsed by this. The Republican presidential candidate complements all his absurdities and sheer offensiveness by wanting to assert that the Democrats are "communists." We've heard such talk down through the years. Seems too easy to assert sometimes.
After WWII we reviled the Soviet Union as "communists," felt we needed to fight communism in various places like Vietnam.
No one approves of pure communism. Is Vietnam a communist country today? They would say they are. But I have heard analysis that the country is really "nationalistic." Not so cut and dried.
The problem is that the U.S. right wingers want all this to be simple. Argue for a little more government intervention in our lives, well that makes you left-leaning and then on comes the terms "communism" and "socialism." I think most people see such talk as a caricature. Oh, but maybe not everyone.
The Republican presidential candidate has so many people eating out of his hands, so many people with blinders on. So many people who have been persuaded that supporting the political right reflects how proper Christians in their church pews ought to believe.
But what if instead we have been seeing an oligarchy take root? What if the aims down deep are selfish and sinister?
I feel you must take a broad-minded approach to this. And that means you should listen seriously to what the Democrats have to say. On everything. Be discerning when the Rudy Giulianis of the world talk about the "far left." They're trying to scare you.
Haven't forgotten this guy
Again I am reminded of my old college friend Brad from the Iron Range. He was a Democrat who saw and understood the big picture that I'm trying to lay out here. He came right out and said that conservatives/Republicans are very strong on pure principle. Chalk one up for the right wing. But it does not tell the whole story.
Brad asserted that even though conservatives were very good at winning political debates - maybe even unbeatable a la William F. Buckley - there's a defect embedded within them. Brad pointed out: they don't care about people.
And of course the conservatives would absolutely bristle at that, profess dumbfoundedness. As Shakespeare wrote, "they protest too much." They get so aroused we have to wonder if there's something in their subconscious bothering them. A psychologist might say they are afraid of the broad public getting a hint of the truth. They should know that when Democrats win, it may reflect unease with the pure laissez-faire attitude of conservatives.
My train of thought today is due to the extensive reaction I received when posting a comment to a Yahoo! News article. This is the most reaction a comment of mine has ever garnered. I claim no genius with what I wrote, just maybe some insight based on the experience of being alive nearly 70 years. It has been a long journey. You'll see the comment and some reactions at the close.
Idyllic Christian?
And I am astounded by the tenor of the current political campaign. I am astounded by how this very bad, shallow and old person DJT commands so much support, has been able to sell himself as the idyllic Christian even. It makes me wonder about the quality of our education system in America.
Or, let's weigh the effects of our media world which has fragmented to a stupefying degree. It has fragmented beyond where the old "gatekeepers" are able to enforce any restraint, any discipline in the public conversation. I mean to enforce guidelines with basic decency, a modicum of civility and reason.
So DJT says "climate change is a hoax." Can we not reject that out of hand?
There were always oddball political players on the margins in the old days. We'd hear about the Libertarian candidate for example. Interesting ideas those libertarians have. The "mainstream" held firm in the old gatekeeper days. Prime example was the 1976 presidential campaign. We worried about Gerald Ford stumbling, not committing sexual assault or being dragged into court (dragged into court repeatedly).
The legacy of this
Today we have DJT and his lackeys out in front of us daily. Don't you worry about how future generations will remember us? As I sit here on the day after Halloween, 2024, I am having to realize that Trump could still win. And then what? Eliminate the income tax and have a 20 percent national sales tax? Tariffs? Clamp down further on abortion?
The raw free enterprise advocates are largely sticking with Trump or so it would appear. They cannot give ground to any politician who might want to advocate for some redistribution of wealth. Deploy the term "communist." It scares people. Well, that's what the ultra-wealthy want.
If you study world history you'll see what happens when the underclass gets fed up. Like in France. It's unfortunate and we must be vigilant to avoid it. But these things happen. The communists tracked down Mussolini, killed him and had his body hung on meat hooks for abuse. People can get really ticked off, eventually, when they realize that an unaccountable order has been making their lives miserable.
The wealthiest people get cocooned so much, they can fail to notice until it's too late. And history can repeat itself.
 |
| Franklin Roosevelt |
FDR had to appeal to his own class of wealthy folks to sell the New Deal and it was not a slam dunk. I have read that only about half of his fellow gilded folks were really willing to go along with it. But that was enough. But what was wrong with the other half?
It's what I'm seeking to point out here: the wealthy focus on their own comfort and security, never mind the broad public of really challenged folks. Maybe they're saying "let them eat cake." You know what that quote was a part of, right?
I'd advise the "Scrooge McDucks" to stop throwing around the terms "communist" and "socialist" so much. Get in the real world. Realize that we're all in this together. Oh my, such a statement will probably fall on deaf ears.
I smiled as I read some of the many reactions to my Yahoo! News comment. I was not surprised, as many took sharp umbrage at my suggestion that history teaches lessons we ought to heed.
So many people think the "work ethic" will just solve everything - people just pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Well, it's easy for them to say. Again I quote "AOC" with "no one needs to be a billionaire."
I sent my late mother on a motorcoach tour to Washington D.C. when the FDR monument was new, I believe not even finished yet. I told her that if this was not on the itinerary, maybe she could ask the tour guide to go there. She succeeded! She took several nice pictures of the place including one of a sculpture that includes FDR's dog "Falla."
My comment to Yahoo! News:
Humanity is always having to be reminded that in order to reduce the wealth gap, the less-well-off have to demand it, as the very wealthy will never give up any of what they have.
"Gus" responded:
If you were part of the wealthy, would you willingly give up what you have?
"Bryan" responded:
Humanity is always having to be reminded that in order to reduce the wealth gap, the less-well-off have to earn it, as no one wants to give up what they have.
"Kevin" responded:
LOL. Brian the poor in France demanded wealth like you suggest and they got Napoleon. The 1930s Germans followed your advice demanding wealth and they got Hitler. The 1917 Russians listened to you demanding wealth and got Stalin. May Be... just maybe... instead of demanding wealth the less well off should try WORKING FOR IT.
"George Washington" responded:
If the less-less-well-off want something then they should work for it. Someone worked hard to get well off. If they decide to pass it on then that's on them and not the government to take it and hand it out like they are tossing candy at a parade.
"Matt" responded:
How do they demand it? Demand it be "given" to them?? I am not "rich" but everything I do have, I did not obtain by taking it away from someone else or demanding it as a "right" owed to me somehow. For one person to become wealthier DOES NOT require another to become poorer. The poor will always be with us, no matter how rich they get.
"Bergbros" responded:
Yep, everybody wants a piece of the other person's success. You get there by working hard not by government redistribution of wealth.
"SuperSam" responded:
The less well off should 100% demand jobs, education and opportunities. In a well run free market society the wealthy can keep what they've earned and the less well-off have opportunities to become wealthy and know they can keep what they worked hard to earn for themselves. It's not a zero-sum game.
"Rachel" responded:
That's what Kamala Harris at least says she'll do. Trump has promised to make sure the rich get richer.
"John" replied:
Progressive nonsense.
"Millabout" responded:
And you don't see the "demand" by the less-well-off as greed? Using the government to steal from an entity to give to another does not shield the fact that it is still greed.
"Realist" responded:
Welcome to America, Brian.Since day #1...
"Anthony" responded:
In order to acquire wealth, you work hard, not taking away from wealthy individuals.
"Charles" responded:
Demand what exactly? Free money?
"Tom Cruise" responded:
The poorest never give it up either. The way to get money is to provide a good or service that’s in demand and be good at it. At a certain point, you can manage others that are good at it. “Demand it”? Sort of. Make sure your good or service is demand-worthy and consistent and you will never have a problem getting money in America. Then you spend significantly less than what you have over a long period of time and you will eventually have wealth.
"BigToad" responded:
We have built an oligarchy out of the ashes of the middle class. 500 golden families absorb 95% of all profits from the GDP.
"Nick" responded:
It makes sense that those with the most to lose are the most fearful.
"Herb" responded:
Correction - "what they worked for" is the reality for most Americans NOT what they have--get a clue.
"Brian" responded:
How about the less well off working hard, waiting to have children until they are married.
"Jeff" responded:
Great news for you, Brian; you have the ability to reduce your wealth gap right now. .
"Mike" responded:
Why should they give it up? Go earn it yourself. Just because they have the money doesn't mean you can't go make more yourself. Go invent something, take risks and start a business. That is what a lot of rich people do. They have skills, intelligence, drive to get them to a point of being rich. Just because they have a lot doesn't mean you can't go make some yourself.
"Bluedog" responded:
Here’s an idea, how about work hard for it and earn your way, some people refuse do just that. Yes a small portion needs a hand out, so what did this administration do? They let in tens of millions of illegal immigrants unvetted and expect hard working Americans to foot the bill. And that is a slap in the face for all the other legal immigrants that went through the proper process and vetting, some waiting years. And I have zero doubt that there was thousands that are hardened criminals which is just the beginning.
"Susan" responded:
That worked out great for the Bolsheviks in Russia and the backers of the CCP in China. They demanded a “redistribution of wealth” only to have oligarchs and party leaders seize all of the wealth and leave them starving for decade after decade.
"Bonnie" responded:
And why should I have gone to college, pay my bills, pay my taxes and budget what is left so I can give it away to whoever does not want to contribute but wants a free ride? That makes zero sense.
"Lily" responded:
Maybe you need to spend some time in a communist socialist country before you give any opinions of the utopia you describe. Ask any Cuban where they would rather live.
"Jim" responded:
I would rather have wealthy doctors who work their butts off keeping me alive - have as big as wealth gap as necessary.
"Russell" responded:
Work harder. Why do you deserve what someone else risks everything in their life to gain?
"Paulus" responded:
You are Robin Hood ... steal from the rich and give to the poor.
"Jack Frost" responded:
The only way to have true equality is for everyone to have nothing.
"Eduard" responded:
You are not quite right. Why should the poor demand? Or maybe they should work more and live within their means. There have already been many examples in history when they took from the rich and gave to those who did not want to work. And the results are also visible.
(The above is just a sampling of the comments received! The moral of the story is that the topic touches a nerve.)
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
