Government IS the Problem

[BeFree]

It - government - keeps the richer from becoming richer.

Government - like the US used to have 30 years ago - worked to make sure the wealth of the nation was enjoyed by even those who had little personal wealth. But since Reagan's term in office and the rise of the Cheney's and Geithners, the few who have really been feasting on all the wealth have been those who had the most to start with. And now they have even more.

Government IS the richie's problem, and so they want government to go away.

[msongs]

1. except our military and soldiers who kill and die for the corporate war profiteers nt

[BeFree]

2. Our soldiers are mere pawns for the rich.

The rich, like Reagan instructed, don't care for the soldiers once the soldier's usefulness is done.

If the rich cared about our soldiers, the soldiers - who sacrifice the most - would be rewarded and taken care of the rest of their lives. But soldiers are cast aside by the rich.

[dkf]

3. Is that really the role of government? To limit wealth?

I can see if it is exploitative or fraudulent, but limiting wealth as a main goal of Government? I dunno.

[Stargazer99]

4. When wealth becomes a problem for the common good, YES

then it is the provence of government. I take it you feel no pain in this system of things otherwise you would not have posed the question.

[dkf]

7. I'm not seeing that as something in the constitution or stated as the goal of any legislation

Is that even in the Democratic platform?

I'm not very well off, but I'm okay for now. Seeing Tiger Woods or Charlie Sheen make a lot of money doesn't bother me much. If a hedged fund manager makes a lot of money and gets through tax loopholes that does bother me. But if someone agrees to pay that manager a ton of money, then its kind of their business.

If we believe this then what is the point of a lottery?

[white_wolf]

5. Yes that is a main role of government.

Too much wealth in too few hands is a dangerous to freedom. The government should limit wealth, no one should have millions while a single person goes hungry.

[dkf]

13. Dangerous to freedom?

How has it curtailed your freedom?

[white_wolf]

14. Let's see.

It reduces people to poverty. That is curtailing the freedom of millions in this country. It forces people to work long hours with hardly any vacation time just survive. That is curtailing freedom. When a single person in this country goes without medical care, food, or a roof over their head, that is curtailing freedom.

[Armstead]

6. To avoid dangerous concentrations of wealth by exploiting the rest

there is wealth and then there is WEALTH.

The obscene concentration of wealth that has been occurring can only be gained by massive exploitation and abuse of the system.

The tricky part is defining that line....But when you have individuals worth tens (or hundreds) of Billions of dollars, while the people that work for their businesses are just scraping by, there is a need for a countervailing power.

Such excessive accumulations are also not good for capitalism. Stifles competition and entrepreneurial opportunity.

[dkf]

17. Two things...I can see a firms workers expecting a bigger piece of the pie they create.

That is completely fair. But I don't really understand what entitles someone who has not participated anywhere in that chain to those assets. A humane society will provide subsistence for the poor, but subsistence should not be a level comfortable enough to discourage achievement.

If we are worried about concentrations of wealth creating too much power, then the government does have the right to break monopolies. Why in the world they would let AT&T merge with t-mobile is beyond me.

[white_wolf]

18. We agree on your last sentence anyway.

I have no clue why they let those two merge. They should have been broken up.

[Armstead]

22. It's obviously a big and complicated issue, but wealth is already being redistributed upward

A lot of different policies, regulations and also basic social values are involved.

But basically, for at least 30 years, specific laws and policies have created conditions that encourage the siphoning of the nations wealth upwards into fewer and fewer hands at the top -- and given them the power to buy government.

That is what has to change, and there is an important role for government in all of that.

[BeFree]

8. Gawd, dkf

Can you even read? I wrote: "...wealth of the nation was enjoyed by..." meaning ALL
Do you see the words you wrote "limit wealth" anywhere except in your own deluded spew?

What is it that forces you to make up stuff, proving your delusion?
If you can tell us we might have an idea why the birthers think the way they do.

[dkf]

9. Didn't you say the role of the government is to keep the rich from getting richer?

And that is why the rich want to limit government?

[white_wolf]

10. The rich have too much money as it is.

They don't need nor deserve what they already have. i"m in favor of redistribution of wealth.

[BeFree]

15. Gawd, dkf

I said the problem is that the rich hate government because it keeps them from becoming richer.
It does not limit wealth.
It does, when it works correctly, makes for the wealth of a nation to be enjoyed by all.

Do you think the wealth of the US is being equally enjoyed by all the people?
That is a pretty simple question.
Can you answer simply, or are you going to make up more stupid?

[dkf]

19. I'm wondering if it is the wealth of a nation when it is based on exploiting the people of other

Nations.

I personally feel more guilty that our wealthy benefit by paying people so badly in other countries. I'm not so sure we deserve it.

I guess that is my point in this. Do I deserve money based on other people's labor that I had nothing to do with. I would say no but that is me.

I am more affected by the outrageous housing prices around here than by what the rich do. If we are arguing though that my life is affected because I have to pay taxes that the rich dont pay then I could go with that. But then I'd be complaining about taxes and I really have no idea what my fair share ought to be. Fair is in the eyes of the beholder I am sure.

[BeFree]

23. Exploiting

That is exactly what the Reagan era started. We gave our work to slaves in other countries.

True financial wealth comes from real work and jobs, and Reagan began that exodus.
The rich got richer by paying slave wages.

Government when it works best, works to stop all slavery.

[dkf]

25. Yeah so don't the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians, pakistanis, etc deserve it more than we do?

I don't get how we get the proceeds of all this exploitation. On the other hand I would support trade deals that brought back jobs. Then if we make the goods, we deserve a part of the proceeds.

There is a right way and a wrong way to distribute wealth more fairly. Workers participating in creating earnings deserve a piece of that pie. Someone completely uninvolved, less so.

[BeFree]

26. Right

You don't get it.

But you at least have a clue.

The rich have gotten richer because they now pay slave wages.
Our government at one time, pre-Reagan, was against slave wages anywhere in the world.

The reason some of the rest of the world does not enjoy what we do here in the US is because their governments have always been reagan-like, meaning for the rich.

[undeterred]

11. We have people running the government who HATE government.

Makes no sense at all.

[Modern_Matthew]

12. They don't want the government to go away. It has done their bidding for years.

I'm not advocating anarchy, but major reforms and an entirely new economic system is long overdue. The rich use the government as one of their tools, which has in turn created a lot of distrust for government. They then use that distrust and anger to get the masses to continue voting away a government that should work for them. A sad, vicious circle that has led to the deterioration of just about everything.

[BeFree]

16. Yep. Ever since Reagan's reign

That was the real switch-time, and he's the one who claimed "government is the problem"

Stolen elections, stolen media and stolen fairness are the hallmarks of the Reagan era which today is thriving.

You might even say we are suffering a form of radiation: Reaganizated.

[defendandprotect]

21. Agree ....

however, would add that I'm just rereading a book by Wm. Greider --

"Who Will Tell the People?" which is from '92 -- read it back then.

He's commenting that in 1978, the Dems collaborated with the GOP on

undoing the Tax Codes to favor the wealthy/corporations.

Trust at some point soon I'll get a little report up on that book --

but it's still in libraries!



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along -- !

:)

[defendandprotect]

20. When they took Pres. John F. Kennedy out, they also took out our people's government ...!!

[BeFree]

24. Truly

When they got away with covering up JFK's death, they became bolder.

They began stealing elections, telling more lies, and actively destroying the government.

Great heroes are those who still spend their time exposing the lies and cover ups.