LayfayetteBear posted this in my thread on the expected Millennial embrace of socialism....
Given the ginormous Wealth Gap that exists in this country, and the ominous fact the it continues to widen (and the middle class to diminish), it is simultaneously amazing, pathetic, and comical that Trump Cultists (virtually none of whom are one percenters) oppose - as “socialism” - any and all measures that might reverse or even slow the widening of the Wealth Gap.
In my opinion, the wealth gap was created by failures on both political sides, and the "solutions" proposed by either side will fail to reverse the trend, because neither addresses the root causes:
The republican failure:
Though both parties are responsible for unbalanced budgets, republicans generally want small government. They get this done by cutting taxes without regard for the spending side. This puts money into the private sector, but without strings, that money can flow anywhere and into any thing. Overseas factories and lavish estates are not productive for the USA, so borrowing to fund these things is not "investment." It is a "handout."
Unfortunately, other factors -- the quality of the workforce -- actually determine whether that money is likely to flow into productive investment, or into something that is simply extravagant, or overseas (to make use of cheaper, more "productive" labor).
Republicans believe in supporting and encouraging business ownership. Ownership is a good thing, as this means people have a stake in something and are less likely to destroy it. It's bad, however, if it is just a bailout to subsidize bad behavior (stock buybacks over using that money to build something that produces wealth). Strings attached to public spending are essential, and this applies to spending by both parties, including central banks.
The democratic failure:
Generally, democrats are the party of free handouts to (1) managed endeavors, and (2) people of lesser means. Both tend to be less productive. This "managed" spending is almost always not something subjected to market pressures, so this is how such spending becomes less productive, similar to republican spending.
I don't mean to say that these money flows are absolute, as quite obviously there are exceptions, but the above tendencies are the primary, overall political difference.
What has hurt the "wealth gap" in the democratic approach is that their spending tends to be wasteful, i.e., though "managed," it comes without strings. And it tends to be counter to driving an increase in productivity.
Though there are many areas that could be cited, no where is this more evident than in education, where we spend vast sums to get ever increasingly poor results. There is no way to compete in a global marketplace when your people are uneducated, and there is no way to deter the maldistribution of wealth when there is a maldistribution in productivity. If you don't believe this, just visit a 2nd or 3rd world country. I have worked in such places.
The "wealth gap" increases with the divide in education level, but there is a compounding factor that people on the Left want to ignore. That education must be in fields of demand. This has been very clear for decades.
Democrats want blanket education funding, without standards, without direction to areas of demand, and without competitive measures to ensure quality. Pelosi, for example, would just as readily fund a musician as she would an engineer. And her policies would not ensure that students entering engineering can even do math.
Given the ginormous Wealth Gap that exists in this country, and the ominous fact the it continues to widen (and the middle class to diminish), it is simultaneously amazing, pathetic, and comical that Trump Cultists (virtually none of whom are one percenters) oppose - as “socialism” - any and all measures that might reverse or even slow the widening of the Wealth Gap.
In my opinion, the wealth gap was created by failures on both political sides, and the "solutions" proposed by either side will fail to reverse the trend, because neither addresses the root causes:
The republican failure:
Though both parties are responsible for unbalanced budgets, republicans generally want small government. They get this done by cutting taxes without regard for the spending side. This puts money into the private sector, but without strings, that money can flow anywhere and into any thing. Overseas factories and lavish estates are not productive for the USA, so borrowing to fund these things is not "investment." It is a "handout."
Unfortunately, other factors -- the quality of the workforce -- actually determine whether that money is likely to flow into productive investment, or into something that is simply extravagant, or overseas (to make use of cheaper, more "productive" labor).
Republicans believe in supporting and encouraging business ownership. Ownership is a good thing, as this means people have a stake in something and are less likely to destroy it. It's bad, however, if it is just a bailout to subsidize bad behavior (stock buybacks over using that money to build something that produces wealth). Strings attached to public spending are essential, and this applies to spending by both parties, including central banks.
The democratic failure:
Generally, democrats are the party of free handouts to (1) managed endeavors, and (2) people of lesser means. Both tend to be less productive. This "managed" spending is almost always not something subjected to market pressures, so this is how such spending becomes less productive, similar to republican spending.
I don't mean to say that these money flows are absolute, as quite obviously there are exceptions, but the above tendencies are the primary, overall political difference.
What has hurt the "wealth gap" in the democratic approach is that their spending tends to be wasteful, i.e., though "managed," it comes without strings. And it tends to be counter to driving an increase in productivity.
Though there are many areas that could be cited, no where is this more evident than in education, where we spend vast sums to get ever increasingly poor results. There is no way to compete in a global marketplace when your people are uneducated, and there is no way to deter the maldistribution of wealth when there is a maldistribution in productivity. If you don't believe this, just visit a 2nd or 3rd world country. I have worked in such places.
The "wealth gap" increases with the divide in education level, but there is a compounding factor that people on the Left want to ignore. That education must be in fields of demand. This has been very clear for decades.
Democrats want blanket education funding, without standards, without direction to areas of demand, and without competitive measures to ensure quality. Pelosi, for example, would just as readily fund a musician as she would an engineer. And her policies would not ensure that students entering engineering can even do math.
