Preoccupied by movement’s socialist agenda
The “Occupy” movement has unleashed its ire on the wrong people. Based on comments from protesters in the news, distribution of wealth has become the standard by which protestors evaluate American democracy. Hmm, I thought democracy meant majority rule, one person, one vote.
In fact, America is a republic: Its citizens elect representatives to represent them in government. It might even be argued we are now an oligarchy — ruled by an “elite.”
I submit the oligarchs are our Do-Nothing Congress, so busy drawing lines in the sand and becoming so entrenched in dogma that they have failed to represent us. Instead they are representing the ideology of their respective parties: Dem, GOP and TEA.
The White House and the House Republican majority bicker about spending cuts to reduce deficits. Fiscal analysts are warning against austerity efforts, which helped cause 1937’s double-dip recession.
Moody’s Analytics estimated that current fiscal policy would subtract 1.7 percentage points from gross domestic product next year.
State and local cuts have eliminated 259,000 jobs this year.
The goal of Obama’s jobs act is to stimulate demand for goods and services so employers will create jobs.
The act also addresses assistance for the long-term unemployed and infrastructure spending.
As for business tax credits, most economists think that will have minimal impact on jobs creation.
Of course, the tea party folks are kicking up a fuss about reduced spending, complaining the legislation doesn’t cut enough.
The Republicans in the House — not to be outdone — trashed the plan and presented their own.
Behold: Stalemate. Again. Everybody has his own agenda and the other guy’s isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s akin to fiddling while Rome burns.
The electorate has taken its collective eye off the ball to watch the Occupy protesters. They’ve even go so far as to buy into what appears to be the central theme of the protest: being rich is evil and undemocratic.
Sounds like socialism to me.
Call me Ayn Rand, but I think someone who earned his money ought to get to keep it.
I’m sorry Jane Doe, sales clerk, doesn’t have as much money as John Smith, M.D., but perhaps it’s a reflection of her work skills and life choices.
She may have decided to quit college or avoided a job-skills workshop. On the other hand, Smith gutted it out through years of college, medical school and on-the-job training.
While I believe everyone who wants to go to college should, not everybody who goes to college should be there.
I also don’t think society is obligated to provide a college education to every high school graduate. (Before I get the phone calls and letters, I should tell you I worked my way through college at $1.65 an hour and earned my degree in four years.)
Anybody who wants to get ahead in life needs to roll up his sleeves and work for it.
So, what’s this about 1 percent? Again, facts are in contention. According to CNN Money (money.cnn.com, Oct. 20), minimum income for the top 1 percent of American taxpayers is an adjusted gross income of just $343,927 in 2009 — a long way from Gates and Buffet — while top 1-percenters made $960,000.
CNN reported that the 1.4 million households in the 1 percent category earned 17 percent of the nation’s wealth and paid about 37 percent of its income tax.
As for Wall Street? Thirty-one percent of the executives, managers and supervisors work outside of the financial sector, including medical professionals and lawyers.
Are there more Bernie Madoffs out there? You betcha and they need to join him in jail. However, it wasn’t money that was the root of his evil; it was the love of it. Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia,” protested against excesses by the Virginia Legislature, writing: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for” (emphasis Jefferson’s).