The American Economy and Class-Warfare Debate As I See It
3 guys making the same wage, buy a house and pay equal shares of all expenses. 1 becomes a multi-millionaire businessman, 1 teaches, 1 pumps gas, but all are #responsible. Assuming they all decide to continue living together, should economic responsibility/distribution be re-alloted? And if so, by #choice or #force?
#Consider. If the poor man tries force, the others have the option to leave, leaving him destitute and possibly homeless. If just the rich man leaves, the middle-class teacher will have to take on the lions share, because the poor man probably can not afford a 50/50 split. After expenses the teacher may soon no longer be considered middle-class and there will be less money to circulate outside of the house. At the same time, considering all are responsible, and serving some part of community and the household, can the rich man claim to be good, moral, righteous, and just, if he doesn't VOLUNTARILY take more of the load, to ease all? “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” That's America. That's justice. But it's key not take a "Robin Hood" approach, because we are not only built on justice, social or otherwise, but liberty and freedom, too. The rich are not excluded.
In the "3 guys buy a house" example, if the expenses are paid by taking a percentage of each income (I believe it should be an equal percentage, but you can use the "bracket" system in the example.), the rich will automatically pay more, yet a safety net is provided even for him if things turn bad, God forbid. And also, if the poor man does financially better, he automatically gives more. I know this is economics simplified, but his is the simplified information John Q. Public needs to ponder to make #wise decisions as we find our selves at a cross roads in America. Both Presidential candidates, President Obama and Mitt Romney, admit this election is a choice between two Americas and two fundamentally different ideas. Both are focusing on the economy which has been broken down into several parts; jobs, fiscal responsibility, social justice, and class warfare. The heart of the debate I believe lies in the balancing of fiscal responsibility and social justice and services. So, the question then becomes, what are necessary expenditures verses what is pork? And who should pay for it all or the bulk? Should the rich pay more because they have more? That doesn't seem quite fair. They earned it. Should the responsible poor not be provided with services by the government that give them the best opportunity to be and do better? Should our seniors be forced to work until death to live and to pay for healthcare, never enjoying rest or other activities? That doesn't sound right either. Let's try to make some sense of all of this.
Taking the same "3 guys share a house" example again, when all were making the same wage, if one were to get sick, shouldn't the other 2 pick up the slack? Shouldn't they help him get back on his feet? Does this not make sense humanitarily? But if you see clearly, it also makes wise economic sense per the bottom line, too. It is wise even during the period of financial disparity. The quicker the one that is sick gets better, the quicker he will go back to paying his fair share. The quicker he gets better, the quicker the relief of the added burden on the other 2. And imagine if the 1 that gets sick, and is now better, is the millionaire? How much more ease will now the other 2 enjoy sooner because they helped? Would it be wise to only see the bottom line during the tough times? Or, is it smart to see and work towards fiscal responsibility and all paying an equal share, but doing it in such a way to ensure all 3 are made whole? This to me is simple economics and #economic #wisdom all around, for the conservative and liberal. Whether you see it through the eyes of compassion or by the "chain is only as strong as it's weakest link", to aid is wise and just.
Let's look at one more example using the house. Let's say there is a fire that destroys most of the house, or a flood and insurance doesn't cover it all. Will not the 3 do whatever it takes to rebuild and then get back to black/white financial dealings later? Should not the "fair split" go out the window and all do whatever it takes? Who ever has more gives more. Remember. The example assumes all are responsible. The #irresponsible poor is a different story. Will they not skip some bills, even after stripping down to bare necessities, because the big picture is to become whole again? Of course, all bills/financial responsibilities should be paid in full eventually, but a roof over the head should take priority.
So I come back to America. We must charge the rich and middle-class to greatly consider the NECESSITY of social programs like medicare, welfare, affordable care, and social security. You can't "pick yourself up by your own boot straps" if you can't afford the boots, or if you lose your feet to diabetes, or are too old to bend down, or if you die. We are creating a greater schism and burden on this country and for all of society when we don't give aid. I can extend this principle as to why world-wide humanitarianism is wise, and why America grew so strong, so fast, but I'll keep it domestic. The more we can help make it over the hump, the more we will have to carry the financial load, and be less of a burden on each citizen. This is not theory, but fact. And what happens then? All spend more, businesses thrive, then they hire more, like the ones that were helped, and these now begin to pay their fair share through taxes. Again. Let me be perfectly clear. The #irresponsible is a different story. No one wants a parasite, but it is still in our best interest even concerning the #irresponsible, to develop programs that teach them the value of hard work. Yes, some will slip through the cracks, but there are many that worked or are working hard to be better. And we can not forget our seniors who have already contributed greatly to communities and society in ways that may not be easily visible and may be under appreciated. They deserve better. We can not just say "don't spend more than you have", when it comes to these programs. And I am very responsible. I have never been on welfare, medicaid, or even unemployment, nor do I need to, to value these services and America for helping its' poor. I have no cable tv or a car right now. (There are other factors as to why no car, though. But nothing to do with irresponsibility in anyway, just taking a personal stand.) I have not shopped for any new clothes and I even returned an air conditioner to save money on the unit and subsequent electricity. And I'm doing this in August of one of the hottest years ever. My rent and all bills are paid and on time. Plus, I consistently pay tithes and offerings to my local Church. I have done all of this, knowing there's something better for me. I stepped out in business and took a loss, and all but the major bill surrounding the setback is paid and that one will be paid without bankruptcy. I play by the rules, spiritually (I am a Christian. This may not apply to you.) and naturally. I don't blame others or leech. But I see the value of safety nets and trampolines that it may be well for all. How do we know if one of these programs won't save and become a stepping stone for one of our future millionaires or billionaires or inventors or astronauts or Olympians, or writers, or teachers or any other service that we need? And indeed, we know they already have. We have heard the stories. Some will say, let the religious and non-profit organizations only do it. But the government has a role to play in social work and policy as well. "We the People" says it all. And I might as well take this time and once again explain that the Affordable Care Act, with the individual mandate, actually is less socialistic than the old system. It provides a way for all to be more responsible for their own health care whether it's emergency care or preventative services, which saves lives, helps keeps all healthy so they can work, doesn't change healthcare plans for those of us who already have our own, still allows for capitalism and fair competition among insurance companies, allows all to still shop around and find a plan that's best for them or choose to pay a penalty so if anything goes wrong, America (Me) doesn't get stuck and have to take the loss on your gamble the way we did without the ACA; taxpayers paying for it all. The perfect example of a service that isnt just take, take, take. I will keep making these points to #ACA detractors. Its fair across the board! I have yet to hear a clear argument against it that isn't just political.
Back to my point and the two Americas. I've discussed reasoning above, but I must discuss how America got into such a bad situation. If it was policy, then clearly we should just do the opposite, or try the other way. Is that not Mitt Romneys argument? The republicans say they have the answer, look at the times during Reagan. The democrats blame the policies of G. W. Bush, and say we have the answers, look at the financial times of Clinton. Im in awe of both these two great men and presidents, but Reagan's trickle down did not work and most was great during Clinton, he clearly gets the edge, but real estate and other financial busts happened when Clinton's promise of the American dream was not tempered with regulations and laws that would've kept financial integrity on every bodies part. It was a "free for all" that turned into a "free fall" and we are still falling. Of course, in Clinton's case every institution and individual has to take personal responsibility, but truth and boundaries from leadership would've helped and prevented much. As a result of all, and it didn't happen over night, the current economic conditions are not about policy as much as it is about a lack of trust by the American people in both private businesses, especially financial and real estate businesses and in government after scandal after scandal. And don't forget, the wars and current conflicts which need temporary deployment of our troops, because we were unexpectedly attacked on our homeland. I know many hate the wars, but the point is that they cost a lot and contributed to the economic down turn. This ladies and gentlemen is "the fire and the flood that the insurance didn't entirely cover", so we pull together. With our troops, and innocent civilians on the line, can we just say we need more fiscal responsibility? Our troops need what they need. I heard some news commentators say they were disappointed in the lack of jingoistic attitude in dress and speech by American Olympic competitors. Okay. Then if we are still to be the leader of the free world; know it and show it, there is a price to be paid and it can start with talk, but forever has to be backed up with diplomacy first, but always set for defense and battle. This takes money. And another way to back up the talk of how great America is, is by example. We can not tell other countries how to care for their citizens if we let ours die to save a dollar. Makes no sense (pun intended).
To tie it all together. What am I saying? It is not right to force another human being to pay a higher percentage or an UNFAIR share, or lose taxcuts others receive because they have more. Not even Jesus taught that. We can't punish #good #success, or else many may some day say, "what's the point?", and that day is just about here if you listen to people. If we say it's right to take by force more from the top 2%, the next generation can say take more from the top 5%, then another more from the top 10% and so on. I am for President Obama and agree with him on nearly every point including social services, but not with the way he proposes to pay for it. Robin Hood is a thief, period. If you listen to the opposition, it's all they can attack Obama with. It is humane and sensible to give more if you have more. We are to ask, encourage and steadfastly forever convince and make a case to the rich, to of their own free will, do more. When I think of the school Oprah built in South Africa at her own expense with possibly the help of other wealthy benefactors just at the request of Nelson Mandela, wow! The possibilities. Pay it forward. Be a good humanitarian, and/or just begin to comprehend it is in your best interest, and the nation's best interest, ultimately. Removing most social services and not finding a way will be disastrous. The expenses of the day to day operations of America will be eventually be too much for any to bear as many fall by the wayside. This is not to say we need more public funding in all areas. Some European countries made this mistake with things like free higher education for all, and free health care without the individual mandate, which changes the complextion of universal care to welfare for all; rich and poor. This model is what makes doctors poor. Id be pissed too. Some things do need to be cut. Privatising TSA, and some other public sector jobs, I can see. Holding off on Nasa and other things until things get better, okay. But the programs named above is a matter of life and death. Maybe not for you or me, but for someone that deserves help in the time of need. Mitt Romey is on this side, though as a Governor, he was far more socially responsible. It's why we don't hear about his public office policies too often. But Paul Ryan is a different story and I will hold my opinion on him for now. But hear me America. I am not "bleeding heart", but I do care. #Leaders care.
So solutions. What can we do to collect more but not by force? Well there is the Oprah model as mentioned above. There is also the experiment of using private money for public services without giving over control being used in Chicago to fund the building of infrastructure, but I believe it can also be extended into private business funding services, while government maintains control. The Chicago experiment I believe does it by way of interest free loans to the city. Not sure about that, but I'm definately interested in the prospects. And I also have this idea. I'm not sure if it already exists. But, I believe there should be a provision in our tax codes; federal and state, that allows citizens, like the top 2%, to give more in taxes above what they owe. It can be capped at a calculated amount that would leave them enough to care for their household, so no one can give all only for they themselves to become a burden on the government. Perhaps, each can give to specific services or to pay down the debt, but always without exchange or gain of any favor or influence. And in times of emergency, where as "emergency" must be definitively defined, the government can reserve the right to use the money the way it sees fit. This idea would answer the "Buffet Rule" dilemma which is no dilemma. And all that say they are good with paying more can just do it anytime they want. Imagine instead of giving so much money to super pacs and campaigns, which is your right, much of that money went to paying down the debt, and the economic recovery of America. Since this is voluntary, though we cant depend on it greatly, but every time there is a need, America comes through. This would collect money, no doubt. Couple it with a #flattax system, where we get rid of brackets and loopholes, and all pay the same percentage; maybe one that fluctuates per the countries needs, and where earned income is taxed at the same rate as gains by interest or dividends. Can a flat tax work across the board locally, statewide, and federally? I don't know. But I do know it can work federally. And also yes there are still the staples of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, especially as we recover. And recover we will. We must cut out what is truly pork.
If we implement a combination of all mentioned, I believe we have the shell of a working blue print of fairness, the spirit of our forefathers, and success for the individual and the nation. It can no longer just be "tax and spend" verses "trickle" or "topdown" economics. We need innovative, creative thinking. We must take a tiered approach and be ready to use and implement the right approach or approaches for the right time. One size fits all will not work, only we must stay within the foundations of America. I have yet to hear any new ideas being proposed by either candidate or party, except the aforementioned Chicago experiment that is highly regarded by many democrats, but is not nationally spoken of by the party or President Obama.
Well that's the present day American economy and class-warfare debate, with some good answers and solutions, as I see it.
God Bless America and our economy.
-Yulanda K. Jones
Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.6
