They're both down the road to Libertarianism, one more than the other, and both would like to see the government stay out of the economy. That's obviously the opposite side of the spectrum from where I stand. They think so-called handouts to the poor is destroying people's initiative to work hard and better themselves. I tend to agree with Harry Hopkins, FDR's right-hand man, who when asked if providing welfare for those hurt by the Depression would hurt them in the long run.
Hopkins' answer was succinct.
"People don't eat in the long run. They eat every day."
You didn't say "greed."
Almost. The thing I have trouble understanding about why so many people who aren't wealthy would want to reduce the role of government and increase the power of people who are basically plutocrats.
Many of the richest people in America had almost nothing to do with earning their fortunes. The descendants of Sam Walton inherited the Walmart empire, and Charles and David Koch got billions from their father when he died. Even Donald Trump got big money from father Fred.
All these people pay ridiculously small amounts in taxes, and they and other big corporations that are very profitable are getting all sorts of tax breaks.
I assume that my two Libertarian friends would like to see the government out of all this, but if there were no government role, we simply revert to laws of the economic jungle. And billionaires have much bigger claws and much sharper teeth than average working people.
But too many people are suffering now, people who aren't reached by churches or charities, and there aren't enough jobs to help all those who need help.
I've got no problem with gradually reducing the role of government, but if it's going to happen, we need to reduce the ridiculous power plutocrats have over the poor and working class.
If we're going to be a good society again, we have to start by being a fair one.
No comments:
Post a Comment