So basically you are saying that we are mired in a late 19th century style guilded age?
We aren't quite there yet
in toto . Things like antirust law, hardfought labor protections, and the New Deal and Great Society retain a baseline level of social and economic justice in America. That being said, the income gap now continues to accelerate and the amount of persuasion monied interests have in all levels of government do, to some degree, reflect the state of the nation in the late 19th centure.
The graft is fully in play, and Republicans are behind it all?
Current Republican policies and proposed legislation promote inequality of economic opportunity, where the richer are given more wealth opportunity and the poor are given fewer options to elevate their station in society. There is no semblance of economic justice in Luntz' playbook.
And yes, that wank about capitalism made me feel alot better, especially since pretty much everyone here has benefitted greatly from capitalism but loves to bash it anyways.
Bashing something that you've personally benefitted from is fine and isn't hypocrisy at all. I've benefitted greatly from capitialism, depsite my near-socialist leftist beliefs. I will continue to do so provided that I personally do not contribute to the continued social and economic injustices that small group of people in power continue to push on the rest of America. That doesn't mean I won't rail against the economic injustice of our system of capitalism (which has serious flaws) whenever I get the chance. We can do better than we are doing now.
It is called poverty, and there is no way around it.
I call BS. In a country with as much wealth and resources as we have, there is zero excuse for our levels of poverty, or poverty at all. That's a moral imperative of a society that can afford to do it, and ours can, and should. That doesn't necessarliy mean that government should cut checks to people for sitting on their butt and not doing anything-that is irresponsible, but it does mean:
*) Ensuring that an American that works a full week's work can make enough money to support at least him or herself above poverty conditions. This isn't happening right now, and as a result our GOVERNMENTS (federal, state, and local) and charities are having to fill in for the employer's shortchanging by providing social services. That's crony capitalism.
Republicans have lined up time and time again to shoot down any attempt to force companies to pay a wage that people can actually live on.
*) Ensuring that people who live past an age where they can no longer support themselves through working have income to live on.
We have this insurance-it's called Social Security. It has been under relentless assualt by the Republican party for the past 60 years, and it is in more danger now than ever before. Republicans refuse to take the simple steps to ensure its solvency, instead choosing to find ways to creatively phase-out the assuredness and stability of the program.
*) Ensuring that young people that want an education can have access to it, even if they cannot afford it. The way out of poverty is through education, and state-run universities are woefully underfunded while grants to lower-income students are vanishing at an astonishing rate. The Republicans seem to prefer the notion that people who want to go to college but can't afford it should join the military instead. Enlistment into a volunteer army shouldn't be the only way out of poverty.
*) Keeping people healthy so they can work is important. Our biggest crisis in this country is that of health care, and Republicans have done aboslutely nothing substantive to counter that crisis, or even address the real problems of it. Nothing throws people into poverty and bankruptcy in this country like getting ill or being in an accident because of the massive cost of health care, even with insurance, which, unless you have a job that provides it (see first bullet) is out of reach to most families.
There are some social problems in our society that need to be worked on to fight poverty too. No one is saying that there isn't a place for strong moral and civic leadership in both rural and urban areas to help foster a work ethic and provide examples of how to succeed and overcome adversity. My point is that the government should ensure that there are not glass ceilings in place (there currently are) that, if regulated, could be mitigated or eliminated entirely.
Back from that tangent:
I am not saying greed is good, but in today's time it seems that greed has been equated with ambition, thus making ambition bad like greed.
I don't see this. I only hear this from people looking to to the same kind of Luntz Transform(tm) where you make something that is nasty (unrestrained, unregulated capitalistic greed) into something that sounds better (honest ambition).
I believe that government should protect your current station in life, while giving you opportunity to improve it.
I think that our current government protects you well if you are wealthy. Just look at the Republican bankruptcy bill that just shot through the Senate, complete with plenty of ways for the rich to get around the rules. Look at the Bush tax cuts, which disproporitionately aid the wealthy. If you're at the lower end of the economic scale, the current govenrment and its refusal to address important economic justice issues does actively chooses to obstruct raising your station in life.
Going back to the point of blaming Republicans-they are culpable for their inaction on many of the issues that prevent economic justice in America. They often work actively against economic justice. Some Democrats do too at times, unfortunately, but it's never the crushing, unified majority of hatred and disdain for the poor that Republicans show with uncanny reliability.
