Posted on 05/31/2006 12:28:22 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
“We’re the party that wants to see an America in which people can still get rich.” —Ronald Reagan
“Behind every great fortune there is a crime.”
—Honore de Balzac
The two quotes you’ve just read do a great job of representing how most liberals and conservatives view the rich. Conservatives believe that America is a land of opportunity, a place where a person can go from rags to riches if he’s clever and willing to work hard.
On the other hand, liberals believe that in and of itself, wealth is evidence of wrongdoing. Either the rich are, “winners of life’s lottery,” who didn’t earn the money they have or it was somehow swindled from the poor. Even if somehow, some way, neither of those conditions are present, then how can any decent person stand to be so rich when so many other people are so poor—well, unless you’re a trial lawyer, celebrity, or someone who contributes vast sums to the Democratic Party as penance, in which case all is forgiven.
These two attitudes explain why liberals often engage in class warfare and accuse conservatives of being, “in the pocket of the rich.” When your starting point is that, “rich people are bad people because they’re rich,” then simply refusing to display knee-jerk hostility towards the wealthy is taken as a sign of unscrupulousness.
But, what so many liberals fail to see is how much the rich contribute to our society. Just to name one example, let’s take a look at a man whose name is practically synonymous with limitless wealth: Bill Gates.
Would this country be better off if Bill Gates had never been born? My guess is that Microsoft’s 61,000 plus employees wouldn’t think so. What about the recipients of the $28.8 billion that Bill Gates has given away to charities and causes? What about the people who built his mansions and his cars? Heck, what about you? Do you have any Microsoft products on your computer?
The reality is that when you take down a rich man, legions of poorer men suffer as a result of his misfortune. Of course, there are some people who did inherit their money or become rich by leeching off society (like John Edwards), but most Americans who have become wealthy made their fortunes by doing an exceptional job of serving their fellow man in some capacity.
Take Derek Jeter, Mel Gibson, or Barbra Streisand. Is it fair that they’re able to make such incredible sums playing sports, acting, or singing? Of course, it’s fair! They have very rare talents and people are willing to pay and pay well to see them perform. And if the public is willing to shell out vast fortunes to watch them work, why shouldn’t they benefit from it? Who are we to decide that they don’t deserve the money that they earned by entertaining millions of people?
Similarly, consider CEO’s like Lee Raymond from Exxon. How many other people on earth could run a huge company like Exxon? Percentage wise, very few. Now, of those people? How many could have run the company as well as Raymond? Almost none. He was a “Michael-Jordan-quality” performer in his profession. So, given that Raymond ran a company that grossed $371 billion worldwide in 2005 and made $36 billion in profit that same year, is a $400 million retirement and salary package for 12 years’ worth of work out of line? When put in its proper perspective, that money was a drop in the bucket for a corporation like Exxon—and if anything, given how well the company performed under Raymond, he was probably underpaid.
But, that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people because they believe that the pie is only so big and if some Americans get a bigger piece of it, then that means the rest of us have to make do with less. However, that’s not true. If you think about it, it’s very obvious that the “pie” keeps expanding.
If it didn’t, we’d all still be living in caves, bonking each other on the head with clubs and trying to figure out how to steal some rocks from the guy hoarding them across town. Moreover, that “expanding pie” explains why the richest and most privileged Americans 100 years ago had a lifestyle that was markedly inferior in most ways to that of Americans with modest means today. Most poor Americans have television sets, radios, air conditioners, microwaves, and other gadgets and gizmos that would have been considered priceless a century ago.
So as you can see, if we have a strong, thriving economy, then over time our entire society will benefit from it in a myriad of different ways—and allowing people to create tremendous wealth for themselves is a necessary part of building a strong, thriving economy.
This may come as a shock to some people—like liberals—but the rich don’t sit around in their mansions all day and pass the time by swimming in pools full of their own money like Scrooge McDuck. They’re creating jobs with their companies, investing in the stock market, and loaning entrepreneurs the money they need to start businesses. Also, did I mention taxes? The top 5% of wage earners in this country pay more than half of all Federal Income Taxes.
That’s why we need to try to make it easier for Americans to get rich. It’s because the rich aren’t the enemy in a capitalistic country like America; they’re the geese that lay the golden eggs.
Not the same thing. A consumer has a CHOICE if he goes to Exxon, BP etc. US citizens don't have a choice, and don't have any option to not pay taxes if they're unhappy. Comparing government to private commerce is just too disparate for meaningful comparisons.
(although he should at least please the segment of voters in his own party
You'd think so wouldn't you, but Bush apparently doesn't agree. Poll on boortz.com the other day gave 99% DISSAPPROVE on Bush's amnesty plan. Frankly I'm puzzled as to just who he's is trying to please.
Liberals are such liars about wealth, they are every bit greedy and glutenous in accumulating their own personal wealth as they accuse conservatives of being, how many poor elected liberals are there in the Senate?
"Comparing government to private commerce is just too disparate for meaningful comparisons."
Maybe that sums it up.
Regarding corporate severence policies, I guess customers always have the option of not buying from corporations whose policies don't meet with their approval. OTOH, that idea may not get much traction here on FR, where I have seen it argued that employess *have* to work for a given corporation, meaning that because a given job is one they want, the corporation must adopt corporate policy to suit them).
That's my take on it too. When I hear of someone being "over paid", I think of Michael Jordan and the statements I used to hear from fellow Bulls fans, that he was over paid. He was paid exactly right, which is to say that his employer paid him the least he could get him for and Michael got the most he could.
It's the way the free market works, if the Bulls didn't want to pay him what he asked for there were other N.B.A. teams that were willing to.
I wonder how many people on this forum think that they personally are "over paid"? If they think it then they can always give money back to their employers (or customers)
I think John Snow is a good example of the above.
Why do you think the wealthiest men in the world tend to lean left, with some even being socialists? I have my own ideas on that, but would like to hear someone else's.
I like rich people - I've never had a job from a poor person...
Always consider that it is not the rich who are necessarily Republican; neither Gates nor Buffet are Republicans - or if they are, they're RINO types. Buffet is a hitaxer. The Democratic Party is the party of the poor voter and the rich contributor/influential pol. The Republican Party is the party of the middle class - those who have ambition and fear. Republicans aspire toward the rich and Republicans fear declining into poverty.The Democratic Party is a pincer movement of the rich who want seperation from the middle class and the poor who want equality with the middle class, without the self-discipline.
Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was fabulously wealthy. But she lived before the advent of electrical appliances, most significant medical treatment, automobiles, airplanes, and consumer electronics. A modern American secretary today would not blythely trade circumstances with her. And if not with her, would she trade places with the antebellum plantation owner?The "poor" of America have a standard of living equivalent to that of the middle class of fifty years ago. That's a lot of progress for "progressives" to oppose . . .
This whole 'overpaid CEO' thing is a load of hooey IMO. When I ran a company, I kept 100% of the profits. I guess that makes me a bad guy as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So did I! But I was sole owner and not a hired manager. The situation is hardly comparable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.