I’ll grant these things are true. I have several points. First, they started out as regular people, much like you and me. Some born in extreme poverty in a time before any government programs existed and yet SOMETHING made the difference in their lot in life. The difference WAS NOT government redistribution programs. Second, the point was made in an earlier post about trickle down economics never working, yet demand side economics does, so what do poor people contribute to society? Henry Ford, Rockefeller etc. may have been robber barrons in our early Industrial Age, but these companies and many others no longer are operated as they were at their beginnings, they have provided good paying jobs to millions of people for over a hundred years. Why does it make sense to bash and penalize the very people who brought these companies into existence and who have given rise to the middle class?
The poor are still here despite more and more and more government assistance, if the government is the solution to the problem of poverty, why haven’t we solved it by now? No other society has ever done so. What are Democrats doing or going to do differently than any other past administration of either party? No matter what they SAY, it never solves the problem. Why not?
The difference is right place, right time, connections, and willingness to treat your fellow man like trash to get to the top. You don’t get that rich by being a good person.
What have they done for the middle class lately? They continue to accumulate their wealth, while the rest stagnate.
The poor are better off now then they were without these programs.
The GI Bill and other types of government interventions that stopped these people from exploiting labor gave rise to the Middle Class, plus a destructive war that laid waste to our competition around the world.
Oh my God…it was posited that the robber barons created the middle class?
Apparently ability, ambition hard work, sacrifice, vision, education and opportunity have nothing
to do with creating wealth in your view. All rich people are thieves and dirt bags while all poor people are chock full of virtue.
You have a rose colored view of these people. Sure there is ambition, hard work, ability, etc. But you don’t get to their status without stepping on people.
You mentioned Carnegie earlier. Sure he was a philanthropist, but let’s not forget what he also was. As profits soared, wages were cut, leading to the Homestead Strike.
No, I don’t have a rose colored view of any of them, but the discussion has been about their contribution to society compared to the poor. Like them or not, dirt bags or not, the companies they started and thousands more like have been the engine of our economy. Throughout the 20th century they employed millions and helped a middle class to grow and thrive.
Sure they should pay taxes but there is a point where taxing them is more harmful then beneficial to society. If taxes are raised to high, to the point they can’t compete with foreign countries, they will move or shut down. Americans lose jobs. Another thing you guys don’t want to acknowledge is that companies pass increases costs onto consumers, every time you guys say things like “fair share”, it’s the middle class that gets hurt and pays one way or another.
There wouldn’t be a middle class without government intervention, which these companies fault every step of the way.
You give too much credit to people who have done everything in their power to exploit their workers as much as possible.
They do this regardless of taxes. Everything they can to keep costs down, if that means child labor in China or Indonesia so they don’t have to pay Americans decent wages, so be it.
I’m not defending the character of evil people. Jesus said it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. I tend to believe man is corrupt by nature. But I don’t believe all rich people got rich by ill gotten gains either. But I’ve never been employed by a poor person, nor have I ever met anyone who aspired to be poor.
Really my whole point has been that there are many factors that contribute to a persons station in life and the government has no control over any of them. It isn’t a very good endorsement of government policies if the best they could ever achieve is to, as in my glass example, bring equity. If the 8 ounces in my glass represented everything, then taking 3 from one glass and transferring it to the other has added no value to society. Nothing new, it raises one at the expense of the other with all the sacrifice being made by the full. This is a picture of Lib Utopia- equity has been achieved. But society has been reduced to mediocrity as a result and stagnation will occur.
In order for growth, something has to be added. Who is going to add? The poor were only raised by taking from the rich. If the rich only got rich by stealing from the poor and the poor have nothing, how do the rich keep getting richer?
The rich have been saying that in this country for the last 100+ years. Anytime labor fights for more rights or more pay they cry foul. From freeing slaves and paying them for labor, getting rid of child labor, sweatshops, safety laws to 8 hour days and 40 hour work weeks. The rich have cried that it will destroy businesses and the economy. Much of it had to come through the barrel of a gun, fighting businesses who bombed, and poisoned their own workers.
It depends. Lots of ways, government subsides, hedge funds, getting lucky. A lot of it is right place right time. Even with creating a new product that people want. Myspace died, Facebook took off.
The thing is, it’s a symbiotic relationship. The rich would have nothing without the labor they exploit.
Andrew Carnegie was such a great guy he gave away ninety plus percent of his fortune because he was wracked with guilt for what he did to the people mostly in my city.
