Monday, July 21, 2003

3rd of 7 dedly sins: greed, part 1 (how gummint redistribushun of wealth wurks to make rich folks richer)

thays all kinds of greed, n ye could spend yer life definin em n showin how much evil they kin do, but thars one kind that galls me most, n thats the greed of them thats dun got more'n they need. lets ignore the moralty of a'gittin more money that ye cant even spend while thays folks that aint got food or health care or decent skools. lets figger it strate on whuther it makes fer a better economy. it dont.

i have sum publican friens, one of em in partiklar, n hes all extercized over class warfar, witch he thinks poor folks is unfarly attackin the rich n stealin thar money with help frum librul demcrats. we had us a argumint, nearly a fuss n fite ifn ye wont the truth, n heres sum the points frum it. heres his claim:

When a democrat says a tax cut across the board is unfair, he means, " If it is across the board, the rich will get a greater return."

The republican says, " If it is not across the board it is a redistribution of wealth."

questchun is, how else kin wealth be redistributed? heres sum obveeus ways:

  1. whenever gummint bilds rodes in sted of railrodes, wealth is redistributed direckly to rode bilders n concreet cumpnies n hevy equipmint manufactchers n so on. indireckly, tis redistributed to them what profits by the cuntry havin such a rode system. fer egzample, yer tire cumpnies, automobil cumpnies, oil cumpnies, convenience stores, fast food cumpnies, motels, etc. thays many millyunairs n billyunairs dun been made thisaway. n twuz a massiv redistribushun of wealth. who paid fer't? all the tax payers. did all them tax payers benfit equal? not hardly. would taxpayers have got em a more eefishent system ifn they dun bilt railrodes sted of hiways? fer the movmint of freight, thars lil doubt about it. do we speck hiways to genrate a profit? no. do we speck amtrak to make a profit? yeah. n who benfits? agin, tis those who dun earnt thar wealth via the status quo. tis immoral to claim that a cross the bord redistribushun of wealth in one case is rong but not rong in tuther case. n lackwise, tis fair that them who benfits most frum the gummints redistribushun of wealth should pay a grater shar back in taxes.

  2. whenever gummint borrows money, tis a redistribushun of wealth. who benfits? them whats got disposbull incum to invest. who pays? them that tries to borrow mony (on a counta theys charged more interst thanks to competishun fer funds) n them that pays taxes. as a nayshun, we pay more'n interst on the debt than we do fer educayshun. who benfits frum better educayshun? everbidy.

  3. whenever gummint spends money fer the milltary, tis a massiv redistrubushun of wealth. who benfits? gummint contracters, furst off, n thays a passle of em in our histry dun made thar fortune thataway, right frum the jump whenever they wuz selling rags to washton's army. the milltary in fack is rarly used to perteck us, cept'n as a big stick that they oughta carry while talkin soft, not that publicans bleev that no more. the perteckshun frum the milltary makes it possbull to amass grate wealth without inny fear a forn invader could cum in n steal it by force. who pays fer this perteckshun? all taxpayers. seem logicul that them that benfits the mos, has the mos to perteck, should pay the mos. corse, the problem aint even that simple on a counta whenever them weppons gits old, we lack to sell em fer profit. corse, the gummint dont git the profit but folks in the contractors kin git rich offn it. thang is, them verr same weppons kin be turnt on us. ye might no member how twuz us, in particklar the raygun administrayshun, who give osama bin ladn his start in the terror bizness, only we wuz callin it freedum fitin then on a counta twuz agin the comunists.

  4. whenever gummint subsdizes extracktiv industries fer energy lack oil, coal, uranyum, etc., the cost of energy gits artifishully low. amurkins pay tween a half n a fifth as much fer gas as mos other cuntries that imports oil. this artifishull low price makes it eazier to sell suvs to folks that dont really need em. corse, sellin em enriches the few a the egspence of the many. that thar wealth is redistributid unfairly. oil is wasted, burnt faster than necessary to perduce the same result. ifn the price of a gallun of gas wuz allowt to rise to whut twood be without gummint subsdies, verr few wood be able to afford to waste it on gas guzzlers that gits 10 miles to a gallun.

  5. whenever gummint leeses publick land to private cumpnies fer prices far below whut the market wood ast, tis anuther massiv transfer of wealth, frum all the taxpayers to a few corprayshuns. them corprayshuns n thar ceos benfit more'n the ackshull owners of the land, witch that wood be us.

thems a few egzamples. point is, we have us a mixt econmy n the biggest player by far is the gummint. the fite aint tween them who say how much should n shouldnt be spent, but tween them that wood spend the money one way n not a nuther.


nuther thang ignord by them publicans in thar disgust over one form of wealth redistribushun n not tother is that ifn ye keep as many of the folks as poor as possbull, yer hole consumer base has to spend a grater perporshun of its wealth fer basic needs n it means they got less disposbull incum to invest or use in buyin addishnull products that make the economy grow.


point is, we dun redistributin the wealth. only questchun is who wins. everbidy loses.

No comments: