Posted on 05/26/2014 2:59:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
Earnest Progressives urging their liberal champion Elizabeth Warren to run for president pose a critical riddle for Americans: Can the Left promise Americans prosperity and opportunity when Leftists dislike the people, forces, and dynamics that generate real growth? Do liberals even like prosperity?
The American Left disapproves almost everything about people who create wealth in a free market: They distrust the profit motive; they disdain consumerism; they question entrepreneurs’ moral claim to the fruits of their own labors; and they fail to grasp the seamless bond connecting “business” and “people,” believing instead, that business is some dangerous separate thing that can be demonized, harassed, and shackled in the name of making things better for people.
Barack Obama tried to blunt this criticism in the second presidential debate, asserting: “I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known,”
Observing the administration’s treatment of business and the economy, it’s tempting to dismiss the claim as a whopper on the scale of “You can keep your doctor.” But the truth is actually worse. Obama probably does believe free enterprise builds prosperity best of all; but, that’s just not very important to him. He cares more about concepts like fairness, equality, social justice, and government control of the economy than about growth and opportunity.
A booming economy, soaring markets, robust growth and investment, all actually produce things the Left dislikes: Personal fortunes, growing inequality; higher consumer expectations, more building and expansion. A vibrant economy of producers and consumers becomes a society inclined to let freedom hum along without government needing to run the show—that’s anathema to the Left.
One of the most beguiling expressions of this view helped Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren become a darling of the left. Warren set liberal hearts aflutter with her redistributor’s manifesto:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Liberals swooned, but if you rinse off the sugary rhetoric, the salvo is incoherent. First, the business owner paid all the same taxes for all the same public purposes as everyone else. Rather than incurring a debt for future success, he likely paid more than other taxpayers for the services all enjoy. Second, the community didn’t pay taxes for roads, schools, and police in order to benefit the business owner, but rather, for the benefit of all. Third, the same infrastructure is available to all. Our society has roads, schools, laws, and enforcement. If those resources explain the businessman’s success, don’t they also rebuke the rest of us because we didn’t build a factory?
In a free society, people have a natural right to pursue their happiness, make their living, and maybe start a business. Or work for a business owner. That is a different concept from having a collective lien on the success of those with the vision, risk, drive, and luck to make something happen, just because they happen to enjoy the same services we do.
Finally, after attributing business success to the infrastructure and taxes supplied by the rest of us, Warren somehow backflips into arguing reparations are owed not for reinvestment in the infrastructure, or rebates to the sponsoring taxpayers, rather, it’s owed forward to the “next kid who comes along.” The argument is nothing but little word flowers amounting to demanding the wealthy give over more of what they have for government to distribute in ways people like Warren judge good.
A less remarked but in some ways more remarkable expression of the Left’s philosophy of greed as social justice issued from candidate Obama to Charlie Gibson of ABC News. Gibson cited fiscal experience to challenge Obama on his support for a large increase in capital gains taxes, pointing out that when Reagan cut cap gains rates, revenues actually rose, and when Clinton increased rates, government receipts fell. Why, then, would candidate Obama want to increase rates if it meant the government would collect less tax revenue? “For purposes of fairness,” the candidate explained.
He plainly said he would sacrifice public revenues and services in order to bite rich ankles harder. There’s no doubt Obama’s vision informs his foreign views as well as domestic. The wealthy are an affront to poorer Americans. America is an affront to poorer nations. No, he and his ilk do not care about prosperity for those they judge already unjustly fat and comfortable.
That’s the American Left. In the Warren/Obama playbook, a controlled economy is better than a growing economy. A pie sliced by government is better than growing pie for all. A tax rate that hits the rich harder is better than a rate that actually generates more revenue for public services.
For our economy really to flourish, government would have to unshackle it. But, that play is not in the Leftist book.
I don’t think they hate it at all. Look where all the prosperity in this country is centered - Washington, DC! They control the joint. If they hated prosperity, it would look like Port-au-Price or Detroit. Instead, it looks like Shanghai! What does that tell you?
Actually, what they hate is that you did it without their permission. And what they hate more is that you don't need them.
They are dedicated to creating a system in which they are important, where you have to have their permission, defer to their judgement, and where they matter without actually having to do the things you had to do to create the things you create and build the things you build.
In the system they impose they control industries they never created and never invested in. They take control of lands and businesses without having bought or built or earned any of it.
They accuse the rest of the world of being driven by greed. But demanding control of what you never built is the very definition of greed.
To them, it’s all luck and all hype, not hard work behind the scenes and they don’t get it that it takes time, not just the right person.
Most of the fools don’t understand, that they are the very types that would not survive such a society.
There is no way a celebrity/actress would be making as much as they do and there is no way that in the past, a celebrity would be able to consult a head of state publicly.
Look at China; their elite are the business tycoons, the scientists, the engineers, the computer programmers, and such, while entertainers are reportedly used as playthings (in the literal sense) and more patronized than well regarded.
You don’t hear celebrates mouthing off about the Chinese government and trying to tell the President how to run the country. They would get shot, which I think is a nice approach.
In the US, we need to drill it into the heads of the young that luck is a part of success, but not the bulk of it. Luck is only a minor part, the rest is inspiration and legwork. Very little is luck and hype.
It’s also the definition of freeloading.
You said it....I have always said that Communism is truly the most hardcore capitalism the world has seen, by perverting what people create to be sold to willing buyers...to the Nomenkaltura who use the force of Government (laws, regulations, taxes, military, police and crony contacts and deals) to tilt the table for their own enrichment.
Warren produces nothing, but she sells free stuff for votes and personal wealth for herself. It’s the coward’s shortcut that lives on the backs of the productive to redistribute those monies to a fake “ deserving” person whom Paul can always vote for as Peter will be robbed, and it’s done legally.
Fauxcohontas is the ultimate crony Commie jackhole.
Yeppers. Capitalism is used by both individuals and collectivists. It’s a choice of either allowing individual, free enterprise capitalism for all or state-controlled or oligarchical-controlled capitalism for the few.
Right collectivism only benefits the rich and the poor while the middle takes up the... until all of us are broke except that 1%.
And this is what you see happening to America - the rich creating a conversion process from free enterprise capitalism to state-controlled while using the poor as a straw man and at the same time imposing progressive taxation and the devaluation of the currency by taking us off the gold and silver standards plus printing money like there’s no tomorrow.
The left wants to limit growth so people will limit the birth rate, also all profits need to be funneled to the government for theft by fascist leaders within the party.
Sociopath fascists now run most of our government, that’s why we see death panels at the VA, and in ObamaCare.
The death panels will limit treatment for conservatives....Our country and the democrat party have lost it’s soul...
It’s harder to control prosperous people, so naturally progressive control freaks hat prosperity.
McCarthy was 95% right.
progressive control freaks hate prosperity.
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.