I think there is agreement that lopsided wealth concentration is not a good thing. In fact I would be the first to say that it is indicative of a society with major underlying issues, and an indicator of potential social unrest.

@sinij :
The differences are what we believe to be the underlying causes and solutions.

Regarding the wealth issue in of itself, and ignoring the other aspects for a second... if I have read your views correctly, you seem to view lopsided wealth as a cause of problems, whereas I see it as a symptom. Which is why I do not particularly think that raising taxes and redistributing money is particularly effective in the long run.

An analogy would be that if we say the country is sick with HIV, lopsided wealth is one of the colds that it catches because the underlying immune system is compromised. Taking some cough medicine (raising taxes and redistributing wealth) might help us feel better temporarily... but does nothing to address the worsening underlying issue. Eventually the various diseases resulting from the underlying condition will get so bad as to no longer be treatable, and the patient will die. Unless of course you identify the underlying source of the problems and prepare effective treatments while the patient still has the strength to survive them.

Basically I just consider the bulk of liberal proposals to be "feel good" solutions, which pursuing would be the equivalent of chasing our tail.

My biggest beef with them, is that almost all pursue action at the federal level. Achieving meaningful reform at the federal is something I consider a literal impossibility if it comes by means of initiating additional actions and/or powers. Because the Federal Govt has almost zero accountability. Federal agents in any dept can basically do almost anything they want, or look the other way as convenient... and with few exceptions nothing will blowback on them.

Many Fed agencies already do not even obey the law, like the TSA ignoring court orders. Madoff didnt get away with his scam because there werent laws against it... the regulators were all either intimidated or bought off. Megabanks launder tens of billions for drug cartels and write off the whole episode with a couple hundred million bucks of fines. Bushes get elected and funnel billions to Haliburtons and other cronies, Obamas get elected and funnel billions to various donors, Kennedys, Gores and etc... One in the name of making the world safer via military, the other in the name of fighting global warming. Its all the same, and none of them get called to account.

People do not even comment on all the smaller businesses that get hosed by the govt. Under Bush I personally know a company that went bankrupt because they had to pay millions of dollars to a crony Bush company that was affiliated with Homeland Security to "clean up" a plant disease that is very common in South America because some made it through customs. ( It was a "biological weapon" hah) Ofc anyone who really wanted to use it to infect our potato crop or something could easily sneak it over (and obviously not report it when routine labwork on your crop detects it...) but sense does not matter to govt... only the dollars.

So, who should watch over the govt? The people? Well it doesnt happen, and cant happen. Never mind the corrupt and collusive media, too much goes on for most people to begin to follow the events... let alone do anything about them. With trillions of dollars at stake (literally) and only two parties to buy off... what hope can there possibly be of ever getting an honest Federal Govt? None, the numbers involved (number of people/time required to pay attention/time available/influence/number of events to watch/etc)quickly show it is utterly and completely impossible. Concentration of power by definition reduces the accountability of those in power.

Dont we have little enough accountability of govt already? Why would we want even less?

When liberals start talking about reducing the power and corruption of the Fed Govt, and implementing solutions at a level of govt that is realistically possible for the electorate to hold accountable in a meaningful way then I will be all ears.

Last edited by Derid; 08/03/12 08:24 AM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)