Why Democrats Are Obsessed With Wealth Inequality...

StevieRay Hansen Commentary : Here's what no academia, no journalists will tell you, 90% of the 3% worked day and night to get to the top, they did not stand around complaining about what someone else had (money) and they didn't have.

A big majority of the 97% the so-called have-nots have a choice, get off your lazy butts and find a way to get to the top. If you spent as much time working devising a way (Faith) to be successful instead of complaining and wasting time you might find yourself in the 3%, that's my take, SRH....

If you want to understand today’s Democratic Party, a word search of a Democratic debate in 2015 provides a pretty clear picture.

Here is how many times keywords were spoken:

Wall Street: 23
Tax: 20
Inequality: 9
Wealthy: 7
Now, compare the number of times other national concerns were mentioned:

ISIS: 4
Terror/ists/ism: 2
Defense: 2
Military (excluding Jim Webb): 1
Freedom: 1
Debt (national): 0
Liberty: 0
Strength: 0
Armed forces: 0
Islamist/Islamic: 0
Material inequality is the predominant concern of the Democratic Party. Indeed, material inequality has been the predominant concern of the left since Karl Marx.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

This raises two questions:

How important is material inequality?

And if it is not that important, why does it preoccupy the left-wing mind?

The answer to the first question is: It depends.

It depends, first of all, on the economic status of the poorer members of the society.

If the bottom percentile society has its basic material needs met, then the existence of a big gap between its members and the wealthiest members of the society is not a moral problem.

But if the members of the bottom rung of society are in such an impoverished state that their basic material needs are not met, and yet there is a supremely wealthy class in the same society, then the suffering of its poorest class renders that society’s inequality a moral problem.

And what most matters in both cases is whether the wealthiest class has attained its wealth honestly or corruptly. If the wealthy have attained their wealth morally and legally, then the income gap is not a moral problem.

In a free society, wealth is not a pie—meaning that when a slice of pie is removed, there is less of the pie remaining. And the poorer members of society have the ability to improve their economic lot.

Through hard work, self-discipline, marriage, and education—and with some degree of good luck—the poor can join the middle class and even the wealthy class.

The latter is generally the case in America. Unlike in most societies, for most Americans being poor is not a fate. The only time being poor becomes permanent is when noneconomic factors render it so.

These factors include not having a father in one’s life, growing up with no family or social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children.

The left, with its materialist view of life, refuses to concede these nonmaterial producers of poverty and that changing behavior is therefore the only way to raise the majority of the poor out of their poverty.

Of course, when bad luck—such as chronic illness or being the victim of a violent crime—is the reason for one’s impoverished condition, societal help is a moral imperative.

Instead, the left believes that the focus of attention must be on reducing the wealth of the wealthy—again, as if the wealth is a pie.

Thus, the left demands a redistribution of wealth in society—taking money (that was honestly earned) from those who are wealthier and giving that money to the poor.

But all that does most of the time is prolong the poverty of the poor, as they are not only not forced to engage in productive behavior, they are actually paid to continue whatever unproductive behaviors they are engaged in.

All this should be obvious to anyone with common sense. But incorrect ideology always distorts common sense.

So, why is the left preoccupied with inequality in a society in which most poor people have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty?

Because of its class-based materialist ideology.

Because seeing some people own luxury vehicles, multiple homes, and even private jets while others live in small apartments feels wrong to the left—and leftism is based on feelings.

Because it prefers that the state, not the individual citizen, has as much wealth as possible.

And because when you don’t fight real evils (communism during the Cold War, and now Islamism, Russian expansion, Syria’s use of chemical weapons), you fight non-evils. And material inequality is non-evil.

Sources for this article include:
HNewsWire.com

Inequality-1250x650

The richest 1% of the world's population now owns 50% of its total wealth, according to a report by Credit Suisse. Worldwide, there are 34 million people who have a U.S. dollar net worth of at least $1 million, or 0.7% of the global adult population, and they account for 45% of global wealth.Oct 14, 2015

Income Inequality. Income includes the revenue streams from wages, salaries, interest on a savings account, dividends from shares of stock, rent, and profits from selling something for more than you paid for it. Income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population ...

keep in mind. The rich cannot take their wealth with them when they die. The balance upon their deaths is subject to the federal estate tax and state estate and inheritance taxes. The current estate tax has an exemption of $5.45 million and a tax rate of 40% on the excess. The state with the highest maximum estate tax rate is Washington (20 percent), followed by eleven states which have a maximum rate of 16 percent. The estate and inheritance taxes do much to reduce great inequalities of wealth, which no politician mentions.

Here are a few instances of the myths of inequality propagated by the left. The French economist and Marxist Thomas Piketty in a recent book attempts to prove that “a market economy based on private property, if left to itself, contains powerful forces” that result in increasingly, unequal distribution of income and wealth which is “potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based”. Although many economists agree with his conclusion that income or wealth inequality has been increasing, the foregoing evidence shows that they are clearly wrong. Robert Reich, currently a professor of public policy at UC at Berkeley, states that 95% of the economic gains since 2009 went to the top 1% of the wealthiest. He must be criticizing the policies of President Obama, who was in power all that time. Fortune magazine, in an article entitled “America is the richest, and most unequal, country”, by Erik Sherman, reported that the U.S., with $63.5 trillion in total private wealth, has the largest wealth inequality gap of 55 countries studied. It failed to report that the average American had the highest standard of living in the world and that those nations with the least inequality had the lowest standards of living! Prof. John Maynard Keynes in 1920 wrote that you cannot have economic growth without inequality. How right he was!

The inequality of wealth and income is not a serious moral or economic problem at all. It is only a political problem. Democratic and leftist propaganda is widely believed.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/wealth_and_income_inequality_is_not_as_bad_as_you_think_.html#ixzz4y9Ek5pNh
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

StevieRay Hansen Commentary : Here's what no academia, no journalists will tell you, 90% of the 3% worked day and night to get to the top, they did not stand around complaining about what someone else has (money) and they didn't. A big majority of the 97% the so-called have-nots, it's a matter of choice get off your lazy butts and find a way to get to the top. If you spent as much time working devising a way to be successful instead of complaining and wasting time you might find yourself in the 3%, that's my take, SRH....

StevieRay Hansen Investigative Reporter for SrhNews.com and HNewsWire.com

Tags Politics Tagged Under: Tags:StevieRay Hansen Commentary ,No academia, No journalists will tell you,Stop complaining about what someone else has, Inequality of wealth no such thing

Email News Letter into your inbox...

"You are shepherds of the flock. Shepherds protect, speak out, and defend.
StevieRay Hansen

We welcome your comments, suggestions, and story tips. Please reply, send us a note at Srh@SrhNews.com
People Without GOD Are Treacherous…

Diversity is Killing Americans

The Best Search Engine
http://www.goodgopher.com/
https://duckduckgo.com/

StevieRay Hansen The Shepherd...
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without written permission . ©2017 HNewsWire.com , All rights reserved.

Comments