Question: what is the opposite of spreading the wealth around?
Answer: NOT spreading the wealth around.
In a nation in which 10% of its citizens hold 70% of its wealth, it is alarming that a candidate for president would argue that the wealth of this nation should not be spread around. Even Reagan argued for spreading the wealth around through trickle-down economics. Clearly, the money is not trickling down under the Bush administration. When this happens, the government must artificially redirect money through taxation.
Conservatives would be quick to argue that spreading the wealth through taxation is an artificial and socialistic mechanism. I would counter by asserting that a great number of economic policies in this nation are designed to move money up the ladder, not down. These free-market mechanisms are working, but what do you do when they work too well, and there’s no protection for the little guy?
It is not enough for conservatives to talk about economic freedoms, bootstraps, and American dreams. While these nostalgic notions of rags-to-riches sound great, they are no longer reliable paths to wealth or even stability in these modern times.
As long as so few possess so much, our government has an obligation – purely out of self-interest – to either institute fair economic policies that allow market fluidity up AND down the economic ladder, or they must institute fair tax policies that redistribute wealth.
I’m sad that John McCain is opposed to spreading the wealth around. Joe the Plumber only makes $40K a year. Let’s get him a little bit more money. Let’s vote Obama.