On his radio show this morning Glenn Beck played a clip of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin talking about wealth allocation.
“First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem,” he said during a discussion on the Budget Control Act of 2011 (which includes the across-the-board spending cuts known as “sequestration”) .
“And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke,” he added.
Sen. Harkin, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, continued:
Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world.
We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem?
No, it’s because we have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.
It sounded like a great topic for a thread, because, IMO, an understanding of how wealth is allocated represents one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals.
So, just exactly how should wealth be allocated? Should it be the responsibility of government to allocate wealth, as President Obama has maintained? In a society where the government is the final arbiter of wealth allocation, who is better off, the average citizen or those in charge of allocating the wealth? Is there, or has there ever been, a society where government allocation of wealth has resulted in a high level of freedom and prosperity? Are there ANY SOCIALISTS SUCCESS STORIES?
Since the advent of LBJ’s Great Society and the War on Poverty, trillions of dollars of wealth have been re-allocated, and yet the poverty rate is the same as it was 3 decades ago, and only a couple percentage points lower than it was a half century ago. It reminds me of one of my favorite Winston Churchill quotes:
“The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery.”
The other day Watson mentioned that capitalism has been very good to him, and yet he supports a system and a president whose ultimate goal is to destroy capitalism. That seems to me to be a major disconnect. Perhaps Watson can explain the rationale behind his position.