Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Paul Krugman: Inequality, Dignity and Freedom
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Paul-Krugman-Inequality--in-Best_Web_OpEds-Equal_Inequality_Paul-Krugman_Workers-140214-773.html. DUE 24 Feb 2014. Read BOTH articles....(Paul Krugman and Tom Perkins) What is a Plutocrat? Discuss the argument presented by Krugman and Perkins by illustrating the plight of the Plutocrat. Does Perkins have a point? Do you believe that people with more money should get more votes?? How does Krugman contradict the point made by Perkins?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A Plutocrat refers to a system in which the wealthy and powerful rule over the rest of society. Tom Perkins advocates letting the wealthy sect of society have an increased number of votes to cast. He told an audience in San Francisco Thursday that people who pay more money in taxes should get more votes. Perkins argues, "You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?" Krugman discusses the dignity of workers in response to conservative/ republican viewpoints. He says that it is hard to have equal dignity in the labor force as a huge inequality in pay exists currently. In 2012, the top 40 hedge fund managers and traders were paid a combined $16.7 billion, equivalent to the wages of 400,000 ordinary workers. These figures illustrate a massive disparity. Krugman also discusses the benefits of economic safety nets such s social security and Medicare. I think Perkins does not have a point at all. I feel as if the entire foundation of Plutocracy is blasphemous and it should not be advocated as a system at all. It disadvantages the poor as well as middle class, who become subservient to the multi-billion dollar sharks on wall street. I believe that every single citizen of a state should receive one vote regardless of their economic standing. Krugman contradicts Perkins because he argues about the dignity of Americans and states that every American is equal regardless of how much money they have.
ReplyDeletePlutocrat is a government where it is ruled by the wealthy, such as the Roman Empire or even Disney World. Tom Perkins, a capitalist, is advocating the idea that the amount of money paid in taxes should directly correlate to the number of votes one is entitled to. On the other hand, Krugman is talking about the dignity people deserve even though they do not make the same amount of money as the top % of the population. He also discusses the different viewpoint from each party and says that the income inequality shouldn't rule how much dignity one deserves. One quote by Sam Zell stated that “the 1 percent work harder. The 1 percent are much bigger factors in all forms of our society" This as well as other actions taken towards making the wealthy people have more "dignity" has caused an uproar with the rest of the US population. In Perkin's article, he compared the top 1% of the population being attacked to that of Nazi army on the Jews. Once again, Sam Zell is mentioned in this article stating that the top 1% of the population is being unfairly picked on. This does bring up a point that the top 1% is being stood out to the rest of the population but it is no need to state anything radical. Going back to Perkin's idea about the "more money = more vote" I don't believe this is fair since the US is built on a democratic background (although it is turning into a capitalist government). But by allowing money to play a factor in how many votes a person deserve, it goes against what the US stands for and will ultimitaly turn the US into a plutocracy. Krugman is able to contradict points made by Perkin since he states that "working Americans are better at appreciating their own worth than either the wealthy or conservative politicians are at showing them even minimal respect," and that the amount of money you get from working shouldn't determine how much dignity you deserve.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is a person whose power in government is derived from his/her wealth, very similar to the ideals described by Perkins. Perkins, even after claiming that the isolation of the 1% is similar to that of Nazis slaughtering Jews in the Holocaust and Kristallnacht, continues to push the boundaries. He claims that with more money paid in tax dollars should equal how many votes you get. So for the plutocrat, $1 million in taxes should get you 1 million votes. He believes in the power of the wealthy. Krugman, however, stands directly on the other side of the playing field. He believes that the 99% should be brought back dignity. Social Security and Medicare and self-confidence seem to be all that make them push through when the upper class seem to be shoving them back down. To bring dignity to all classes, show equal respect and equal the playing field. To contrast the point made by Perkins about "entitlements", Krugman believes that entitlements like Social Security are exactly what show those who are retired, handicapped, and in poorer situations than those of the 1% are what will give back dignity to all classes. People with more money should not get more votes. That just contrasts completely with the idea that this country was founded on: equality. We are a democracy (or at least intended to be). Americans should be empowered as such.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a person who believes that wealth should determine ones influence in government and politics. Tom Perkins, an 82 year-old notably outrageous venture capitalist, is the perfect example of a plutocrat. He believes those with more money and who pay higher taxes should be given more votes. This notion goes against the very concept of democracy. Perkins has also compared the progressive group to Nazi's. Krugman on the other hand supports completely opposite ideas. He supports the 99% and believes that they deserve dignity. In his argument is become clear that Krugman is strongly opposed to income inequality. Krugman states that the wealthy and conservative politicians show no respect to the lower ends of the working class. The new Affordable Health Care Act hopes to increase self worth by giving those with low incomes feelings of security. I do not think Perkins has a point. The wealthy should be using their money to help the less fortunate rather than adjusting politics to fuel their greed. Tom Perkins has made points that are basically anti-patriotic in the fact that they go against the foundations of our government. Krugman contradicts these outrageous points by supporting the dignity of all workers and what they do. He believes money should be put towards government transfers to help those who can't work for these people are the ones who better appreciate their wealth and what they have.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is referring to a system or a government in which the wealthy and powerful rule over the other parts of society. Tom Perkins, being a capitalist, is trying to advocate the idea that the tax money should directly go hand in hand to the amount of votes one is entitled to have. Krugman is discussing how much dignity is deserved. Should it be based on money? Although the amount of money puts you in the top of the population as a whole, do you necessarily deserve the same amount of dignity as the lower percentage? Krugman also covers the different viewpoints each specific party has. He says that the income should not rule how much dignity you receive. “the 1 percent work harder” as stated by Sam Zell. This remark is not true in all situations. Actions and remarks such as these towards the wealthy has caused an uproar with the rest of the United States population. The rest of the population believes that they should not receive more dignity than the rest of them. Going back to Perkin’s article, the attack of the top 1 percent of the United States population is being compared to the Jews being attacked by the Nazi army. Sam Zell as in the Krugman article is mentioned saying that the ones being picked on unfairly is the top 1 percent of the population. The top 1 percent is being put out about the rest of the population, because they believe that they deserve more dignity that the average person. The idea of “more money = more votes” is not fair in any situation. The United States are not based on selfish idea. Going back on anything that the United States believes in would be allowing the amount of money to be involved in how many votes someone deserves. Krugman and Perkin are successfully arguing the points made by one another. As Perkin stated “ working Americans are better at appreciating their own worth than either the wealthy or conservative politicians are at showing them even minimal respect”, as well as the amount of income made from working should not in any means determine how much dignity is deserved by the individual. Krugman supports his ideas by going into and supporting the dignity factor of the problem. He states that he believes more money should go into government transfers and spread to the less fortunate who don’t make the same kind of income.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is someone whose power derives from his/her wealth. Perkins recently made a lot of people angry by comparing progressives to Nazis. He believes that if you pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. He told an audience in San Francisco Thursday that people who pay more money in taxes should get more votes. Krugman, on the other hand, claims that the middle-class workers need dignity and freedom. I do not agree with Perkins' point of view. The drive by conservatives to dismantle much of the social safety net, to replace it with minimal programs and private charity, is an effort to strip away the dignity of lower-income workers. Krugman believes that tens of millions of Americans know from experience that hard work isn’t enough to provide financial security or a decent education for their children, and many either couldn’t get health insurance or were desperately afraid of losing jobs that came with insurance until the Affordable Care Act kicked in last month. Krugman suggests that money should be transferred to the middle-class people in order to have a stable economy.
ReplyDeleteJust as those who have already answered this question above stated, a plutocrat is a government in which the rich rule.
ReplyDeleteTom Perkins, the same imbecile who has compared the isolation of the 1% to the Nazis persecution and mass genocide of the Jewish population during Holocaust and Kristallnacht, once again opens his mouth and shocks Americans with his latest and greatest thoughts. Perkins, the “mastermind” that he is, has come up with a resolve to the taxation controversy. Speaking in San Francisco Thursday, he voice his idea of if, "You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes.” PURE GENIUS! Right??? WRONG! Has he never read The American Constitution? Does equality ring any bells? Americans have fought some of the bloodiest wars and staged some of the most incredible rallies and protests in order to secure the equality we presently have. Does money mean so much that the one-percenters are willing to harm society and devolve?
Krugman believes the exact opposite. His resolve is to bring dignity to all classes, showing equal respect and equal opportunity. He discusses how it is almost impossible to have equal dignity in the labor force because of the current inequality in pay. This is apparent in a report stating that in 2012, the top 40 hedge fund managers and traders were paid a combined $16.7 billion, equivalent to the wages of 400,000 ordinary workers. Krugman also discusses the benefits of Social Security and Medicare.
Perkins and plutocracy have no place in the government. It is an absolutely ludicrous idea! The guy needs to learn to think before he speaks.
Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins when he argues that the dignity and equality of Americans should not depend on their wealth or how much they pay in taxes.
A Plutocrat is a system in which the wealthy and powerful rule over the rest of society. Perkins promotes letting the wealthy people of society have a higher number of votes to cast. He told an audience in San Francisco Thursday that people who pay more money in taxes should get more votes. "You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?" he said. Krugman reviews the fact that the dignity of workers in response to republican views. He says that it is hard to have equal dignity in the labor force as a huge inequality in pay exists currently. In 2012, the top 40 hedge fund managers and traders were paid a combined $16.7 billion, equivalent to the wages of 400,000 ordinary workers. This means a massive disparity. Krugman also discusses the benefits of economic safety nets such s social security and Medicare. I think Perkins does not have a point at all. I feel as if the entire foundation of Plutocracy is blasphemous and it should not be advocated as a system at all. It disadvantages the poor as well as middle class, who become subservient to the multi-billion dollar sharks on wall street. I believe that every single citizen of a state should receive one vote regardless of their economic standing. Krugman contradicts Perkins because he argues about the dignity of Americans and states that every American is equal regardless of how much money they have. Krugman basically talks against everything perkins says. The dignity and equality of americans should not depend on their wealth.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat refers to someone who receives power in the government because of their wealth. I do not understand how someone whose interests only revolves around their own wealth could possibly have anything to say about the way the government is organized. But Tom Perkins believes his thoughts have some influence and has been making some really outrageous comments. (The scary part is that some people actually agree with him) Perkins basically wants the wealthy to have more power and claiming that the top 1 percent is being discriminated against. By saying this Perkins appears to want to reform the government such that the wealthy have more power than the other 99% of the nation, in other words, plutocracy. He might as well go buy a little uninhabited island and create his own plutocracy amongst the trees and bushes, and his advocates could follow him there. Krugman on the other hand makes a case about providing support for the nation's labor force will bring back the dignity of work. The amount of money of one's salary does not depict the amount that person works. Krugman makes the statement that in fact those that work less are those that are the wealthiest, now why would we want these lazy money addicts ruling our government? If we provide assurance of basic essentials for those in the labor force, people would be more positive and work harder. Basically giving the money to those in the bottom 99% , giving them the 'power' would be more idealistic than Perkins idea of plutocracy. I disagree with the idea the wealthiest people should have more votes because the wealthy only look for themselves. In fact everyone looks out for themselves but the wants of the bottom 99% are more similar than those of the top 1%. We would do more good working to please the majority of the nation.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is someone who has political power because of their economic power. The Krugman article attempts to tackle a somewhat nebulous issue, dignity (to be fair, his article is responsive to a conservative sentiment, so he is forced to dabble in the absurdity of the right's meaningless assertions). Paul Krugman argues that the social safety net is integral to the dignity and equality of low-wage workers, rather than (as republicans assert) a detriment to it. The only issue is that whether Krugman or the GOP are correct is impossible to measure. Dignity is not an objective metric, nor is it relevant to economics. The article is effective at dismantling the right wing's flowery rhetoric, but does very little to advance any alternative claim. But even more disgusting right-wing nonsense rhetoric can be found in the Perkins article. Unless this article is unreliable and fabricated the information provided, Tom actually let the words "You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes" come out of his mouth and without prefacing the phrase with something along the lines of "this is what an idiot would say." Giving more political power to those with more economic power is actually the opposite of the point of this whole democracy thing we've been doing. Furthermore, Perkins can already pay lobbyists to have politicians change laws, so realistically he already has the plutocracy he's asking for; he's just either too dumb to realize it or such a terrible person that he doesn't think the system is broken enough. While I'm ranting, I want to look at the other things Tom said that made it into the Huffington Post article: that poor people getting mad about their oppression is like the Nazis. Tom Perkins either has such little respect for non-billionaires that he thinks they'll actually be convinced by his lies and stop bothering the one percent, or he has so few brain cells that he believed this bullcrap comparison himself. Either way, it shocks me that someone so ridiculous could actually make any money at all. High school dropouts who work as fry cooks are smarter and better human beings than Mr. Perkins, based on what this article reveals about him. Krugman contradicts Perkins point (he didn't really have a point but let's say for his sake that he did) by asserting that people without money still matter. Krugman reveals that labor capital has a face and a family, and is just as deserving of dignity as any other human being. I don't really see how these points are relevant to our economics class, because these articles deal with the abstract and immeasurable, but at the same time I think it's fair to say that if there was sense to be made, that Krugman is the one making it. Most of people who get to speak on the subject of the dignity of the poorest section of Americans are part of the richest section of Americans, so it's hard to accept what they say without some skepticism as to how they would know what the poorest Americans feel. Krugman, however, speaks on the subject in such a way that I feel any rational person would have to accept his opinion as the likely opinion of the poorest section of Americans. Dignity is a matter of having the basic means of survival, and people like Perkins are denying low-wage workers access to that.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a form of government where the rich and wealthy rule over the rest of society. Can share characteristics with a dictatorship, or can turn into one.Tom Perkins advocates allowing the wealthy portion of society to obtain an increased number of votes to cast. He believes that people who pay more in taxes should receive more votes. Which is basically a proposal for the rich to rule the world. He told this to an audience in San Francisco on Thursday. Krugman counters this by discusses the dignity of workers in response to conservative/ republican viewpoints. He says that it is hard to have equal dignity in the labor force as a huge inequality in pay exists currently. Perkins in fact does have a point. You get what you pay for, or what you put in, is what you get out. The only problem is that it is not quite fair. Not everyone is wealthy, nor did they perhaps have the same chances and opportunities as say, Paul Krugman. Not everyone was born into wealth. But I do not believe that people who pay more in taxes should get more votes to cast. What would happen to the other 99% of us who are unfortunately not wealthy, us who are just making ends meet. We might as well be slaves again.
ReplyDeleteplutocrat is someone who has power in society from their wealth. Perkins is saying that is someone should gain there votes from the money being payed. He has been making some outrageous comments and the scary thing is that he believes everything he is saying. He is comparing progressives to Nazi. Perkins is saying the the wealthy needs more power and that people are looking down on the 1%. He basically is trying to build the world around the wealthy. Krugman is basically the opposite he is trying to build up the labor force. Krugman is saying that the people who has the least has the most because the wealthy are lazy and don't understand the value of work. He is saying that we need to give the working the basics of life so that they can be motivated to work. I think unfortunately Perkins does have a point and it's terrible that its true but the more money one has the more votes you get its proven that the wealthier you are the more control you have. I think that to keep being a far country that the U.S. was established on everyone should get one vote not something that was based off the fact someone has more money than the other person. Krugman is for the people of America he is trying to say that everyone deserves to be treated the same. He is thinking about the situation rationally. Perkins is just for the 1% and how can he and the wealthiest people keep holding the power. Perkins really just wants the attention he is getting so he is saying all the absurd things and hoping that people will pay attention to him so they will listen to him say that the 1% is better than everyone else.
ReplyDeletea plutocrat is someone who has power basically because of their wealth. This means that the rich rule the society while the poor has very little power. Paul Krugman is basically advocating that even if you don’t have a lot of money, you should still have power like the upper percents of a society. Tom Perkins believes that the wealthy should have more votes because they pay more money in taxes. Krugman argues that its hard for workers to have dignity if there is such a huge gap in financial incomes. This was directed to the republican views because they believed that the rich should have power and the poor should suffer. In 2012, the top 40 hedge fund managers and traders were paid a combined $16.7 billion, equivalent to the wages of 400,000 ordinary workers. This is just one example of the huge gap of income levels between the middle and lower classes to the upper percent. I do not believe that Perkins has a point. He is coming from a Plutocrat point of view in which I just don’t believe in or do I not believe should even be a system at all. I don’t believe that the wealthy should have more power just because they have money, because then you aren’t rewarding the lower and middle classes for there work. They will think that there work has no meaning. Krugman counters Perkins by saying that every American should have a vote not based on there income levels and the dignity of Americans. I do believe that everyone should be granted one vote, regardless of how much money they make because its not right to give someone more power just because they have more money, I don’t think a society should work like that.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is someone who is in power because of their money. Plutocracies are run by the rich. Tom Perkins wants the wealthy to have more power and claims that the top 1 percent is being discriminated against. So he basically thinks a plutocracy is a good idea. Krugman on the other hand makes a case about providing support for the nation's labor force will bring back the dignity of work. Salary does not equivolate to the amount of work put in by an individual. Krugman makes the statement that in fact those that work less are those that are the wealthiest (I disagree on that standpoint). I think Perkins is either an Idiot or he is not an idiot but greedy enough to try to get idiots to believe him and support him. The 1% has more than enough money to support themselves and multiple island nations so if they want to have power because of their money, I suggest they move there. Of course, in a way, we already live in a plutocracy. In the past elections of our parents generation until today, has a poor man ever been president? None that I can think of. Money already buys political power and that needs to start turning around (it won't). Pooooooooooop
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. In Krugman's article he went on to disagree with those expecting that workers have equal dignity despite huge inequality in pay. He argues that the social safety net is essential to the dignity and equality of low-wage workers, rather than an impairment. Krugman supports his ideas by going into and supporting the dignity factor of the problem. He states that he believes more money should go into government transfers and spread to the less fortunate who don’t make the same kind of income.The drive by conservatives to dismantle much of the social safety net, to replace it with minimal programs and private charity, is an effort to strip away the dignity of lower-income workers. Krugman also believes that things like Social Security are what show people that are retired, handicapped, and less wealthy than those of the 1% are what will give back dignity to all classes. Perkins basically wants the wealthy to have more power and claiming that the top 1 % is being discriminated against. This guy appears to want to reform the government so that the those in the top 1% can inhabit more power than the other than those of the bottom 99% in layman's terms. Krugman contradicts the point made by Perkins when he argues that the dignity and equality of Americans should not depend on their wealth or how much they have.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a person whose power derives from their wealth. A plutocrat would be a member of a plutocracy where the minority ruled, and was the wealthiest. Paul Krugman is making an argument that the less wealthy should be treated with as much dignity and freedom as the wealthiest people do. On the other side of the coin Tom Perkins is one who disagrees and thinks that the wealthiest should be on top and treated as such. He believes that they worked hard and got to the top and everyone who does well should be rewarded. I think that Perkins does have a bit of a point that about wealthy people earning their way to the top, but it shouldn't be unfair like that. I don't believe people with more money should necessarily get to vote more, in that context I believe everyone should be treated equally, we're all citizens. Krugman uses the point that working hard does not always equal being financially stable. Normal class citizens still try their best and don't get to the top, not everyone can be at the top.
ReplyDeleteA plutocracy is a system were the wealthy control the government of a nation. Tom Perkins is suggesting that people who pay more in taxes should have more voting power since then are pulling more weight then lower tax bracket Americans. Tom Perkins also adds that the "one percent" is getting treated unfairly by progressives. Krugman be saying that just because someone works for less more, doesn't mean they have more dignity of work. Perkins doesn't have a solid argument because we be livin in a federal republic dominated by the plebeians and let it be known that the roman republic fell due to illicit contractions by plutocratic passion with congressional traction and no, the money don't decide the power in your hand it's what the people deem necessary for the peepz in command if you let the dolla' holla' all this powah you get fat cats neglecting the nations stack and thats when things really turn sour. Krugman says high earning people don't appreciate their wealth so cant relate to the rest of the nation.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is someone who's power comes from their wealth. Paul Krugman argued that a person's dignity should not be derived from how much money they make. Tom Perkins on the other hand thinks that the more money you have, the more votes you should be able to caste. He complained about how the upper 1% have been challenged by liberals lately by comparing it to the Jews in the Holocaust. I do not believe Perkins has a point. People with more money should not get more votes because that would just give them more power than they already have and this would not be fair. Krugman contradicts Perkins's point when he says the amount of dignity someone has should not have to correlate with wealth.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat refers to a system in which the wealthy and powerful rule over the rest of society. Tom Perkins, an 82 year-old notably outrageous venture capitalist, is the perfect example of a plutocrat. He believes those with more money and who pay higher taxes should be given more votes. This notion goes against the very concept of democracy. To contrast the point made by Perkins about "entitlements", Krugman believes that entitlements like Social Security are exactly what show those who are retired, handicapped, and in poorer situations than those of the 1% are what will give back dignity to all classes. People with more money should not get more votes. That just contrasts completely with the idea that this country was founded on: equality.
ReplyDeleteA Plutocrat is one who applies authority over others on the basis of wealth, particularly associated with government positions. Perkins half-advocates the notions of Plutocracy in his argument that those who pay more taxes should have the right to vote more. I see absolutely no point in Perkins' argument that is worth backing up. With his points involving comparisons of the rich to the Nazis while he, himself, sports an expensive watch, his points to me seem to be invalidated and stupid. It is also trivial to propose that the wealthier should receive more votes to proportionate with the amount of taxes they pay because in reality, the middle and lower classes spend a much larger chunk of their income on taxes than the rich do. This leads to Krugman's argument, which focused on the "dignity of work." Krugman suggests that the wealthier hold more dignity and respect in the working world, as compared to those with middle and lower class jobs. He claims that although the people of the nation do not appreciate such statements, it is inevitably true. It is simply impossible to sustain an equal level of respect between two people with such wide income gaps. Though I personally respect workers of lower level jobs, it would be naive to think that others feel the same. As Krugman stated, even politicians (Republican Conservatives...) have openly denounced the efforts and labor of those working under a person that is not themselves. Krugman's points are reasonable and make sense in the context of today, unlike Perkins, who is just downright dishonorable to the American name.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. Perkins says that letting the wealthy sect of society have an increased number of votes to cast. I completely disagree with perkins POV because it is dangerous to have all the power of the government be in the hands of so many few people. Perkins wants the upper most to have more power than they have now, and wants to have all the hate they ar e recieving to stop. Paul Krugman argues that the sociallower wage workers should be treated with as much dignity as possible, basicaaly he was saying that even though we don't make the same amount as the one percent we should still have equal power to them. I do not believe that people with more power should get more votes because when that happens it will lead to a corrupt government.Krugmans rebuttal is that every American is equla no mattewr the status, wealth, or class that they are in. The dignity of Americans should not depend on the vast amount of wealth but on the work that was out into it in order to achieve that wealth.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a person whose power arises from wealth, while a plutocracy is a state ruled by its wealthiest citizens. John Perkins presents the argument that in order to vote, citizens should be charged a one dollar tax, and then takes his proposal to the next level by claiming that it would be appropriate to allow citizens as many votes as they pay in this tax--making the vote of a person who pays one million dollars worth one million votes. In a way it makes sense--sure, it is only fair for those who vote to contribute to society. However, as the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution saw it, voting is a necessity, not a privilege. Not only is Perkins' argument completely ludicrous, it is also archaic and downright disrespectful. He does not take into account the millions of Americans in welfare who could probably not afford to pay poll tax EVERY time there is an election--be it municipal, county-wide, state-wide, or national. Were his system followed, it would appear that the United States digressed to the post-Civil War period, when freedmen were unable to vote because of the poll taxes imposed by the states in which they lived. This system would be as "silly" as Krugman thinks the argument for equal dignity of work is. The 1% would have complete control over the government--not that they don't already get their way through backchanneling and funding--and leave the rest of the nation in shambles. Though he makes a reference to the fact that Thomas Jefferson wanted to leave voting only to homeowners, Perkins conveninetly forgets to mention that under the Articles of Confederation, nobody really paid taxes, which would make Jefferson's point more rational, whereas today, people pay taxes when they consume anything. The moment Perkins' proposal is taken seriously, we may as well burn the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, because the inalienable truths within both will have been wronged completely.
ReplyDeleteA plutocracy is a government that is ruled by the wealthy rather than the middle class. Tom Perkins is a capitalist and argues that the amount paid in taxes should reflect the number of votes cast, hence the wealthy should have more votes than the lower classes. Krugman on the other hand believes that the poorer 99% deserve dignity and the rich should not control society. He believes strongly against income inequality and an unequal voting distribution. I do not believe that rich people should get more votes, I agree with Krugman in his argument. Sure they have more money and should contribute more to the economy, but the voting system should be based on individuals alone.
ReplyDeleteA plutocrat is a person whose great wealth gives them political power. Krugman and Perkins take on different standpoints. Krugman claims that healthcare reform, social safety nets, and “entitlements” are necessary to empower workers and guarantee them the rights to protect their dignity. Despite the opinions of the Republican politicians, he claims this is the only way to tackle income disparity and bring about some equality in terms of rights between low wage workers and the “raging billionaires.” He simply means to highlight what dignity and rights are in relevance to the 21st century. On a vastly different side of the argument, like a true Republican, Tom Perkins is trying to make a true plutocracy happen. He says that people who bring in more money to the economy, and pay more in taxes, should in turn, get more votes. We can maybe, possibly, just a little bit can infer that if he had it his way, people who contribute little to taxes, like the very low income workers in the nation, get little to no votes at all. After all, he did say that "you don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes." Appropriately so, the audience to Perkins ideas and attempts to make the voting system majorly tipped in scales laughed. After comparing the one percent in America to the millions of Jews murdered by Nazis, this is probably the least crazy thing this man has said in public. Of course there are quite a few rich guys from the one percent out there to fully agree with Perkins’s comments, but that doesn’t make them any less ridiculous or impractical. While Krugman takes to defending the working class, Perkins tries getting more rights for the already fitted wealthy businessmen. It doesn’t need to actually be said out loud that one, Perkins has to valid point at all. Two, he may not be in the right state of mind. Three, he speaks the words of an impaired idiot. There is no way that voting power should be distributed by income. Forget the fact that it totally dashes all the political ideals our country was founded on, it takes away rights. The whole point of the government is to guarantee rights to citizens, such as voting. The whole point of voting is to choose people to represent us in government and do what’s best by the people. Even though those kinds of people are hard to find on ballots these days, there is more of the lower income workers than the rich and they deserve representation in their own country. Money may give them economic power but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights than any other citizen. Forget the Nazi-liberal parallels that highlight the worst of the stereotypical American entitlement and moral obviousness. Even pretending that that statement doesn’t make people’s blood boil, this one would just make people laugh in irritation. Krugman doesn’t particularly call out Perkins or his stupid statements (even though it would have been funny if he had) but he takes a stance for the lower wage workers in general. He claims they deserve rights and some sort of leg to stand on. They make our country work and as astounding as this may be to many strong Republicans, not everyone can become a billionaire. But that doesn’t mean that the other people should be stripped of rights. They deserve things that the government originally ensured workers like social security without being questioned and called detrimental to society by shrewd politicians working toward unrealistic policies and their own aim.
ReplyDeleteA plurocrat is a government owned and ruled by the wealthy. Perkins goes so far as to compare the wealthies 1% of people to that of Nazis slaughtering Jews in the Holocaust and Kristallnacht. This is absurdity. He believes that the more money paid in one's tax dollars, the more votes you should get for an election. He believes in the power of the wealthy. Krugman holds almost completely opposite beliefs. He believes that the 99% should be upheld and helped. He beliefs that 99% of the population has things going for them, such as social security and medicare that allow the middle and lower classes to maintain better livelihoods. Perkins in no way has a point. Krugman does not believe that those who pay more in taxes should get more votes. It is not fair to do this because if a poorer person runs for an office position, they will not be able to win due to lack of funding for votes. Paying money for votes in no way maintains equality.
ReplyDeleteAnita Pizzirani (Pizza)
Period: 1