Kos members frequently ask "where does your candidate stand?" All of us involved in campaigns and blogging have a responsibility - don't ever put our words in the candidate's mouth. They have enough trouble dealing with snarks on what they say without having to defend something a campaign member mistated. However, every once in a while we get to channel the candidate. In this case, the following is the exchange between
Anna Lord and someone she has corresponded with since before the 2004 elections. As background, the other individual is a conservative libertarian who donated to the campaign saying "I don't agree with you a lot but I respect that you listen, that you tell me why you have your position and you are consistent in your logic." The correspondence is below the fold:
You wrote: "Hmmm. Now you are sounding like a liberal. "Profit's only good if the right people profit". That's not how the world works. It's certainly not how capitalism works. When the economy is good and people profit, that's good for everyone."
That is such a simple worldview, and I know that you aren't a simple mind, so I wonder if you're just being lazy with me or you were hoping for a good froth-at-the-mouth argument. That may be how the world works in Colombia, or Mexico, where plenty of people are making big bucks, but most people are dirt poor but it doesn't work that way here unless Americans are willing to step over dying bodies or brush off starving beggar children every time we set foot out of our gated communities.
Since you're into simplistic stuff at the moment, let's explore a simplistic example. Let's say company A and company B has the same payroll amount: $19 Million. Company A pays it's CEO $10M and each of it's 500 employees $18,000 that year. Company B pays it's CEO $500,000 (still a tidy sum) and each of it's 500 employees $37,000. According to your argument, both scenarios are impact neutral, they both support our American way of life the same way, because it doesn't matter who is making the money as long as the money is being made.
I say "hooey!" In the case of Company A, all 500 of its employees are living below the poverty line. Their kids are probably struggling at school, probably receiving free lunch and breakfast (at a cost to the taxpayer), probably receiving lots of special education services (at a cost to the taxpayer) probably getting all of their medical treatment at the hospital emergency room, (at a cost to the taxpayer), will be more likely to drop out and therefore more likely to spend time in jail (at a cost to the taxpayer) They may get housing subsidies, food stamps etc, all being paid for by the taxpayer, and their kids are raised with the idea that handouts from the government are an expectable way to make ends meet.
The CEO of Company A is probably able to shelter at least half of his income and much of his investments are overseas, his vacations are overseas, his third and fourth vacation homes are overseas, he buys exotic sports cars and his wife shops for clothes in Paris and Madrid. His kids are little Paris Hilton's of which nothing is required of them but to stay out of jail (not hard with daddy's money).
The employees of company B, on the other hand, are getting by. Their kids are doing pretty well in school, they aren't a drain on the taxpayer, in fact, they probably pay a few thousand dollars a year into the tax pool. They have a bit of disposable income to spend on stuff that they buy at Target and J.C. Penny and they can go camping every summer and go to Disney World at least once while their kids are young enough to enjoy it. Every dollar they spend boosts the American economy, and their kids grow up learning that hard work results in having a few luxuries.
Their CEO has a pretty good life. He can buy a new car or two when he wants to. He lives in a nice part of town, has a time-share in Vail, a membership to the local country club and his wife shops at Bloomingdales. His kids get to go to good schools, but they know that they have to keep their grades up and work hard because daddy's money isn't going to pave the way for them to live the type of life they are used to. They have advantages over their middle-income counterparts, but not a free ride.
Company B fuels the America Dream. Company A is not much different than the world of aristocracy and serfs that our founding fathers left Europe to escape.And company A isn't spending hiring any more employees because their payroll figure is the same as company B.
Yes, a simplistic example, but it isn't too far off to call Wal-Mart Company A and Safeway Company B ,(A union shop in Colorado Springs - my insert). Our whole society suffers when we have large numbers of hard working families are living below the poverty line while the companies they work for are pulling in record profits.
People ask what a candidate stands for and how they articulate their beliefs. Here is a case where a candidate does so. Hope you enjoy. For full disclosure - the original correspondence used $20 million as the total payroll but the numbers worked at $19 more clearly. Should poverty be that close?