« Churchill Found to Suffer from Kerry-Harkin Syndrome | Main | UK Moonbattery Wearing Out Its Welcome »
February 18, 2005
Lovers of the Poor
Despite the ostentatiously wealthy lifestyle of its loudest mouthpieces, it must be true that the Left loves poor people. After all, left-wing policies invariably make a lot more of them.
Moderate leftists always find a reason to compare America unfavorably with Europe. The economic engine of Europe, and the country sitting at its heart, is Germany. It stands to reason that if we could be more like Germans, our economy would change for the better. Sure enough it would — provided the goal is to generate more poor people.
As the BBC recently pointed out, the German economy shrank 0.2% in the last three months of 2004. According to the Federal Statistics Office, growth for the whole of 2004 was 1.6%, after a year of contraction in 2003.
To quote the Beeb: "The figures confounded hopes of a 0.2% expansion in the fourth quarter in Europe's biggest economy."
That's the problem with setting your sights so high — you doom yourself to failure, like Icarus getting carried away and flying too close to the sun.
Meanwhile, 2004 real growth in gross domestic product for the United States was running at about 4.4% as of late last December — despite carrying countries like Germany on our backs militarily, and despite the prolonged economic effects of 9/11. Let's see, that would be about... 275% of German growth for 2004. Assuming that translates to 275% fewer poor people, no wonder the Left hates America so much.
So much for the moderate leftists running Old Europe. What about the true believers? The lefties who really, really mean it? Germany isn't their role model. Cuba is.
Unfortunately, for the Cuban economic system to even come close to functioning, you need a dictatorship the size of the Soviet Union willing to pay it to be a pain in America's backside. When the economic absurdities of communism caused their sugar daddy to implode, Cuba was in for some hard times. Things got so bad, they even had to resort to letting real money (US currency) circulate, since their own wasn't good for much other than playing Monopoly. In total desperation, Cuba even legalized some forms of self-employment.
But things are better now, or at least Castro thinks so. Other US antagonists, China and Venezuela, have shown a willingness to pay his dictatorship to exist. Venezuela is floating on oil, and China has learned to throw out the parts of communism that have to do with economics, so they've both got some cash on hand.
But not enough to give Cuba under Castro a decent standard of living. According to the Washington Post, "the monthly food ration lasts most Cuban families less than two weeks, and state salaries averaging less than $15 a month barely begin to cover the high prices of everything from canned food to toilet paper."
The only way to survive is to find additional, non-socialistic means of making money — means that Castro has expressed renewed commitment to suppressing.
But there are places even more devoted to generating poor people than Cuba. In North Korea, Kim Jong-Il loves the poor so much, he has created a whole country full of people who are starving.
Leftists have figured out that the best way to create more of the poor people they love is by penalizing the production of wealth. After all, what is poverty but an absence of wealth? Prevent people from generating wealth, and you will have all the poverty you could want.
No offense to the poor, but personally I would prefer if their ranks were smaller. I guess that would make me a heartless capitalist.
Posted by Van Helsing at February 18, 2005 12:49 PM
Comments
Wonderful, observant post, VH. Lest we not forget how this ties in with Bush's ideas on Social Security Reform:
Naturally, the Dems don't want to fix Social Security, especially now that they can't take credit for it since they're waning as a political force (nevermind that Clinton, Reid, Kennedy and others supported fixing the system that was clearly viewed to be in imminent "crisis" during those Dem halcyon days of the 90s,... but that's another story). The system shouldn't be fixed, in their eyes, since the more ownership that the lowly rednecks in red states have over their SDI money, the more chance they'll have of becoming stock-owning, somewhat wealthy conservative capitalists upon retirement... and, the less aged poor there will be to stoke AA(L)RP's roles... and the fewer po' ol' folk to be propped up by the Dem's failed yet base-generating old-age entitlement programs.
Posted by: The MaryHunter at February 18, 2005 4:04 PM
Beautifully written with a solid core of truth. How about writing a few words about the present "conservative" administration and congress that in the face of obscene deficits continues with profligate spending. Medicare prescription costs are now estimated to be $700 trillion (not $400 trillion) and the program hasn't even started yet. The President has said that he will veto any change to this program ---even a proposal that was one that he proposed in 2000. This is the President who has exercised NO vetos to date and he is going to veto a 700 trillion dollar (and growing) disaster!! If we are to continue to spend like this and don't want to tax wealth (as an engine to create wealth), who is going to pay the bills? The poor? I don't think so. Enter the middle class (or should I say--exit the middle class). This scenario certainly doesn't create wealth for them. What ever happened to "A rising tide lifts all boats"?
Posted by: Harry at February 19, 2005 9:03 AM
Harry's point is well taken. President Bush needs to get spending under control, and the ill-advised prescription drug giveaway is not going to help. Bush isn't perfect. But when I start getting depressed about it, I just remind myself what the alternative would have been, and it perks me right up.
Posted by: Van Helsing at February 19, 2005 2:13 PM
Don't make it worse than it is. The Medicare prescription benefit is 700 BILLION dollars, not 700 trillion. God forbid if it were that, as our national GDP is currently only about 12 trillion dollars in total.
Posted by: Irene Adler at February 19, 2005 2:35 PM
Thanks Irene Adler for the correction. Although I'm not sure it makes me feel much better!
Posted by: Harry at February 19, 2005 5:08 PM
