Taking exception to Anderson's logic
Daniel G. Anderson's most recent paid advertisement (Gazette, May 9, "Audacity of Hope") contains the following odd inconsistency. While he ends his advertisement with a sentence that says everyone should vote after "[examining] the credentials of all parties, Republican or Democrat," the rest of the piece was anti-Obama, anti-socialist, anti-liberal, anti-tax-the-rich, and in his prior advertisements, anti-Democrat and anti-government. These are usually Republican themes. Why would he say "Republican or Democrat" when he is strongly anti-Democrat?
Also, just before his ending sentence is a sentence about the real issue: the future November 2014 election. This also seems odd since the rest of his piece is almost exclusively devoted to trashing Obama who is now almost in the past. Why not focus more on specific problems, future candidates and a balanced presentation (with facts from both sides) of possible solutions that will benefit everyone instead of just special interests?
Anderson's 11th paragraph says the Obama deal includes "universal healthcare, free college tuition [and a lot of other things that lots of people might like]." He talks about these as if they are bad things, but I think those ideas might be good things and I would like to see more details, both pro and con. I think Anderson is not thinking about how anything might benefit lots of people, but is thinking about how these things might increase his taxes and he doesn't like that. I always thought that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was for all of us, not just a few. However, some people in our society follow the winner-take-all line of thinking that leaves a few winners and lots of losers.
Maybe Anderson is thinking that winners are entitled to take a little more if they can. It is a fact that rich people and many, if not most, big corporations already actually do pay a lower rate of taxes than the average person. I have been reading the Wall Street Journal - hardly a lefty-socialist rag - for more than three decades and the majority of articles on executive and director compensation say that they are getting too much pay (as well as golden parachutes, perks and treats) and tabulations show that what they get has no relationship to company performance, either. So, a lot of those rich executives and directors are very often overpaid.
I don't have any problem with rich people who became rich by means which are honest, legal and ethical. Unfortunately, as history and many books show, quite a few rich people (and some big corporations) became rich by frauds, lies, and unethical sneaks, cheats and tricks carried out against anyone and everyone else. Thus, poor people stayed poor as money was "redistributed" from the poor to the rich. I have many books on criminology, corporate corrupt practices and financial crime which document what I say, and this is a massive problem.
Most of us have no control over (1) how much our jobs pay us, and (2) how much we have to pay for things we buy. Rich people have much more control over both, and that helps them further enrich themselves. This leads me to another observation about Anderson. He seems to repeatedly imply that successful people are rich people and vice versa. It bothers me that this implies that poor people (or, at least, all non-rich people) are unsuccessful. I know a lot of non-rich people who are good people and I consider them successful. Daniel, how about giving some recognition that you couldn't be where you are without a lot of underlings doing the real work?
Arthur E. Sowers