Fish in a Barrel - The Demolishing of Facebook Comments

By Martin Schatz


In response to the recent Vanity Fair article titled "Of the 1%, By the 1%, and For the 1%," I received the following comments via Facebook.


"What they should report on is how many Americans receive some form of welfare/ government assistance and dont contribute anything to this country. Tax payers on all levels deserve a break and the governement needs to CUT PERIOD."


"But corporations and businesses create jobs and generate wealth whereas welfare folks take and don't contribute squat to our country. So in the end we pay taxes and support our families and half the country. Not ok."


Nope look as us census, fed gov facts, ssi, wic programs, sdi, food stamps etc etc and u will see how many people, households etc receive some sort of assistance in some form or another. Its endless. Welfare comes in many different forms. I...ts everywhere. The feds and the states can't afford handouts anymore. Its time to cut programs. Does it hurt? Sure but its what has to be done if this country is to survive. Soceity shouldn't judge those who achieve and create wealth. If anyone should be judged its those who do not contribute and only take.

The argument is a bit of a mess, but what I am taking from these comments is that A) Corporations are good because they create wealth and jobs and contribute to our great country, while B) people who are unemployed or require some form of government assistance are bad, because they are simply "takers."

My response to part A is that it is true that corporations create wealth.  In fact, the large corporations that the U.S. people bailed out at the onset of the economic crisis are doing just fine.  If you look at the companies who received the most money in bail-outs, we are left with Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.  Many have seen their stock prices fall considerably since before the crisis, but that has not stopped the top executives from receiving bonuses and salary increases, even if they have to provide that through stock awards to get around regulation that restricts executive pay for companies still under debt to the federal government.  They are certainly creating wealth...for themselves.  Whether they create jobs or not is something else entirely.  Corporations will hire if and when it suits them.  You are fooling yourself if you believe that decision-makers in large corporations feel any solidarity with the common American citizen.  Bailouts were made to help the U.S. economy as a whole, not to personally enrich any individual corporation.  That fact has apparently been lost on many transnational corporations, who are sitting on record levels of cash.  That level is in the trillions.  Conservative talking heads will tell you that most of that money is tied up overseas due to America's oppressive tax structure, and therefore cannot be used to create jobs in this country.  This overlooks the fact that it completely negates the argument that corporations make their fair contributions.  The reason that corporations have money overseas is that they keep it in tax havens like the Bahamas, where the Government cannot take their 15% corporate tax share and use it for the common good.  In fact, many of the largest corporations pay virtually no taxes, and some of the absolutely largest get large tax returns.  They can't create jobs because their money is tied up overseas, and they can't take their money back from overseas because then they would have to contribute.  What a conundrum.

For the second point, I can only assume that I should take the point literally that people receiving assistance are "takers."  While I have been lucky enough to stay employed throughout the crisis, I am aware that much of that has to do with luck.  Personal luck and luck in choosing the industry that I did has given me some sense of security (knock on wood).  That being said, I personally know many smarter and more capable people than myself who are unemployed and cannot find work.  I think the proper response for any of us with jobs today is to look at these people and say "there but for the grace of God go I," and NOT view that person as a parasite on the "creaters" and "wealth makers" in the country. 

In regards to the numbers of people on welfare or receiving some form of assistance, I again view this very differently than you do.  It scares me that our system has become so divergent in terms of "haves" to "have-nots," that such a strong safety net is required to keep people falling through the cracks.  Are there people who are taking advantage of the system?  Of course.  There always will be people who find the loopholes and take what they can.  After all, corporations certainly do, so why would we assume that every regular person on the fringe would be morally above it?  However, we shouldn't look at government assistance as a whole and say that it is "bad" simply because some number of people take advantage.  It still does more overall good than harm.  In a society that has become so stratified, as indicated in the original article, it is astonishing to me that one would argue that we should remove that basic safety net from people. 

America is not just becoming much more divided between rich and poor, it is also becoming a country where one's social class is very rigid.  We are actually falling behind in terms of social mobility, which makes it hard to argue that our capitalistic system is allowing for the American Dream fantasy anymore.  The fact is that the biggest proponents of rugged capitalism, such as large, multi-national corporations only feel that way when things are going well.  When they needed a bailout, they were quick to jump on it.  In capitalistic terms, there will be winners and losers, and they should have been considered losers and allowed to fail.  They did NOT push for that, and neither did many of the "free-market" thinkers.  If an individual person loses, they are allowed to fail.  What we have is a safety net that could be described as "socialism" for corporations (at least in the loose definitive terms that Tea-Party members use), and "survival of the fittest" capitalism for individuals. 

It is a joke on the American people when large special interest groups convince normal working Americans that they have more in common with Goldman Sachs than they do with the poor bastard looking for a job down the street.  Not to ruin any John Galt fantasies, but if you work for a living, you are not a wealth-creator. 

 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0602-30.htm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Administration-approves-apf-2306842980.html?x=0
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/econ-j14.shtml
http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/bailed-out-companies-to-receive-pay-cut-orders/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2009/06/01/bailed-companies-tax-cheats/