The U.S. has forever engaged in an ongoing debate that can be summed up as Individual Rights vs. The Common Good. Do we share burdens, usually in the form of taxes, in order to “promote the general welfare,” as the preamble to the Constitution says? In other words, do we give up part of our selfish wants to create, say, fire departments or public schools or hospitals? Or, as diehard libertarians opine, are we a mere grouping of individuals whose only duty is to ourselves and our own interests, an approach that will magically create a better, somehow cohesive nation?
Most people realize that a balance is needed, with protections for individual civil liberties thriving side-by-side with an awareness that we’re all in this together and need to temper our desires for the common good. Again, most people realize this, but America is seeing a troubling rise in the kind of “extreme individualism” that says to hell with the general welfare. The kind of thinking promoted by Ayn Rand followers. The kind of thinking that led former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to declare that “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.” The kind of short-sighted thinking, in other words, that dominates today’s Tea Party politics. Frankly, these people are dangerous to the “general welfare” of the country.
If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Superman. Check out this 1952 lesson from that era’s greatest superhero, and tell me it doesn’t make sense. OK, no one’s really going to change his/her mind on such a crucial issue, based on a comic book character — at least I hope not. Still, it’s fascinating to realize that back in the conservative, anti-commie, Eisenhower era, the “general welfare” view of citizenship was the accepted, respectable norm. Of course, what does Superman know? After all, he’s an illegal immigrant.
This article appears in Aug 9-15, 2011.
That would be the same Superman who went to the UN to renounce his US citizenship, correct?
Or we could just ignore all the facts and keep spending.
Look how well it’s worked out for Greece….
…. after this happens a few times there is no one left and no more money to bail you out.
It’s not about spending, it’s about being willing to pay taxes for necessary social services.
For example, if people were willing to pay a little more to better the public school system, we wouldn’t have conservitards like you running around unable to comprehend anything they read that isn’t accompanied by pretty pictures and a righteously indignant talking head on Fox News.
See where I’m goin, Jimbo?
“Or we could just ignore all the facts and keep spending.”
The automatic reaction to EVERYTHING. This comic is about a (private) FUND DRIVE for a HOSPITAL. Blah, blah, blah, Greece… blah, blah, blah, bailout… So, community donations to hospitals caused Greece’s economy to collapse?
Who needs a hospital? I can take care of myself!
No one is saying this bt there are plenty of people who seem to think that socialist policies always lead to bankruptcy. I hate to point out that the 2 main reasons why the EU has any of these issues is because they admitted financially unstable nations like Greece (which was already a fucked up state prior to joining as it was a former communist state that had not yet cleaned up its own house) and the global banking fiasco that stemmed from the massive issues wall street had and affected European banks that had loaned money to US Banks, effectively spreading the damage of our irresponsible banking industry to Europe. Socialism does, in fact, work. It just has to be tempered with the right amount of democratic and capitalistic principles. this is what France and Northern Europe have always had. I do not see Sweden or Switzerland having issues either and they have very socialist systems with very high taxes (higher than most EU nations). It works for them too. Due to the services provided by their social welfare that would otherwise be costly expenses provided by for profit industries, the average Swiss or Swede citizen has a higher disposable income than most Americans even though they have a lower gross income. If I make 80k a year in Sweden and pay 63% in income tax but do not have to pay for medical or dental insurance or student loans and my housing is subsidized, i may only be taking home $30,400 but most of that is disposable income because my mortgage is almost non existent and the biggest expenses were already paid for en mass via a single payer system. Because the services are essentially government run, non-profit services, costs remain low because there is no profit incentive to deny care or reduce quality of service or tack on extra fees to satisfy shareholders and gain bonuses.
Meanwhile in America, where profit is king, I can earn 100k gross and only pay 23% in taxes. I may take home 77K, which is more than doubkle what I would have in Sweden. The difference is that I now pay for private healthcare at a rediculous cost, I have student loans to pay (for a 100k income, I likely have a masters degree or higher so estimate a student debt of about 90K with interest) so I am paying for this as well. Housing is expensive and unsubsidized so huge mortages. Same goes for insurance. At the end of the day, when my bills are paid, I may have less than 15k of my income to spend on myself or save. In Sweden I would likely have about 20k. Oh and in Sweden I would have roughly 8 weeks of paid vacation by law so I would not have to work as hard for my extra 5k disposable income. But hey, social services do not work right? that’s why Sweden has a bigger unemployment problem and weaker economy than the USA right now right? oh, wait……