[quote=Jazzman] The term “middle-class” is a euphemism for socialism… [/quote]
I don’t know about “euphemism for,” but I (think I) get what you mean.
Take Mongolia right now. Vast natural resources. But an undeveloped economy. Who’s going to profit from those resources? The people who already have money. If you’re poor, you’re not going to build a mining company from the ground up. Not one that can compete with existing ones, anyway. And if you own an existing mining company, are you going to pay more than barely-above-slave wages to your manual laborers? No. Because there are enough poor people in Mongolia that you’ll have plenty of takers for horrible-pay jobs. So, the rich get richer and the poor get shit on.
Does the guy who inherited a herd of goats have the same opportunity as the guy who inherited a mining company? Obviously not. Is that fair? Is that the way it should be?
America is the land of opportunity, but it’s not as different from Mongolia as some would have you believe. Does the kid from the ghetto with no dad and no money and terrible schools and crackheads and gangsters for neighbors and classmates and relatives have the same opportunity as the kid whose father is the governor? Not a chance. Sure, the rare exception will excel despite those circumstances. But a huge percentage will fail miserably. Does the government of a civilized society have a responsibility to improve the kid from the barrio’s chances?
I think it does. Is that socialism? I don’t know and I don’t care. Socialism is the buzzword du jour of the right-wing noise machine. People who don’t want to or know how to think throw that word around and expect the mere use of that word to win arguments for them.
Whatever you call it, educating and improving the lot of the underclass and lower class is not only the decent thing to do, it is what is best for America.
