In a capitalist system like ours, the amount of money you have is directly proportional to the amount of happiness you enjoy. Take that last two parts of your posted statement, health care and social issues. With enough money, receiving the health care you need isn't a problem. I'm not sure which social issues you're talking specifically about, but an example of one that can be fixed with enough money is abortion (I believe this week the President is pro-life). If you've got enough money and you want to terminate a pregnancy, you can travel to where you can get a safe abortion (as was rumored to be the case with one of Dubya's early lassies) even if the Pro-Lifers win and get Roe reversed.
I do focus on the inequitable distribution of wealth that is part and parcel of any capitalist society. I do focus on the fact that the capitalist/donor class is vastly over-represented in our government precisely because re-distribution of wealth is something the government can accomplish fairly easily through its taxation powers (and is in no small measure the reason the capitalist class has taken over our government). Moreover, I think it's clear that a lack of money is at the root of most of a capitalist society's other problems and this lack is a consequence of the natural order of capitalism; namely, the inequitable distribution of wealth.
Of the great ills facing our society, it happens that moderating the inequitable distribution of wealth is the easiest problem for the government to tackle. Once managed, a lot of other ills will be resolved as a consequence. Or at least significantly reduced in intensity.
Do I think all our ills will be resolved if we fix the distribution of wealth problem alone? Of course not. But a great many will be reduced in strength or eliminated outright if we do address that particular problem. As a bonus, it happens to be the easiest one for the government to address.
It's simply not possible to address all other ills in the absence of addressing this distribution of wealth problem and I give you as an example the ACA. If you're very poor, you got supplemental income from Medicaid expansion so that you could afford to pay the capitalists for health insurance. But there are a great many who make too much to receive the supplements, but not enough to afford what the capitalists demand for health insurance. Fix the inequitable distribution of wealth problem and such ceases to be the case. There is perhaps no better example of how addressing the distribution of wealth problem positively impacts another societal issue (health care).
In the end, for all the wrangling, I think the differences between practically everyone else posting on this board and me is that I believe the most important issue facing us today is the inequitable distribution of wealth and that this issue is driving most, if not all, of the other issues we are facing. Further, I hold that the other issues cannot be addressed without addressing what I will call the primary issue. I believe those who've argued with me would contend that each of the three (economic, health care, social) categories of issues are mutually exclusive and can be addressed separately. I don't buy that and I think the ACA points to the wrong-headedness of that train of thought.
I do focus on the inequitable distribution of wealth that is part and parcel of any capitalist society. I do focus on the fact that the capitalist/donor class is vastly over-represented in our government precisely because re-distribution of wealth is something the government can accomplish fairly easily through its taxation powers (and is in no small measure the reason the capitalist class has taken over our government). Moreover, I think it's clear that a lack of money is at the root of most of a capitalist society's other problems and this lack is a consequence of the natural order of capitalism; namely, the inequitable distribution of wealth.
Of the great ills facing our society, it happens that moderating the inequitable distribution of wealth is the easiest problem for the government to tackle. Once managed, a lot of other ills will be resolved as a consequence. Or at least significantly reduced in intensity.
Do I think all our ills will be resolved if we fix the distribution of wealth problem alone? Of course not. But a great many will be reduced in strength or eliminated outright if we do address that particular problem. As a bonus, it happens to be the easiest one for the government to address.
It's simply not possible to address all other ills in the absence of addressing this distribution of wealth problem and I give you as an example the ACA. If you're very poor, you got supplemental income from Medicaid expansion so that you could afford to pay the capitalists for health insurance. But there are a great many who make too much to receive the supplements, but not enough to afford what the capitalists demand for health insurance. Fix the inequitable distribution of wealth problem and such ceases to be the case. There is perhaps no better example of how addressing the distribution of wealth problem positively impacts another societal issue (health care).
In the end, for all the wrangling, I think the differences between practically everyone else posting on this board and me is that I believe the most important issue facing us today is the inequitable distribution of wealth and that this issue is driving most, if not all, of the other issues we are facing. Further, I hold that the other issues cannot be addressed without addressing what I will call the primary issue. I believe those who've argued with me would contend that each of the three (economic, health care, social) categories of issues are mutually exclusive and can be addressed separately. I don't buy that and I think the ACA points to the wrong-headedness of that train of thought.