Huey Long launched his “Share Our Wealth” idea in 1934, a platform deliberated to offer good standards of living to all citizens of the United States. The document was important in the efforts to recuperate the lost glory in the American economy without affecting the poor. Notably, Huey used the document to spread the idea of sharing the nation’s wealth equally among all people regardless of their economic status (Long, 2010). The purpose of the document was to arouse the need to set aside personal aspirations and set fourth fair platform for success to all citizens. The paper is important today because it calls for personal obligation to all people- the leaders and the led, women and men. When everyone acts on the same platform for the welfare
Leading up to the year 1981, America had fallen into a period of “stagflation”, a portmanteau for ‘stagnant economy’ and ‘high inflation’. Characterized by high taxes, high unemployment, high interest rates, and low national spirit, America needed to look to something other than Keynesian economics to pull itself out of this low. During the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign focused on a new stream of economic policy. His objective was to turn the economy into “a healthy, vigorous, growing economy [which would provide] equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” Reagan’s policy, later known as ‘Reaganomics’, entailed a four-point plan which cut taxes, reduced government spending, created anti-inflationary policy, and deregulated certain products. Though ‘Reaganomics’ was successful both at controlling “stagflation” and promoting economic growth, it has and always will be an extremely controversial topic regarding the redistribution of wealth.
The rich tycoons of their society refused to share their money with the poor. Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gompers both wrote their essays towards the wealthy with hopes to make a difference for the poor workers and unemployed. Rich tycoons would do anything to keep it for themselves, if it meant leaving it as inheritance
For a few people to amass great wealth in a society is the highest expression of civilization. This is the base argument of Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889) however he also explains the importance of philanthropy from those in the upper class, arguing that the wealthy entrepreneurs of society have a responsibility to distribute their excess wealth in a manner that proves to benefit society as a whole while avoiding wasting it on frivolous expenditures. Although claiming that the income gap between social classes has played an important role in society, Carnegie believes that the incredibly uneven distribution of wealth can be mitigated by the upper and lower classes working together to gain a mutually beneficial outcome. With an extending argument, Carl Becker seeks to explain in his article “Ideal Democracy” (1941), what his idea of the ideal democracy is, which he defines as “of the people, by the people, for the people” (148). However arguing that in today’s society, it is defined more so as “of the people, by the politicians, for whatever pressure groups can get their interests taken care of.” (148).This paper will serve to analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of each text’s argument and supporting material. In doing so we will touch on the rhetorical strategies and structure that each text employs, while connecting them together through comparison. Becker argues that democracy has changed over time, while Carnegie extends this argument by stating the change will be beneficial to the human race.
Portrayed as a Southern demagogue, Huey Long, who was also known as King Fish, was a major character on the American political stage around 1930s, an era during the Greate Depression that brought a worldwide economic crisis; many people lost their jobs. According to Frank, Robert H. and Bernanke, Ben S., 25% of American lost their jobs at that time. Huey Long was good at raising his audience’s anger towards the rich. Unlike some Southern demagogues, Huey Long did not criticize African-Americans to seek support from racists; his target was always the rich. He said, “It is the fact that the rich people of this country – and by rich people I mean super rich – will not allow us to solve the problems” (Para 4). During the Depression, when many people lost their jobs and had trouble with supporting their family, the rich easily became the target of their anger. Huey
The division of wealth is unevenly distributed throughout society’s so called social ladder. The “haves,” those who run corporations or have major influence on government decisions, control the majority of the wealth and resource available to achieve that wealth. Their major purpose it to build on that wealth no matter what the consequence may be. Those decisions sometimes negatively impact the lives of the “have nots,” people who, like us, have minimal if any influence on corporate spending and decisions.
In this essay I will tell you about Huey P. Long and why he was such an important person in history. Huey changed Louisiana politics with his programs by making the lives better for millions of people in Louisiana. His ideas led to different programs that we have today such as federal student loans, social security, veterans benefits, and lots more.
Huey Long during a radio broadcast was explaining his populist plan of wealth redistribution to fix the country’s high poverty problem. Long then lists several solutions that he and the Share Our Wealth Society stand for. Long’s first solution is to regulate the minimum and maximum amount of wealth a family can have. With this, every family should have a house and live comfortably whether they are rich or poor. Next, Huey long proposes to control the amount of income a family could have. No family should have less than one-third of the average income, and that a family can’t earn more than three hundred times the average income. Then, Long suggests that everyone over the age of sixty should have
New Nationalism focused on eradicating economic inequality. In 2007, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 23.5 percent of the nation’s wealth (Pear, 2011). This problem has increased, not gone away, since Roosevelt addressed it in 1910. Unfairness in the tax code has become a prominent topic of political discussion. President Obama called for alterations to the U.S. tax system, which allows millionaires to pay lower rates than middle-class workers like teachers and firefighters, in his 2012 State of the Union address (“Remarks of President Barack Obama – As prepared for delivery State of the Union Address,” 2012.). In December, the president traveled to Osawatomie to speak. He echoed Roosevelt’s New Nationalism, saying he believes “this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share” (Fox, 2011). Although he spoke in Os...
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
Smith, Noah. “How to Fix America's Wealth Inequality: Teach Americans to Be Cheap.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Pub., 12 March 2013. Web. 06 April 2014. .
A man born in an obscure part of Louisiana, were to go against the normal political implications the city upheld to. Winn Parish gave way to a political monster, wise beyond his limited power. Huey Long was a great and fearless leader who got things done by putting pressure on other government officials to actually do what they were supposed to do, and that’s govern. August 10, 1893 a diamond in the rut was born to forever change political progression. Growing up knowing about how the United States had little to no care about the poor and companies abuses of people simultaneously depriving people more and more of economic growth. The people of Louisiana needed Huey Long to fight for them against politicians who forgot the people who got them elected. Huey will always be one of the most significant political figures of Louisiana. The spot he made during his ruling period in the state is truly a benchmark, as he made better roads and better schools along with centralizing the state government improving the way things were done for the better. He was great for Louisiana, being one politician that was for the people becoming the greatest political leader Louisiana ever had.
Divisions within the social stratum is a characteristic of societies in various cultures and has been present throughout history. During the middle ages, the medieval feudal system prevailed, characterized by kings and queens reigning over the peasantry. Similarly, in today’s society, corporate feudalism, otherwise known as Capitalism, consists of wealthy elites dominating over the working poor. Class divisions became most evident during America’s Gilded Age and Progressive era, a period in time in which the rich became richer via exploitation of the fruits of labor that the poor persistently toiled to earn. As a result, many Americans grew compelled to ask the question on everyone’s mind: what do the rich owe the poor? According to wealthy
One major issue with the nation is their emphasis on the importance of having a timocracy society where power is measured and gained through wealth. A common ideology shared among Americans is “You don’t share things in common; you have your own things” (Burgess 236). Through this statement, Burgess remarks about how American citizens no longer have the will to familiarize themselves with
“I myself have no doubt . . . social policy tended to appear to many to be more concerned with the creation of wealth than with its distribution. I must confess that there is an element of truth in this . . . my conviction is that the rapid growth of the economy, produces a rapid and substantial redistribution of income” (p. 22).
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.