How The Plutocracy of America Affects Social Programs

I don't think I can describe what my political beliefs are without knowing all the terminology and definitions, or what bothers me, but here it is:

Capitalism was good in the beginning. Let there be light, and there was light. And it was good, because the majority of those coming to this country (not including Native Americans and African Americans and women) had the same footing and similiar opportunities. Equality improved with the passage of time, in all categories except for those who were poor. The class disparity grew after the 1950s, and widened, and after the 80s and 90s, those who happened to get lucky, or came into an inheritance, or who made their money the good old-fashioned way, sat back and allowed the interest to make the profits. The ability of corporations to have a "vote" and to gain power through lobbying increased, and the interests of the rich usurped, at every turn, the interests of the majority and of the minority and poor.

Being poor is the worst and lowest form of state or condition in America, and those who are poor are treated like lepers and deemed "sick" and in need of a treatment. The poor are also believed to be morally inferior, harboring disease, mental illness, drugs, illegitimate children, illiteracy, and other social "evils".

The initial "good" incentives of capitalism have been replaced with greed, and capitalism, so bloated, only serves the richest who carry the most of the wealth and power for enacting and enforcing laws. "Justice" is now easily bought in America where it wasn't this easy to do even 50 years ago, has become commonplace.

The wedge driven between the classes has been placed there by the self-interest of the rich, and the poor work too hard for so little, to have energy to organize or even care. They're too busy fixing their car to keep it running, and feeding hungry mouths, to follow politics and the laws that are changing their lives for the worst. Those who might try to assert themselves against the status quo increasingly find themselves in jail, and convicted of crimes they didn't commit, which eliminates their right to vote. The vote is taken from the people who know the most about the realities of the corruption of the system, who have been affected firsthand.

I'm not sure what good taking the vote away does anymore, almost, because it's only the rich who end up as candidates for presidency and positions of power--I'm not sure what the original intention was, to deprive anyone, convicted of a crime or not, from the right to vote and have an opinion.

I believe the U.S. is a democracy in name only, and in practice, is a plutocracy. It has every stamp and sign of plutocracy.

Which brings people to question what the role of social programs is. Democrates, typically, want more social programs, believing this will help those who need it most and give them a helping hand, and somehow leveling the field. Republicans don't want to give their money and taxes to others who are not working, and believe churches or privatization is key, mainly because it's not an imposed tax.

At first, I thought more social programs were good. Sort of a socialism within democracy idea. But the problem is, I've realized, is that the social programs, funded by the government, end up being a kind of socialism within plutocracy, not democracy. When the corruption of the government is extensive enough to creep into the very fabric of structure, policies, law, and who is elected, and who is even able to be a lawyer and afford law school, or act as a part of the justice system, social programs and government-run programs end up being run under the dictatorship of the plutocracy, and not the democracy. This puts those who end up in social programs, at the mercy of the plutocracy which strives to keep the status quo and control the outcome of programs and persons within programs. If someone in social programs is compliant and goes into technical training to become a submissive worker ant for the upper class, this is acceptable. Anyone who criticizes the programs or employees of the government, however, is lashed at and punished as if they are living in a communist state or under a dictator. The dictator is money.

The incentive doesn't work to the advantage of the economy and social harmony. It is out of balance and so corrupted, and while the discontentment breeds among those who suffer the most, who happen to be thoughtful or have had experience with the system, or who have enough human dignity and spirit to be angry, the rich and the government, which is run by the rich, ignore this or try to push the people down, hoping no one will notice what's going on. Most Americans are a bunch of toads sitting in a huge "melting pot" and don't even notice when it's getting hot or have time to think how the rich will eat toad pate on their crackers at the next soire.

Social programs, which should be helpful, are almost more dangerous to the poor, in a plutocracy, because they trap the most vulnerable into being slaves who are at risk of then having their children taken from them, and monitored with suspicion, because of their great moral fault and failure of being "poor", and therefore, it is assumed, "at risk" for harming the public, themselves, and their families. They are then profiled, reported, and thrown into jails, and families are torn apart. Those who make it out are relegated to cleaning toilets and doing menial jobs to make ends meet.

Nothing is safe or good about the current condition of the country, and those who are poor, need to wake up and notice. The rich, and the government, which is controlled by the rich, on the other hand, should be on notice.