Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 6:32 p.m. EST by Cicero
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The American Dream is basically that the freedom in American includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.
The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the United States Declaration of Independence which proclaims that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In Europe there was a lack of social mobility- the ability of persons in a society to move between classes of society. So regardless of your aptitudes as a rule if you were born poor you would always be poor. You couldn't get a loan to start a business, you didn't have access to education. If you were a merchant who had amassed wealth you still didn't have the access to political power that others who were from old money with titles like lord or Duke or Baron, Count, etc. would have.
America was founded to be removed from that situation. Ordinary Europeans settled America. The frontier spirit of self sufficiency and pride in labor and home drove American growth and shaped the American ethos.
The American dream is a great thing, there is hope for every American. But the reality is the wealthy, cream of the crop, 1% by very definition can not include the 99% therefore the American dream isn't a sufficient rebuttal to higher taxes on the rich.
The rich say that everyone can be like them if they work hard. But its impossible for everyone to be a part of the 1%. In reality the 99% made the 1% rich by buying a house, car, microsoft office, an I-phone, tennis shoes, a cheeseburger, dvd movie, paying their rent. The 99% are the consumers of the industrial, tech, and entertainment industries.
It is perfectly feasible that they could at least go to Clinton era tax levels. I mean the economy was good. We had a surplus at the Treasury Department meaning we owed no money and had savings.
Now with the economy down and a huge deficit around 15 trillion they have the audacity to suggest that we cut benefits to the most vulnerable in society instead of returning to the tax level that they had two decades ago.
Now John Boener is saying the 1% are going on strike. Meaning they would sabotage the already stagnant American economy.
Just because they don't want to return to a tax level that worked fine for America 20 years ago before Bush gave the rich tax breaks. By the way the tax breaks are set to expire in 2012 anyway what they are actually trying to do in the new debt deal is to sweeten the pot for themselves and make the temporary tax breaks permanent. But no one really says that on the news.