dippin

There are several things that the federal government provides that benefit the rich more than the poor.

For starters, national security. The rich have more to be protected than the poor.

There is also diplomacy and foreign military actions to protect American "interests," which involve large multinational corporations, and therefore its shareholders, mostly rich.

There is also "corporate welfare."

We also have the FDIC, the FED and other agencies that protect financial assets (and the rich have more to be protected than the poor) and establish financial stability even if at the cost of employment (this at least since the 70s, thus helping capital over labor).

And let's not forget subsidized cutting edge medical research, most of which, though developed with public funds, take decades to be made affordable to the average person.


Oh, and while many of the things Derwood said are indeed local and state level services, a significant chunk of them are subsidized by the federal government .

And finally you have the subsidies. You have the farm subsidies and tariffs, for example, which are, more than anything else, an almost direct redistribution of income from the poor (since food is a bigger item in their budget) to farmers. Obama tried to limit the subsidies to farms which make less than 500,000 dollars a year and was soundly defeated.



But I digress. This whole discussion about the state has been so historically decontextualized that it is hard to make the discussion serious enough.

If you look at how the state came about, and how things would be right now if the state was completely abolished, it is impossible to adopt this "poor rich man" routine.