Reform or Revolution?

[JOEBIALEK]

I had the opportunity the other day to watch a most enlightening program broadcast by UCTV. The one-hour program was called “How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?” presented by President Clinton’s former labor secretary Robert Reich.

“Inequality of income, wealth, and opportunity in America is wider now than it’s been since the 1920s, and by some measures since the late 19th century. Yet the nation seems unable or unwilling to do much of anything to reverse these trends. What happens if we allow the trends to continue? Will they “naturally” reverse themselves? Or will we get to a point where disparities are so wide that we finally find the political will to take action? Alternatively, will the disparities themselves grow so wide as to discourage action, by fostering resignation among the losers and indifference among the winners? And if the latter, where will it all lead?” SOURCE: Goldman School of Public Policy UC, Berkley

The presentation made excellent use of economic graphs to demonstrate how large of a gap has developed between the upper class and the middle class (not to mention the lower class) with regards to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States between the years 1962 to the present. The trends are alarming to say the least. The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections. Being born into a middle-class family myself, I have truly benefited from my birthright in terms of these advantages right from the starting gate. Some people would argue that many a poor person has risen up by their “own boot straps” but I would argue that in today’s society, most (not all) poor people can only rise up with a good pair of athletic shoes or a willingness to sell drugs. Otherwise they have to remain content with working in the service industry for comparatively lower wages than their upper-class counterparts. Mr. Reich further points out that one of the elements keeping our society glued together is the belief or perception by the lower class that opportunity in this country still exists and that if one is willing to work hard, they can be successful.

The speaker talks of two potential outcomes for this growing disparity. He uses the metaphor of the rubber band to illustrate his point. Our society will either “snap back” with a series of reforms supported by all three classes and the government to regain a sense of fairness when it comes to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States. This has occurred at least once before in the history of our country during a time referred to as the progressive movement. The other potential outcome is for our society to “snap break” whereby this country exists with two entirely different societies. The problem with the latter outcome is that it often leads to the arrival of a demagogue who plays upon the emotions of the middle and lower classes all for the hidden intention of personal gain. We have seen this all too often in history with the likes of Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin etcetera. Mr. Reich suggests somehow that the upper class are not a group with malicious intent but rather are nothing more than a naive self-indulgent class of people who don’t know any better. Here I beg to differ. I believe the upper class is guilty of a careless disregard for their fellow countrymen. They have the arrogance to believe they are superior and deserving of extravagance regardless of how they attained it and regardless of how it affects the rest of society. Once again, history shows us what happened to those monarchs who behaved the same way. Do I think there will be a violent revolution in this country? I hope not. Do I prefer a new progressive movement over even a peaceful revolution? Absolutely. My fear however, is that we are already rapidly approaching the point of “critical mass” beyond which there is no turning back. The question today before the American people is what are YOU prepared to do?

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

There is opportunity in America for everyone. There are basically three things that people must be willing to do.

1. Get a high school diploma.
2. Work full time.
3. Refrain from having children out of wedlock, and refrain from getting divorced.

Many people are not willing to do these three things. But that is a decision they have made for themselves.

Of course there are people who because of some mental or physical problem, or something else entirely beyond their control, will not have opportunity. These people are very small precentage of the population. And society tries to provide for them.

In America, the people we call poor are a lot wealthier than almost everybody was a century, ago. People in the United States are not becoming poorer, people are becoming wealthier.

 

[rlg94086]

JOEBIALEK:

The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections. Being born into a middle-class family myself, I have truly benefited from my birthright in terms of these advantages right from the starting gate.

So, what’s your solution? Take away birthrights? Someone who’s parents worked hard to create a better living for their children earned that birthright for them.

Some people would argue that many a poor person has risen up by their “own boot straps” but I would argue that in today’s society, most (not all) poor people can only rise up with a good pair of athletic shoes or a willingness to sell drugs.

***That’s incorrect and defeatist. ***

Otherwise they have to remain content with working in the service industry for comparatively lower wages than their upper-class counterparts.

Studies have shown that there is a lot of mobility between the classes, so the idea of a static lower class is overstated.

Mr. Reich further points out that one of the elements keeping our society glued together is the belief or perception by the lower class that opportunity in this country still exists and that if one is willing to work hard, they can be successful.

That’s correct and it’s still true. We have public education, grants, student loans, etc. Anyone who works hard in school, gets good grades and gets a degree has great opportunity. Even without a degree, it’s still possible - though more difficult.

I believe everyone has an obligation (personal - not government forced) to give back to the community. This is what should be encouraged. In my experience, the stingiest people are the liberal elite, who believe the government should equalize everything. Most of the “evil” religious conservatives I’ve met tend to believe in private charity.

Just my http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/objects/twocents.gif . At my current income, that’s all I have to give, but I’m confident I’ll be back in the top 5%. Like I said, there’s mobility between the “classes”.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[Lisa_N]

Chris Jacobsen:

There is opportunity in America for everyone. There are basically three things that people must be willing to do.

1. Get a high school diploma.
2. Work full time.
3. Refrain from having children out of wedlock, and refrain from getting divorced.

Many people are not willing to do these three things. But that is a decision they have made for themselves.

Of course there are people who because of some mental or physical problem, or something else entirely beyond their control, will not have opportunity. These people are very small precentage of the population. And society tries to provide for them.

In America, the people we call poor are a lot wealthier than almost everybody was a century, ago. People in the United States are not becoming poorer, people are becoming wealthier.

A big for your comments. What we call ‘poor’ in this country would be quite well off in most of the world. The ‘poor’ in this country generally have enough food to eat, in fact obesity is a major issue in that demographic group. The kids have access to free schooling, often free meals even during the summer. Those sleeping on the streets are generally those who refuse to comply with shelter rules (no drugs, no alchohol).

The problem with these claims is they act as if the economy were a pie that could only be divvied up with some groups getting bigger chunks. But as the saying goes a rising tide floats all boats. As our economy expands it provides opportunity for virtually all.

Further our poverty is mostly self inflicted and mostly the result of having kids without a two parent stable family in which to raise them.

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

What we call ‘poor’ in this country would be quite well off in most of the world.

But, they’re not living in the rest of the world. Mexican-Americans in the Texas Rio Grande Valley living in tin covered refrigerator crates without water are as poor as anyone in Uganda or Bangladesh.

The ‘poor’

You doubt that they are actually poor?

in fact obesity is a major issue in that demographic group.

So let’s see to it that they get even less to eat so they slim down.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Chris Jacobsen:

There is opportunity in America for everyone. There are basically three things that people must be willing to do.

1. Get a high school diploma.
2. Work full time.
3. Refrain from having children out of wedlock, and refrain from getting divorced.

Many people are not willing to do these three things. But that is a decision they have made for themselves.

Of course there are people who because of some mental or physical problem, or something else entirely beyond their control, will not have opportunity. These people are very small precentage of the population. And society tries to provide for them.

In America, the people we call poor are a lot wealthier than almost everybody was a century, ago. People in the United States are not becoming poorer, people are becoming wealthier.

But this being said. We still have a moral obligation to care for those that can not care for themselves
. GOD

 

[JOEBIALEK]

good points…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Chris Jacobsen:

There is opportunity in America for everyone. There are basically three things that people must be willing to do.

1. Get a high school diploma.
2. Work full time.
3. Refrain from having children out of wedlock, and refrain from getting divorced.

Many people are not willing to do these three things. But that is a decision they have made for themselves.

Of course there are people who because of some mental or physical problem, or something else entirely beyond their control, will not have opportunity. These people are very small precentage of the population. And society tries to provide for them.

In America, the people we call poor are a lot wealthier than almost everybody was a century, ago. People in the United States are not becoming poorer, people are becoming wealthier.

You nailed it.

Until we are willing to accept the proposition that most people are responsible for themselves, we can’t avoid having dropouts and drug addicts – and these people are the ones who sink to the bottom.

The one thing we CAN do is make a real effort to provide every child with a first-class education. All we have to do is convince the NEA to adopt that goal.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

 

[qmvsimp]

Chris Jacobsen:

There is opportunity in America for everyone. There are basically three things that people must be willing to do.

1. Get a high school diploma.
2. Work full time.
3. Refrain from having children out of wedlock, and refrain from getting divorced.

Many people are not willing to do these three things. But that is a decision they have made for themselves.

Of course there are people who because of some mental or physical problem, or something else entirely beyond their control, will not have opportunity. These people are very small precentage of the population. And society tries to provide for them.

In America, the people we call poor are a lot wealthier than almost everybody was a century, ago. People in the United States are not becoming poorer, people are becoming wealthier.

This is exactly right. Did you know that black families that have a mother and father make about 1% more than white families with a mother and father? It is incredible what difference personal responsibility makes in your life. Always look in the mirror first before you look elsewhere.

 

[qmvsimp]

Richardols:

So let’s see to it that they get even less to eat so they slim down.

No, but let’s see food stamps only used on fruits, vegetables and meat.

 

[qmvsimp]

JOEBIALEK:

The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections. Being born into a middle-class family myself, I have truly benefited from my birthright in terms of these advantages right from the starting gate.

Well the solution is certainly not to have everyone forceably start on the exact same level. Aside from a bad Maxist idea, it is impossible.

Life isn’t always fair. All of us are born with certain benefits and detriments. It is our ability to overcome these things that makes us better people. What is great about America is that everyone, and I mean everyone, has the opportunity to overcome whatever bad situation they’ve been put in.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

But, they’re not living in the rest of the world. Mexican-Americans in the Texas Rio Grande Valley living in tin covered refrigerator crates without water are as poor as anyone in Uganda or Bangladesh.

I imagine you could scour this huge country and find some examples of extreme poverty. However the marjority of what are considered poor in this country would be extremely wealthy anywhere else in the world. Further, unlike most countries where poverty is beyond their citizens’ control, our poverty is basically self inflicted. We do not have subsistence farming subject to droughts and insect infestations which result in a family starving to death. We do not have thousands of children dying of easily treatable diseases caused by impure water. My former church used to make a yearly trek to south America where they built homes for poor families. Kind of puts a bit of perspective on it when we in turn give food baskets to ‘poor’ people in this area who are living in three bedroom / two bath homes with heat and utilities and clean drinking water. I lost it when I delivered a basket to what was quite a lovely home and the three kids were all sitting around a large screen TV watching cartoons.

Richardols:

You doubt that they are actually poor?.

In comparison to Bill Gates I am poor. It’s all relative. Again what is called under the poverty line in this country still allows for people to eat, have a roof over their heads and a free education. I bet the kids in Guatamala who are living in a cardboard house that washes away every rainstorm would like to be ‘poor’ in this country.

Richardols:

So let’s see to it that they get even less to eat so they slim down.

No but people need to be educated on nutrition and Food Stamps should be restricted to actual nutritious food. Too many times they are spent on Big Gulps and taco chips which make people fat but do not nourish them.

Lisa N

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

Thomas Sowell, an economist and one of my favorite columnists, has researched the issues involved and basically agrees with the education and not having children out-of-wedlock as a means of circumventing poverty. However, he also shows the figures that the percentage is not a stagnant percentage, but a fluid, changing one. My words, not his–he’s more fluent… ;^)

What he means is that most of those in the poverty percentages are those just starting out in the workforce. As time goes on, most usually move upward, being replaced by those now starting out. Mr. Sowell also sees affirmative action as racist (he’s black, and so allowed to hold that common-sensical view), and education, as well as the willingness to work, along with avoiding the factors that lead to established poverty–i.e. out-of-wedlock births, divorce, etc. as the means of advancement.

Personally, I also include taking our schools back from the relativists who rely on visceral emotionalism to decide policy and reinstate a true liberal education that teaches us to separate our feelings from reason and calmly and dispassionately look for truth.

As to the Americans in the valley who are so poor, I would be more willing to recognize and actually implement our responsibility for them if we didn’t have open borders. Although I believe that we have a responsibility to help others, our nation will not remain wealthy enough to help other countries if we try to give our wealth to illegal immigrants who do NOT have a RIGHT to welfare, free education, and especially do NOT have the RIGHT to VOTE in our elections.

A true end to poverty in other nations is exactly what we are doing in Iraq–helping to establish a free market with the right to private property, along with a rule of law to which all are held.

But it is going to be difficult to help others toward this when we are losing our own property rights here in America. I urge all to pray and contact all their elected representative about the necessity of making the Supreme Court responsible for its decisions. Who can rule their decision unconstitutional, except for the Congress which has chosen to allow the Justices total freedom to make decisions contrary to our Constitution and our rule of law?

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX

 

[ChrisR246]

JOEBIALEK:

Do I prefer a new progressive movement over even a peaceful revolution? Absolutely.

I don’t. The underlying Progressive assumption that the government is needed to resolve problems is what has contributed significantly to the current problems - engendering a dependency and sense of entitlement.People are not going to take their childrens education or anything else seriously until they come to relaize that they are responsible for it.

 

[oat_soda]

In America, the people we call poor are a lot wealthier than almost everybody was a century, ago. People in the United States are not becoming poorer, people are becoming wealthier.

is this a good thing? are we no more then what we own? a century ago we didn’t kill 1 million babies a year. also, the divorce rate and suicide rate has sky rocketed since then. families are shattered across the country yet we look at material wealth and “freedom” as a barometer of how well we as a country are doing.

we have a huge moral obligation to help those in other countries, especially africa, who don’t have as much. the JPII and B16 has admonished wealthy western powers on this issue. and look at the suffering we’ve caused through our various unjust wars we’ve been involved in. we’ve spent 100s of billions on war yet many african countries are in debt and the median price of a new house is the highest it has ever been, forcing two parents to work.

if you ask me, our country is in the worst shape it’s ever been in and there is a breaking point. perhaps our wealth is to blame.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ChrisR246:

I don’t. The underlying Progressive assumption that the government is needed to resolve problems is what has contributed significantly to the current problems - engendering a dependency and sense of entitlement.People are not going to take their childrens education or anything else seriously until they come to relaize that they are responsible for it.

Those who call themselves “progressives” ought properly to be called “regressives.” They espouse “solutions” that have been proven failures in the past – from the bankrupt pyramid scheme called Social Security to fiat economics. They believe we can tax ourselves into prosperity, and that the poor can only be helped by the dole. They resist attempts to improve the lot of the poor by providing them a better education, and creating jobs through lower taxes and a more business-friendly government.