On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.
Do we want Equality at the Expense of Prosperity?
by: Scott Martin posted: 2009-03-03 12:09:00
Viewed 609 times. 23 Comments.
E.J. Dionne asked a question in his column yesterday that would seem to allow for a quick and easy answer, especially to those who don't bother to think about what he's really asking: Do We Want a More Equal Society?
The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.
Dionne begins this exercise by establishing as fact something that may be true to numbers, but is certainly not true to truth. First, Dionne completely ignores the fact that every group has increased its time adjusted real income over the past three decades:
Are the super-achievers in America doing much better now than they were in the past? Sure. How is this a bad thing? As noted in today's Daily Reagan, money should eventually tend to find its way into industrious hands, not idle and imbecilic ones. If the lowest quintile (bottom 20 percent) has a higher income in real dollars than in the past, what difference does it make if somebody else has done even better?
Dionne would also have you believe that people don't move in and out of these groups. They do, often many times over a lifespan. The lower two quintiles are overwhelmingly filled with young people who have just finished school and are starting out at the bottom. Many of the remainder are our nation's most recent immigrants and the elderly who have completed their earning years and are living off Social Security and whatever savings they put away during their lives. The point is, most of these people either have been or at some point will be in one of the three upper quintiles.
Then we have the roughly five percent of any society that will never have economic success, either the idle or the imbecile, or both. As a nation, we provide them a floor. To think we would in any way consider further rewarding negative behavior and lack of achievement is quite frankly repulsive.
To think that the lower income quintiles would ever grow at the same rate as the upper ones is absurd. The lower ones are always being filled by new people who have not yet earned the American Dream. The upper ones are filled by those who have, and those who were industrious and brave and persevering enough that they now know how to use their wealth to make more wealth. They are good at making money. And someday, as they die out or as their earning years come to a close, many of those in the bottom two quintiles will replace them.
Income gaps aside, has inequality really increased in the past three decades? Not by a long shot. One of those really high earners at the top of that chart got there by inventing the personal computer. Many others got there by making the internet possible. Almost all got there by providing things to the masses of America that make life easier for them.
Thanks to the fruit of what these super-achievers provided for society as a whole, I live a lifestyle that would've been considered extravagant three decades ago. If you are reading this, you probably do too. Take the $200 laptop that I am writing this on. With it I have access to more knowledge, more quickly, than the leader of the free world, President Carter, had access to in 1980. If knowledge is power and time is money, I've got a wealth of power. Granted, I don't have control of the U.S. Armed Forces, but then Carter never used his anyways.
The things we have that we take for granted today were unimaginable 30 years ago. Things that even the very poor have, like cell phones. These things make us more like the wealthy, break down barriers between classes, and allow opportunities for anyone to achieve. The poorest of the poor have easier access to more of the kind of resources that help people achieve than the richest of the rich did 30 years ago. That is the beauty of freedom and capitalism. It just works.
But (Obama's) overall approach to taxes is frankly redistributionist: even as much of the middle class gets a tax cut or no increase, the well-off will pay more. And before the howling on the right gets too loud, consider that we have just gone through a long era involving a far less frank form of redistribution -- upward.
There has been no redistribution of wealth upward, ever. Government didn't take money out of the pockets of the poor and put it into the pockets of the wealthy, government allowed people to keep more of what they earned. The industrious, brave and persevering were allowed to keep more of the fruit of their labor, and they labored hard and well, providing a better standard of living for all of society. Industry achieved great things for humanity to partake in and enjoy.
Had we gone E.J. Dionne's way nearly 30 years ago, I have no doubt we'd all be more equal in terms of income today. Equality of outcome is a very easy state to create. And it is found exclusively in countries like the former Soviet Union. In E.J. Dionne's utopian paradise, we'd all be a lot more like the bottom quintile is today. Except nobody would have cell phones, among many other things. The incentive would never have been there for anyone to invent them.
Tags: Taxes,
Related Articles
- Tax Cheat Geithner: Obama's Plan to Tax Banks for doing what government told them to do, "fair, not punishing"
- Saw this one coming: Unions to receive exemption from 'Cadillac tax'
- Deeds completes the flameout: Now says he will raise taxes
- McDonnell wastes no time using Deeds' tax gaffe in ads against him
Links to this post
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/do-we-want-equality-at-the-expense-of-prosperity-/trackback
Comments 23
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he will never be hungry again. Unless he's too lazy to go fish for himself......???????
When people provide for themselves it builds their esteem up and they feel better about themselves. Free handouts are demoralizing and keeps them in the slums. The whole concept is meant to degrade and keep them where they're at.
I read a great column where a guy talked about the difference between the words POOR and
disadvantaged, or underprivledged....and about Left Speak....and how we have been reprogramed by the mis-use of those words.
http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2004/02/speaking-out--1.html
It's very convenient for us to believe that everyone who is poor deserves their poverty. It makes us feel like there are no obligations on us, moral or otherwise, to care about or provide for other people.
I agree with you that when you give things out for free, it is easy to create a culture of dependency. But we are long past the point where we are simply giving money out to the poor without strings attached or hoops to jump through. Bankers, that's a different matter. :-)
The nonprofit I run provides educational scholarships to bright girls from poor families. They maintain their grades, they keep getting the scholarship till they graduate. They undoubtedly lack privileges that I have had and advantages that I have received, like two loving parents and good health.
I think that we are, however that is expressed, our brothers' keepers. I do not think that the poor are "lazy", "imbecile", or thieves of my tax dollars. My religion requires me, instead, to think of them as "blessed" and to do whatever I can to help them.
Alex,
here is the part to the link I posted above, it comes from Selwyn Duke....I can't say it any better then this....
Underprivileged or Disadvantaged Instead of Poor
Most all of us have grown up hearing these terms so they tend to not sound strange to our ears, but using these five and four syllable words when you mean to say "poor" is as bizarre as saying "vertically challenged" when you mean short. And think about what each term implies: When you say that someone is poor you are simply describing the person's financial situation without any implied judgment about responsibility for it. Underprivileged and disadvantaged carry a very different connotation, however. After all, the word privilege means a special right, benefit or advantage that is granted. "Advantage" (transitive verb) means to give an advantage to; to further; to promote; to benefit; to profit. Therefore, when you call someone underprivileged or disadvantaged, you are implying that he has not been granted, by some entity (presumably, the government), the benefits that are his birthright that's why he's under (not as much as he should be)-privileged, or dis (not)-advantaged. Moreover, it further implies that if some people are underprivileged or disadvantaged, others must be privileged or advantaged or, dare I say, over-privileged or over-advantaged. This, of course, would imply that they were granted too many benefits. It then follows that the grantors (again, presumably the government) have the right to take the necessary remedial action and redistribute wealth until everyone is "equally-privileged" or "equally-advantaged."
In a nutshell, the word poor doesn't tell us why the person it is attached to is in that state or what needs to happen for him to ascend out of it. Why, maybe he just needs to apply himself better, put his nose to the grindstone and pull himself up by the bootstraps. Underprivileged or disadvantaged, however, tells us in a very subtle way that the problem is not of his own design; he's simply been denied his piece of the pie by the mythical dispensers of wealth, who either reside in government or are the rich themselves. You can call these the Karl Marx language-reforms.
Why, maybe he just needs to apply himself better, put his nose to the grindstone and pull himself up by the bootstraps.
Since we're talking about the language used to talk about the poor, I'm sure that you will note that putting your nose to the grindstone results in severe injury, and that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is physically impossible to do, so I'm not a fan of either phrase.
Yes, both sides of the conservative/liberal divide use language to frame the debate and to shape people's reactions to the policies under discussion. As it happens, Republicans have often been more successful at doing this than Democrats. But specifically dealing with language used to refer to the poor, I can give an inside peek at the discussion that went on inside a heavily Democrat-leaning anti-poverty nonprofit I ran for several years till 2007.
Actually, the organization's volunteers were not concerned with promoting the use of "underprivileged" or "disadvantaged". Their preferred term was "low-income", which, like "the poor", makes no assertion about how they came to be low-income. On the whole, they did not like the term "the poor", because they felt that it connoted a pitiable state ("Oh, poor you") rather than one that had its own dignity.
I reacted a little differently to it, both as someone born outside the United States and as someone brought up as a Christian. To me, using the term "the poor" connoted the Beatitudes ("Blessed are the poor"), and suggested, as the Gospels suggest, that the poor are in some sense specially treasured by God, perhaps because of the humility that often comes with a lowly status in life. I, as the nonprofit's director, tended to use "the poor" or "the poor and vulnerable", except in situations where the federal government's specific usage of the term "low-income" was called for.
It was not a straightforward discussion. It's fair to say that Democrats are anxious about what words to use. But they will be much more likely to be concerned to use terms that do not condescend to the poor themselves, rather than being concerned about adopting terms that advance the cause of Marxist revolution.
Perhaps that throws light for you on what Democrats concerned with fighting poverty really think; as opposed to the analysis of someone who believes he knows what Democrats concerned with fighting poverty really think.
Facts, schmacts!
You know that the advocacy/adversary media don't need them to make their point.
They're just encumbrances to be shrugged off.
I would ask: if productivity rises by 40%, shouldn't the median wage of the workers participating in the producing also rise by 40%? If it does not, then aren't we in some way denying the laborer his hire, as the Bible would put it?
No, the point of raising productivity is to reduce costs, generally through more work produced by the same workforce or same work produced by less workforce. You can't reduce the costs if you raise the wage in relation to productivity.
...it shocked me that with all the wealth of our society we would tolerate such destitution.
But we should tolerate people taking our money, buying drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. and not helping themeselves? That should be tolerable? Every been to San Francisco? Homeless everywhere and the city gives them some 300-500 dollars a month and it does nothing. Instead of giving them money, give them a job or some training and help them get a job.
I do want to live in a society that provides both a floor and a ladder, so to speak, and I do not see Republicans articulating a view of society that leaves any room for using tax revenues in any way to alleviate the sufferings of the poor.
Nor should they. Tax revenue shouldn't go to the poor and homeless. That is what charities are for, whether it is through churches or other non-profits. It isn't a matter of "it isn't appropriate" (although I don't think it is) so much as it is a matter of efficiency. The government is the least efficient mechanism for pretty much everything. Your dollar will go a lot further given to a church or non-profit than it would if it went through the government. Besides, you can take a tax deduction for it :) Oh yea, Obama is limiting those now isn't he? So much for the democrats wanting to help the poor.
"Tax revenue shouldn't go to the poor and homeless"
Oh, heaven forfend that it should, Robert. Taxes are just there to make the lives of the rich a little bit easier. Let's use tax revenue instead to manufacture arms to kill other countries' poor bastards and to subsidize the companies and institutions where wealthy people live, work and get educated. That must be what government is for. How come I didn't see it before this moment?
Taxes do not exist to reward the success and ease the lives of people who are already successful. They don't need the help. They exist to foster a just society that provides equal opportunity for all people.
Your dollar will go a lot further given to a church or nonprofit
Thanks for the ad for my line of work, but this is not automatically true. Sure, if it's for something the church or nonprofit does particularly well. But there is nothing about it not being governmental that makes it more likely to be well run. There are plenty of incompetents in the nonprofit world.
Scott,
no homelessness before the 80s is bs
I grew up in Britain. And it is genuinely true that in the post-war period till the 80s there were no beggars on the streets. Many of those folk may have been institutionalized or were living in public housing on the public dime anyway, but they were not panhandling.
I used to live in San Francisco. They do have a problem with panhandlers, but it's a lot more complex than you make out. If you become homeless, you want to go somewhere where you won't freeze to death in the winter or die of heat exposure in the summer. There aren't all that many places in the US to which that applies.
The hire agrees to do the job for a price
Yes, but the price is not some set-in-stone thing. Wage rates are set across industries and employers do talk to one another about wage rates, but employees cannot organize in the same way as employers can. The result is that the wage is set lower than it would be if both employers and workers had the same freedom to organize, and that people take the wage not because they think it's fair but because it's higher than they would get if they weren't working. The result is that more and more of the surplus goes into the pockets of management, and the wages of ordinary workers rise negligibly.
As for your alleged Jesus quote, it's not Jesus. It's from the second letter to the Thessalonians ("For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.") which may, or may not, have been written by St. Paul. Do not try to out-Bible me. If you really believed this, you would withhold food from the children, the elderly and the sick. But maybe I shouldn't tempt conservatives by making the suggestion. :-)
The quote is directly from the KJV "If a man will not work, neither should he it." You are correct, it was Paul. As all of God's Word is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction, it is as much God's Word as anything else that originated from God.
I never said a damn thing about withholding food from the elderly, children or the sick. Please do not put words in my mouth. The word for "will" in that verse is the Greek word "thelo" which means "to passionately desire." The sentence therefore means that if a man passionately desires not to work, he should not eat either. Which makes perfect sense, and applies to anyone who would choose government assistance when they are able-bodied and could be working.
And, once again, not a single word of the Bible is to be put into effect by government, but rather by individual people in their own lives. Our government has a Constitution that controls it, not a Bible, and nothing in it authorizes the taking of money from one person to give directly to another.
Sorry, it's "would" not "will," still the same greek word:
That if any would not work (passionately desired not to work to the point that he would not), neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them.. we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."
For someone who didn't know it was St. Paul yesterday, you're presenting a lot of detailed knowledge about this passage today. Could it be by any chance that you're presenting another person's thoughts as your own without attribution?
The word for "will" in that verse is the Greek word "thelo" which means "to passionately desire." The sentence therefore means that if a man passionately desires not to work, he should not eat either.
I imagine that many among the elderly 'passionately desire' to be retired (i.e. not working) and many among the young 'passionately desire' to be in school (i.e. not working). You don't get out of this by layering over the text your (or, more accurately, some other authority's) interpretation of what it must mean.
As all of God's Word is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction, it is as much God's Word as anything else that originated from God.
First: I can't emphasize enough how much you really do not want to get into a biblical discussion with me. It will not change your mind about anything, or mine, but it will generate an exceptional amount of heat.
Second: I'm sure you believe this, but I don't, and you can't rationally use your personal belief about this text as a basis to prove anything to someone who doesn't share your belief about the text. I'm a Christian, but I suspect from a tradition that views the Bible rather differently from how you view it.
Third: Paul himself notes that some of what he writes is not God's word. Check out 1 Corinthians 7:10-12.
Alex wrote
"I grew up in Britain"
And
"It's about fellow human beings who deserve some fellow feeling"
Nuf said
I would ask: if productivity rises by 40%, shouldn't the median wage of the workers participating in the producing also rise by 40%? If it does not, then aren't we in some way denying the laborer his hire, as the Bible would put it?
That's quite a back-assward way of looking at things. The hire agrees to do a job for a price. If he provides his employer much more than the price he receives, he is free to renegotiate or find someone else who will play him what he feels he is worth. The employer takes the risk with his own time and/or money that the fruit of those he hires will show a profit. It doesn't always work that way, and he isn't allowed to take money back from the employee if the company fails.
The employee willingly accepts less than the possible true value of his work in exchange for the security of getting paid even if the enterprise eventually fails. Free choice.
I will completely ignore your comments about homelessness and beggars not existing before the 80s, because it's absolute bs and and you should know better than to try to pass that off here.
Now, as a wealthy person, it breaks my heart to see the cramped, hungry and hopeless lives of the poor girls my nonprofit helps educate, and I see my former self in them.
Good for you. Breaks my heart too, along with most people's. That's why charity continues to prosper in America like nowhere else, despite our ridiculous tax load. That is godly. Government taking money at gunpoint and giving it to someone else is not. Morality and government have nothing in common, and Christ's teaching were specifically addressed to individuals in their personal lives and in their communities - not governments.
As for tolerating poverty, Christ had a good deal of tolerance for it. It was Christ who said "If a man will not work, neither should he eat." His disciples had tolerance for it, too, preferring to give spiritual wisdom and knowledge to the poor, rather than money.
While you want the government to get busy handing money to people who have not earned it, I would prefer they be taught and encouraged to earn their own.
My only disagreement would be this statement: The lower ones are always being filled by new people who have not yet earned the American Dream.
Not everyone that has achieved their dream is now rich. For some it is the work they do, regardless of the pay. Teachers come to mind. Many in the construction related fields love their work and will never be wealthy.
Having said that, I agree that many people move amongst the money-ranks over their lifetime.
Oh, absolutely. I didn't point out that many people have no desire to attain financial security. Many people are more than happy to get along, do what they do, serve their fellow man or their family, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.
Hell, there are even fools like me who are perfectly content to spend all day on my website, making mere pennies.
This is true. Unfortunately it is also usually (but not all of) these people that complain about wanting tax relief, when they should be seeking greater income.
My father-in-law taught me a good lesson recently. He is a small business owner and has been for many years. He told me one night that he loved doing the work he has all these years and it provided for his family well enough, but he made his money doing other things from time to time. Moonlighting, side work, whatever you want to call it. That is how he paid off his house quickly, always had new cars, etc.
One of the things I took from that was that if what you love to do doesn't make you enough money, there are ways to get that money. For him it was things like little businesses that he started and sold off relatively quickly, or buying things from closing businesses and selling them off again (once even to the parent company that was doing closing the business. The irony...)
Regardless, where there is a will there is a way.
Alex, no you may not assume that any of what I write is not my own. I link to sources regularly. When I don't link, my knowledge (or belief) is my source. You have a great gift for condescension, in that you never believe someone with whom you disagree could have knowledge. It's not one of your prettier traits.
I have spent a significant amount of the last decade studying the Bible in-depth. A mis-remembrance of a passage was simply that, I was simply going through verses in my head that applied to the subject and in my memory it was from Mark. You noted correctly that I was wrong. Doesn't change the meaning of the verse, or its significance.
In discussing the meaning of "thelo" you clearly don't understand the meaning "will," "would," "shall" etc., as used in the Bible. Thou shalt is an absolute. Thy will is an absolute. "Would not work" is an absolute. It means someone who wills themselves not to work. There are people like this, and it is not a small number. I am sure you are aware of how the Bible praises work repeatedly, which again makes my explanation fit with other verses on the subject. Yours does not.
If you don't want a Biblical discussion with me, you should cease to bring up the Bible. The Bible has nothing to do with government. And contrary to your claim yesterday, it would most certainly be you who does not want the debate.
It's very convenient for us to believe that everyone who is poor deserves their poverty. It makes us feel like there are no obligations on us, moral or otherwise, to care about or provide for other people.
It is even more convenient, and much more commonplace, for people to claim that government must provide for people because it removes from them their personal moral obligation to help others and places it on society as a whole. It's a cop-out and it's got to end if we are ever to be a more moral society.
You may do the work you say you do, although I'm beginning to doubt that since usually it is people who make up shit about themselves who accuse others of doing likewise. If so, terrific. But it must be noted that those who believe society owes something to others tend to give at a much lower rate in terms of both time and money.
Oh, I do believe you have knowledge, Scott. You just got off on a bad foot by misremembering the passage.
Your translator's note makes no difference. I have no reason to suppose that even those who "will themselves not to work", in your most favorable translation, does not include the elderly, the sick, and children. Children, by their choice to go to school, will themselves not to work (for the sake of their education). Sick people, by deciding to not go into work sick, will themselves not to work (for the sake of their recovery). Elderly people, by deciding to retire, will themselves not to work (for the sake of having a rest from their labors). By the passage you cite, therefore, they deserve not to eat. If you want to adhere to a radical textualism that I do not share, then stick with it, instead of reading more into the text than is actually there when you don't like the implications.
It is even more convenient, and much more commonplace, for people to claim that government must provide for people because it removes from them their personal moral obligation to help others and places it on society as a whole. It's a cop-out and it's got to end if we are ever to be a more moral society.
I would believe this association if it were not the case that it is on conservative blogs that I find explicit contempt towards the poor - those "imbeciles", those "lazy" people who can't be bothered to get rich, those thieves of worthy people's tax dollars. If you were right, then conservative blogs should breathe a spirit of charity towards the poor, and the people doing the posting should be able to talk about the poor in terms that refrain from condemnation.
You may do the work you say you do, although I'm beginning to doubt that since usually it is people who make up shit about themselves who accuse others of doing likewise.
Yeah, it can't possibly be that a liberal Democrat does something worth doing, right? My God, you've rumbled me. I really spend my whole time indoctrinating small children with Islamofascism and selling them abroad for the service of the jihad, and I give the proceeds of the sales to undermine Judeo-Christian morality and promote communism here at home. In my spare time I torture bunnies.
Alex, I'll let it slide if you will. I believe you not only walk the walk but also talk the talk on caring for others. And you know I don't want elderly, children or the infirm to go un-helped.
I would believe this association if it were not the case that it is on conservative blogs that I find explicit contempt towards the poor - those "imbeciles", those "lazy" people who can't be bothered to get rich, those thieves of worthy people's tax dollars. If you were right, then conservative blogs should breathe a spirit of charity towards the poor, and the people doing the posting should be able to talk about the poor in terms that refrain from condemnation.
Point taken. But then when you remove charity and replace it with government redistribution, the charitable mindset that existed in the freewill act of giving rarely carries over to the thievery.
I would believe most liberals really cared about society helping others if more of them walked the walk like you do. If social security weren't an excuse to prevent the "burden" of children taking care of their parents in old age. If welfare weren't a see-through attempt to replace the church as society's organ of sharing. If tax dollars were actually spent on those in need and not on growing government bureaucracies. If they would voluntarily reduce the size of government if they saw a non-state program that could perform the service more efficiently.
You will and have seen charity and kindness to the poor on conservative blogs like this one. It usually depends on the context, and since we are talking politics, it is rarer than it otherwise would be. I do not place kindness to the poor above freedom, for freedom is the one thing a person must have in order to choose God.
Meanwhile, I will never see a liberal refuse tax dollars, for any purpose.
I'll let it slide if you will.
Sure thing, Scott.
when you remove charity and replace it with government redistribution, the charitable mindset that existed in the freewill act of giving rarely carries over to the thievery.
I view government as what steps in when freely given personal charity is not enough. It is often annoying, bureaucratic, and subject to tendencies to expand irrespective of the need. It's rarely a great thing to do, but sometimes it is better than doing nothing.
If you removed social security, then you would have many destitute old people - even when their children are wealthy. People are often jerks to their loved ones, and I'd rather then have government step in than have those old people be destitute because of their children's lack of compassion. Other times, people's children are simply unable financially to care for their parents. Whether or not the children should have worked harder and saved more in order to pay for their parents' care in old age does not change their inability to pay for it.
You will and have seen charity and kindness to the poor on conservative blogs like this one.
I'm sorry, Scott, but I have yet to see it here. I have seen a great deal of contempt, and people claiming proudly to have "no sorrow for the poor." On the other hand, over on the liberal blogs I see daily efforts to raise money for some private cause or other that helps the poor, in addition to their advocacy for government intervention.
I would like to see this blog acknowledge that we all should be willing to give on a private basis to help diminish the suffering of the poor. Then it might be possible to start believing that the spirit of charity is sufficient in the human heart to make government intervention unnecessary. But you and I both know what would happen - a whole lot of posts objecting to helping those lazy imbecilic welfairies on either a public or a private basis.
I'm not advocating putting an end to Social Security. It is now a need, albeit a need that needs to be put on a solid foundational basis where real money accumulates in an account that actually exists. My point was that I believe we are in this position because the creation of Social Security contributed to a break away from the family (and churches and private charity) as the primary institution of taking care of those in need. I also believe that was one of the goals of some of the people who instituted it. We are where we are, and must deal with reality as it stands. Hopefully you get my point, though.
I'm sorry, Scott, but I have yet to see it here.
I forget that most people here didn't read my stuff at Conservatism Today, my old site. I talked about it often there. It simply hasn't come up here, although I'll look for spots to advocate for private giving in the future.
But you and I both know what would happen - a whole lot of posts objecting to helping those lazy imbecilic welfairies on either a public or a private basis.
I have never seen any such feedback when I've done so in the past, and doubt you would see it when I do so here. That's because when I ask for support for something, I am asking, not demanding. People respond well to opportunities to share of their abundance. People do not respond well to having their abundance (or worse, their need) taken away by force.
"It's very convenient for us to believe that everyone who is poor deserves their poverty. It makes us feel like there are no obligations on us, moral or otherwise, to care about or provide for other people."
Oh, please, get a grip.
And speak for yourself.
Mabye it's convenient for you, and maybe it makes you feel like there are no obligations.
It certainly does for liberals and leftists, who contribute significantly less charitablity of their money and time than conservatives.
And who have made it a fait accompli to use whateve means to keep the poor, poor--and exploit them to the fullest.
Hence, Obama and his gang in power at the White House and in Congress.
Have an opinion?
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
Publius' Newsstand
-
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lends Fundraising Muscle to ...
Following on the last story, this certainly will help.In his letter, being sent out to Arpaio supporters today as part of a 100,000-person national direct mail drop, the sheriff calls Hayworth's decision to challenge McCain "courageous." And he pledges to help Hayworth "every step of the way." "Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it's time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D.," Arpaio continues. "After years of running over Republican principles his entire career no election year conversion to our way of thinking will save his campaign from voters that want conservatives to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he says.
Views: 46 Comments: 0
-
From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain...
Not buying it, Senator McCain.McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.
Views: 31 Comments: 0
-
Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program
I thought Obama was going to talk these things over with his boy Mahmoud and smooth everything out. Instead, Ahmadinejad remains "defiant." How's that hope-y change-y working out for us?Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."
Views: 31 Comments: 0
-
Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"
Looks like there's been some compromise here, as the GOP gets an extension of tax cuts that expired last year. I don't know if this is a good thing - I don't see much incentive for the GOP to do anything but obstruct the Dems at every possible point between now and November.I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.
Views: 57 Comments: 0
-
Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of pass...
Didn't realize the implications of Murtha's passing today, which include the following...Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.
Views: 123 Comments: 1
-
Republicans and the Populist Temptation could T...
A warning from my favorite economic analyst, Donald Luskin.Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.
Views: 78 Comments: 3
-
Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GO...
Great news, but these guys were a little late in realizing that Obama wants to destroy all their corporations and confiscate their money. Not quite sure how they missed that.Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.
Views: 78 Comments: 2
-
Dow closes below 10,000 for first time in 3 mon...
The Dow sinks below a major psychological threshold.The Dow, down almost 104 points, had its 10th triple-digit move in 16 trading days. Shares of big banks pulled the market lower, extending a slump that has led to four straight weekly losses.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why bank stocks would be dropping. Inexplicable.Views: 57 Comments: 2
-
Poll: Special interests more influential under ...
Voters are now categorically rejecting every claim or promise made by this guy.... including democrats:Contrary to President Obama's promises, voters say special interests have more influence on the political process now than they did a year ago, according to a new poll. The poll, paid for by groups looking to curb the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance ruling, found that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say special interests have increased their influence since the president took office, and they say Mr. Obama has not done enough to fight back.
Views: 59 Comments: 1
-
GOP leaders: Don't use current health bills for...
Boehner and Cantor say the Pubs aren't going to be a part of any Presidential photo-op/dog-and-pony show:If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” the pair explained in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. They also said President Barack Obama should remove reconciliation from the table. Using budget reconciliation rules to move healthcare reform in the Senate would mean Democrats would only need 51 votes on procedural measures instead of 60... On Sunday afternoon however, Obama refused to say he would start from scratch.
Views: 65 Comments: 2
Get Your PR Button!
More Articles By Scott Martin
- Obama Postures on Bi-Partisanship, GOP Calls his Bluff
on 2010-02-09 with 46 views - Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lends Fundraising Muscle to Hayworth
on 2010-02-09 with 46 views - From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain
on 2010-02-09 with 31 views - Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program
on 2010-02-09 with 31 views - Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"
on 2010-02-09 with 57 views - Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of passing ObamaCare in House
on 2010-02-08 with 123 views - Republicans and the Populist Temptation could Tank the Market
on 2010-02-08 with 78 views - GOP Leadership's Response to Health Care Summit Invite
on 2010-02-08 with 335 views - Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GOP
on 2010-02-08 with 78 views - Dow closes below 10,000 for first time in 3 months
on 2010-02-08 with 57 views
One answer to your questions is to do with productivity.
Productivity rose hand in hand with the median wage during the post-WWII era and through to the 1970s. Then productivity continued over the decades to show a steep rise (43%), but median incomes rose by barely 10% over the course of thirty years. The people benefiting in terms of income from those productivity gains were the people in the top quintile in your graph.
I would ask: if productivity rises by 40%, shouldn't the median wage of the workers participating in the producing also rise by 40%? If it does not, then aren't we in some way denying the laborer his hire, as the Bible would put it?
Another answer is to do with morality.
I know perfectly well that it is possible to have a society where there is no homelessness: when I saw homeless beggars reappear on the street in the 1980s after an absence of thirty years, it shocked me that with all the wealth of our society we would tolerate such destitution. Later, when my parents' home got foreclosed on, we experienced such things a little more up close. Now, as a wealthy person, it breaks my heart to see the cramped, hungry and hopeless lives of the poor girls my nonprofit helps educate, and I see my former self in them.
I do want to live in a society that provides both a floor and a ladder, so to speak, and I do not see Republicans articulating a view of society that leaves any room for using tax revenues in any way to alleviate the sufferings of the poor. Instead I hear nothing from them but the self-righteous voice of the Pharisee, who "thanked God he was not as other men"; the "screw the poor" mentality of Dives in Jesus's parable of Dives and Lazarus; the cowardice of the passers-by who ignored the crime victim in the story of the Good Samaritan. I feel that we should, as a society, articulate compassion towards the many people who are not as lucky as you or I. It's not just about the "idle and imbecilic" (Pharisee-speak again!). It's about fellow human beings who deserve some fellow feeling.