Below (when I get it completed) is a re-post of a thread Karl Thompson started way last week when Off Times Square was operational for comments. Thompson's premise, as I recall it, was "poor people in the U.S. don't have it so bad." Included are/will be Thompson's original comment plus those written in rebuttal & support, in the order received (more or less).
Feel free to make additional comments.
To get back to Reality Chex' main page, go to
http://www.realitychex.com/
Sorry for the mess.
15 comments:
Karl Thompson writes:
re: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"?
Oh really? On what planet? (Or was asking this question done tongue in cheek?)
And if you think this and you are talking about the planet Earth, is this in relative terms or in absolute terms?
I can only guess that some of you are going to say that in the US, more and more of our national assets (wealth) are controlled by fewer and fewer people (and I don't for a minute think that is good, but that's another conversation) but that does not mean that the masses are not gaining ground on absolute terms.
I'm too busy, tired and frankly lazy to look up the numbers but I do recall reading that the generation that is currently retired will leave more money to their heirs than any generation in history. Of course you can say that this is being distorted by the very wealthy, but I would doubt the wealth of the rich distorts the numbers that much. (Prove me wrong.) Even the poor of today, has more material wealth than the poor of a generation or two ago. How many of the bottom 20% have personal phones or computers or access to computers today vs a generation ago? (The computer/internet is a great opportunity for education.)
Looking beyond the US, look at the rising middle class in India, China the Pacific Rim. The middle class in India is larger, in absolute numbers, than the entire population of the US. You just could not have said that with a straight face 20 years ago.
Free market enterprise, even with all of its problems, IS the best path to prosperity for the masses that we have invented yet. (To paraphrase a CNBC host.) And it's working.
CW: emphasis added.
@ Karl Thompson - Your probably right about the poor being 'better off' than they were two generations ago, but you have no clue what poor really means. How about spending every day worrying if your going to be homeless, if you can feed your children, if your children are going to wind up in a gang or on drugs, get a decent education. How about having no hope for a future? Poor is not just about money, it is a life.
Yes support like the food stamp program makes a difference over 50 years ago. Last month we broke a record, 44 million Americans on food stamps. We should be so proud that so many of our fellow Americans are living the American dream.
@Marvin Schwalb,
The point, of course, was to challenge the platitude that "The poor get poorer...". Too many people read that, and hear it repeated, that they just take it to be true (my high-school age daughter for one).
Contradicting the statement does not mean the poor do not have serious problems. And "the poor", regardless of how it is defined or what their income is, by definition, will never live "the dream".
>>>Last month we broke a record, 44 million Americans on food stamps.<<<
The conservative will say that is one of the risks of a social program such as food stamps. At the margin, the program encourages greater and greater use, and thus overuse. Also, how are the thresholds set? I have no idea what they are, but for illustration sake, if a family of four qualifies for food stamps with an annual income of $20,000 but the family earning $20,100 is denied, how does one justify this?
Anyway, the rich are even poorer today. The DOW down over 500 points. Headline I saw said it was the worst day since Fall of 2008.
@Richard, I did read the conclusion of the paper about equity requirements. Interesting. Helps me solidify something I've been thinking about for a while now with respect to regulations (Dodd-Frank). But I'm not going to drop that bomb right now...
@ Karl Thompson. You evidently have not watched the video above or read a newspaper in the past ten years but have relied instead on stuff like this piece-of-shit "study" by the right-wing Heritage Foundation complaining that poor people have refrigerators & A/C (available) so we liberals should STFU. I am too busy, tired & frankly lazy to encourage your constantly making fallacious statements gleaned from right-wing fact-free propaganda outlets & passing them off as "facts."
Oh, did I mention the data the Heritage Foundation used were from 2005? I'm sure the recession that began in 2008 had no effect whatsoever on those lucky poor people watching their used teevees & sitting under the ceiling fans in their spacious Section 8-rented domiciles munching on fattening Cheetos they bought with food stamps. Hey, if that 10-year-old second-hand fridge wears out, keep this in mind: you don't have to refrigerate Cheetos.
@ Karl Thompson
You begin your comment by quoting “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer”? Your point seems to be “No, the poor are not poorer” and then your comment seems to attempt to make a case that the poor are better off now than then because they have possessions now. Or at least that is what I think your point may have been. At least you summarized your point to be that the masses are gaining ground in absolute terms and so you look to the bottom 20 percent with personal phones and access to computers verses a generation ago as positive proof that things are better?
Then you make a leap in logic and boldly state that free market enterprise even with its problems IS the best path to prosperity for the masses that WE have invented yet. You attribute that statement to a CNBC host and that is a good thing. We did not invent free market enterprise which I maintain only exists in the abstract. We have managed to control it (whatever it is) through regulation to prevent vast distortions in supply and demand of raw materials, labor, capitol, and a myriad of other inputs and outputs which come about because of normal swings in most uncontrolled or as you might say, free markets. The derivative mess is an example about which Alan Greenspan (a noted companion of Ayn Rand) admitted that he was wrong to have opposed regulation of derivatives. Although I seem to recall that he admittedly backtracked from that admission after a bit of time had passed. But I digress as well, so to get back to poverty.
I think a good definition of poverty is that which was established by the United Nations back in 1995. It is the “lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services; increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterized by lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life. It occurs in all countries: as mass poverty in many developing countries, pockets of poverty amid wealth in developed countries, loss of livelihoods as a result of economic recession, sudden poverty as a result of disaster or conflict, the poverty of low-wage workers, and the utter destitution of people who fall outside family support systems, social institutions and safety nets.”
This definition recognizes a relative nature to the existence of being poor as it reminds us of the isolation, danger, hopelessness and randomness of that condition. So, what difference does it make to the poor and unemployed in this country that the “well to do” are leaving more inheritance to their trust fund babies? None.
The picture you paint in your comment of the poor in this country being “better off” now because everyone is better off fails to consider non-monetary and non-material aspects of society and for anyone to monetarize the solution by stating that free market enterprise is the best answer minimizes the death and desolation that meets the poor each and every day that passes them by.
-- FromTheHeartland
@Karl Thompson - A program like food stamps is hardly perfect in operation or effect. But what is the alternative? Jobs that pay a decent wage would certainly work. Here is the true irony. Your right, the rich had a very bad day, but if they paid a fair share of the taxes, this day could have been avoided and we might not have to spend more than $50 billion a year to feed people.
I watched the al Jazeera documentary, “Fault Lines,” as I watched the Dow plummet today. Ouch! The documentary itself didn’t tell me anything new regarding income/wealth inequality in America, but I was extremely interested to see that the coverage seemed pretty well balanced; not much different from what I might see on the PBS NewsHour or even Frontline.
I’m afraid that I don’t bring much to the table regarding the statement, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” except to agree with Karl Thompson that the GLOBAL economy is not a zero-sum game: in the various emerging-market countries, e.g., India, China, Brazil, etc., the middle class is--as I understand it--expanding significantly.
And if I dare to look at things globally rather than parochially, is an Indian guy/gal less deserving of a good job that improves her/his life significantly than an American?
Like it or not, there is no putting the “global economy” genie back in the bottle. Emerging-market countries are simply out-competing us--and are rapidly becoming as well-educated as us--though they have their own problems at the moment, too.
I believe that we are in the midst of a global paradigm shift. If we wish to compete with the emerging economies and return jobs and growing wages to this country, we need to be better-educated, as hard-working, and developing, manufacturing and selling things that transcend cell ‘phones, MP3 players and game boxes.
What are those products? Damned if I know. But there’s always room for improvements on current technology. We just need to be the ones to find ‘em
Perhaps, as @Marvin Schwalb insists, we really do need to hike taxes on the rich--and maybe even me--to buy the time to acquire the educations that we need to become competitive again. I’ve seen scant evidence that the rich are “unleashing the power of the marketplace” and making America competitive again. Though I’m still not convinced that those taxes need to be “confiscatory” to accomplish what we need to do.
But dammit, we need to make sure that we’re getting something for our money that we can be proud of.
@ Karl; My bs monitor went off while reading your comment; "How many of the bottom 20% have personal phones or computers or access to computers today vs a generation ago?" All the more reason to have well equipped schools and libraries, right? It all comes back to how the government spends the money and how the government makes the money. You are a "just the facts madam" man. Corporate profits are high; taxes are low. Corporate rights are high, personal rights are low. We spend more money on the Global Drone or whatever the military is calling it then we do on twenty cracked bridges. Those are facts. So how can a reasonable man of facts argue for status quo? Or to put it as politely as I know; "Why isn't General Electric paying a good god damn dime to use the same crappy infrastructure I do?". Tax law loopholes = old highway potholes. Just the facts, Jack.
You're most assuredly correct about the growing middle classes in India, China, et al. Which is exactly what the free-market corporate oligarchs are exploiting. You can be sure there are still plenty of abject poor, who can also be exploited for slave wages to make the products to sell them. And the lion's share of the money flows back into the coffers of a rapacious few who care not a wit about the fate of American democracy, nor the middle class here in America. Nor, heaven forbid, the poor. Nor the middle class or poor anywhere for that matter.
Your characterization of the of a generation of cellphone-toting, internet-connected poor is really no different than the racist Reagan-era canard of the welfare queen, driving around in a Cadillac. (Although I surely do not believe that you are racist.)
@Karl Thompson;
People who have never had to do without have no idea what life is like for the working class and so have no business making policy at any level of government. Prove me wrong.
Thank you for your comments and insights. I've enjoyed reading them. However, I find it interesting how so many of you (if not all of you) have changed the subject.
Our moderator yesterday suggested that we comment on "The rich get richer...." As you know, I took up the challenge.The statement, while it sounds good, is absurd if you are willing to look at a period of time of say a 1/2 generation or more (not since just 2005 as one writer wrote).
Others found fault with my comments because I seemed to be measuring wealth in strictly material things. That is true, I did. But, since we have to limit our remarks and since the materially poor can be "rich" and the extremely wealthy can be "poor in spirit", I confined my comments to material wealth. I think that was valid to do for these reasons.
Finally, several went on to describe the plight of the poor. These comments, while certainly valid, do not negate the position that I took. The "poor", in material terms, are not getting poorer, in absolute terms, over time.
Now, briefly, to two comments:
@JJG08
I would agree with probably 90+ percent of everything that you wrote. I want, well equipped schools and libraries. I just don't want (society) to go into debt to have them. (I would support debt for infrastructure, buildings, roads etc) I want the tough choices made now (less troops in Germany etc, more school teachers for example). As to taxes, I consistently stated that my position was for a tax code with NO deductions, exemptions or tax expenditures (credits). I take this position, in part due to the GEs of the country not paying taxes as well as the Buffets paying less than their admins. I even support a progressive income tax (though in college nearly 40 years ago I wrote a paper supporting the flat tax. I am willing to change.)
@Pubby
I'm sure you are right about the owners/capitalists/risk takers not caring about the poor or the middle class. The fact that they do not care, does not negate the fact that a large number of people around the world are living better today (whatever that means) than their parents generation. Having traveled to India a number of times since 1998, I will say that I've seen the changes first hand. And while my heart aches to have 12 year old girls, with rotten teeth, holding a sibling on their hip approach me with hands out and despair in their eyes, it still does not change the fact that opening up trade as not benefited a lot of people in these countries.
Frankly, if one really cares about the abject poor (and this is not directly personally towards you), they should be demanding more trade and fewer restrictions, not less.
@all, I stand by my original comments.
If you had read my comment you would see that I directly addressed your major premise. You read what you want to read, & if it's inconvenient, you pretend it isn't there.
See also Stephen Colbert's comment on Off Times Square, August 5.
Karl Thompson says “Free market enterprise IS the best path to prosperity for the masses that we have invented yet. It's working. Look at the rising middle class in China.”
See the “Last Train Home,” the story of a Chinese family caught and crushed between the past and the future. Every year, during the lunar New Year, 130 million Chinese workers leave China’s industrial cities for their homes in the countryside. This temporary shift in population is the largest human migration in the world. 130 million people moving between work and family, stoking the engines that drive the machinery of worldwide unfettered free market capitalism. What does that look like? It is a story that is heartbreaking. Multiplied by 130 million, it is a terrifying and sobering vision of the present.
David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan, said, “We no longer have free market capitalism and we no longer have a democracy. Instead we have crony capitalism that is rigged in the financial elites favor. Trickle down economics is not working and ordinary Americans are losing the class war.”
Socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor. Or even worse…
As if lifted from the pages of Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida have created de facto Marshalsea debtors’ prisons in which individuals too poor to pay their fines or court-ordered obligations are incarcerated without being afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel.
“Pray, sir,” said Arthur, repeating his question, “what is this place?”
“Ay! This place?” returned the old man, staying his pinch of snuff on its road, and pointing at the place without looking at it. “This is the Marshalsea, sir.”
“The debtors’ prison?”
“Sir,” said the old man, with the air of deeming it not quite necessary to insist upon that designation, “the debtors’ prison.” He turned himself about, and went on.
“I beg your pardon,” said Arthur, stopping him once more, “but will you allow me to ask you another question? Can any one go in here?”
“Any one can go IN,” replied the old man; plainly adding by the significance of his emphasis, ‘but it is not every one who can go out.” - Charles Dickens, Little Dorrit
The United States Supreme Court will decide whether these individuals have a right to counsel in the case Turner v. Rogers. In South Carolina, indigent parents who fail to make court-ordered child support payments can be held in civil contempt and imprisoned without a lawyer. Michael Turner spent a year in jail for failure to pay his child support payments as a result of a civil contempt proceeding in which he was unrepresented by counsel. Without the assistance of a lawyer, Mr. Turner was unable to demonstrate that he could not afford the payments and therefore did not willfully neglect his child support obligations.
Thank you, Denis.
@ Karl Thompson. Before you opine again on how well off the American poor are, please read this essay by Barbara Ehrenriech:
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/9441-to-death-nickel-and-dimed-ll.html
You owe poor Americans an apology.
Karl and his folk not only have a strong deficit of compassion, but they fail to realize the everyone, everywhere complain about taxes. I work with Danes, Norwegians and Swedes and they always complain about their taxes.
The poor can be kept from expanding in numbers if that is a social goal. With Murdoch, GE and Redstone watching each others interests the ONLY social goal is lowering the burdens on the most comfortable. What kind of cockamaimie values is that? A deficit of compassion.
Post a Comment