So let's think of a good way to solve a crucial problem. How does one (or in the Socialized case, the Govt) go about giving people an opportunity when they are born into poor circumstance?
Can one fix this problem?
What's your solution?
I'm really stumped on this. I have always thought this is a problem of the individual. I have always believed that in the US anyone could make it to the middle class (make $45k-$250k a year, no debt, and retire with a net worth of $500k-$3 million).
Assumption: poor cicumstance = no family wealth, no physical handicap, poorly educated parents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Mike,
I, like you, believe that people who apply themselves will and do get ahead in this economy regardless of the party in charge at the time. Most would agree that the free market does that. No one should impede your accomplishments through tens of thousands of dollars in taxes or the big S.
But there is a prolem. The first thing you assume is that the family looks like mine (or possibly yours, i don't know your history that well.) Poorly educated parents that had little to no money, but knew the value of a great education and how to get access to it. People like us don't neccessarily need the help of Gov't TM.
Most families that are poor, don't have two parents that work one job each. They have one parent that works three (or more) jobs and must leave the kid(s) alone or with child care ($$$$). Then, they are not concerned with teaching their kids that getting a great education and going to college is a good thing. They are more concerned with feeding the mouths and paying the light bill.
this is the problem with most arguments presented by fiscal conservatives (and the right, in a more general sense). They assume that the families are very similar and are already on a level playing field. They assume that families don't need help getting to that level playing field. In order to have a real discussion about the problems associated with larger Gov't TM, you must first ackowledge that the playing field IS NOT LEVEL FOR ALL AMERICANS.
The level playing field is the middle class ($35-40K per yr.). Most Democrats want to improve the vital resources (public education, healthcare, access to jobs, job stability) that allows people to focus on building wealth and gaining a stake in the larger free market.
this is what is meant when Barack Obama says that a decent wage for real work and the inherent self worth in work. You put in you time and the Gov't will help you out, help raise you to the middle class standing.
Unfortunately, the reactionary Right decided that its Socialism gone wild.
I know your response. You can't trust the Gov't TM to be responsible with YOUR MONEY. But that is a different argument for a different post. First, concede that the field is not fair pay for equal work and then, we can talk about Socialim's problems.
I think this post has great potential for all of us. But lets make sure we not over simplify the problem.
For example, some of you know that my sister had a stroke at age 45. She was a social worker with lttle savings/retirement and a house about 1/3 into a 30 year mortgage. She can not communicate at a level that will allow her to work, she gets SS and some medicare benefits but they are not enough to live on so my parents and occasionally Lynette and I contribute. She is not married and has no kids. I guarantee she did not put in enough payroll taxes over her work life to equal what she will receive. Being in Florida her insurance for her two-bedroom home costs more that my homeowners (4000sqft).
What if she had children and no family to help? I am not concerned about college for these kids, maybe a motivated teacher would inspire them, what about affordable health insurance?
How does one level the field?
How does one go about giving people an opportunity when they are born into poor circumstance?
Great question. I'd make a high school degree worth something again and stop trying to get community colleges to redo what should have been done in secondary education. I'd re-emphasize trade schools and the like.
I'd cut down on illegal immigration; it is unconscionable for the top 2/3rds of society to import unskilled labor for their benefit and at the cost of the bottom third of society.
If I were President, I would use my bully pulpit to re-emphasize certain Depression-era "American" values, especially saving as opposed to consumption. While Americans have always been consumption-crazy, the last fifteen years or so have been over the top. I would provide moderate levels of gov't matching for savings (means-tested, of course.)
I haven't said anything unfair to Democrats yet, so here goes: I'd lay a good bit of the blame for the sufferings of the blue collar worker at the feet of the left. Unions were consistently demanding higher wages from manufacturing jobs and they didn't believe their jobs could go elsewhere. Environmentalists and other community activists have targeted manufacturing of all kinds for burdensome labor, environmental and safety regulation without regard to cost. While all of us may benefit from cleaner skies, etc., it has come at the cost of the plant operator, coal miner and the like.
One more thing: I'd be willing to trade some level of economic freedom/deregulation for more health-care access and the like. Any takers on such a grand bargain?
It is my reading of the American left that they will not rest until there is >95% insurance coverage in the US, from high school to grave. The only way to pay for this is procedure rationing, cutting medical staff salaries and pharmaceutical price controls.
Bruce/Rich.
I totally agree with your comments. Rich, I think people who have fallen on hard times deserve our help. I also agree with Bruce that certain folks in this country are born into situations that are quite dire.
I'm just not sure how recognition of the situation can solve the problems... I'm looking for answers. I'm not looking for complaints. So please, try again.
I’m going to start by saying that I don’t want more regulation or government in my life, but if you all thing it must do something…. I’ll take a stab at what it could do, but I don’t really want it to do anything. I want people to be responsible and suffer the consequence of their action (once again assuming they are of able body and mind, i.e. good health).
I think we need to start by cutting almost all foreign aid. Withdraw our troops from Germany, South Korea, and Japan. We need to focus on wasting our money at home. Roads, bridges, schools….
I also agree with Jim that if we are going to have a welfare system we need to make sure it is only for US citizens. We must close the damn border and send illegal immigrants back.
We need to disband most of the Unions, with the Teachers Unions first. Teachers need to be accountable and good, if not they need to find a new profession. We also need to bring some common sense discipline back to school. Kids who get out of line need to be punished. I have always preferred manual labor. Let’s say dig a 4ftx4ft ditch and fill it again.
On the fringe, why stop with a little social planning… let’s go farther to ensure the best for all:
I would not allow stupid people to have kids (we’re playing Big Brother right). Since under our new welfare plan, “I am my brother’s keeper”. The govt. should have some say in how people reproduce. I would also ban smoking, drinking, and all drug use. This would drastically lower our healthcare costs. I would not allow people to be fat. I would force exercise on people… meet the BMI requirement of pay a fine or go to jail.
Sorry, just thought this would be funny. I do think the earlier stuff is needed.
This is a great speach on the role of govt. in the US.
FDR 1932.
http://www.heritage.org/About/Community/upload/95369_1.pdf
I think FDR went too far as President... but this speach is very much on the mark.
The problem with gov't spending is that once the money has been allocated, borrowed and spent on a particular project, the cat's out of the bag. The money never gets "put back" so to speak. Once you allot 10.4 billion(Center for Immigration Studies) for illegal immigration and immigrants, the money is never removed from the budget. It just gets reallocated. But never you mind. If we are going to spend it anyway, it takes the "political will" to spend it on infrastructure and 'leveling the the playing field' (equal education for inner city schools and adequate health care)
To answer the question directly, the Defense dept. ($623 billion, Congressional Budegt Office) could stand some of John McCain's trimming of the fat. I realize that we are in the middle of 2 wars, but removing the GWOT spending ($141.7 bn.) that still leaves $482 billion in defense spending. The increase in spending from 2008 to 2009 was $50 billion, almost the same size as the federal budget for education ($63bn). As a comparison, Great Britian's priorities are reversed. They spent $162 billion on education last year and $64 billion on the GWOT (mostly Iraq).
To quote kqed.org,
"Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Defense Department’s 2007 acquisitions programs (large equipment purchases) had increased in cost by an average of 26 percent from their initial estimates. This adds up to an incredible additional cost to the taxpayer of $295 billion, or the equivalent of almost $1000 for every person in America."
The report goes on to say that delays in projects often outlive the enemy the project was designed to fight. Missle defense is a perfect example. During the Cold War, ballistic missle threats from the Soviet Union and other Communist allies were real and apparent. Indeed such research was warranted. But today, the argument for keeping this spening intact is that the terrorists will be launching nukes on ICBM's from anywhere. Certainly, this is possible, but there are simpler, cheaper, more direct ways, to introduce a nuclear threat to the US. Yet, the 2004 Star Wars program was introduced, passed and FAILED testing as a cost of 10.2 billion per year to the taxpayer.
While not the only place we can cut spending, and I agree with Jim and Mike, that closing the borders is Very important, its going to cost us to do so. We either borrow money to boot the illegal immigrants or raise taxes to pay for it. Using the current spending on this issue and refocusing border security is not enough. The federal gov't couldn't remove 50,000 people from NOLA prior to Katrina and they WANTED out. How do we find 12 million hiding illegal immigrants?
Cutting defense spending is an immediate and fiscally sound way to "reallocate" funds in the federal budget to other domestic concerns about building solid schools across this country and providing affordable healthcare for everyone.
to add,
Unions have a tradition in the US of protecting the American worker. Most of that is corrupted now with lobbyists, but other than the AFLCIO, how exactly do unions hurt?
Genuinely curious here, not being sarcastic...
unskilled workers should not be paid large salaries and excessive benefits...I agree that unions, while originally improving conditions for workers, unions have priced themselves out of jobs in many cases.
Post a Comment