I love seeing an active comments page on my blog. Thats what its there for... and getting the ideas flowing is why I do this! But to interject on Yardman's criticism of being on "the dole"
I read it as being a negative, or pejorative in some way. I couldn't disagree more...
I don't want to get the thread off track because its interesting and could be very fruitful for myself as well as others but... i'm not opposed to "the dole," government subsidies, incentives, and other infrastructure programs.
These are investments in our economy, our government, our communities, and our people. One of my core beliefs is that no one gets left behind. High up on my list of things that are good is the market system. A market economy is an amazing thing, its existence in the world--a priori, I would even say--is an amazing thing. As nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out... a rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats. Growth for growths sake won't solve anything which has been my fundamental contention with conservatives of both parties.
Those kinds of policies have devistated economies all across the globe including our own--since 1980--aside from some of clintons economic moves, and Bush 1 rasing taxes-- we've been in self-destruct mode when it comes to economic policy. Economic inequality has reached a level we haven't seen since the 1920's. The wealthy are now reaping all of the rewards of the American economy
The dole and other ways of protecting the market are the things that enhance the market and protect it by focusing on sustainability over short-term perks. Over the long run these kinds of plans, programs, and efforts help raise the quality of life for all. Now don't get me wrong, the corruption, red-tape, and inefficiencies need to be addressed, avoided when possible, and always kept close to the publics magnifying glass. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
If government tax dollars are good enough to keep the rich on a sustainable path... I don't think its too much to ask for the poor, working class, and middle class in this country to enjoy some of the fruits of our collective effort.
digression concluded... keep the thread going though...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think Yardman's point is that recieving a check each month fosters dependence. I see the family consumption allowance (prebate) as very diffent from a handout, though. I'm bummed he hasn't yet answered my request to clarify his assessment of the prebate.
also
Your recognition that inequality of wealth has gotten steadily worse since the 20's makes my point that the income tax has not worked the way progressives thought it would when it passed in 1913. Because of the way it has been manipulated and the inclusion of the payroll taxes, it has had the effect of making inequality greater.
We need to have the courage and the foresight in the progressive party to lead the revolution away from such a failed experiment.
As Teddy Roosevelt warned against, the income tax has become a tax which "bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man."
Your recognition that inequality of wealth has gotten steadily worse since the 20's makes my point that the income tax has not worked the way progressives thought it would when it passed in 1913. Because of the way it has been manipulated and the inclusion of the payroll taxes, it has had the effect of making inequality greater.
I don't follow...
From the 30's-70's there was a decrease in inequality and consistent growth... with the 80's until now there has been a major push to make taxes dramaticly more regressive and less progressive.
During this same period you see economic inequality growing again. THe numbers seem to be going the opposite of your claim... you'll need to clarify on that one.
I'm having a hard time backing up what I have believed about wealth inequality. I'm still looking.
I have an instant and unjustified distrust of Woolfe's studies. I've no idea why.
I found a fascinating observation while studying this morning:
Community and equality are mutually reinforcing… Social capital and economic inequality moved in tandem through most of the twentieth century. In terms of the distribution of wealth and income, America in the 1950s and 1960s was more egalitarian than it had been in more than a century… [T]hose same decades were also the high point of social connectedness and civic engagement. Record highs in equality and social capital coincided. Conversely, the last third of the twentieth century was a time of growing inequality and eroding social capital… The timing of the two trends is striking: somewhere around 1965-70 America reversed course and started becoming both less just economically and less well connected socially and politically. (Putnam 2000 pp 359)
one possibility--which I personally believe--is that the conservative take-over of the Republican party began to drive a wedge and increase partisanship. You see a turn away from investment in infrastrucuture economically and a push to use philosophical agenda's over compromise.
Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean's recent book "Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches." dealt with this issue more indepth.
hmmmmm
sounds about right.
Post a Comment