3 ms·
To some extent that disparity is fine- it's the basis of capitalism. But as wealth disparity becomes higher, you have to work extra hard to ensure that poor peo
by brianpgordon 13y ago
To some extent that disparity is fine- it's the basis of capitalism. But as wealth disparity becomes higher, you have to work extra hard to ensure that poor people have the opportunity to be successful and not become trapped in the underclass. This means health - both mental (maternity/paternity leave) and physical (free healthcare) - and free good (i.e. not underfunded inner-city) education up through undergrad. This also includes welfare to help people with poor financial security to get back on their feet after a crisis.
Unfortunately, we're doing the opposite: the more power the upper class accumulates, the more it tries to cut such programs, because they personally wouldn't benefit. This is where the problem lies as I see it. The rich very rationally use their massive influence in government (cf Citizens United) to stay rich by passing tax cuts and reducing entitlement spending, while the majority of Americans get the shaft. And because of the two-party system and tactical voting, there's nothing we can do about it at the voting booth.
- johngalt 13y agoWhen is the last time entitlement spending went down in aggregate? Any 'cuts' I've seen have been merely been reducing the rate of automatic growth. Clarification Edit: You made the assertion that entitlement spending is being cut by the influence of the 1%. I'm asking for where this has been the case. Vague allusions to population growth, college costs and inflation aren't sufficient. Growing college costs could even be indicative of an increase in entitlements.
- brianpgordon 13y agoReally? Well, the underlying population is growing, college is getting more expensive, inflation is making money worth less.. are you sure that they're not actually cuts per unit benefit?