I think the true structural issues are broader and deeper, and that they include some things that are beyond human control. (I know in this age of human willfulness that this will be an unpopular, if not apostate point-of-view). There are many well-intentioned people who are just wrong about what policies will actually work to alleviate poverty, and many well-intentioned policies that assuage the guilt of the policy-makers and their supporters but do not achieve the desired result.

There is also a of hopefulness that good intentions can overturn Nature’s limitations, in the face of clear evidence that only so much can be achieved. For instance, you can’t take a person of limited intellectual capacity, based on genetic potential, send them through an education system focused on college preparation, water down testing standards and college admissions so that that person can be admitted to college, and expect anything other than high dropout rates at the secondary and college level.

There has got to be a better understanding of what is possible for that person, and what path would take that person’s gifts, whatever they may be, and find a way for those gifts to contribute to society.

The biggest welfare queens are ADM and Cargill.

We need to return vast tracts of abandoned land in urban areas to farming produce, with youth employment/ intervention programs aligned. Also reduces urban heat island effect.

The least wealthy 60 percent of Americans have less than 5 percent of the wealth in the U.S. but pay more than 14 percent of federal taxes.

The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent have over 38 percent of the wealth and pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes. These households have an average wealth of $10.2 million and pay only 3.5 percent of their wealth in taxes. By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes.
If all taxpayers paid the same 10.5 percent of their wealth in taxes as median income families pay, the taxes of the lowest 40 percent would be cut by 94 percent while the taxes of the wealthiest would triple.

*Source: Congressional Budget Office and United for a Fair Economy

It’s a shame that wealth is so unfairly concentrated in this country. It’s a shame that the wealthiest are the largest beneficiaries of tax dollars. It’s a shame that we let this happen. The poor are obese because the cheapest foods are dense in calories. Fresh vegetables and fruits are hideously expensive, and out of reach to the poor. Is the overall standard of living better than it was 60 years ago? Probably, but it’s depressing when we have millions of uninsured or underinsured but can talk about using tax dollars to pay for palaces for the rich (sports stadiums, convention centers) that return little to the community. I actually would have preferred that our tax money went to build a convention center instead of Cleveland Browns stadium, which benefits nobody but the team owners and the people who can afford to buy tickets, and should really be renamed “Taxpayers Stadium.” You do realize that lifting the people who occupy the bottom rung of the socioeconomic scale will improve the economy as a whole, since two thirds of our economy is consumer driven. If we have a bottom half with less purchasing power, it weakens those in the top half as well. And make no mistake, real wages have declined the past 8 years. In fact, it was the first time in history that real wages declined despite an exapnsion (although er are now in recession, so wages will look even worse when the data are reported).

We’ll have to disagree on what constitutes an education. If learning from a Nobel Prize winner isn’t an education, then I don’t know what is (short of enrolling in a class that he teaches). If reading Ben Stein, a self admitted conservative, isn’t opening myself to a different philosophy, then I don’t know what is.

Reading Stein and Krugman is not an education. It’s an exercise in reinforcing beliefs you already hold. Read Arthur Laffer if you want to learn something new. He has a Ph.D., too, though I don’t hold it that academic credentials necessarily make someone worth believing.

As far as educating myself, I’m way ahead of you there. I religiously read Ben Stein and Paul Krugman. Krugman has a PhD from MIT and recently won the Nobel prize in economics. I learn much from this enlightened individual, who 2 to 3 years ago successfully predicted the financial collapse based on the housing bubble. He has a great track record. Both he and Stein agree that the wealthy in this country are undertaxed, and Stein is a Republican. J Murray, when your credentials are the equal of Krugman’s, I’ll respect your opinion equally.