Half in Ten
This morning, John Edwards did the media tour and I watched him on Morning Joe. Ostensibly, he was on to talk about his new program, 50 in 10, designed to cut poverty in half over the next ten years. He was also coy about who he'd vote for, though I think it was fairly obvious that it was Barack Obama as he said he was most likely going to endorse the person he voted for, and that Barack Obama was most likely going to win the nomination.
But as for his plan, it is interesting, because Jim Wallis put this question to Barack Obama in CNN's "Compassion Forum" last month:
Wallace: So in the faith community, we are wanting a new commitment around a measurable goal, something like cutting poverty in half in 10 years. Would you commit -- would you at this historic compassion forum, commit to such a goal tonight and if elected, tell us how you'd mobilize the nation, mobilize us to achieve that goal?
Obama: Well, first of all, Jim, I appreciate the good work you've been doing on these issues. And I absolutely will make that commitment. Understand that when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is a very ambitious goal. And we're going to have to mobilize our society, not just to cut poverty, but to prevent more people from slipping into poverty.
You know, this actually goes back to the earlier point you raised where Senator Clinton suggested I was being elitist when I said that people are frustrated and bitter. That is absolutely true. That's not just true in small towns. That's true in urban areas. That's true in my community of the South Side of Chicago. Because people feel forgotten. They feel as if nobody is listening in Washington.
Now, I think its all peaches and sunshine to have a goal like this...though I don't think its realistic at all. I think we can continue to alleviate the negative conditions associated with poverty; poor health care, poor nutrition, poor education...but simply put, there will always be a fairly large segment of the population, in a capitalist system, that makes little money. Until technological advances make the Capitalist system antiquated, this will always be a reality.
6 comments:
How 'bout this Sean: Families headed by single females are 5 times as likely to be in poverty as other families. It ain't capatilism Jack. Capatilism implies inequality of income but not inadequate health care, education, and thug infested neighborhoods.
Best short essay on poverty: What so bad about being poor? by Charles Murray.
Martin,
As I said, we can alleviate the conditions equated with those who live below the poverty line in terms of income, but "poverty" will always exist.
What is "poverty" and why will it always exist? Not a rhetorical question.
poverty is defined as being below a certain income or net worth line. Looking globably, there are not really many poor people in America.
Poverty will always exist because some people will have more than other people. Politicians will use this descrepancy as the reason to institute certain policies in an effort to "fix" this situation. If you think the war on terror has been a failure, how would you rate the Democrats war on poverty?
True. Relatively speaking there are not many poor people in America, but in many ways it is worse to be poor in America than being poor someplace else. That's the essence of Charles Murray's essay written I think in 1982... really thought provoking.
runescape money runescape gold tibia item tibia gold runescape accounts tibia money runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia item buy runescape money runescape items tibia money
Post a Comment