So, if you didn't already know, today is Blog Action Day, where bloggers around the world are rallying together to write about poverty from thousands of different perspectives. Every post today will focus on issues related to poverty and anti-poverty initiatives in the US and abroad.
I've got a lot to say on the issue, but first let's talk about what our presidential candidates are saying about it.
As I'm sure you know, the easiest way to find out what a candidate officially affirms on an issue is to go to their website and click on their "Issues" tab. So I perused the John McCain website for about 25 minutes last night, hoping to find something on his stance on poverty. 25 minutes. Far longer than I thought it would take to eventually find NOTHING on the subject. No subheading under issues, no blurb about it somewhere else (that I could find), nothing. That makes for a pretty unfairly biased argument against John McCain's poverty plan, because he doesn't have a publicly stated one. Maybe he is opening up his 11 other homes as soup kitchens and shelters? Probably not. It blows my mind that you could run a campaign without a poverty stance! Stunning, really. So, to give him the benefit of the doubt, that maybe I was just overlooking it, I googled "McCain poverty plan" only to find the first two hits reading something along the lines of "No Poverty Plan for McCain." Ouch. While I highly doubt that any of this will come up in the debate, I hope that it gets some air time before the election.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a comprehensive plan to combat poverty that has measures that include ensuring the well-being of our nation's veterans as well. His plan details the routes he would take to expand the EITC, to create Promise Neighborhoods in locations with extreme poverty, create jobs in new sectors in rural and urban locales, and to make a concerted effort to revitalize and rehabilitate Urban America in particular as it has been so dearly neglected in the past 8 years. Now, I thought I was going to be able to have a comparative discussion on the issue when I started out writing this post, but the fact of the matter is, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President seem to be the only way to make any sort of inroads in fighting poverty in the USA. This is the kind of economic policy we need; we need a plan that grows the overall pie of the economy and ensures fair(-er, everything in time) distribution of resources to our neglected underclass.
While the nuts and bolts of Obama's Economic plan (reducing taxes for 95% of working families) may not be 100% accurate, I feel that the larger picture of helping to redistribute wealth and easing the average citizen's burden can really help protect our image as a nation as well as protect the poorest among us. In the end, however, with a country with such great privilege, we should be doing more for each other to ensure equality (lofty, i know, but still true).
...But that's just my two cents. And you already know I'm all about change.
Posts
3 comments:
Poverty is a topic i could write on all day. I find it interesting. I took two classes in college on poverty. One of my teachers had a very radical view when it came to economics and politics. I don't completely agree with what whe believes but let me share soem of the things that I have learned. I haven't read any of the candidates proposals on how they will fight poverty. But look at everything that has happened recently with the economy and the global markets. The new bail out plan thats costing this country about one trillion dollars is coming from tax payers. Hav eyou listened to what the candidates are saying on the matter? Both have argued that this bail out plan will provide some relief to the middle class. Well what about the lower class? I havent heard much on what either candidate plans to so for the poor. I wish i had all the information from my classes so I can put up links, but I remember one article saying that the top percentage of the richest people in the world can fit into Yankees Stadium. So much of the world population, I believe over 60 percent fall into the lower class or even under the poverty line. This is ridiculous. Whats worse is that the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer. Big companies go into foreign lands and exploit foreign workers to do the most back breaking work and get paid close to nothing. Here in America, we have labor unions that pay men 25 an hour to do hard work as well. My friend works in one. He says they are suppose to work 8 hours days but basically get paid for an hour lunch, little break and get out 2 hours early. Yet they are still paid for working 8 hours. Is this fair? Even in our own country we notice that the concern os to always take care of the rich. Conservatives seem to think that our world works on a trickle down effect, where if we give more and more resources to those who already have them, like the wealthy, then that wealth will somehow trickle down the economic ladder to the middle class and lower class. Itss apparent even now. WIth the Bail out plan, workers who were laid off should receive reperartions for the actions of their CEO's. Instead, we find the CEO's of these companies getting 60 million dollars bonuses. So while consevatives argue that the people who are poor and lazy and didnt work hard enough to be more successful, what Can they say about the people who have put us in the worst economic crisis we have seen in years? its ok to not worry about the poor. they wil always be there. Instead, lets up out the people who cost many Americans their jobs, cost many young people their chances of finding jobs, and put this world into the worst economic crisis we have seen since the Great Depression, and reward them by giving them 60 million dollars bonuses. I didnt know it was the new thing for rewarding CEO's with millions when they mess up and screwing over everyone else. I wish I would get bonuses for when I mess up, i woul dbe straight up ballin right now.
Graham, while I agree with your post overall in terms of needing a plan to combat poverty, your graphs are completely disingenuous.
let's look at the second one.
the graph shows percent of social spending per gdp.
these are the gdp of the countries in millions.
13,843,825 us
2,772,570 uk
3,322,147 germany
2,560,255 france
455,319 sweden
after you multiply that by the percentages in the graph you get how much each country spend on social programs in the millions.
20488610 us
604420 uk
910268 germany
729672 france
136140 sweden
this of course would produce a very different looking graph. of course this graph is bullshit too because it doesn't take into account population or define social programs etc.
Well here's the thing about the graphs, and graphs in general. They are manipulated to make a point. And while your point is correct, I think that a graph like that would be much more misleading. Your graph doesn't take into account the percentage burden that each country has undertaken to combat poverty through "social programs".
I think this says a great deal about our nation's commitment to social programs, and therefore is not misleading. Just because they spend more money, apples-to-apples, doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't spend more to better provide to the poor.
The way the charts use percentages is really the only way to compare the nation's spending patterns, although there are obviously many more factors that go into it (such as government structure, and demographic information such as population like you said)
Post a Comment