Does income inequality decrease opportunity? Debate

I am a constitutionalist and therefore want to abolish the department education and every other unconstitituonal agency. Education should be controlled by the states as per the 10th amendment because there is no constittuional authorization for the feds to regulate education. The states were supposed to be laboratories of experimenantation where they try things and learn from eachothers mistakes. Alll we get is too much centralized control. The feds are hawking common core standards because big money players are lobbing them to promote it. The states should be in charge of education. GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION I SAY.

no question you are exactly right. don't forget about the the colleges too. they are cooking the books for the athletes. I don't believe more federal government control (or any federal government control for that matter) is the answer to that problem. the feds can't do anything right. At least most states get some things right. The feds can't even take your money (social security) and hold onto it for some time then give it back to you. They even screwed that up.

 

But that is the whole point of the thread, that there is less opportunities for the very poor compared to the very rich.

 

I believe the right is merely engaging in propaganda and rhetoric regarding Constitutionalism. Only the right would abolish an allegedly unconstitutional education department, while not complaining about our extra constitutional wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

Any sane person should resort to that as a final solution.

 

That boat done sailed. If you support either of the corporate owned parties you can forget that ever happening. It would be a great improvement over what has morphed into total incompetence, but it has morphed that way because our government has become bought and paid for. You want to fix government and bring it back to it's original intent, stop voting/supporting the two party scam. Republicans and democrats are not the answer, they are the problem.

I agree to a point. Government shouldn't be the answer, it should be a supportive unit, that allows ideas to create solutions. The problem is the people who run the government don't want to support, they want to dictate.

 

Two major, real world causes of a growth in disparity.

One, the top dogs keep more instead of less, which takes away from the wages paid to workers.

Two, a change in economic models. An example here is seen currently, which happened over several decades. Offshoring jobs to increase profits for the top dogs, and automation replacing the workers on those companies that remained here.

It was so much easier to move up the ladder to the lower middle class years ago, for manufacturing served as a ladder to climb out of poverty. I saw many do just that. We got rid of most of that, by offshoring and automation. Now, if you want to move up the ladder from poverty, you have to take on great debt which you will be a slave to for most of the rest of your life, and you cannot declare bankruptcy to get rid of it, if you get into dire straits. So, they got you by the balls. This system only serves the top dogs. And this is the way a Corporate State operates.

While the conservative voter on this board may not agree with a Corporate State, that is exactly what your party gave us, beginning in 1981. The dems joined in during Clinton's terms, enough of them. committing treason upon the working people, just so they could sidle up to the trough of the big money from banksters and MNCs. That is exactly what happened. You may of course live in denial for the rest of you life, but that will not change facts.

 

You can't change what the Constittuion says by just ignoring it. The right ignores the constitution jsut as much as the left. YOu have to go way to the right to find anybody who cares about obeying the conttiution.

The way to fix our problems is to return to constitional governemnt. Education is just one example of many. congress is supposed to be performing its constitiional duites not delegating them to unelected beaucrats in the exective so they have lost all control. The federal reserve is unconstitional. our military structure is unconstitutional. regarding your point on the unconstitituonal wars, they never would have happened if we had a constitutonal miliatry (i.e., a permanent full time Navy, states militia and no standing army).

 

I agree. Read my signature line. The root cause of this two party unconstituional problem is the constituionally ingnorant voters. We do get the politicians we deserve.

 

Where does it say an education department is unnecessary or improper in order to fix Standards according to the weights and measures established and observed?

In that same manner, where are the terms, common Offense or general Warfare to be found?

 

You are exactly right.

I would add that EVERYBODY CAN'T MOVE UP THE LADDER. SOMEONE HAS TO STAY AT THE BOTTOM TO DO THE WORK. So what is important then is what you said, that the top dogs keep more instead of less.

 

I would say the top dogs keep less so that the people who make their fortunes might thrive a helluva lot better. But I see them keeping more, as exploitation of other people, who cannot go elsewhere to find a job. For all of the top dogs exploit. SO the worker just plays musical chairs, never getting better off, for the top are all the same. This would create far less disparity in income. And the middle class would pay taxes again. Like they used to do when the middle was prosperous and large.

Cons gripe about the top dogs paying most of the taxes, but that happened because they took 60 percent of the middles income from 1981 til today. LOL.

 

I don't want to derail this thread or get my posts deleted so briefly:

- constittion lists the duties of congress in article I.
- those duties not specifically listed are to be performed by teh states or the poeople per the 10th amendment
-education is not listed in article I as a duty of congress
-section 8 of article I defines the constitional military, says congress shall provide for and maintain (empasis mine) a navy, and shall raise (emphaisis mine) (ie not maintain) an army and fund it for a max of 2 years. Do you realize how hard it would be to recruit and raise an army for the purposes of giving a bunch of goat herders democracy? wouldn't happen. nobody would join. folks join the military to protect the usa not to die trying to give freedom to throat cutters. section 8 says that the militia shall be used for executing laws, suppressing insurrections and repellling invasions (ie domestic purposes not fighting in iraq like they (the national guard did)
-earlier in section 8 of artilce I you find the requirement of congress to regulate the value of and coin money. doesn't say to delegate it to the fed.

read it for yourself... slowly. it takes awhile to get it.

 

Gates isn't merely "very rich". He's the richest person in the world. Not a good representation of the average "very rich" person. No one that is the farthest point on the bell curve is representative of anyone else on the curve.

In a comparison between a representative poor person and a representative rich person, say the poor person's income is in the 10th percentile and the rich persons is in the 90th percentile. In that case the primary difference at all attributable to income is that the rich kid can opt out of the public school and the poor kid can't. If the government reformed the education system to allow the kid to go to the school of his choice and let the money follow the kid that disparity would be removed. That means it isn't the income disparity per se that is the cause of the difference, it is the government.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed.

 

My only disagreement with what you've said here is that you seem to think it contradicts what I said. To reiterate, if a child with illiterate, drunk and uncaring parents goes to a school that helps them reach their potential and shows them they have as much opportunity as anyone else, the limitations imposed by a poor home life can be overcome. That doesn't mean those limitations will be overcome but the kid will have a much better chance than he otherwise would.

Its also worth noting that in a family of drunk, uncaring illiterates, the lack of opportunity is more likely a result of the parents than income inequality. Of course the income inequality is also likely a result of the parents being drunk, uncaring illiterates as well.

 

dude, our federal Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

You are generally right but I wouldn't they ALL do it, but certainly most do. I personally wouldn't use the word "exploit". I know I'm being picky but people accept the wages they are offerred with free will. The word "exploit" fosters hate and discontent and class warfare which I don't like. Wages are not so low that they expoit anybody because minimum wage was not intended to support a family. My first job I got $3.10/hr - minimum wage in 1984. I was a teenager and had all the money I ever needed.

I prefer to describe it as the business exec's don't share the success of the company with the working class of the company. I say this because when times are good and profits are up, the workers should benefit too. but they/we never do. But when times are bad, or business is bad, or the economy is bad, it shouldn't be frowned upon if the company has to cut back in some manner.

 

Read the consttiution for yourself and stop listening to the leftists or the right wingers. You can also read the federalist papers for insight into what the founders where thinking. You will be amazed. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, if alive, would not recognize the country they created.

 

dude, our federal Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

Right. And congress doesn't do any of that. They delegated their constitutional duties to government agencies that belong to the EXECUTIVE branch. The IRS does the tax collecting not congress. Who appoints the heads of these government agencies? the president does. Who appointed the head of the IRS? Obama did. Who does the IRS work for? Obama. See the IRS scandal where the IRS gave congress the middle finger.

Who coins and regulates the value of money as directed as a duty of congress in article I section 8? The federal reserve does, not congress. That is why the fed chairman has congressional presentations every so often. What happens at those congressional presentations? The fed chairman blames congress for spending too much and the congress blames the fed chairmen for the bad economy and inflation. The fed regulates the value of money with what is called open market operations (buying or selling bonds to decrease or increase the money supply). Congress HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE FED. So it is apparent that CONGRESS HAS NO CONTROL over the regulation of the value of money.

regarding common defense, article I section 8 clearly identifies the details of the structure of the military is to be. States militias for DOMESTIC uses, permanant navy. No standing army. You only have to "raise" an army as the constitition says if one doesnt previously exist.

google "constitition standing army james madison' or something similar and see what you get. The founders knew that a standing army would lead to despotism. president obola proved it himself when he was quoted on camera saying something like "whats the point to having the worlds most powerful army if you don't use it once in a while". That is how the elitists think they do not think about the individuals in the army who would never volunteer to die in iraq to bring democracy to goat herders.

stop listening to the neocons and the rush limbaughs, think for yourself, do some more research and you will be amazed at what you find.

 

Yes, you have impeccable logic here, because income inequality means that "if you aren't rich, you can't afford food and your parents are always arguing". This inherently assumes that income inequality means "more poor people", when in fact, income inequality simply means a larger gap between the rich and the poor. All societies have poor people, that is just an inevitability. However, in countries that tend to have more freedom, the quality of the lives of the poor are much better. In addition, your comment about bad schooling is a problem with the government run school system, not income inequality, although I must concede that thanks to the awful government run education system, people in poor areas tend to get forced into bad schools (by the government) because the government doesn't give them a choice. Maybe if you gave kids the choice of what school to go to, this problem wouldn't exist. Your argument is a complete red herring "income inequality is bad...because of the schooling that poor people get". What does education and income inequality have to do with each other other than the fact that the government doesn't give kids in poor neighborhoods the choice or opportunity to go to a school they want to? You also don't seem to understand how public education works, we DO NOT have free will when it comes to education, often times we must go to whatever school is in our district, and unfortunately this is decided by where you live, which tends to mean that wealthier neighborhoods have better schools. Again, this is a fault of the way public education works, NOT the distribution of wealth.

Why do kids join gangs? Well this often has to do with the fact that they can't get any kind of decent education at the school they go to, and then to add insult to injury, the government takes away the only thing they can bargain with to get a job, their wage, with a high minimum wage. This leads them to make money in the best way possible, selling drugs, which they wouldn't be able to do if drugs were legalized and regulated. Again, this has nothing to do with income inequality, but you don't seem to really care about talking about income inequality anyways, so I'm just addressing your comments about it.

 

Its about opportunity. Coercion has nothing to do with it.

the US is not as much a land of opportunity as many of you think.

its better than a lot of other places, but if you are poor in the US you are more likely to remain so, than if you are poor in Canada ...

 

Seriously, you didn't t get what I said. You can show the child the opportunities, but if his language development is impoverished, his social skills ars inadequate, his emotional state is in tatters and he just doesn't grasp what it is that he needs to do, he probably needs a completely different type of schooling environment.

best you use early interventionist approaches that can prepare a child for school in the first place.

 

some on the left believe their is no implicit delegation of wartime social Powers, without wartime taxes as that market based metric regarding the exigency, under our form of Capitalism regardless of the socialism enumerated, and ordained and established by our Founding Fathers in our social contract and supreme (social) law of the land.

 

No, I got what you said. I never suggested that an individual child with language development problems wouldn't have difficulties. I said children in a generally unfavorable home environment will do better in a private school than they will in a public school. You're speaking to a specific circumstance while I'm making a more general statement about a population. Using the term "a child" or "the kid" is representative of the population in question, not a reference to a specific child. Even so, are you saying that the specific child with the specific language development impoverishment you reference wouldn't do better in a private school than he would in a public school?

 

Opportunity is irrelevant. You are not entitled to benefit off the labor of others.

If you cannot provide opportunity for yourself, and others are not coercing you to prevent this - you do not deserve it. Go find someone willing to give up their property, fix your life, or go without.