We constantly hear the monotonous refrain from the right that now is not the time to raise taxes, even for the richest Americans, citing that this will somehow threaten the weak and halting recovery. Yet a composite number of 59% of the American people either favor the expiration of tax cuts for the wealthiest or a roll back of the Bush era tax cuts entirely as per the latest Gallup Poll. But oddly enough, it’s not just the folks on Main Street who feel this way; it’s also the sentiment of a few prominent thinkers on the right hand side of the political spectrum.
Take former Reagan OMB Director and economist David Stockman for example. He has emphatically been critical of the gains made by the richest Americans of late: “I find it unconscionable that the Republican leadership, faced with a 1.5 trillion deficit, could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2 percent of the population who, after all, have benefited enormously from this phony boom we’ve had over the last 10 years as a result of the casino on Wall Street.” Stockman reinforced this point a few days later in an article entitled Four Deformations of the Apocalypse: “It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans – paid mainly from the Wall Street casino – received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent – mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy – got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.” Not to be missed is the opinion of Alan Greenspan who likewise has been critical of the G.O.P’s stance on eliminating tax breaks for those who need them the least. To wit: “Now Mr. Greenspan is wading into the most fierce economic policy debate in Washington – what to do with the tax cuts adopted, in large part because of his implicit backing, under President George W. Bush – with a position not only contrary to Republican orthodoxy, but decidedly to the left of President Obama. … Asked whether higher taxes in 2011 could choke off the nascent recovery, Mr. Greenspan replied: “It is risky, but the choice of not doing it is far riskier.”
Taking the above into consideration the next question is: Will it be a winning strategy for the G.O.P. to continue to support tax breaks for the richest Americans when the support for that policy is not supported by a majority of those polled? In the long haul, I believe it’s a losing proposition for the G.O.P. to carry on about the well being of a relatively few in our society when so many are still having such a difficult time. There’s also the undeniable element of partisan politics in all of this. One can only ask the following question: If the leadership of the Republican Party is so up in arms over the Obama Administration’s proposal to adjust the tax level of the richest Americans back to levels in effect during the Clinton Administration, then were was their opposition to Ronald Reagan who presided over tax rates that were higher during his administration than those in existence during the Clinton Administration? Well, you can bet your bottom dollar that this is one discussion that neither Mitch McConnell nor John Boehner is going to be too anxious to have on the Sunday morning talk show circuit.
Steven J. Gulitti
9/10/10
Sources
Americans OK Allowing Tax Cuts for Wealthy to Expire; http://www.gallup.com/poll/142…
Stockman: Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt; http://www.npr.org/templates/s…
Four Deformations of the Apocalypse; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…
Greenspan Calls for Repeal of All the Bush Tax Cuts ; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…
I do want to take issue with one point:
<
p>
<
p>True, the market is allowed to behave destructively because of bad economic policy, however, they can’t be absolved of blame. These people have a mind, and they must know that destroying the lives around them will eventually destroy their own. Our country is an interconnected community. We all support and sustain each other. The farmers, roofers, and teachers are just as, if not more important than the financiers and CEO’s. We are an ecosystem. A fragile one at that. It’s obvious that Wall Street cannot be trusted to contribute to and support our fragile ecosystem. If we are going to survive, it’s time to get out the pesticide, or at the very least, the rodent deterrent.
but the environmental ecosystem applies here too.
The problem is, when we have two choices put in front of us, with the only clear information being the price, we will pick the cheapest option nearly every time.
<
p>When you see two identical wrenches in front of you, one is $5 and the other is $8, which will you buy?
<
p>Maybe one says “Made in USA” and the other says “Made in China”, but that won’t make most people change their minds.
<
p>When you realize that one was made in Springfield at Danaher Tools, and you know some guys who worked there, guys who come into your own shop, maybe that would help you decide.
<
p>And if you knew that the wrench factory in China employs 14-year old workers who work 7-day weeks, 15-hour days, and has a long history of people being killed, and spews its toxins into China’s rivers, causing birth defects, maybe that would help you decide..
<
p>And if you knew that the Chinese wrench would break in a year, but the US-made wrench would be just fine 20 years later, maybe that would help you decide.
<
p>But you don’t have that information. You see two choices — $5 or $8. Pick one.
<
p>And many times, you won’t even get the $8 choice, because the accountants for the big box store owner have told it to put more $5 wrenches out because those sell more.
<
p>That is why we have a growing gap — because as the wrench manufacturing moves to China, the living-wage jobs disappear, and the executives give themselves bonuses for “cost savings”.
By using the phrase “tax cuts for the rich”. CMD destroyed this concept in an earlier thread and I’m not sure I can really add much to what he said.
since its a huge thread I linked to:
<
p>
<
p>and a bit more
<
p>
<
p>How do you like them apples, CMD!
<
p>We already have 1,001 with a financial input into the system. No-one is asking for that “1” to carry all of the weight. The problem is that 1,000 pay a far greater percentage of their income and wealth so that “1” doesn’t have to.
Most income tax comes from the highest income earners for that year. Anyway we don’t know if these people are wealthy, they just had higher incomes. There are many wealthy people who don’t get money classified as income and therefore don’t pay income taxes. The government really doesn’t know anything about your personal wealth.
The “bottom 40% pay no income tax at all” because they have no money.
<
p>Whether or not we know about the extent of the wealth of the upper 5% of the income bracket, we know that the bottom 40% are not wealthy.
<
p>The government has enough knowledge of personal wealth to know how to value and tax your personal estate when you die.
<
p>The current government, dominated by the wealthy and powerful, chooses to leave the bulk of that personal wealth untaxed at death — even while strangling the lower and middle classes with income taxes, consumption taxes, fees, reduced or eliminated necessary services, and a collapsed economy.
<
p>In my view, the holders of 36% of the wealth should pay approximately 36% of the cost of sustaining effective government. Doing that would give an immediate raise, in take-home net income, to every wage earner. That, in turn, puts more money in circulation and stimulates the economy.
<
p>It is the extreme concentration of finite wealth in the hands and pockets of a tiny handful of our citizens that has removed that wealth from everyone else.
<
p>That is the problem that effective government must, sooner or later, solve.
Annuities, trusts, municipal bonds, and so on. The 40% is likely comprised of a mix of no- and lots- of money. My gut estimate would be about 35-35 percent of the 40 is no money, and the rest is lots.
<
p>And please note – wealth and income are not interchangeable terms. Some of your 36% of wealth holders still pay no income ax.
I fear you miss the statistical point.
<
p>The question is “What portion of those who pay no income tax are wealthy?”
<
p>The truly wealthy comprise about 2% of the population. Even if NONE of them paid ANY income tax, they are unlikely to be a measurable part of those who pay no income tax.
<
p>The claim was “bottom 40% pay no income tax at all”.
<
p>Take “40%” of the population who allegedly “pay no income tax at all”. How can 2% of the population possibly be a significant portion of that 40%?
<
p>If the population was 1,000 people, then 20 of them are “truly wealthy” (top 2%). The bottom 40% is comprised of 400 people.
<
p>Even if NONE of the top 2% paid any income tax, we are still looking at 20 of 400 people — 5%.
<
p>No matter how rapidly you wave your hands, you cannot hide the incredible disparity of 1.6% of the population holding 36% of the wealth.
You forget the context of the above comments:
<
p>Since you seem to be resurrecting cherry-picked portions of a lengthy thread, it seems appropriate to provide more context of CMD’s second quote — so that I can respond to it here:
BrooklineTom:
<
p>CentralMassDad:
<
p>Most of us don’t have a $100M portfolio from which can take a tiny $100K loan in order to purchase another security (or boat, or vacation home). It’s not surprising, therefore, that we misunderstand how the game works.
<
p>CMD is simply mistaken when he writes “Buying an asset with debt doesn’t increase wealth, because the value of the asset is offset by the liability”. He is mistaken because the holder of the asset still receives gain from the asset, even though it has been used as collateral for another asset. When the market goes up (or down), the value of the pledged shares still increases (or decreases). As soon as the market has gone up by one percent, the loan is effectively paid — and meanwhile the new asset is increasing in value as well.
<
p>In short, I’m not sure that even CMD would agree that he has “demolished” the “concept” of “tax cuts for the rich.”
<
p>While 1.6% of the households in Massachusetts hold 36% of the wealth in Massachusetts, the remainder will never be able to adequately sustain the costs of effective government in Massachusetts — the bulk of the remainder will not be able to sustain even the costs of everyday life.
<
p>That is the reality that the GOP refuses to admit.
<
p>
<
p>One way to equalize this is to try to tax wealth.
<
p>Another way to do it is to boost the earning and wealth-gathering power of the other 98%.
<
p>One way expands the pie and the other does not.
Excuse me, but I believe you have it exactly backwards.
<
p>It does no good to “boost the earning and wealth-gathering power of the other 98%” when there is no wealth to gather — at the present, that wealth is safely locked inside the walled compounds of the top 2%.
<
p>Consumption is roughly proportional to head-count — a wealthy person eats about as much food as a poor person. Each of the wealthy might buy even five times or ten times as much goods and services as the rest of us — at ten-x, the top 1-2% of households are still able put only about 10-20% of their wealth into circulation, yet they hold 36% of the wealth.
<
p>Most of the wealth, therefore, lies frozen in stacks of assets that nobody else has access to. It doesn’t expand anybody’s pie.
<
p>Conversely, if a portion of that same wealth were taxed and then, one way or another, put into the hands of the remaining 98.4% of the population, a great deal more of it would actually circulate — and that is how the “pie” is expanded.
Your answer shows no understanding of how the economy grew even to this point and that makes it impossible for you to present a convincing case for the economy of the future.
<
p>If all wealth was ipods, and the top 2% have all the ipods, would you tax away their ipods? Guess what there would never be a new model of the ipod.
<
p>I educate the other 98%, and also give them access to working capital so they can raise their wages and salaries. I open up avenues for their goods or services which are now closed. Now the other 98% have ipods too… where did that wealth come from?
If all wealth was ipods, and the top 2% have all the ipods, then the rest of us wouldn’t know what an ipod was.
<
p>We wouldn’t know how to use it, we wouldn’t know or care about the short-comings of the current model or the advantages of the new model.
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>You mean you’ll let them borrow ipods? What is “working capital”, wages, or salaries in a world were all wealth is ipods?
<
p>Here is your proposed formula, as I understand it:
<
p>
<
p>Your claim is, apparently, that these three steps will result in everybody having ipods.
<
p>I challenge several aspects of this, as follows.
<
p>Your step two reflects a naivete about how capital markets work. Those who hold the “working capital” (wealth) share it only under terms that, like every profitable gambling operation, ultimately work to the benefit of “the house”. Most of the people who play will lose. Most of the financial gain will ultimately go to the current holders of the working capital. A few individuals may benefit, but the overall distribution of the wealth will not change.
<
p>Your step three, as presented, reflects magical thinking. You have not only not explained how you “open up avenues for their goods and services”, but this step assumes the very outcome you are attempting to accomplish. I’m reminding of Dr. Feynman’s famous problem-solving formula: (1) write down the problem (2) think very hard (3) write down the answer.
<
p>You offer more magical thinking when you state that “Now the other 98% have ipods too…” You haven’t explained how your proposed steps bring about your claimed result.
<
p>In order for an economy to create wealth, the wealth that exists in the economy must be distributed widely enough among the population that there is a reason for money to be exchanged and a reason to create new goods and services.
<
p>I really encourage you to read Lazlo Barabasis’ very accessible book about scale-free networks. He calls it the “winner take all” effect that results from a network formation model where the likelihood of a node attracting new nodes is proportional to the number of nodes it already has. A website with lots of links is more likely to get a link to a new website than a site with only a few. The financial network has a similar model.
<
p>We learned (although we seem to have forgotten it recently) that a monopoly or oligopoly is terribly destructive to a healthy market — that’s why good government works hard and effectively to prevent such outcomes.
<
p>Sadly, too many of us fail to see that the same principle is true for personal and household wealth.
I see your point about investing but it doesn’t actually work that way. Yes investors get lots of money out, maybe more than we think they deserve. But they are risking their capital, which is the same as anybody working at a startup and putting in extra time for no pay on the theory that their stock options will pay off. Their capital is time, energy, ideas etc, the investor’s is money. Both deserve some reward.
<
p>Some investors put money into Apple to develop a new product. Don’t the people at Apple make money too?
<
p>And how exactly is taxing out the wealth, to then put it into government services, really going to result in all this growth? Huge amounts are wasted in education already, on building new schools and knocking down the old ones. How much of race to the top for instance is actually going to help kids learn and how much is just skimmed off, justified as stimulus?
We don’t know how much investment comes from these higher income people. We have seen many politicians take credit for investing government money in local projects, from infrastructure to flavor-of-the-month businesses. If it’s good for the government to do it, why then are we discouraging the semi-wealthy from doing it? It’s more important to get more investment wherever the money comes from.
David Stockman was never a real supply-sider, he was a budget freak, and austerity pusher (read higher taxes). His opposition means nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…
The guy has made a career on getting fired, what in 1983?
Increasing taxes isn’t going to have a big effect on high income wage earners such as Tom Hanks, Tom Brady etc. But the majority of small businesses in this country who are mostly organized as “S” Corporations will see their taxes go up.
<
p>This will effect employment negatively. Because these companies operate on a accrual basis – they have to pay taxes on income and asset that that they haven’t received. The tax increase will put some businesses on the margin under and effect all of the profitable ones negatively. Great way to improve the employment market.
<
p>
I’ve run an S-corp and I’ve run an LLC. I know how the tax code works.
<
p>If they operate on an accrual basis, it’s because they choose to do so. Wages are tax deductible, as are all the other business expenses, for an S-Corp or LLC. If anything, an increase in the tax rate applied to the income from the small business will encourage an owner to increase the number of employees — it raises the deductible expenses of the business and reduces the amount of income subject to taxation.
<
p>Taxable income received by the owner(s) of an S-corp or LLC is no different from any other taxable income. Increases in the tax rate applied to that income aren’t going to change any significant aspect of operating a small business. It will, instead, increase the amount of taxes that the business owners pay on their income from that business.
<
p>Well-managed businesses expand and contract their workforce based on market opportunities, not taxes. Business owners hire people because the new hires expand their revenues. The best way to improve the employment market is to put more money in the hands of consumers — thirty years of right-wing tax policy has demonstrated, again, that tax cuts for the wealthy have the opposite effect. The evidence of that is all around us for any who will open their eyes and see.
<
p>This claimed connection between small business tax rate and employment is malarky.
“Taxable income received by the owner(s) of an S-corp or LLC is no different from any other taxable income”
<
p>This is not correct, increases in WIP, capital equipment and in particular inventory all result in “phantom profit” without a corresponding increase in cash to pay taxes on this “phantom profit”. I work in a manufacturing firm and we have to borrow money on occasion to pay taxes on our “phantom profit”. The “phantom profit” rolls onto your tax return as income, but the cash doesn’t.
<
p>As an example if your inventory increases 200K from the prior year, this is considered profit/income and you are responsible for tax liability. Same thing applies to capital equipment above (250K) and work in process.
<
p>
If your firm is paying significant amounts of taxes on “phantom profit”, then your firm needs to re-examine how your firm is organized — perhaps, for example, it’s time for a chapter-C subsidiary that holds the capital equipment and inventory. Your firm does not pay taxes; the shareholders (if you are an S-corp) or members (if you are an LLC) pay taxes.
<
p>If your inventory has increased $200K from the prior year, then either your sales are down or you built too much.
<
p>Whatever problems are causing your inventory and taxes to climb (whether internal or external), lowering the income tax rate on the K1 income reported to your shareholders or members will not solve that problem, and it most certainly will not motivate you to hire more employees.
<
p>The only thing it will do is put more money in the personal bank accounts of your shareholders/members.
<
p>If you really don’t want to pay more taxes after the proposed expiration of the Bush tax cuts, then give your employees a raise — across the board. It won’t cost you any more than the contemplated tax increase (it’s a deductible expense), and will do a lot to help them in a down economy.
<
p>Finally, I think it’s worth saying — again — that your taxes have been low because then-President Bush gave you a gift, promising that the tax cuts you received would “grow the economy.” We all see, now, how well that worked out.
<
p>What happened then is what will happen if we keep your taxes low in the future — the economy will still suck and you’ll have a bit more money than your hapless and exploited employees.
explanations of economic theory and practice. For someone like me it is very enlightening. Thanks.
Lets just say that 200K in income from an increase in inventory flows to your tax return. How do you pay for the taxes due, when there has been no cash generated?
<
p>BTW, there is no golden pill or accounting mechanism to hide inventory as an asset, it’s there if you are running a legitimate business. The true value may be close to zero but you have to carry it as an asset. A “C” corp would just be responsible directly for the taxes (at one of the highest rates in the developed world).
<
p>
The short answer to your question is that you sell the inventory, or you borrow against its eventual sale. If the inventory loses value because it cannot be sold, then that loss eventually works to your (tax) benefit.
<
p>The purpose of running a C-corp and S-corp simultaneously is to use the C-Corp for aspects of your business that are currently not profitable and the S-corp for those that are.
<
p>It’s true that C-corp taxes are high; it’s also true that they are only paid on profit. So the heuristic is to develop your new business in your C-Corp, and as it becomes profitable, transfer that business to your S-Corp. Of course, you may want to use losses from your business to shield income from other sources — in which case, you do something different.
<
p>The point of all this is that reducing your personal income tax rate is not going to expand your business (otherwise our economy would be thriving at the moment), and increasing your personal income tax rate is not going to shrink it.
<
p>Hey Bob, what percentage of Americans wanted ObamaCare? Did BMG care how many Americans said NO to this moronic ObamaCare bill?
<
p>Hey Bob, how many Americans wanted the Arizona Immigration law to be enforced “as is”? Did BMG care how many Americans said YES to the law?
<
p>How many MA residents voted for rerendum peititions which passed but our legislators felt we “didn’t understand what we voted for” but BMG was happy about.
<
p>BMG doesn’t care what the “people’s will” is… unless of course that will is in line with what BMGers’ want.
<
p>Stop stealing people’s money and let the American dream continue where you can strive for wealth instead of sitting your ass and getting a handout!
<
p>Hmmm…sounds exactly what Wall Street’s been doing for quite some time now.
<
p>And it is now more difficult for individuals to rise and fall in America than it is in formerly aristocratic Europe.
<
p>You can thank right-wing policies for helping to undercut the American Dream.
10% unemployment means 90% employment (rough numbers here). Have you tried to buy a house lately… prices have come down but they are still very high. The middle class according to Obama and the Dems is under $250K… not bad.
<
p>The American dream can be had by those who try hard enough, make the right decisions in their life and don’t give up.
<
p>Let’s stop blaming everyone else for the sins of “all of us”. It’s just way too easy to blame Bush, the Republicans, Mitt… while you let Barney, Dodd, Obama, the Democratically controlled House since 2006 and all the voters who put these people in office and don’t hold them accountable (meaning they reelect them over and over even when they do a sucky job).
<
p>Wall St was getting awesome returns for people for a long time and everyone was loving it. 401Ks were growing, people were living way to large for their wallets, pulling equity out of their homes… but when it crashes they are pissed off. Too bad.
<
p>Obama better learn soon to stop belittling the “fat cat bankers” or he and the rest of our economy will be in the tank for the rest of his term. Bankers and CEO’s and people making over $250K are not evil and can survive anything he/you throw at them. We need them far more than they need us… wanna bet?
You’re second paragraph describes me pretty well. I’ve worked hard, made the right decisions, etc. Specifically I’m an Eagle Scout, earned a BA with three majors, earned a master’s degree, gotten a teaching license. I haven’t done anything stupid like have a child I can’t support or abused narcotics. I’m 32 and have been chronically underemployed. It’s a great theory and certainly is a valid contrast to the old ways where your station of birth legally bound you to that station for life. The reality is much more complicated and makes upward mobility much more difficult in practice. Really, it’s not for lack of trying; you need to not be so judgemental, especially during these economic times.
Surely 20, 50 or 100 years ago there were people doing many of the right things and didn’t get the brass ring. The economy haas hurt many people and the chances off the American Dream have dropped but I think there are still far more people getting it than missing it.
<
p>It does sound like you’ve done many of the right things and haven’t landed yet and for you, the Dream may be a myth. But for many other millions of Americans it is a dream come true.
You wrote (emphasis mine):
<
p>I suggest that current evidence suggests that this hasn’t been true in America since the 1980s. It is no accident that this inflection point in upward mobility coincides with the ascendancy of right-wing economic policy begun during the Reagan administration.
<
p>I call your attention to papers such as Opportunity in America: The Role of Education, Isabel Sawhill, Princeton/Brookings, or Understanding Mobility in America, Tom Hertz, American University (sadly, the PDF seems broken in the second link).
<
p>Ms. Sawhill writes (emphasis mine):
<
p>The data I’ve seen suggests strongly that for most Americans — especially most young or poor Americans — the “American Dream” is a myth, especially in comparison to their counterparts in Western European economies.
Here’s a good definition from James Truslow Adams…
<
p>
<
p>But maybe that is a little too philosophical.
<
p>Is it home ownership? Having enough money to raise a family? Is it being allowed to try to do anything? Some may say it is the freedom “to try” and not being told you can’t even try… while maybe you think it is succeeding in your achievements.
<
p>I am not trying to say life is wonderful for all Americans. I have 5 kids (8 through 26) and worry everyday how well they will do in the world ahead of us. I’ll say it again that 10% unemployment means 90% employment (in a country that says 5% unemployment is optimal). Millions of Americans are getting their mortgages refinanced to record low rates and savings hundreds of dollars every month. Individual savings is at an all time high. While there has been a correction to the housing market, more people own homes today than any other time in our history, in spite of all the foreclosures.
<
p>
<
p>All I am saying is Millions of American are living the American Dream today, but less than were doing it 18 months ago.
<
p>Which European countries have a better shot at the American Dream?
In your first comment, you summarized the American Dream this way:
<
p>Next, you offered this:
<
p>In your Adam’s quote, you offered this (emphasis mine):
<
p>I think that for most people, for most of American history, the phrase “American Dream” has meant the opportunity of a “rags to riches” story for each of us.
<
p>I believe the technical term for this is “social mobility” — the opportunity for a person born into the lowest economic group (such as income quintile) to end up in the highest economic group. The literature is, quite literally, full of data such as Structural rigidities in the US and Europe.
<
p>Here are figures 3 and 4 of this paper:
<
p>You asked:
<
p>If we agree that “rags to riches” is the essence of the “American Dream”, then the answer to your question is (based on the above data, in order of decreasing likelihood):
I think I’ve had a few of them.
<
p>So do all the crazy immigrants coming to America know about this? I mean we have people from all over the world coming to America when they should be going to Denmark, UK, Norway, Finland and/or Sweden.
I think I agree with you that the American Dream is the “rags to riches” story or “strive for wealth” as I called it. I then said the method for this (not giving up…) and I think Adam’s quote touched on many non-American countries having a class system which held people back from advancing which we don’t have.
<
p>I’m not going to argue with the data you have shown Tom, sounds pretty solid. But I am going to say I don’t care about the data you are showing. You or others can reply with snarks about “pesky facts…” America is still the place millions of people will start out with nothing and make it. They will start out in urban ghettos or dusty rural farmlands and eventually own the house, drive the car, have the kids, own the 52″ flat panel TV, have a 401K and enjoy life far more than their parents did.
<
p>You can concentrate on the ones who aren’t making it but I am happy that so many are making it. Times may seem worse in the middle of down times as I’m sure they did in previous recessions, but we bounce back. People have tried to bite off more than they can chew and are suffering the consequences. In that process they have taken down some innocent victims too.
<
p>We can disagree on this but the American Dream is alive and well and living in MA as well as every other state.
“I’ve already made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
…but I do tend to use the sins of Sodom standard and say if even five people who work hard and play by the rules can’t get ahead we need to look at how to remedy that. My idea of the American Dream is that it be more than just a “dream” for everybody. This isn’t hard. Europeans and Canadians take care of their own and in the decades immediately following WWII we did a better job of it ourselves than we do now. There are policies that can be put in place to keep jobs here and really encourage hiring. Tax credits, for example, based on real hiring and not just promises and a minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living and inflation, greater subsidies for higher ed and truly universal health care, are a few things that come to mind immediately. I’m not suggesting there’s a quick fix, especially in the fields I’m looking for work in, but I would be happy if people didn’t lecture and judge those of us who haven’t been as successful. I’m happy for those who have made it, but that shouldn’t mean that the rest of us have not through our own fault.
<
p>BTW, thank you to Brookline Tom for carrying the flag through this part of the thread.
<
p>The American Dream was not historically only available to those who made near-perfect life choices or those who had unusual fortitude. That is what set America apart — that you could come here from anywhere and could find employment, even if you were tired, poor, and huddled. People who could not make it in Europe came here and thrived.
<
p>Why do you suppose that is? Why were people poor in Europe and became successful here? Was there some kind of magical spell cast on them while they were in a boat? Or is it just possible that the economic system of the USA allowed them to prosper?
<
p>And might it just be possible that our economic system is what is causing the failure of so many people, just as Europe’s economic system was responsible for keeping so many people down in the 1800’s and early 1900’s?
…I’m having a hard time figuring out from this comment which side of the debate you come down on.