The Racial Wealth Gap Is Not A Democratic Conspiracy

This Yahoo! article about the racial wealth gap caught my attention today; well, the article and, as always on Yahoo!, the comments following it.

I'm trying to figure out why so many people take offense whenever an article like this is written.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this article as "trying to incite race wars" or "making people hate whites". It is simply stating factual information and statistics, and explaining why those statistics are a problem.

It is an unfortunate fact that the wealth gap builds upon itself through generations. Is it possible to overcome poor roots to be successful? Of course it is. But if, on average, whites have more wealth than blacks and hispanics now, then, on average, that will continue to be true in future generations. It's simple math.

Of course there will be minorities that excel despite their background. There will be whites that struggle despite their background. There are always exceptions to the rule.

It seems that people really have a hard time understanding statistics. When someone mentions an "average", they are not saying that EVERY member of the group falls in line with that number. Averages are not conspiracies; just because someone doesn't want to hear the reality doesn't mean it isn't there. Yes, some people are content to use their background as an excuse to not work hard, not try hard. It happens, and it is not helpful to the debate. But the fact is that some people (from all races) just never get the opportunity to really succeed, and the poorer kids get fewer opportunities. This is the problem that keeps feeding itself; less money -> less opportunities -> less success -> less money.

So you see, it's just not as simple as "work hard and you can be successful as anyone". I believe that anyone has the ability to improve upon where they came from if they work hard; the thing is, sometimes the gap between starting points is so large that an improvement on an awful position is still far behind what anyone would consider truly successful.

All the people that are so quick to say things like "just save your money" or "well I know this one black guy who is rich, so this article is obviously liberal propaganda" should really step back, take a moment, and really think about this. Take off the political glasses; this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Poverty affects everyone in the country; everyone is quick to complain about "paying taxes so the poor don't have to work", but for some reason, everyone wants to dismiss the issue as if the answer is as simple as a kid putting coins in a piggy bank. I'd like to think that, if it were really that simple, people wouldn't be poor; believe it or not, an overwhelming majority of poor people have enough dignity that they would prefer to earn their own living instead of having to rely on government support.

Taxes Are Not Evil

This is addressed to all those conservatives who seem to think taxes are evil.
I actually wonder if the people who complain about paying taxes have any clue what they're talking about. How else is the government supposed to function? Funding for roads, schools, farms, Congress, etc., has to come from somewhere.

I'm not saying that many tax dollars aren't misused. There are a LOT of places where tax dollars could be used more effectively, and we should be actively trying to make sure the dollars are used in the best way possible. But "I don't like the way that dollar was used, therefore I shouldn't pay taxes at all" is NOT a valid argument. No person is ever going to agree with everything the government does, it just isn't possible. Get over it.

I see a lot of people who get angry with the "poor people" who get upset about rich people and companies dodging taxes. I saw someone comment that we "shouldn't get mad because the rich know how to play the game". These same people ridicule the poor for getting away with not paying taxes. This doesn't make sense to me; if you applaud the rich for doing whatever they can to avoid taxes, shouldn't you also have to applaud the woman who has 9 kids just to collect the government benefits and avoid paying taxes? I don't personally agree with either situation; I'm just saying it seems a bit hypocritical to support one and not the other.

Rich people seem to have such a hatred of the social programs. Some people misuse them, and we should do all we can to identify these people; however, the majority of people are on these programs because it is legitimately needed. Do you really believe that everyone who is on government assistance is "living the good life" without having to work? Is this REALLY how you envision the life of someone who is on public assistance? If so, I encourage you to visit a family who needs this help. I encourage you to try to live on the amount of money these people have to live on. There are many HARD working people who need assistance because their full-time job doesn't give them enough money to live on.

Furthermore, many "patriots" love to complain about how countries like North Korea, Russia, Cuba, etc. let their people starve because of the way their government operates. The comments, though, would seem to prefer that we do the exact same thing with our people here in the USA. I, frankly, would not stand for it. I don't live on public assistance; at the same time, I'm a student who works very hard to get by. The fact that I am more likely to give a couple bucks to a person in need than someone who makes millions of dollars a year is very saddening to me.

I find it amusing that these are the people who claim to be bigger "patriots" than everyone else. These are the people who claim to love America the most, who say that America is the best country on the planet. These are the people who say that the liberals and the Democrats are trying to destroy America. Yet, they'll leave the country and denounce their citizenship in a snap if it means saving a few bucks? I guess what they really mean is that they love America, as long as they, and ONLY they, can benefit from it. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable calling a country that lets its citizens and poor children starve to death the greatest country on the planet. And somehow, this is precisely what these people want. They just don't realize that if they let the poor and middle class all die off, their stream of income would stop. Whose hard work are you going to ride to the top if there isn't anyone left who needs to work for a living? Who's going to buy your products if the only people left already have everything? Who's going to be left on a "lower" level than you to give you that feeling of superiority that you so DESPERATELY need?

Forward.

Election Day has come and gone. President Obama has been reelected.

In the end, the election wasn't even close in terms of the Electoral College tally. Voters in every swing state (except North Carolina, for those who consider that one) broke for the President. In an election that any GOP pundit told us was about jobs and the economy, America spoke: they decided that they just trusted President Obama more than they did Governor Romney.

It would be nice if we, as a country, could go forward from here. Obama will face no more presidential elections; there are no political points to be scored through obstructionism and attempting to make him look bad. The hope is that the two sides can come together and compromise, though it already seems that that may not be realistic.

For example, anyone may look up Donald Trump's Twitter rant (I refuse to link to such nonsense here) on election night. The same night, a Republican CNN contributor remarked that Obama should give in to 80% of the House's demands. Now, I don't think Obama should be handed the world on a silver platter, but considering that the American people did just reelect him, it seems to me that basically putting the Republicans in charge is not only unwarranted, but is ignorant of the will of the people.

Speaker Boehner of course still opposes raising taxes on those making over $250,000. Honestly, "raising taxes" doesn't seem to be the correct phrase; all indications are that the Bush tax cuts were to be temporary, considering that that's how they were written. President Bush cut taxes to an extremely low level, and when the expiration date of his legislation comes, suddenly "Democrats want to raise your taxes". Very clever indeed. The arguments for keeping the break for the wealthy are dwindling: they don't seem to need the tax cuts at this point (did they ever?), and the CBO released a report stating that a tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth. At this point, the fight to keep the cuts for everyone seems to be more of an ideological struggle from the GOP than it is a practical point. 

The fact that the GOP still refuses to come to the bargaining table over something which would seem to have minimal practical impact is disturbing. The hope was that the days of "we don't care if we don't have a valid reason, we're gonna oppose you just for the hell of it" were over with the election, but reality may be setting in. The GOP still seems unwilling to compromise, and it would be ignorant for the President to not fight for his positions, considering that he has the will of the majority of the American people behind him.

We may be in for a bumpy four years.

Forgetting the 47%

We've all seen the video clip by now, with Mitt Romney discussing how he feels about voters who support President Obama:

Romney has since doubled down on his comments, while allowing that they "were not elegantly stated". I suppose that's smart; he'd have a hard time trying to explain that he didn't really mean what he said. After all, the comments were made during a private fundraiser that was not supposed to be filmed, which would seem to be a perfect setting to speak candidly about what he really believes.

Most people shouldn't be surprised that Romney feels this way. By now we are all well aware of his total and utter disconnect from the issues that trouble anyone not at the very top of the income spectrum. His "lower the rates and broaden the base" statement is about the only concrete piece of policy we've heard from him in the entire campaign. Apparently, the 47% of people who owe no income tax each year are all completely dependent on entitlements, and have no desire to move up the economic ladder.

After all, we all know that the 50% of recent college graduates that can't find a job are just sitting back and loving it. The elderly who receive no income could be in the factory working their butts off, but they just think they're too good for that type of work. And soldiers? They think that just because they're on the front lines of the War that Never Ends that they should be exempt from getting a real job and actually doing something for their country? Please.

Humorously, many of the 47% that Romney has such contempt for are probably supporters of his. Seniors have tended to back the GOP for some time now. The military will always have a strong connection to the party that can't cut a penny from defense spending (even though our military spending is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined). Many southern states that back the Republicans based on religious and social considerations (the "Bible Belt") are among the poorest states in the nation.

The former governor's comments are ridiculous in every sense of the word. He has tried some damage control, but cannot stop himself from saying stupid things. As quoted in this article, Romney believes that his comments underscore his effort to "focus on the people in middle". How are you focusing on the middle of the country if you have thrown out nearly half of it? The hits just keep coming in an interview with Fox News:

"There are a number of retirees and members of the military and so forth who aren't paying taxes and that's how it should be. 

"But I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay such that people have the privilege of higher incomes that allow them to be paying taxes. 

"I think people would like to be paying taxes. The good news is if you're doing well enough financially that you can pay a tax. And the problem right now is you see in this country so many people have fallen into poverty that they're not paying taxes they have to rely on government and the right course to help them is not just to have government handing out but instead government helping people to get back to good jobs."

It's funny how in one breath you can stand by your comments, and in your explanation, you completely change what the comments said in the first place. The quoted remarks are clearly in direct conflict with the position that the 47% of people who do not owe income taxes are dependent on government and do not want to take responsibility.

We all knew how Mitt Romney felt. Still, there's something sickening about hearing it come so bluntly out of his own mouth. It saddens me that a man such as this can be so close to becoming the President of the United States of America.

Taxmaggedon

First, a quick thought; why is everyone spelling it as "Taxmaggedon" rather than "Taxmageddon"? Strange.

Anyway... does this song sound familiar to anyone? Congress can't seem to figure out what to do about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, automatic spending cuts, and expiration of the payroll tax cut that are all scheduled for the end of the year. Pulling from the tried and true playbook of GOP rhetoric, Republican senators sent a letter to Senator Reid stating "...President Obama and Congress have spent much of the past year advancing misguided redistributionist policies in the name of fairness".

It's starting to get tiresome that every time a tax increase on the wealthiest is mentioned, or even just letting previous tax cuts on them expire, we are suddenly talking about Obama's socialist wealth redistribution policies. I don't think anyone is really talking about collecting all of the money in the country and equally dividing it among all citizens. That would be redistributionism. Are the rich going to even notice it if their taxes go up by letting their tax cuts expire? Well... of course they will, because they notice every penny as if it will be the last they ever see. But I hardly think they would be adversely affected by paying an amount more consistent with their income.

I do find it surprising that the idea of fairness is such a disgusting thing to the GOP. Again, when Democrats say "fairness", they don't mean equal distribution of wealth. They just mean that everyone pays a reasonable amount in taxes. America is a great country, but clearly some people have benefited more than others from being here, and I don't think asking a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) amount in return is unreasonable.

The GOP politicians know this, but it doesn't fit their message. So they go to the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric, all but saying it at every opportunity. Which is unfortunate because, as it seems it always is with them, the middle class suffers because of it. When it comes to taxes, the GOP version of compromise is "give us everything we want, and then we can talk". And the Democrats have been doing it because, in the end, they recognize the stakes for the average citizen. It's just too bad that, while they may be able to keep the ship afloat like that, no progress can truly be made under these conditions.

Illogical Arguments Against The Buffett Rule

Gotta love Yahoo!. And I do love Yahoo!; I like the page layout and the easy access to all the top news stories.

What I'm less of a fan of, however, are the comment sections on the articles. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be allowed to comment about things and speak their minds. But I have to question what is actually going on in the minds of many of the Yahoo! users. More often than not, the comment section has far more than its fair share of Obama hatred (even on articles not anywhere near concerning him), and (even though I'm very careful about throwing around this accusation, as it gets used far too often) even overt racism. You need look no further than any article mentioning the Williams sisters (or any tennis article... it will get brought up eventually) to see what I mean.

This article contains a discussion of the Buffett Rule, but the article itself contains nothing particularly interesting. The comments, as usual, are another story. My favorite argument against the Rule:

 "If he or anybody else thinks they aren't taxed enough, why do they utilize the so-called 'loopholes' to lower their taxes? Why don't they just pay the higher rate? Why don't they simply send a check to the government?"

Ah, the sweet smell of ignorance (well, maybe the sweet smell is the smell of my cookies baking... I think ignorance smells like something else entirely). The point isn't for one person to pay more taxes, it's that it simply makes no sense for people with more money to pay a smaller share than someone with less money. (Whether or not there should be a flat tax is another discussion, but for the richer person to actually pay less makes no sense.)

This whole "well if you think you should pay more, then send the government a check" argument is ridiculous. If our tax system was voluntary, this country would never have survived two months, much less 200+ years. No person should have to send the government a check to make up for an obvious imbalance in the way taxes are collected. What is even sadder is that this same argument has even been used by Republican congressmen to shoot down the Rule.

Is the Buffett Rule the way to go? Maybe, maybe not. But if you want to say no, come up with a reason that actually halfway makes it look like you even considered the question at all, and aren't just saying what Fox News tells you to.