kevin s
The war on poverty was working. It was not going to be finished in a matter of months and in some ways will never be completely won. But the efforts and funding were ended by the priority for funding and support being moved to the war.
Igor

Posted by: Deryll | April 7, 2008 4:38 PM

"War on poverty, war on drugs, war in Iraq, war on terror, war on crime, energy czar, education czar, poverty czar, economic czar, blah, blah.." The American people, through their designated representatives in Congress have not declared a war since 1941.
So, what's the war d'jour George, Hillary or John?

"Blessed are the peacemakers..."

Pastor Jeff Staples

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 7, 2008 6:01 PM

"Poverty Rates" are an extremely clumsy measurement, based on a largely arbitrary dollar for family income that does not account for local cost of living or savings from prior years. And while we can argue about what should be done with the minimum wage, it is widely understood that the CPI exaggerates price inflation.

And even good liberals like Patrick Moynihan understood that "War on Poverty" programs were prone to serve as enablers for self-destructive behaviour.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 7, 2008 9:53 PM

The problem Jim, is that you talk about helping the poor, but use the language of Karl Marx to do it, not Christ. The Democrats restrict freedom and rule over their subjects absolutely authoritarian style. Just a quick look around Illinois and California will prove that. At the end of the day, the vast majority of Americans will reject Sojouners social direction like they do televangelists. You'll fool some, but not many.

Posted by: Freedom isn't free | April 7, 2008 10:28 PM

"Try these simply tips. Stay in school, avoid drug use or other criminal behavior, and don't impregnate or get pregnant until you're married and ready to have children. i.e. Have some character."-debarrio

That is:
Stay in a substandard, economically segregated under-resourced government school.
Stay away from law enforcement and the judicial system that will wrongly imprison or shoot you.
Wait until "massa" says you can have that baby 'cuz we all know better than you.
Then when you get done with high school you can step right into that well paying manufacturing job in the 'hood or go to that gleaming college down the block.
The best advice you could give them, debarrio, is to not be born a person of color.
Personal responsibility does play a key role in overcoming poverty but your counsel is like criticizing the wheel chair bound person for their lack of faith. There are many persons of greater "character than you or I who still live in poverty.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 7, 2008 11:00 PM

Conservatives use predictable tactics to avoid embarrassment whenever inconvenient truths are brought to their attention:

Chapter 2 -- Substituting the word 'poverty' for inconvenient or embarrassing truths:

1. Conservatives will first try to deny poverty even exists in the first place.
2. When poverty is backed up with hard data, they will quibble with the data.
3. If they are forced to acknowledge the existence of poverty they will grudgingly concede but claim nothing can be done about it.
4. Or they will claim that all liberals are freeloaders.
5. If you propose a solution to poverty they will tell you this will only make things worse.
6. If that doesn't end the discussion, they will throw a distraction into the works.
7. They will play the 'welfare queen' card, the Bill Clinton card or the Ted Kennedy card or the whatever they can think of card.
8. If you stay on topic they will insinuate you're a communist, a socialist, unChristian, in league with the devil, a traitor, a 'surrender monkey' or whatever they can think of to call you.
9. If you hold your ground they will play the victim of intellectual insult or abuse.
10. If you expose their false victim hood, they will pout and leave the discussion entirely.

Why are conservatives surprised they have no respect among progressives when they adamantly deny reality to protect their precious delusions?

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 1:12 AM

Bravissimo!

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 1:24 AM

"1. Conservatives will first try to deny poverty even exists in the first place."

I don't know where you are cutting and pasting this from, but nobody here has said this. I used to live under the poverty line. I am not under the impression that poverty up and vanished upon my having surpassed it.

"If they are forced to acknowledge the existence of poverty they will grudgingly concede but claim nothing can be done about it."

I think plenty can be done about it.

"Or they will claim that all liberals are freeloaders."

No, they are all lawyers and grad students, not freeloaders in any traditional sense.

"They will play the 'welfare queen' card, the Bill Clinton card or the Ted Kennedy card or the whatever they can think of card."

I have never mentioned any of the above as it related to poverty.

"If you stay on topic they will insinuate you're a communist, a socialist, unChristian, in league with the devil, a traitor, a 'surrender monkey' or whatever they can think of to call you."

I have not called anyone that here. Are you having fun?

"If you hold your ground they will play the victim of intellectual insult or abuse."

If you ignore a substantive argument (note: an argument can be substantive even if you disagree with it) then it should be noted.

"If you expose their false victim hood, they will pout and leave the discussion entirely."

You should be so lucky.

"Why are conservatives surprised they have no respect among progressives when they adamantly deny reality to protect their precious delusions?"

I have yet to be surprised by anything I've read here. It is entirely predictable.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 8, 2008 3:47 AM

""Poverty Rates" are an extremely clumsy measurement, based on a largely arbitrary dollar for family income that does not account for local cost of living or savings from prior years. And while we can argue about what should be done with the minimum wage, it is widely understood that the CPI exaggerates price inflation."

The purpose of arguments of this type is to confuse the issue- to argue that we can't really know whether or not poverty exists or to what extent it exists. The extension of this argument it that since we cannot know, we should do nothing.

It is a fatally flawed argument based more on a desire for a laissez-faire economic model than to actually address the issue at hand.

I thank God for the Martin Luther Kings of this world that preferred to shine a light into the darkness than to cynically sit there and essentially argue that that's the way it is (i.e. poverty and injustice) and there is nothing we can do about it. We all have a choice to make- follow the light or become a cynical naysayer.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 8, 2008 6:32 AM

James Martin,

I not that you cannot be bothered to refute the essence of my argument, which is that our current poverty measurement is clumsy -- and you don't even touch on the problem of tying the minimum wage to CPI:

For the record, I think we could measure poverty much more precisely than we do by adjusting poverty levels for local cost of living, and by using a rolling three year average of incomes to account for large shifts in income.

But no, we don't really know what we are doing, and until we have a better idea we should proceed with caution.

By all means follow the light -- it always helps to be able to see where you are going.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 8, 2008 9:00 AM

Of course, they all ignored the third element of the triple threats. It takes three legs to hold up a stool.

The Democrats tend to sound relatively good on poverty and social problems, but they never deliver much. A major reason is that their real priority, shown by their voting records, and their platforms, is war and preparations for war. They will only fund human needs with what's left over, and that's never enough.

McCain, Clinton and Obama have virtually identical records and identical platforms on military spending. They all have voted for every cent Bush has asked for the military, and all three have official campaign positions for increasing the military budget and the size of the armed forces.

The Democrats' claims related to social programs must be exposed as lies and false promises as long as they continue to put first priority in maintaining the military-imperialist state.

This is what makes me so mad about Wallis and Sojourners. They keep talking like the Democrats are offering something positive, and they soft pedal the elephant in the room - their worship of the war gods.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ike was right. So when you look at the candidates from that perspective, you see that McCain, Clinto n and Obama are all foursquare for poverty and hunger in practice. Don't be fooled by all the nice words.

Come on, Jim Wallis, try being prophetic instead of playing up to the politically powerful. I know you can do it if you really try.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | April 8, 2008 9:20 AM

Most people in poverty were born into it -- and probably didn't have the same advantages as you did. In a substandard school, the kids with reading disabilities probably never get the help they really need -- they don't even get tested to see what their disability is. Ever try filling out a job application when you can't read it? Or can't answers the questions very clearly?

Even those who can do well in school don't often get much help going to college. Did your high school counselor even tell you to take the SAT/ACT tests? I went to a pretty good school, but our counselors never told us how to get to college when you couldn't afford it.

Posted by: frankie | April 8, 2008 10:52 AM

"A largish percentage of "poor" families have more than adequate food, clothing, and shelter. Many families labelled as "poor" have amenities such as air conditioning that many middle-class families didn't have as recently as the seventies."

Having worked directly with the impoverished population as a legal services attorney for three years, I can state that what you are saying is untrue and it betrays a total ignorance of what is going on.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 8, 2008 12:22 PM

"A largish percentage of "poor" families"
"it is widely understood"-Wolverine

Wolvie: For someone whose such a stickler for detail, your scholasticism seems to need a little work.

Q. "Who said that "massah" should decide when the poor have babies?"-Wolverine
A. "don't impregnate or get pregnant until you're married and ready to have children."-debarrio
My comment: Who sits on that jury? You?

Kevin S.- Check out Wolvie's arguments to see if it's not taken from the "playbook" on poverty for conservatives cited above

The military is where we can send the "unfotunate" black graduates of those "unavoidable" substandard schools.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 8, 2008 1:10 PM

I'm gonna make another comment regarding this "poverty" issue. I don't care what the liberals rant about, "poverty" for all practical purposes, does NOT exist in America. If you have a roof over your head and 3 meals a day then guess what. You're not impoverished. If you have access to a free education, and employment opportunities, not to mention TV's, cars, books, etc. then you are blessed. If all these things are still not good enough for you than you are filled with want and envy. Liberation Theology and the Gospel of "Social Justice" is a false Gospel spread by decievers. But please, by all means, decieve away.

Posted by: debarrio | April 8, 2008 2:16 PM

It isn't that the War on Poverty didn't work. We just cravenly surrendered to poverty. It's true that, in this country, it is possible to be poor even while living in a single-family detached house, and owning a car, a TV, and an air conditioner. The real measure of poverty in this country is the ability to afford:
a DEPENDABLE car
home ownership or at least regular payment of rent and utilities
health care
higher education for one's children
an occasional vacation away from home
time off from work for school conferences, jury duty, and voting
and a decent retirement income over and above Social Security.

The number of people who can't afford these things is growing every day.

Posted by: Marian Neudel | April 8, 2008 2:31 PM

"If you have a roof over your head and 3 meals a day then guess what. You're not impoverished."

Guess what? There are plenty of people in this country who don't have a roof over their head and 3 meals a day. Where do they fit in your world view?

And why is social justice a false gospel spread by decievers? I never understand that. Jesus, in whose steps we say follow, said to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and house the homeless, help the sick, and visit those in prison. This is a serious question: is that not social justice? Or if it isn't, by your definition, what is it? Maybe we're just quibbling about semantics.

Posted by: JEM | April 8, 2008 2:53 PM

James Martin wrote:

I would love to see anyone try to live on what these "fortunate" inner city poor have to live on every month and to be content with the access to education and services that they have. You don't think they're poor. Try walking a mile in their shoes and I guarantee you'll come back singing a different tune. Enough said.

Who called these people "fortunate"?

It's been said that conservatives deny the reality of poverty. There's just enough truth beind that to be worth pulling this apart just a bit.

Poverty in the inner city isn't what most of the world thinks of as poverty. Yes, the food and housing are well below standard, but by an large these people have enough materially to keep body and soul together. Compared with a typical peasant farmer in most of sub-saharan Africa or large swaths of Asia, our poor are fairly well off in strictly material terms.

What makes their lives difficult and in some cases well nigh unto hellish is not easily quantifiable but nonetheless real: an isolation from mainstream society. This isolation takes many forms, such as rampant drug or alcohol abuse, broken homes, illiteracy. The consequence is that these people live in what might be called an anticommunity, where alienation, nihilism, and a brutal self-interest predominate.

The left's solution, revealing the peculiar materialism of "social justice", is to throw money at the inner city. But money is not the only thing, or the most important thing, that is lacking here. Materially these people have most of what they need. The biggest shortcoming is a reasonably healthy community in which people can connect, cooperate, and develop some measure of self-respect.

In my humble opinion, what is needed most is not more government imposed "social justice" - justice can only be transient in the midst of chaos - but the careful reconstruction of a whole society, in which families, churches, businesses, schools, and government play their proper role. For this to happen is liable to take the genuine caring that can only be provided by a genuine church.

In Acts Chapter 3 Peter sees a man who had been crippled from birth. That man hoped to be given money. Unfortunately Peter didn't have any, but he had something better: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

The left sees the brokenness of our inner cities and thinks only of redistributing wealth. They think too small.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 8, 2008 3:35 PM

Juan Angel wrote: "The first step should be eliminating all use of military words. It is not about war on poverty is about creation of economic justice."

I agree completely with getting rid of military metaphors outside of actual military operations. People in government have realized that if they can get the public to think of a cause as if it is the equivalent of a “war” then they can get people to surrender more of their basic freedoms than in a time of “non-war.” Whether it’s the “war on terror”, “war on drugs”, or “war on poverty”, both Democrats and Republicans have discovered that the American people respond to this type of language and accept that they need to give in to whatever solution the government has proposed. After all, it’s a time of “war”.

How could you not support some big, national initiative in a time of war? Torture? Sure, no problem. Wasting billions of tax dollars in foreign countries and here at home on alphabet soup bureaucracies? Sure. Go ahead. Yes, let’s get some more czars too. If we just get someone with enough skill to manage it all, and give them the power to act decisively, we’ll solve the problems of society.

Posted by: Eric | April 8, 2008 4:30 PM

"In my humble opinion, what is needed most is not more government imposed "social justice" - justice can only be transient in the midst of chaos - but the careful reconstruction of a whole society, in which families, churches, businesses, schools, and government play their proper role. For this to happen is liable to take the genuine caring that can only be provided by a genuine church.

In Acts Chapter 3 Peter sees a man who had been crippled from birth. That man hoped to be given money. Unfortunately Peter didn't have any, but he had something better: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

The left sees the brokenness of our inner cities and thinks only of redistributing wealth. They think too small.

Wolverine"

Talk about small thinking. If the church could do something as simple as daily feed the poor it would have done it by now. Your argument that loving the poor means showing them Jesus is only partly right.

Look at the miracles of feeding that Jesus did twice, then again in feeding the disciples during the Last Supper and the end of John and Jesus makes one thing clear about community. Food comes through healing, community comes through sharing food. These are not small things. They are huge and momentous.

The sad part is that you seem blind to that. Giving people Jesus while ignoring the emptiness of their bellies is akin to giving a cancer victim chemo while denying them a hospital. It's not one or the other, it's both. Feed and restore that's some of the goals of the kingdom of God. It's not that the left thinks to small, it's that many of the right are stunted in it's understanding of God's kingdom and it's ability to provide justice and charity to the least of these.

Jesus gave an awesome parable about the rich man and Lazurus. It's message was clear when a rich man ignores the plight of the homeless and lives a life of ease God sends that rich man to hell to suffer for all eternity.

To conclude just remember the parable of the good Samaritan. That is something all humanity should live to obey, Jesus did not just mean that for the church he meant it for everyone. I realize it's a bit of a stretch but I can see God wanting governments to help where they can with that.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 8, 2008 5:25 PM

Justintime:

It appears that Sowell has got you pretty rattled.

“I enjoyed reading 'Follow the Money', a most fascinating account of the mathematics behind why wealth always concentrates into the hands of a very few members of a society.
I would like to see what Thomas Sowell has to say about it because it undermines Sowell's (and Friedman's) central thesis of the 'free market'”

Really? Here is an excerpt from ‘Follow the Money’

“The exchange of assets is all that ever happens here; there is no production of new wealth, and no consumption either. Leaving out so much of the real economy is an obvious weakness, but there is a compensating advantage: What remains is a closed system. In the model, wealth is a conserved quantity, like energy or momentum. Because the total amount of wealth never changes, one person can get richer only if another grows poorer.”

Obvious weakness indeed! So, let me get this strait. It is removing wealth creation and consumption and therefore motivation to consume and produce. It is eliminating skill and choice from the economy. So, basically, make the factors that make the free market work exogenous to your experiment that is meant to prove that the free market doesn’t work.

Posted by: DITE | April 8, 2008 5:40 PM

Payshun wrote:

...community comes through sharing food. These are not small things. They are huge and momentous.

There's a lot of truth to that, but there's something else -- Jesus and his disciples were there with the crowd, passing out the bread and and fish, eating with them and cleaning up the leftovers.

What we call "social justice" isn't sharing food, at least not the way Jesus did. Instead we send a check or pass out food stamps. That doesn't build community either. Jesus' methods were very much hands-on. Doing everything through government tends to make things way too antiseptic.

While I'm open to being corrected on this, I don't see a whole lot of reports of mass starvation in US cities, which tells me that empty bellies aren't the crux of the problem.

What is missing is that personal contact with the mainstream of society, the personal contact that comes with the sharing of the meal, the forging of friendships across racial and economic lines and the opportunities that those social ties open up. The food itself is almost (not quite, but almost) incidental.

Food is cheap. Friends are precious.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 8, 2008 6:13 PM

'Follow the Money' doesn't attempt to prove that your concept of a 'Free Market' doesn't work.
Did you read all of this paper DITE?
What did you take away from reading it?
There's more than just the yard sale model in there.

Can you model a 'Free Market' as an open system?
Can you include ALL of the factors in your model or just the factors that are easy to deal with?
Does a purely 'Free Market' exist anywhere in the real world?

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 6:37 PM

DITE,

How does your 'Free Market" model explain what's happening right now, with China getting all of our jobs and our money and we end up being owned by China?
What's wrong with this picture?

Is this what's supposed to happen in a Free Market, Free Trade environment?

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 6:59 PM

Justintime,

My dear, sweet, innocent child.

That report simply must be in error. Michigan has long been blessed by the nation's strongest unions and a progressive political culture of nearly Canadian purity.

Pay no attention to what you read in the papers. That is merely propaganda that we regrettably spread to prevent people from being hurt in the stampede to get into the state that would naturally occur if the truth were known.

The auto industry is flourishing. The minimum wage is thirty bucks an hour and employers are wandering the streets looking for workers. The temperature in winter never dips below 50. Our children are all above average and the women look like models. The rain never falls 'til after sundown. The Tigers are 7-0.

Come to Michigan, and see your paradise.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 8, 2008 7:33 PM

As an aside, it's interesting to note that Jim Wallis -- Detroit native Jim Wallis -- hardly ever says anything about his hometown.

I would love to have a dialogue about that someday...

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 8, 2008 7:41 PM

Find me an economist that doesn’t think there is created wealth

“The Scripture begs to differ”

I didn’t think so, Rick. Wow. Having you admit that creating wealth is a given in economics shouldn’t have been so difficult. Now, looking at creating wealth through a scriptural view is a logical debate we can have.

Yes, we’re all familiar with the passage about the Year of Jubilee. And yes, all wealth belongs to god. But, does that mean that we shouldn’t have property rights if all property belongs to God anyway?

“I hear the jobs went to Canada where they have universal health coverage.”

Ha, no. Some go to Mexico, China, and southern and western business friendly states in the US like Texas.

Posted by: DITE | April 8, 2008 8:26 PM

DITE: The free market is an object of idolatry and is anti-christian to it's core. It is based upon rewarding greed and selfishness. Like many of the social sciences, it can accurately assess the problem of fallen mankind, but offers little in the way of redemptive solutions.
Q. Do you believe Jesus was a free market capitalist?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 8, 2008 8:38 PM

It's a yard sale and we're gonna end up with nuthin'.
What can we do about it, DITE?
Can Thomas Sowell help us out of our dire dituation?

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 8:48 PM

That article proves nothing about the loss of manufacturing jobs from Michigan to Canada, due to Canada's Universal Health Care System.

Read the article again Wolverine.
There's a lot more going on than you assumed:
.....
A soaring Canadian dollar and slowing U.S. market will continue to plague the province, where the economy is expected to grow 2.1 percent this year and 2.9 percent in 2009, the board said in its provincial economic forecast report.
'It's no surprise that weakness in the U.S. economy will challenge the manufacturing sector in Ontario,'' she said.

Ontario is still on track to post a surplus this year, said a spokesman for Duncan, who will table the next provincial budget March 25.

Ontario and Quebec ''will be challenged by the somber outlook in the United States — although neither province is expected to slip into recession,'' the report said.

Meanwhile, provinces west of Ontario will continue to chug along, driven in part by strong construction activity and a growing service sector.

Manitoba's economy is expected to lead the way with growth of 3.7 percent this year, boosted by construction projects, domestic spending and growth in its manufacturing sector, the report said.

By contrast, manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec have been struggling, with Ontario losing 20,000 manufacturing jobs in February alone. The province still managed to add 46,000 jobs, mostly in construction and public service, but its weak auto sector continues to drag down the provincial economy.

The auto sector, which dominates Ontario manufacturing, is one reason why Manitoba is expected to fare better by comparison, Bernard said.

Planned auto production cuts and delays in operations at the new Toyota plant in Woodstock, Ont., will ''significantly hinder'' export growth in the province, according to the board's outlook.

But a slowing U.S. economy doesn't have as much of an impact on Manitoba's well-diversified manufacturing sector, which is expected to grow an average of 5.5 percent over the next two years, largely due to large orders for buses and aircraft parts, said Bernard.
.....

Doesn't sound like they're doing too badly up there, Wolverine, even with the Looney worth more than the Dollar.
What are they doing right and what are we doing wrong?
Do we have our eyes on the ball?
I don't think so.
That's why poverty is on the rise in America.
And you can't blame the unions for it.

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 9:13 PM

“What's wrong with this picture?”

Nothing. I’m glad jobs have gone to China and decreased their poverty rate significantly. I’m not against our economy evolving and modernizing.

“Do you believe Jesus was a free market capitalist?”

I think Jesus is bigger than man’s concepts of the economy, but for the sake of argument yes.

“It's a yard sale and we're gonna end up with nuthin'.
What can we do about it, DITE?
Can Thomas Sowell help us out of our dire dituation?”

What?

Posted by: DITE | April 8, 2008 9:29 PM

How does your 'Free Market" model explain what's happening right now, with China getting our jobs and our money and we end up being owned by China?
What's wrong with this picture?
......

DITE: Nothing. I’m glad jobs have gone to China and decreased their poverty rate significantly. I’m not against our economy evolving and modernizing.
......

Is this what's supposed to happen in a Free Market, Free Trade environment?

I wonder what DITE knows about poverty in China.
Or America, for that matter.
But maybe Thomas Sowell has some good ideas for how we can evolve and modernize America's economy?
He's a brilliant economist, isn't he?

Isn't 'Free Market ideology just great?

On paper.

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 9:43 PM

"I think Jesus is bigger than man’s concepts of the economy"- DITE

What do you mean by this? Jesus was irrelevant? Spiritual matters are disconnected to physical matters? Jesus' economics are incomprehensible? Other?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 8, 2008 9:56 PM

Wolverine: I'm shocked!! Jesus judging nations?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 8, 2008 10:20 PM

No, seriously Justintime, let's look at a quote you chose to highlight:

The auto sector, which dominates Ontario manufacturing, is one reason why Manitoba is expected to fare better by comparison, Bernard said.

Now, I don't know if you're all that familiar with Canada beyond the fact that they have nationalized healthcare and better beer (There, I said it: Canada is better than the US at something.) but Ontario and Manitoba are seperate provinces. Ontario borders Michigan and has a lot of Canada's auto plants. Manitoba is more to the west and does not.

Now, you say that the success of Canada's auto industry proves the value of nationalized health care. But Ontario, where autos provide a lot of the manufacturing jobs is losing manufacturing jobs to the point where non-automotive Manitoba is doing well in comparison.

Using earth logic this would tell me that the Canadian auto industry is not doing all that well. But don't let that stop you from asserting that this proves that nationalized health care is the greatest thing since Tim Horton's donuts.

Tomorrow I'll tell you what the blue line is for in hockey, and how it exmpains the success of socialized medicine, eh?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 8, 2008 10:42 PM

Pastor Jeff,

Much as we disagree, thanks for the chuckle.

'Night all

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 8, 2008 10:45 PM

Again Rick, find me an economist that would argue that wealth has been static since the beginning of time. I'm really am curious to read the economic argument for it.

Posted by: DITE | April 8, 2008 11:15 PM

DITE: ...find me an economist that would argue that wealth has been static since the beginning of time. I'm really curious to read the economic argument for it.

This is a really myopic argument, DITE.
Take a look at the real world for a change.

Posted by: justintime | April 8, 2008 11:44 PM

"All this proves is that you are biased. That's fine (I'm biased, too), but don't appeal to your own biases as though they represent authority."

No, it means I've seen firsthand the tragedies and the difficulties people have had to go through. I have seen the lack of access to good schools, lack of money. I can appeal to what I have witnessed. You may think any number of things about me. I really don't care. But you cannot take away what my eyes have seen.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 9, 2008 6:28 AM

Justintime,

I'll try this one last time. Here's what the article actually says:

By contrast, manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec have been struggling, with Ontario losing 20,000 manufacturing jobs in February alone. The province still managed to add 46,000 jobs, mostly in construction and public service, but its weak auto sector continues to drag down the provincial economy.

You might want to read that out loud. (I'm not being sarcastic -- I do that myself sometimes to help me focus on particularly difficult to understand passages.)

Canada is not picking up American auto jobs. If anything Canada is losing automotive jobs. That's just the awful fact. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner we can get back to a reasonable conversation.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 9, 2008 9:11 AM

For Wolverine:

Joint Letter on Publicly Funded Healthcare
Alain Batty - President and CEO, Ford Motor Company of Canada
Basil Hargrove - National President, CAW-Canada

Canada's publicly funded health care system provides essential and affordable health care services for all Canadians, regardless of their income. Publicly funded health care also enhances Canada's economic performance in several important ways.

The auto industry is Canada's most important export industry; it directly employs over 150,000 Canadians in high-wage jobs, supports hundreds of thousands of other spin-off jobs, produces $90 billion worth of shipments per year, and generates billions of dollars in tax revenues for all levels of government in Canada. The success of this industry has been crucial to Canada's economic progress over the past decade. Canada's health care system has been an important ingredient in the auto industry's performance.

Workers in the auto industry, and in the many manufacturing and service industries which supply automakers, benefit directly from access to public health care services. Thanks to this system, they are healthier and more productive. Employers in the auto industry, meanwhile, enjoy significant total labour cost savings because most health care services are supplied through public programs (rather than through private insurance plans).

The public health care system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to the cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers; these health insurance savings can amount to several dollars per hour of labour worked. Publicly funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada's overall labour cost advantage in auto assembly, versus the U.S., which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada.

I think this letter speaks more directly to the point I'm trying to make than the article you cited.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 9:39 AM

In the present economic recession auto workers are being laid off on both sides of the border due to weak consumer demand. This may have nothing to do with health care in the auto industry.
Although, if more more jobs are being lost in the US than in Canada, Canada's health care system may be a factor.
I don't have the data on this, do you?

Try to keep your eye on the big picture, Wolverine.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 9:52 AM

Eric:

Over the past three decades, deregulation of markets, driven by Republicans in Congress and cheered on by free marketeers, has been the cause of several major disasters -- the Savings & Loan Scandal, the Enron energy swindle and the present crisis in the Mortgage industry, to name a few.

I'm not convinced conservatives have learned much from these economic disasters other than how to exploit them and loot our economy.
If you'll remember, during the Enron swindle, VP Cheney cited free market ideology to justify preventing the Federal Energy Commission (members of which were nominated by Enron's Ken Lay) from stepping in and regulating this disaster.
Because of this, consumers in California and the Northwest (where I live) were swindled out of billions of dollars, which could have funded alternative energy programs.

I find most conservatives are reluctant to acknowledge the profound damage that mindless free market ideology has done to the American economy.
Conservatives have a long way to go in repairing their tattered reputation when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

It's encouraging to know there are some conservatives who are flexible when it comes to regulating the economy.
Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 10:19 AM

correction:
It was the Federal Energy RegulatoryM Commission (FERC) that was neutered by VP Cheney, citing free market ideology.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 10:28 AM

Sorry to step in here, but justintime, what free market ideology exactly are you referring to? While it's true that the U.S. does have fewer regulations than most European nations, it's nowhere close to a 'mindless free market.'

It's not that some conservatives are flexible on regulation. It's that nearly everyone is open to sensible, reasonable regulation. Knee-jerk reactions to a crisis nearly always cause more problems than the crisis itself (DHS, anyone?) For that matter, government solutions are nearly always more inefficient and bigger moneypits than a private solution. That's not to say that the government should never be involved, but it needs to be remembered.

And I read a quote on an econblog this morning (can't remember which one) that went something like this: "Just because regulation could have prevented it doesn't mean lack of regulation caused it."

Posted by: Odin's Beard | April 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Agree with you completely on the DHS boondoggle, Odin's Beard.
This was justified by manufacturing a climate of fear, rather than by free market ideology.

Many believe that mindless deregulation of our economy, using free market ideology for justification, was the cause of the disasters I mentioned above.
I don't hear many conservatives demonstrate an understanding of the causes of these disasters.
Eliminating time tested regulation by zealous free marketeers in Congress is also government intervention with our economy.
Some of the conservative posters on this forum dispute this, which is why I keep bringing it up.

Sometimes though, government intervention is the only option, as was the case in the Enron disaster.
Much damage could have been averted had FERC not been neutered by Cheney, who used free market ideology as his justification.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 11:43 AM

Right on debarrio, you just expressed the standard of living that we all should stick to, living larger than necessary is mammonism.
If money is power,
and if power corrupts,
then money corrupts.
Thus, it is logical to assume that people with money are corrupt.

Posted by: Oak | April 9, 2008 12:11 PM

justintime - Not wanting to admit to causing a problem isn't something unique to conservatism. Non-conservatives don't like to admit it when their particular ideologies have negative ramifications either. No one does. It's called being human. This isn't some great insight you've stumbled upon.

My point to you though, was that your "ideology" isn't that different from conservative "ideology". Both you and conservatives agree that capitalism and economic markets are the best way to structure a society's economy. Conservatives tend to want less regulation of particular markets than you do. But surely there are markets that even you don't think should be regulated right now.

The difference between these supposedly different "ideologies" is very little, a mere difference of degrees.

As for your whipping boy, Dick Cheney, I'll bet even he doesn't think there should be no regulation at all anywhere. He just wants less of it than you do. (In fact, he probably just wants no regulation when it helps his bottom line, and supports regulation when it does the same. Most businessmen are opportunists, not idealogues.)

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2008 12:26 PM

"Isn't this thread a response to MLK,jrs message."

Well, it's a response to Wallis'

"Another distraction* from kevin."

Distracting from what? He made a point, and then you introduced an irrelevancy (dare I say, a distraction?) as though it argued against his point.

"Make YOUR point, Kevin."

My point was pretty clear in the very first post. I don't think a poverty czar is going to do anything helpful.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 9, 2008 12:29 PM

"Had the government truly eliminated all regulations, there would have been complete transparency, and no avenue for fraud."

And the elimination of all regulations and laws, will result in the elimination of all criminals - because nothing will be a crime.

The problem isn't with sin, it's with those who insist there is such a thing as sin.

We will eliminate sin by eliminating any definition of it.

The millenium has arrived!

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 9, 2008 12:46 PM

kevin, "Make YOUR point, Kevin."

My point was pretty clear in the very first post. I don't think a poverty czar is going to do anything helpful.

I agree with you there, kevin.

But you distracted away from a discussion of the nature of Chinese poverty -- nothing to do with poverty czars in America.
Do you have a point about Chinese poverty?

or not?

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 12:48 PM

Let's talk about how poverty in America is affected by free trade policies.

Shouldn't we protect our core domestic industries, like other countries do?

Why are free traders not concerned about our trade deficit and can free traders think of anything to do about it?

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 12:59 PM

Poverty and what can be done about it:

End the occupation of Iraq.

Invest in proven alternative energy sources to reduce dependency on foreign oil, reduce global climate change and create jobs / new wealth.

Repair America's infrastructure, creating jobs / new wealth.

Enact sensible trade policy, designed to protect our core industries, preserve jobs and reduce our staggering trade deficit.

Regulate our domestic economy to achieve balanced and stable markets with full, continual employment.

Universal Health Care is not only humane, it's good for business.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 1:54 PM

justintime, what exactly are our core industries that should be protected? We have moved from a manufacturing society to an information-based society. While that leaves a gap for workers without the necessary skills or education, it's better for mankind as a whole.

And as for sensible trade policies, you mean keeping jobs from going elsewhere, preventing the truly impoverished from getting anywhere on their own. So-called 'free traders' don't necessarily care about the trade deficit because it is an incomplete measure of things. The problems with using trade deficits as the only guide for policy have been explained time and time again, but people don't care.

Finally, your idea for creating a 'stable' economy is a prescription for preventing any further scientific, medical, and technological advancement. What is worse, MRI scans that not everyone can afford, or no MRI scans at all?

Posted by: Odin's Beard | April 9, 2008 3:09 PM

justintime,

what exactly are our core industries that should be protected? Odin's Beard

There must be a story behind your moniker.
...
America doesn't think it has any core industries besides weaponry, it appears.
[OK agriculture - It's only prudent that we remain self sufficient, producing our food.]
But if the neocons push us into a war with China, where will we get all the components for America's high tech war machine, if they've all been outsourced?
China has become the global factory.
I don't think this trend is sustainable.
Escalating transportation and energy costs will require all nations to rethink their economies and the core industry issue will become a priority.
What do you think?
....
We have moved from a manufacturing society to an information-based society.
...
I think this is a flawed concept because it leaves us vulnerable to unforeseen events, it's a flimsy base on which to build an economy and I don't think our trade deficits will sustain this trend.
Do you?
What happened to the concept of a diverse economic base?
....
While that leaves a gap for workers without the necessary skills or education, it's better for mankind as a whole.
....
Why?
...
And as for sensible trade policies, you mean keeping jobs from going elsewhere, preventing the truly impoverished from getting anywhere on their own.
...
We need to keep jobs and the infrastructure for our core industries (whatever we agree these are) and especially the ones with living wages (based on American standards, not Chinese standards). Service industries aren't producing the quality and number of jobs necessary to replace the ones we're losing to China.
And by the way, information workers are now being outsourced big time.
So what's happening already to our information based economy?
...
So-called 'free traders' don't necessarily care about the trade deficit because it is an incomplete measure of things. The problems with using trade deficits as the only guide for policy have been explained time and time again, but people don't care.
...
I think we agree on this.
They don't care.
We need more sophisticated econometrics to get accurate feedback on what's working and what isn't as well as predict the consequences of new economic policies.
For the time being we need to get by on what we have and common sense.
...
Finally, your idea for creating a 'stable' economy is a prescription for preventing any further scientific, medical, and technological advancement. What is worse, MRI scans that not everyone can afford, or no MRI scans at all?
...
I disagree with you on this for a lot of reasons.
I'll put them all together and get back to you.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 4:36 PM

how about you bring your debate face to face? Wallis is going to be in DC at GW Lisner Auditorium on April 22 and you can ask him your questions directly. More info at www.chesapeakeclimate.org/climaterally

Posted by: susannablog | April 9, 2008 5:32 PM

We have moved from a manufacturing society to an information-based society. While that leaves a gap for workers without the necessary skills or education, it's better for mankind as a whole.
.....
"I think this is a flawed concept because it leaves us vulnerable to unforeseen events, it's a flimsy base on which to build an economy and I don't think our trade deficits will sustain this trend.
Do you?
What happened to the concept of a diverse economic base?
We need to keep jobs and the infrastructure for our core industries (whatever we agree these are) and especially the ones with living wages (based on American standards, not Chinese standards). Service industries aren't producing the quality and number of jobs necessary to replace the ones we're losing to China.
And by the way, information workers are now being outsourced big time.
So what's happening already to our information based economy?"
.....
In this respect I think I'm more conservative than you so called conservatives.

Posted by: justintime | April 9, 2008 6:07 PM

justintime - The problem is that in your desire to protect "core industries" (something you've been unable to identify other than agriculture) you end up with the government picking economic winners and losers. There's a perfect example of the problems with this method that exists today with your one example of a core industry.

The U.S. spends billions of tax dollars subsidizing certain crops in this country. Billions of our dollars go to wealthy farmers who farm particular crops the government has chosen as the commodities on which the country should focus. I believe the problems with the current farm program are self-evident, have been detailed by Sojourners before, and are too numerous to get into here. But you seem to have a desire to extend similar programs of economic protection to other industries? What makes you think the government will design them any better?

I don't have confidence in the ability of the government to pick "core industries" for today, much less predict what a core industry will be decades into the future.

At the time when the Constitution was written about 98% of the 3 million Americans made their living in farming. Today we 300 million Americans with about 2% making their living in farming. With your way of thinking we should have kept that old way and resisted change to areas in which we had more of a competitive advantage. We transitioned from a manufacturing economy to a service economy (more people making their living in the service sector than anywhere else) back before World War II. We can't go back simply by the government passing laws and erecting tariffs.

Posted by: Eric | April 9, 2008 7:11 PM

Eric's pretty much covered my views on protecting core industries, but I have one addition.

I think this is a flawed concept because it leaves us vulnerable to unforeseen events, it's a flimsy base on which to build an economy and I don't think our trade deficits will sustain this trend.

You may see it as a flawed concept, but the point is that we didn't choose it. Our economy evolved as the rest of the world advanced. I don't like cliches or catchphrases, but Thomas Friedman got it right - the world is flattening. And many people think this makes the global economy more stable and sustainable.

Nations that trade are more friendly towards each other. Now, before anyone goes off, I am not saying it will solve all of our problems, or that it will be a magic cure-all. But when nations depend on each other, they are less likely to risk a damaging war. They have more to lose.

But if the neocons push us into a war with China, where will we get all the components for America's high tech war machine, if they've all been outsourced?

C'mon. This has been a pretty good discussion thus far, and I've really appreciated your points. Neocon != warmonger, and throwing that in is a cheap shot. Anyways, I can't figure out your position here. I'm going to assume that you don't want a war with China (hope that's not a huge leap). So, wouldn't increased trade be a good thing?

In this respect I think I'm more conservative than you so called conservatives.

Depends on which dictionary you're using to define conservatism. But modern conservatism comes from (essentially) two distinct and not exactly friendly ideologies. And though you might be on Pat Robertson's side on this issue, that doesn't mean you (or Pat) are conservative. And I'd be careful throwing around that kind of comparison. Those conservatives don't base their beliefs on economics.

As for the name, meh. Inside joke + love of mythology + throwing darts.

Posted by: Odin's Beard | April 9, 2008 8:50 PM

Wolverine: "The left sees the brokenness of our inner cities and thinks only of redistributing wealth."

This is a lie. My day job is to promote policies that fight poverty. My organization and many others around the state and country focus on the many different causes of poverty, and start with the premise that the best way out of poverty is to have marketable skills and a job that pays enough to raise a family on. This is not unique among the left, so stop making caricatures.

Posted by: I and I | April 9, 2008 10:50 PM

"Old Bull Lee"??!! hmmm, wasn't that the name that Jack Kerouac used for William Burroughs in "On the Road"?

Wolverine, I think someone is having fun with you.

To switch topics a bit: Didn't realize that you grew up near Eight Mile. My wife and I lived in Toledo for most of the 80s and we would pass through your neck of the woods occasionally.

Dean Moriarty

Posted by: carl copas | April 10, 2008 12:31 PM

Wolverine,

You need to hang out more with the activist left. You would be surprised how much we actually spend time in the inner city. we don't think money will solve it. We believe love will and so we work to make sure resources are allocated for that. We believe in relationship and we actually go and work in the places many liberals and conservatives ignore.

Having said all that conservatives have no real plan to help the inner city, never have and never will. They lack the balls to tackle the issue and they won't. It's been like that since the founding of the country. It always takes left leaning folks to have the guts to stand up and do something on a systemic level (that doesn't help big business.)

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 10, 2008 2:43 PM

President GW Bush attempted something like a department of poverty through his faith-based initiatives office. His hope was that the issue of poverty and economic disparity would be addressed through the church, whose mandate was to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners, take care of widows and orphans. Obviously, the problem went askew through the misguided christianists who saw that office as an ATM for their projects.

When Jesus said to the disciples that "the poor you will have always," he painted a picture of what it meant to have Jesus at hand--we would always have opportunity of serving Him by serving the least of humanity.

Sojourners has remained faithful to that call, as have many other churches and parachurch organizations, but the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians are not disciples. What is worst is that the evangelical church that believes the Bible to be the inerrant inspired Word of God fail to do that which is most important, focusing their efforts instead on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. It is easier to cast stones than to feed the hungry.

Posted by: Cumulus | April 10, 2008 6:01 PM

People in the dire straits you are describing normally do not have families that are intact. That is true. The way that I interpret that is that money is not the entire solution. It can be part of it. But community-based, relational solutions have to be used as well.

What's really needed in such situations is hope and vision, both of which are lacking in "at-risk" areas. And while I would agree that the situation may not necessarily be economic, it's a factor because to have a functioning neighborhood you have to have economic stability. That hasn't been the case in decades in some neighborhoods.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 11, 2008 12:03 AM

Please have a look at today's Weekend edition of USA Today and the full-page ad from the United Church of Christ [UCC], "Let's talk about race." Actoss the UCC but focusing especially on May 18, pulpits will present the basis for further discussions of race & injustice and the relevance of MLK's April 3, 1968 statement, "We have the opportunity to make America a better nation."

This is a part of the "God is still speaking" initiative and the full-page ad in the NYT last week.

Posted by: Arden C. Hander | April 11, 2008 6:39 AM

debarrio, I'm afraid you've missed the whole point of Wallis' argument for economic justice. It transcends race, while it does address the inequality that centuries of racism as negatively wrought on the african american community, it is equally lifts the inner city poor as well as the rural poor. But due to your own prejudice you only associate poverty with inner city african americans, hence your stereotypical caricatures. What MLK went to Memphis for and died for was not equality for all, and it is best achieved when everyone has adequate opportunity (i know it will never be equal)for upward mobility.

Posted by: Ife | April 11, 2008 7:08 PM

Yes, the war on poverty was successful. Consider the "failed" AFDC program. Some 80% of AFDC families were able to voluntarily quit welfare within 5 years, sans any punitive measures, usually working their way up into the economic mainstream. What they then paid in taxes through their working lives more than repaid every penny of aid they had received. Because families were able to secure adequate food and housing (at least, for a short time, from the late-60's to late '70's), medical costs for the poor were significantly reduced, crime was reduced, and most of their children did well in school. Providing aid enabled the poor to have a measure of economic stability that is essential to moving forward out of poverty. The nation as a whole benefited from reduced costs, increased numbers of tax payers, and young people who had the education and means to become gainfully employed.

When former President Clinton "reformed" welfare, we saw this progress rapidly reverse. We now have unprecedented economic disparities. Infant mortality rates among our poor now rival those of Third World nations, and the life expectancy of America's poor has actually fallen below that of most Third World nations. Hungry children, and those whose housing is always at risk, can't learn in school. In whole, this will prove to have a significant impact on our workforce in the near future.

The list goes on, clearly showing that our former non-punitive welfare policies not only saved lives, but were in the best interests of the nation as a whole. To understand the impact of welfare "reform" on the whole of our economy, think of a building: If you blow up the bottom floors, the entire building will collapse.

Posted by: DHFabian | April 13, 2008 9:10 AM