Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: What is wrong? [View all]

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
25. It seems that
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 04:00 PM
Dec 2013

"What is wrong with saying that income inequality is immoral and needs to be addressed? What is wrong with saying that the wealthy need to pay more in taxes? But, they need to do more than just talk about it, they need to do it."

...only Republicans thing saying this is wrong.

Did you catch Obama's recent speech?

Obama's inequality speech: telling the progressive story of American history

by Ian Reifowitz

Barack Obama knows how to tell a story. One of his great strengths is his ability to craft a narrative of our history that resonates with Americans and advances a progressive understanding of who we are as a people. Obama's telling of that history always features both progress as well as our failure to live up to the ideals of equality we lay down at the country's founding. His American history narratives have long centered on two purposes.

The first is to encourage Americans across every possible group line to recognize one another as being part of a single community of Americans based on our shared membership in the civic nation. The President's placing of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall among the pantheon of the great events in our history is perhaps the best known example of this, among countless other occasions where he has done so throughout his career.

The second, one that featured prominently in yesterday's speech on economic inequality, is to emphasize the long-standing roots—as well as the moral superiority and greater effectiveness—of a common good-centered, progressive economic philosophy. I've never heard President Obama do this better than he did yesterday. He told the story of our country as one in which we moved closer and closer to being a society built around equal opportunity and a notion of the common good that provided a basic safety net for those of us who faced hard times.

Until, that is, we inaugurated President Ronald Reagan. Obama also rightly noted the impact of globalization on our economy, but then specifically highlighted the crucial role of right-wing economic thinking—calling out Reaganite "trickle-down ideology" on taxes and on the lack of commitment to invest in our country's resources—in moving us away from the path on which we'd been traveling for over a century thanks to progressives in both parties.

This is the kind of historical narrative that people can connect with. It is a story that has a clear good guy and a clear villain, the kind of story that, in raw political terms, helps frame the debate in a highly effective way. More broadly, the speech provided an exceptionally strong philosophical and factual underpinning for the progressive ideals we hold dear.

Below the fold is the excerpt of the speech in which the President lays out his narrative of our history.

Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity -- the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. And with every chapter we’ve added to that story, we’ve worked hard to put those words into practice.

It was Abraham Lincoln, a self-described “poor man’s son,” who started a system of land grant colleges all over this country so that any poor man’s son could go learn something new.

When farms gave way to factories, a rich man’s son named Teddy Roosevelt fought for an eight-hour workday, protections for workers, and busted monopolies that kept prices high and wages low.

When millions lived in poverty, FDR fought for Social Security, and insurance for the unemployed, and a minimum wage.

When millions died without health insurance, LBJ fought for Medicare and Medicaid.

Together, we forged a New Deal, declared a War on Poverty in a great society. We built a ladder of opportunity to climb, and stretched out a safety net beneath so that if we fell, it wouldn’t be too far, and we could bounce back. And as a result, America built the largest middle class the world has ever known. And for the three decades after World War II, it was the engine of our prosperity.

Now, we can’t look at the past through rose-colored glasses. The economy didn’t always work for everyone. Racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty -- or out of opportunity. Women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid professions. And it was only through painstaking struggle that more women, and minorities, and Americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy.

Nevertheless, during the post-World War II years, the economic ground felt stable and secure for most Americans, and the future looked brighter than the past. And for some, that meant following in your old man’s footsteps at the local plant, and you knew that a blue-collar job would let you buy a home, and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension. For others, it meant going to college -- in some cases, maybe the first in your family to go to college. And it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt, and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market.

Now, it’s true that those at the top, even in those years, claimed a much larger share of income than the rest: The top 10 percent consistently took home about one-third of our national income. But that kind of inequality took place in a dynamic market economy where everyone’s wages and incomes were growing. And because of upward mobility, the guy on the factory floor could picture his kid running the company some day.

But starting in the late ‘70s, this social compact began to unravel. Technology made it easier for companies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. A more competitive world lets companies ship jobs anywhere. And as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits.

As values of community broke down, and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied Washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. As a trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest, while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither. And for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation, in part because more families were relying on two earners as women entered the workforce. We took on more debt financed by a juiced-up housing market. But when the music stopped, and the crisis hit, millions of families were stripped of whatever cushion they had left.

And the result is an economy that’s become profoundly unequal, and families that are more insecure. I’ll just give you a few statistics. Since 1979, when I graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90 percent, but the income of the typical family has increased by less than eight percent. Since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size, but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few.

The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our income -- it now takes half. Whereas in the past, the average CEO made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker, today’s CEO now makes 273 times more. And meanwhile, a family in the top 1 percent has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family, which is a record for this country.

So the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. In fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy. Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the Pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. “How can it be,” he wrote, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

But this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. Understand we’ve never begrudged success in America. We aspire to it. We admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, and invent the products that enrich our lives. And we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. In fact, we've often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason -- because we were convinced that America is a place where even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. As Lincoln once said, “While we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

The problem is that alongside increased inequality, we’ve seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. A child born in the top 20 percent has about a 2-in-3 chance of staying at or near the top. A child born into the bottom 20 percent has a less than 1-in-20 shot at making it to the top. He’s 10 times likelier to stay where he is. In fact, statistics show not only that our levels of income inequality rank near countries like Jamaica and Argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in America to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies -- countries like Canada or Germany or France. They have greater mobility than we do, not less.

The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough. But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260417/-Obama-s-inequality-speech-telling-the-progressive-story-of-American-history

President Obama Praises Phoenix Efforts to End Veteran Chronic Homelessness
http://phoenix.gov/news/080613obamapraise.html

Phoenix Becomes First City To End Chronic Homelessness Among Veterans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024217875

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What is wrong? [View all] kentuck Dec 2013 OP
Well..you know...political parties are only about winning elections. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #1
Yep. Oakenshield Dec 2013 #50
The same could be said about DU at times. L0oniX Dec 2013 #64
Hope and Change. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #2
That was a really helpful addition Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #4
I did. Not every post needs to scream like a chainsaw. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #8
+1 n/t jtuck004 Dec 2013 #13
+9 to make that an even 10. RC Dec 2013 #24
It was concise and to the point, thank you! n/t sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #47
Especially when some posts are chainsaws.nt Skidmore Dec 2013 #60
And I had always thought of it as a squeaky wheel. I like your analogy better. n/t A Simple Game Dec 2013 #72
The Demo Chris post was complete, and elegant in its simplicity. bvar22 Dec 2013 #17
Warren voted for the latest defense budget Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #54
So that makes it ok? Strange logic. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #74
It's a quick cred-building technique. JNelson6563 Dec 2013 #62
You call fellow Democrats "haters" because they dont show the unwavering rhett o rick Dec 2013 #77
+1000 kentuck Dec 2013 #79
That is becoming so glaringly obvious that it hurts - it is all about the win, and right after the djean111 Dec 2013 #3
exactly. liberal_at_heart Dec 2013 #5
It's populism and common sense. Uncle Joe Dec 2013 #6
Nothing is wrong with that - TBF Dec 2013 #7
Oh... we WILL cut our "defense" budget... Bigmack Dec 2013 #9
Here is a taste of what happens when you "fight back" in a Democratic Primary: bvar22 Dec 2013 #19
It happened here, too, Bvar22, in 2008. Blue_In_AK Dec 2013 #37
Thank You, Blue. bvar22 Dec 2013 #45
When I complained about the quality of Democratic politicians a poster A Simple Game Dec 2013 #73
Great post! Enthusiast Dec 2013 #42
Excellent post as usual, Bvar, it needs to be an OP as so many appear to develop anmesia sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #48
Great post. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #49
Reading this doesn't surprise me think Dec 2013 #51
Message to the left: We only want your votes, not your ideals and principles. L0oniX Dec 2013 #66
Now more than $20,000 a SECOND lake loon Dec 2013 #21
It's always about the money. Welcome to DU. WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2013 #46
Welcome to DU. go west young man Dec 2013 #59
kentuck, What is wrong? saidsimplesimon Dec 2013 #10
Bernie Sanders "Military Budget Has Tripled Since 1997, ErikJ Dec 2013 #11
Yes we could cut the budget in half and should. former9thward Dec 2013 #12
I find that premise, "massive reduction in military forces," fleabiscuit Dec 2013 #20
Well, any cuts to spending will INVARIABLY be dumped on personnel Scootaloo Dec 2013 #76
I thought Congress appropriated the money for different military programs? kentuck Dec 2013 #80
And still our military is incompetent. broiles Dec 2013 #14
Our military is mostly there to break shit and kill people--and it's pretty competent at that. TwilightGardener Dec 2013 #22
Oh? Don't you know ...they are fighting for our freedoms. L0oniX Dec 2013 #67
Very like that first attending to this... jtuck004 Dec 2013 #15
You're just another Goddam radical fringe leftist. Jackpine Radical Dec 2013 #16
What Is Wrong Answers - Right Wing, Corporatist, Oligarch Point Of View cantbeserious Dec 2013 #18
We should put you in charge of "something". Enthusiast Dec 2013 #39
Kick this post KansDem Dec 2013 #58
What is wrong with "What is wrong with" ... Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2013 #23
The only two Democrats I can remember who came right out on a National Stage and said that bvar22 Dec 2013 #52
Don't forget Mike Gravel: Follow the money. L0oniX Dec 2013 #68
It seems that ProSense Dec 2013 #25
This vid needs to go viral, but at close to 4 minutes, I guess it's just too long. CrispyQ Dec 2013 #26
The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us cantbeserious Dec 2013 #29
, blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #27
when it comes to the democratic party establishment, losing has no adverse consequences. KG Dec 2013 #28
We did NOT win the cold war. The USSR just lost first. Scuba Dec 2013 #30
Well said. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #34
Our administrations, for some time now, have been perps, not just players. jtuck004 Dec 2013 #31
Plus one! Thanks for sharing that............nt Enthusiast Dec 2013 #33
Excellent! L0oniX Dec 2013 #69
kentuck, it's populist common sense and it's the right thing to do for electoral success. Enthusiast Dec 2013 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2013 #35
The Treasury belongs to the ruling class, not the working class. That's why. nt valerief Dec 2013 #36
what's wrong: he who controls the media, the images, controls the culture. BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2013 #38
It's apparently wildly radical, Marxo-Commie-Satan ... common sense. DirkGently Dec 2013 #40
Bribery The Wizard Dec 2013 #41
We could easily cut the defense buget sulphurdunn Dec 2013 #43
Poor, poor kentuck...... DeSwiss Dec 2013 #44
what is wrong with it, as we all know, is that none of these ideas makes tptb any richer, any more niyad Dec 2013 #53
Does anyone else keep notes of their recent activity? fleabiscuit Dec 2013 #55
Nothing wrong, that's the truth, ruth... MrMickeysMom Dec 2013 #56
That, and common sense is something you have to work at. fleabiscuit Dec 2013 #57
I'd say there is nothing wrong JNelson6563 Dec 2013 #61
That budget doesn't include nuke research or nuclear weapons upgrdes either. another_liberal Dec 2013 #63
In a just world criminals would be held accountable. ananda Dec 2013 #65
Where's all the usual anti left, corporate loving, centrist right responses and attacks? L0oniX Dec 2013 #70
The United States can still be the dominant military power Harmony Blue Dec 2013 #71
Some people just have slightly different priorities. raouldukelives Dec 2013 #75
I might quibble with the numbers but agree with the gist Prophet 451 Dec 2013 #78
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What is wrong?»Reply #25