Obama on poverty
Greetings now from another huge rally at a university in Cincinnati - a sports hall filled to the rafters.
Thunderous support for an Obama speech which contained the interesting line that he is "a supporter of capitalism!"
That's a relief - America's coming socialist revolution is on hold after all.
BUT "If you are working in this country you should not be poor," is another line - and that idea, it seems to me, would be genuinely revolutionary if it caught on.
America does not believe in entrenched poverty, class-based poverty. But this is a society in which, if things don’t turn out right, you can fall very hard and land very low. Not that this nation is proud of poverty - but I have always thought there is a semi-willing acceptance of it as a corollary of the great emphasis given to wealth-creation here.
If every working American was well off, the US would - as some have pointed out - look more like Canada or even Western Europe.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton in her own inimitable style.
And though with rather more effect perhaps:
"Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?"
I read those words as thousands of joy-filled people let out an ear-splitting cheer at the end of his speech. Last words: "... and we will change the world!" No Baracklash here...
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Why does Bill Kristol still have a job? What purpose does he serve? Why should anyone care what he says about anything, much less seek out his opinion?
Certainly, I've always thought that there is a school of thought in the US that poverty is the result of laziness.
The idea is a little more aspirational than it sounds. The belief that everyone can be rich, and that everyone has a chance to excel- and that anyone who does not is simply not trying hard enough.
I think that idea is demonstratably false, and that events like New Orleans have really shown up that kind of thinking across the country. Obama needs to be careful, though- becoming too "socialist" could cost him dearly.
The idea of there being "poverty" in the united states is still stupid to me. As long as everyone in this country keep feeling sorry for ourselves, guys like Obama can say nothing at all and seem like a Savior.
As an Irish American, registered democrat living in Berlin, Germany, one of my main sources of world news is ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ World service internet and radio and I am delighted to keep up with this blog.
I must say that I do find Obama mesmerizing and am getting caught up in the debates on youtube too. When republicans say Obama lacks experience they only prove their own stupidity! Who could be less experienced than George Bush? As a lover of languages I find it incredible to think that we could finally have a president who could at least express himself and I do believe truly he is the best thing going. I am all behind Obama!
Senator Obama's comments on povert are quite in keeping with his style- be everything to everybody and say lots of pretty words with little behind them. As a citizen of Illinois, I am astounded that Sen Obama has done so little to enact any change here. Our state, ranks near the bottom in medicaid reimbursement and education. Since he has been elected, it seems that he has done little other than run for President. He may be a good candidate in time, when he has proven that he will act on what he says, but for this election, we really should go with Se Clinton. She has worked long and hard to get where she is, and while not as charismatic, he words seem to have more content, more workable solutions.
How did New Orleans "show-up" the kind of thinking that assumes that poverty is an avoidable condition in the US? It certainly showed that there IS poverty, but I don't know who doubted that in the first place. The fact is that many first generation immigrants to this country find prosperity. One wonders why so many native born Americans find it so difficult to do so.
I agree with Alistair completely when he talks about America's attitude towards getting rich. If you're poor, you're a lazy bum. This idea can only change as more and more of America's middle class are struggling to make ends meet. Will we reach a point in the States where people will have more compassion and do more for the homeless and underprivileged? I have always thought that it is better to be a lower income worker in Western Europe (in my case Berlin, Germany) than in The U.S. I am a registered democrat and U.S. citizen and I am very taken with Barack Obama and support him all the way.
Anyone can lift himself out of poverty in the U.S. if he gives it a good try, assuming he's reasonably literate and numerate. Completion of a 2-year course at a community college can put someone firmly on the rungs of a ladder up.
Republican have soiled their nest too many times here in America. NO MORE REPUBLICANS! Socialism sounds great to me: health care, a plan for the homeless and mentally ill, all these are things that the democrats will do once we can get rid of the republinazis in Washington, DC.
Republicans will always attack a Democrat as Liberal and Socialist whether it is on the economy or social issues. Obama is showing that those old labels don't carry the same effect.
If anything it forces a real conversation to take place about ideas and policies. Instead of name calling we might actually get some answers out of the right in this country. Those who trademarked the word "Homosexual Agenda". Which is just another of the attacks we hear that add nothing to the political process.
There is not a school of thought that poverty is the result of laziness. It is a line of thought that accurately portrays an alarming number of poverty cases in the U.S. This would not be a problem if it were not for liberal-minded politics that allows for these lazy ones to drain the resources of those who do work for a living. The only ones left out in the cold are the ones that are in poverty through no fault of their own.
Any attempt to "level the playing field" will only increase the division (if only in attitude) between those in poverty and those that are not in poverty. Why should one strive for success if they are not going to be rewarded above and beyond those that do not?
Lastly, remember that poverty in the U.S. would not fit the same definition of poverty in many areas of the world. You can still own your home, have two or more cars, enjoy your personal big-screen TV with your brand new XBox 360 while being considered impoverished in the U.S. These are the people that are slapping the face of those that cannot rise above the poverty level without the assistance of their fellow countrymen. These are the same people being increasingly empowered through welfare type programs to remain poor.
Justin
You're correct in the "..America does not believe in entrenched poverty, class-based poverty..."
However it is very much a "class" based society. Those with money and those without, as you have already noted and eludted too.
But does "If you are working in this country you should not be poor," this mean Obama has a plan to get every American into work, if so, how?
Many of the previous posts spell out the really big problem in the US. Anyone can be rich if they try hard enough. Idiots! This line of thinking is economically unreal. Comments like this are made by people who are rich enough and who want to keep the 40 million or so officially US government approved poverty residents exactly where they are in poverty. This number is almost the population of the United Kingdom.
From a Brit working in Disneyland.
"If every working American was well off, the US would - as some have pointed out - look more like Canada or even Western Europe."
And that's bad how? I don't know why so many people, you included evidently, speek so badly of socialism. I personally can't find that much bad with it. Well just for instance look at Canada and western Europe. Hardly any poor people live their, and meanwhile they are all within the G7 nations or there about, and somehow seem to avoid much of the spotlight criticism from the outside world, domestic or foreign policy based, that may come their way. That seems like a pretty sweet deal for a country if you ask me!
But you are right about one thing, though. We don't have many safety nets like Europe does, and so if people aren't on top of their game, they could very well end up homeless or worss within a week or two. And we most deffinatly need to fully recognise, and address the problem of poverty-not just half-heartidly-which is why Obama is such a fortionate find! If his idea does indeed catch on, then "The United States of America" will very well be one step closer to "The United States of Utopia"!!
"...preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?"
If you are going to reprint something false, please include the caveat that it is false.
There is Savage Capitalisme and Responsible Capitalisme , for the first time in US politics a presidential candidate choose the LATTER ONE ! For the sake of the country ,I hope OBAMA get elected as presidente of this great country .
Why is the British Broadcasting Corporation taking sides in a foreign election?
If Mr. Obama raises taxes as he has promised, there will be fewer jobs for the poor. Wealthy Americans will move their wealth out of the country.
I find the entire attack by Hillary on Barack Obama rather amusing. I mean, it's almost as if she is ignorant of the existence of youtube! One day she's saying that she is proud to be on the debate stage with him and the next day she is saying shame on you! As if Hillary would be where she is now had she not been the wife of a President! If she had all these supposed convictions, she would have kicked him out when he had his first affair, or at least after the Monica debacle! But no. This tells me that she is the thirstiest person for power that I have ever seen.Now THAT is scary!
As a British American who has recently moved out to Los Angeles for university I agree with Sullivan's analysis.
Here at USC we are an island of wealth surrounded by poorer communities. The absence of support for the homeless is particularly notable.
Here in the US segregation between classes seems more common and emphasis is on wealth creation rather than poverty relief. Anyone can get rich in the USA but not everyone has the opportunity.
"If you are working in this country you should not be poor."
Barack Obama may have caught in one short sentence more closely than most authors of long books and reports on the subject, what it is that distinguishes the out put of the Government of a well run state from the out put of the Government of a failing state in the 21st Century.
Is it a sensible project for every country to commit to the goal that by the end of its own designated Year Y,the situation will have been reached that if you are working in this country you are not poor?
Could the concepts behind the project have appeal to religious fundamentalists, socialists, capitalist, the apathetic and the sponsors of the principles behind the new structure, Public Private Partnerships?
I note this comment will not be published until I have approved it and that it may be moderated.
We (Americans), for the most part SAY that socialism is a great thing and that we should embrace it. But in practice, I find we are very different. Once we hear of the outrageous amount of tax raise this would cause, it gets shut down. And then there are the many Americans I find even in a liberal state like New York talking about how it sucks to have to pay tax for Medicaid and Welfare programs when it doesn't affect them.
We as a whole will have to embrace both the negatives and positives of socialism before we can actually invoke it in government.
Thanks Mr. Webb for your courageous and sincere reports. Allow me to also thank all Americans involved in the "Obama surge". He is raising hopes all over the Earth, silently connecting people who believe in the possibility of peace, in spite of so much hating and pain. Arthur Schlesinger's words for RFK may be right for Obama and, I would guess, for most of his supporters as well: "For he was truly a perceiver of the terror of life, but he manned himself nobly to face it". His presidency may have a very strong and lasting impact.
Barack's new infusion of his "support of Capitalism" is more proof of his pandering to say anything to get elected. The United States is in it's worst economy in over a decade and this Candidate for PRESIDENT is in "favor" of American capitalism. God almighty, can you imagine??? What else should a candidate for president say? That he's "Against" a strong economy??? Trouble is, his cult-following is too stupid and placated to call him on this. Barack has only 24 months of on-the-job training at the Federal level. Not enough to be president. This is what the people of America will get if he is elected. I saw Senator Clinton speak in Rhode Island yesterday, and her command of the World's problems, the Nation's problems, and Municiple problems is breathtaking. She speaks extemporaneously with great detail addressing solution after solution for all that is troubling American citizens. Pragmatic attainable solutions. Trouble is, with the "DUMBING DOWN" of American society, the status quo masses want to be placated and lulled into a false sense of security. Barack will drop these people like the proverbial "hot potato". His wife Michelle Obama already proved that right out of the gate. The reason she insulted American citizens right out of the gate is because THAT IS WHO SHE REALLY IS. There is NO WAY that Barack and his wife could be the "Source of ALL Hope for Americans" while such Ungrateful and insulting un-American remarks flow so freely from her mouth. It's all lies. Barack's entire campaign is built on lies that play to people's desperation to be validated. But, he IS in "favor" of a strong economy. Gee, thanks Barack.
To the self-righteous bigots in some of these comments, you make me sick. I worked a job that was so difficult I would actually cry on the way home, to raise my two sons. I earned $9.50 an hour which was good money in those days, but it was nowhere near enough to support my family. I paid $250.00 a month for childcare alone. rent, utilities, car insurance, food took every penny. When the car broke down or an appliance broke, I thanked God for federal assistance that help me. I was a hard working, all American woman, living at the poverty level! If looking down at others that you know nothing about, helps you feel good about yourself, it's a shame, because if you had one ounce of compassion and charity in your heart, you would have much better reasons to feel good about the person you are.
Oh dear #11 seems to have rather missed the point Senator Obama was talking about the 'working poor', those people who work long hours in jobs without medical plans, pensions or any other benefits and find that no matter how many hours they put in they still don't have enough to live on.
Even if one accepts that in the USA anyone can rise to the the top, not EVERYONE can, regardless of education or social mobility someone is still going to be collecting the garbage, waiting tables, or cleaning the offices, the question is how do you make sure those people can earn a living wage doing it?
His campaign consists largely of abstract nouns like hope, peace, change and dialogue, generalities that no one can be against.
At times, he enters the realm of fantasy, in his belief that he can convene the leaders of the Mulim world and personally work out their differences with America. By the same token, one reads commentators in other countries who seem to see in Barak Obama a global saviour - that his mere election will somehow heal the world, ending poverty and injustice everywhere. And he himself is not above claiming that his election will not only "save America" but "save the world."
I am dismayed at the outright support of socialism by people that probably consider themselves to be free just because they know of someone that is less free.
This country based its case for independence from England squarely on the concept of inalienable rights. Our Declaration of Independence specifically mentions life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is severely compromised when the government is empowered to take property from one person who made the effort to own that property and give that property to someone who did not make the effort. Socialism, by definition places the liberty of society above the liberty of the individual. That flies in the face of the basic principles of freedom upon which this country was founded and has fought against at home and abroad.
We Americans, like citizens of any other developed country, hold certain unshakeable myths about our nation and our society that may be largely grounded in truth, but are sometimes questionable up-close. For example, we (and I include myself here) are very strong supporters of free-market capitalism - and yet have a large and sprawling corporate welfare and subsidy system.
As a liberal and a Democrat, I too believe that there is not enough done to combat homelessness and provide opportunity in our country. But I do not share the shock at how the homeless are treated that my good British friend does (although she's been here for nearly a decade). It may not true that *everyone* can "get rich" in America - but I believe it true that everyone can at least achieve a comfortable standard of living, through wise lifestyle choices (ex. getting a high school diploma; working hard; obeying the law and making wise financial decisions). Of course, many don't. And that, I think, is where we differ from many Europeans I meet - we are more willing to let people suffer the consequences of their own poor decisions.
Politics are dirty in the U.S. and change happens slowly, if at all, when it comes to the good of the people. Our social policies are rigid and our laws many.
I believe Barack is going to bring an end to our bloated, inflexible government that has ruled the roost for to long.
Make way for progress, and peace. You go Barack!
Here's whay I find amusing. All you Europeans writing about how great socialism is... your relatives who came and forged a life in the United States when it was nothing out of nothing are rolling in their graves. Bahhh, bahhh sounds like socialist sheep following big brother wherever you will feed us.
It is easy to hate the rich, it is easy to become involved in a bi-polar debate where there is an evil and a good. But the fact is, the answer is somewhere in the middle and most politicians never seem to find it. There are lazy poor people, it is not a myth. There are also the ugly rich, who stage themselves in extravagant materialism, it is not a myth. But if you get into an argument in America, you'll end up fighting a bi-polar reality.
And on a side-note--
For all the fat, old, wealthy fools reading this, very few people envy you, stop being delusional and get a new personal trainer.
You only have to look at the body language of Clinton and Obama to see who is in trouble here. What little I've seen shows Clinton as appearing increasingly stressed, desperate and almost pleading when talking to her supporters. Obama, by contrast appears increasingly relaxed. Whatever the real facts are about who released the tribal dress image and why, the result appears to be most negative for the Clinton camp. McCain will be silently praying this Democratic handbagging continues all the way to the presidential election.
Obama is al style over substance. His 'inclusive' presentations actually just sound like he is always harping on about how his audience of the day is being kept down by 'the man'. A divisive ploy dressed up in the robes of inclusion.
I dislike Hilary intensely but at least the ideas she has on what to change and HOW to change it are plausible. Any day now I fully expect Obama to end one of his sermons with "Be excellent to each other!".
Rees-Mogg, Kristol.
I fear you are going to quote Joe Klein next.
At least yesterday you linked to Obsidian Wings, and that a page linking to Josh Marshall, so I guess there's hope for you yet.
Immigrants in Europe, grow up angry and despondent.
Immigrants in America, grow up to be Presidents and Billionaires. Europeans cannot comprehend that the world is changing and they being left behind, irrelevant.
Viva America and well done Barack Obama.
when i saw hillary got angry its makes me think, is she the right person for the presidency? she's playing the same old politics. well done obama your doing gread
Paul G.: bad example of an empty phrase. Bill and Ted caused world peace in the second movie, if you remember.
And what I get from "if you're working in this country, you should not be poor" is that minimum wage and tax laws would start being tied to the poverty line. nothing about socialism, just getting some value for work being done. people needing two jobs, even three, and scraping by to earn enough to eat is ridiculous in America. One job should be enough for a modest lifestyle.
Mary, you say that 'there are no poor people in Canada'. Where exactly do you get this idea? I am an American studying in Canada, and everywhere I have been is a shining example of regional poverty. Nova Scotia, for example has a rather low mean income. Newfoundland is notorious across Canada as being poverty-stricken. I currently live in Northern Ontario, and poverty and low income reign supreme here. Sure, as Canada is a Welfare-state, these people do not suffer as they would in many other parts of the world, but it does not mean that Canada does not have any poor people. Please do not state 'facts' without knowing what you are talking about
Henry Ford had it right when he said, "There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured." People argue that the rich and big business should be taxed to pay for the support of the poor. This does the equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot. While many are loathe to admit it, tax cuts to the wealthy and businesses actually increased the amount of tax revenue coming in. Unfortunately the ridiculous cost of our wars ate up the increase. The point is that the tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, lead to more investment, more business being done, and ultimately more jobs. If you want more jobs created, then taking money away from the people that would pay the salaries is not going to encourage them to spend on more workers. Millions of immigrants come to this country, start off with literally nothing and work their way out of poverty. I don't see why people born here who typically have a better education, better grasp of the language, and better understanding of the country in general fail to follow the same path.
Kelly Pierce (#29) said: "Immigrants in America, grow up to be Presidents and Billionaires."
Kelly, check the US constitution: an immigrant cannot become President. The UK has no equivalent legal restriction nor, as far as I know, do other European countries.
Interesting comment about the perceived elitism of Obama; can you get more elitist than George Bush, who after all comes from a high profile dynasty in public service spanning over 60 years, the Clintons (can you get more elite than being an elected representative and spouse of a previous POTUS?),or any of the Republican candidates who have distinguished backgrounds in public service, the military, etc.
A pre-requisite for high office in the USA is access to both money and influence - money on its own will not guarantee office, whilst influence can get you money, but not necessarily the office. You need to be a member of the elite to get access to both. All the candidates in this election are elitist by nature!
Would it be so bad if America was more like Canada and Western Europe ? .I would think fewer rich people and no real poverty would be a very good trade off.Wed do not know how lucky we are in the UK where poverty in the sense of not having enough to eat or clothe Your Family is non-existant despite the desperate claims of the Far Left.
Is Bill Crystal the same Israel-firster who is so big on invading countries like Iraq and Iran?
Kelly Pierce,
I think you'll find that one of the requirements to be President is that you're born an American citizen.
Immigrants in America can however become billionaires, but how many of us do?
I'm honestly not quite sure what your point was at all.
Why is it up to Government to end poverty? If Government stayed out of social hand out programs, people would not rely upon them as income. Poor people in the USA are nothing like poor people in Africa. There is simply no comparison. There are ample opportunities in the US. Is this not evident by the 12 million illegal aliens who have come here? Get real Barack - we don't need more social programs, more tax increases. The US needs more tax breaks, more friendly corporate environment. This will open more jobs to people - without the government hand outs!
The widely shared desire for a more specific plan of action from Obama is understandable. However, that desire owes much to his unique ability to powerfully express the core concerns of centrist Americans while avoiding the familiar polical polarity. He's got our attention, and we want more. What is less understandable is the bleating complaint that the detail is a pre-requisite. Obama has his finger on the pulse of America. The other candidates do not. It doesn't matter how wonderful your toolbox, managerial expertise, and diligence if you can't identify the problem or marshall the sustained will to fix it.
I assume Obama's avoidance of specifics is calculated. (Perhaps something is learned at Harvard Law that isn't taught at Georgetown). Lawyers and political hacks love specifics; they can be attacked, from Right or Left, history or novelty. Any evolution of thought is forever after a "flip" or "flop". Given a choice of being attacked for specifics, or for not having specifics, I expect he'll keep his options open as long as possible.
Kelly, Sarkozy is the son of a Hungarian immigrant father and a partly Greek-jewish mother.
And he's president already, unlike Obama.
"Immigrants in America, grow up to be Presidents and Billionaires."
Presidents?
Is Kelly another American who hasn't bothered reading the US Constitution?
There's a Calvinist strain to the broad American view of society, mixed with a dash of vulgar social Darwinism and garnished with a twist of Thomas Hobbes. If you're poor, you deserve to be poor; if you get rich, you were blessed; if you're sick and can't afford to pay your medical bills, it's your own damn fault. And don't forget to praise Jesus when you score that touchdown.
What happened to the concept of LESS government? Apparently, the government is going to decide what medical insurance I should have. I am not happy about the state of poverty in my country, but I don't think more government interferance is the answer.
Oh Bill, are you ever right?
'Preaching to the choir' in a carefully stage-managed, media-circus event is typical sham electioneering. Thunderous support from a few thousand thunderous supporters may look good on the tube but as usual it won't motivate the majority of eligible voters to bother to go to the polls. "Full of sound and fury signifying nothing." As the speech made amply clear. Was there ever any doubt in anyone's mind that Obama Copacabana is "a supporter of capitalism"? That's what his campaign has been all about right from the start. And that's what his Party is all about, too. He could just as well be running as a Republican. He's been trained very well in the political 'art' of talking around the subject. He could hardly be more vague in tip-toeing around the badly kept secret of class divisions in America. Or hardly more evasive in promising to do nothing about it. The candidate of "change" is there precisely to preempt change. Could anyone possibly imagine a more tepid response to the question of class and poverty than such dreary dissembling? Not surprising that the reactionary Kristol claque should find little objection to his politics, only his mannerisms. They will "change the world" alright - with more "ear-splitting" artillery and back-breaking IMF dictates.
2 words....Fair Tax
Pendragon #39: Yes, and I am very, very proud, and jealous of your nation! And I believe every other American should be as well! The UK, minus the rude and judgementle insults that seem to be rife within its population, is everything (I think) this nation should strive to be!!
Nick S #45: You claim to think that "There's a Calvinist strain to the broad American view of society, mixed with a dash of vulgar social Darwinism and garnished with a twist of Thomas Hobbes.
If you're poor, you deserve to be poor; if you get rich, you were blessed; if you're sick and can't afford to pay your medical bills, it's your own damn
fault. And don't forget to praise Jesus when you score that touchdown." First, might I say, bluntly, that I have never been so insulted in my entire life!! Second, might I point out that while this thought process may apply to certainly many Americans, I think it a bit immature of you to believe that it applies to the majority of the society as your post so rudely claims. I, for one, do not fit that mold!!! No one deserves to be poor, health care is a very very prominant issue in the campaign, and, while the Christian right comunity is extremely judgementle in this country, despite what they may say, there is freedom of religion in this country!!!!
Brett #48: Yes that may be true, but unless you can build a time machieene and go back in time to the signing of our constitution, and make it so that we have a parlamentary system, Obama is all we have, and is-worss case scinario-the lesser of two evils. I mean honestly, do you really want another Republican president? I didn't think so.
In my opinion as an outsider (not American), the percentage of Americans that will vote for Obama can give a close estimate to the percentage of Americans that are very humane, decent, and worth admiring.
* 54.
* At 07:31 AM on 27 Feb 2008,
* HH wrote:
"In my opinion as an outsider (not American), the percentage of Americans that will vote for Obama can give a close estimate to the percentage of Americans that are very humane, decent, and worth admiring."
That's what Michelle Obama was talking about.
It would be marvelous to think of ourselves as you describe Obama voters ... humane, decent, worthy.
Thank you for an extremely rare and thoroughly delightful compliment.
There is hope for us.
I was at this rally in Cincinnati. Normally, I consider myself quite jaded by politics and the political process and so does the friend with whom I attended. However, we left on Monday inspired.
Barack Obama is truly a great speaker and his staff does an excellent job firing up the crowd. Now, a few days later, when I've returned to some kind of intellectual and emotional normality, I'm left wondering:
Obama uses quite a bit of lofty rhetoric. It may be *too* lofty. He speaks to my beliefs when he says that he wants to bring everyone together, to change politics, to change Washington. However, for this change to occur, he's going to need the support of the other actors in this political drama. What happens when he runs for re-election, not having been able to bridge the gaps in Congress or between political parties. His opponents only need to run ads claiming that he accomplished nothing of what he set out to do.
Still, you'll note that I'm already talking about Obama's second term. Barack Obama will make a great President, even if only for one term. And what he does manage to accomplish will be nothing short of extraordinary.
It fascinates me to read many of these comments. So many people are so sure of their views and talk about the US as if they have deep knowledge of its day-to-day workings and its history’s impact on modern day American life. The US is a complex country with complex citizens who have come from all over the world to shape the destiny of this nation of over 300 million people (nearly 10 times the size of Canada). It is remarkable how unique each American is and I know this because I’ve lived here nearly all of my life. I was born in Lebanon and my father migrated to the US after my mother died during the civil war in the mid eighties.
Also, to believe that the answers to the world’s problems lie with the policies of one political party is naive. A good social and economic balance is key. Any good economist can tell you that. Many of the current economic policies utilized worldwide (especially by the EU countries w/ their rapidly aging populations) are simply unsustainable – unless there are plans in place to keep increasing personal income tax. And frankly the US’s foreign policy decisions have cost it trillions over the last several years and obviously that’s not sustainable. But to think that somehow you have all the answers while economists of high regard dedicate their lives to study the feasibility and sustainability of such policies is interesting to say the least.
The answers can always be found in the middle. I may not be able to convince you with this post, but time certainly will.
Dani