From this week's Economist:
"[Economic] inequality is not inherently wrong- as long as three condidtions are met: first, society as a whole is getting richer; second, there is a safety net for the very poor; and third, everybody, regardless of class, race, creed or sex, has an opportunity to climb up through the system...
This is not to let the United States off the hook when it comes to social mobility. Although the United States is seen as a world of opportunity, the reality may be different. Some studies have shown that it is easier for poorer children to rise through society in many European countries than in America... Only 3% of students at top colleges come from the poorest quarter of the population. "
Posted by Nat at June 18, 2006 09:23 PM | TrackBackWho is this society who is getting richer? Can I meet him?
Posted by: Ben at June 19, 2006 08:54 AMWhich "top colleges" are these, and how is that a measure of economic mobility? I came from the poorest quarter of the population, and believe me, I'm quite glad I didn't go to Harvard, or Berkeley, or SU!
Posted by: Peter at June 19, 2006 09:09 AMCome on, Peter. History clearly shows us that one cannot succeed without a state-funded college degree. Surely creativity and productivity have absolutely nothing to do with social mobility.
All I know is that the best way to help the poor is to force them, at gunpoint, into government schools, where we can indoctrinate them with all the harsh, materialistic state worship of the day! Only when we destroy their minds will they be successful!
Posted by: Ben at June 19, 2006 09:18 AMThe fact that 3% of low income students attend the top rated schools is not in and of itself evidence of the lack of social mobility. Those who make such a claim have a responsibility to provide evidence that low income students are just as qualified for those schools as high income students are and that high income students are prefered because they are high income and not because they are better qualified. The only other option is to prejudice the system against hard working high income students, which is essentially punishing a teenager because of their parents' economic standing. And that, my friends, is stupid.
Posted by: Matthias at June 19, 2006 04:48 PMI've actaully read the article in question and I find it interesting to note how much focus Nat has put on inequality and how little focus he has put on what the Economist identified as the problem: the American public education system. Gosh, it sure would be great if we had a public education system where parents could use some of the money allotted to their children's education and spend it wherever they pleased, like at good schools. But the Republicans are just too much against the voucher system for that to ever happen.
Wait... replace the "Republicans" with "Democrats and the selfish amoral teachers unions" and that last sentence will actually make sense.
Posted by: Matthias at June 20, 2006 05:48 PMI am always leary when it says "some studies show..." which seem to me to mean the author is aware of other studies that disagree, but will not bring them out unless challenged. ("I said "some"!)
Ben; I realise you are attempting wit, but when you said: "History clearly shows us that one cannot succeed without a state-funded college degree. Surely creativity and productivity have absolutely nothing to do with social mobility." It peaked my curiosity. Would all the commenters be willing to tell what creativity and productivity they used to fund their degrees? Two questions only.
1) First, how much was the total cost of your education? ( including room and board when applicable)
2) Then, how was it financed?
Use only the following categories, or justify deviation, to keep folks from spinning their answers. Please tell us the percentage of your college costs using the following 4 categories:
a) Family
b) State ( any government assistance)
c) Private Grant or scholarship (including loans)
d) Pay as you go: working full time and paying tuition.
I will start:
1) $12,000 approx
2)
a) $700 = 7%
b) $7,000 = 70%
c) $1,200 = 12%
d) $1,100 = 11%
Matthias;
Just as I believe that teachers, even those in the various teacher's unions, chose their job for at least partly altruistic reasons, I will believe that your statement comes from simply not thinking about it, and not inherent class based amoral depravity.
But to say
"Those who make such a claim have a responsibility to provide evidence that low income students are just as qualified for those schools as high income students are and that high income students are prefered because they are high income and not because they are better qualified. "
is based on an assumption that poor people are NOT inherently equal to rich people. Are you suggesting that the cause is genetics? depravity and laziness? rather than imbalanced opportunity? Maybe you can say you define "better qualified" in other terms than inherent intelligence, and redeem your seemingly racist and truly unchristian statement.
I attack your statement, and only bring it up because I love you.
Posted by: steve at June 25, 2006 08:10 PMsteve,
No, to the contrary, my comment is based on the assumption that poor people ARE inherently equal to rich people. As such, they are fully capable of playing on the same field as anyone else and do not require a handicap of any kind. To simplify things, I'm saying that a rich kid who gets a 1530 on the SATs should not get admission precedence to Yale over a poor kid who gets a 1560 just because the rich kid's dad went to Yale. But the other side of that coin is that I don't think a poor kid who gets a 1530 should get precedence over a rich kid who gets a 1560 just because the poor kid is poor.
So you can go ahead and try to spin my words in order to try to fit it into this tiny ideology in which people like me are filled with hate and condescension for poor people. I understand that this kind of world is comfortable because it is easy to understand, but it unfortunately doesn't offer a good reflection of reality.
Posted by: Matthias at June 26, 2006 05:33 PMEeek, I'm a little nervous about putting in my two cents here because I've seen some pretty rough "ad hominem" arguments happen here before.
That said, I have a couple of things to say, from an educator's/graduate student's perspective.
1) From what I've been told, the cost of higher education has risen at an astounding percentage, higher than what "should" be in relationship to inflation. I don't know the solution, but I do know that that could be burdensome for someone from the inner city, for example, who doesn't have family support.
2) The kids I've taught in college who work their way through school value school more highly than spoiled kids who's parents/the government pay for everything. Still, the costs can be steep, more than a kid first starting out can afford.
3) Education--though not "redemptive" can be a ticket out of a life of poverty, prostitution, drugs, etc. If not college, I think affordable vocational schools should be available. It's getting harder and harder to get a reasonably paying job without a college diploma.
4)Honestly, what is an SAT score in the full range of things?!? It tells you something about a student, but it's extremely limited. I'm troubled by the emphasis often put on standardized testing.
5) "As such, they are fully capable of playing on the same field as anyone else and do not require a handicap of any kind."
I definitely understand the sentiment behind this. But it would be good, I think, for you and others to spend some time in the inner-city to understand the harsh realities there. I wouldn't have known if I hadn't been there, helping out with some children when I was in Georgia. Maybe "handicap" isn't the right word, but a helping hand IS often needed, whether it's tutoring, mentoring, or just spending time with children.
The realities of the inner-city are heart-breaking. Most of the kids we encountered didn't have dads around, and their mothers frequently didn't care for or about their children. Drugs were everywhere. Little girls were experienced beyond their years. 12 year olds took care of the 5 year olds who carried the babies on their hips because no one else was there to take care of them. I never understood why gangs formed until I was there, but in some ways, gangs fulfilled the protection and belonging that should have been provided by families.
If you grew up without love, with a broken family, in poverty, in fear, chances are, no matter what your "natural" abilities are, you're not going to perform as well as easily as another child with the same "natural" abilities that had a whole family, adequate physical nutrition and other provisions, and felt loved.
I don't have the answers, but people are complex, and the solution(s) are more complex than a simple comparison of SAT scores.
Posted by: Joanna at June 26, 2006 06:06 PMBy the way, I didn't mention my tuition information:
1) $80,000 (bachlor and masters degrees)
2)
a) $1500 (2%)
b) $20,000 (25%, and these are all loans that I'm currently paying back)
c) $13,000 (16%)
d) $45,000 (57%, there was not a single semester where I worked fewer than 14 hr/week (while taking max class loads) to pay for my education)
Also, I think that many teachers enter the profession for partially altruistic reasons. Many of these teachers are furious with their forced membership to a union with which they deeply disagree. However, teacher's unions very often work against the interests of students by protecting teachers who can't teach, promoting a monopolistic educational system that is better for teachers than it is for students, and encouraging the "money can fix any problem" attitude prevelant in America's educational system.
Posted by: Matthias at June 26, 2006 06:17 PMJoanna,
1) I think you misunderstood my use of the SAT numbers. I was using the SAT analogy to describe my ideology. I understand the complexities inherent in admissions, but my point was that choosing a poor person because they are poor (as opposed to because they are qualified) is as unfair as choosing a rich kid because his daddy went to the school. I meant to use the SATs only to simplify the argument and set it out in clear and plain terms. I don't have a problem with distributing scholarships (especially private scholarships) based on ecconomic need. I do think that a poor kid should get a scholarship over a rich kid based on the fact that he is poor.
2) I also understand the tutoring and mentoring aspects, which is why I've had an active role in inner-city mentoring and tutoring for years now (typically math and science, since that's what I do and there is such a desperate need for it).
Are these complex issues? Of course they are. We all want everyone in the world to be happy and have everything they want. Poverty is tragic and deserves the active attention of every Christian alive. But we also cannot promote "equality" among the poor by being unequal to the rich.
This is especially true in higher education. When an 18 year old kid is trying to get an education and start defining him/herself in the adventure of life, he/she should not be held back or looked at differently by the admissions board because his/her parents are rich or poor, black or white, congressman or pimp. That is equality and that is what I'm trying to get across.
Posted by: Matthias at June 26, 2006 06:42 PMBefore I address anything else along this discussion that has been raised in many ways by Joanna's joining us ( thank you Joanna! Great perspective and excellent expression of compassion and insight)
I challenge Mr "Poor man" Matthias to ( in the spirit of your own words: "Those who make such a claim have a responsibility to provide evidence...") prove that his family paid 2% of his education, and he, working 14 hrs a week, paid for room, board, and 45% of his tuition on an as you go basis. No rhetoric: proof is requested to not think you a liar
Posted by: steve at June 26, 2006 06:58 PMMatthias: Try this: Instead of "I think you misunderstood..." say: "Habada habada habada" ...that's how Fred Flintstone responded in similar situations. Joanna's depth showed how your "simple" argument was actually simplistic, and again...elitist if not racist.
Your use of SAT's and her remarks about them clearly show your bias and lack of insight into the realities of inner cities, and poverty. How is it that you have "had an active role in inner-city mentoring and tutoring for years now" and yet are so unaware. I think you might better help the kids by NOT bringing your brand of "Mentoring" to them. The following will be an assumption: with that caveat, let me say...I have seen your kind in so many situations, from inner city to the third world...the great white Bwana come to bless da niggahs with his condescending presence...then blaming their inherent laziness when, wonder of wonders, they don't thrive under his gracious guidance.
And yes, it is a tiny philosophical path...a strait and narrow one.
How about this, Mathias...would you allow that the relevance of the SAT is a function of the adequacy of the school district, as much as the inherent ability of the student? Would you accept "class standing" as a gauge, effectively leveling that playing field, so that a student from a poor school, whose average SAT's are FAR below a student from a rich school will not be denied access due to geography?
Posted by: steve at June 26, 2006 07:31 PMto all you republibertarian Nazis out there, this bears repeating:
If you grew up without love, with a broken family, in poverty, in fear, chances are, no matter what your "natural" abilities are, you're not going to perform as well as easily as another child with the same "natural" abilities that had a whole family, adequate physical nutrition and other provisions, and felt loved.
If you are not a republibertarian Nazi, don't freaking defend yourself!
How did you stumble onto this Blog, Joanna? You are a bright and shining point of light.
Posted by: steve at June 26, 2006 07:41 PMsteve,
You've got alot of chutzpa clamoring for evidence from me when you obstinately refuse to show any yourself. So I'll even go first. At Covenant College I worked as a math tutor for Joseph Clumpner and Wil Schaffers my first two years, and as a combination math and physics tutor (the later for Don Petcher) my third year, the remaining undergrad time I worked as a multimedia producer for Marilyn Somers (Georgia Tech Alumni Association) and as a student researcher for Michael Nitsche (Tech professor) for my grad school. Feel free to contact any of them for verification. I now humbly request that you post your tax returns (personal and business) as well as educational receipts and loan payments so we can verify your claims, less you be considered a liar. Or you could stop being a jackass. Your choice.
On second thought, there seems to be no way for you to stop being a jackass. When people who disagree with you are all evil racist Hitlers, you show yourself to be lacking in both empathy and Christian charity. You have repeatedly and viciously labeled me a racist, a bigot, and a non-believer, when I am clearly none of the above.
As for my ministry, you can call me names and doubt my intentions, but I am excited to have the privilege to be able to minister to my kids with whatever gifts God has given me. I love my kids and I’m trying my hardest to do my best to help them in whatever way that I can. I do this, not so that you can pat me on the head or scream at me for being white and conservative, but because I think it is the right thing to do. If you don’t like that, please take it up with my Father. I’m sure He’ll love to hear your justifications for judging me the way you do.
As for the ongoing SAT issue, I just said that I think that the admissions process is a complex and difficult thing to gauge and that I was using the SATs to illustrate a point about equality, so I don't see what else I can say. Instead, let me ask you this: If class ranking was the most important thing, would it be wrong for a family to send their child to an under-performing district for their Senior year so that they could, with the same grades, be in the top 5% of the class instead of the top 40%? If the child could get into Yale while attending the underperforming school, shouldn't they have been able to get into Yale while at the over-performing school?
I welcome Joanna to the discussion and I hope she read my comments with an open mind, as opposed to steve's seething hatred. I look forward to hearing what you thought, Joanna, and if my additions helped clarify my comments.
Posted by: Matthias at June 26, 2006 08:22 PMThanks again, Matthias;
I think your gyrations are making my points, and so will not add to them.
There is a much more genteel series of comments that might be interesting to all but R-L-N's. Again, if you are NOT one, don't defend yourself.
http://larryjamesurbandaily.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-wisdom-regarding-poor.html#comments
Posted by: steve at June 28, 2006 06:59 PMMatthias
You people are unbelievable. My brother Steve has spent 10 years in Guatemala working with orphaned and disabled children that society (and usually the government) have forgotten about. By branding his beliefs and commentary as "steve's seething hatred" you debase yourself and the forum, much as Bush supporters attack John Murtha, a genuine war hero for speaking out against the chickenhawk cowards in the WH.
My brother is a pretty bright guy, and if he had a selfish heart and seething hatred, he would have directed his life toward more earthly delights, instead of getting intestinal disease and losing digits to forget the forgotten.
He served in the US Army in the Viet Nam era when NOONE wanted to. (I turned down an appointment to Annapolis. I'm no fool.)
Now he's working with the dispossessed in a third world country.
I can understand that you are very fervent in your beliefs, but have you no decency?
Honestly "seething hatred"?
Posted by: Jeff at June 28, 2006 08:25 PMHi again,
Sorry, I've been super busy the past few days. Matthias, glad to hear you're working in the inner-city, that's terrific. And Steve, it's great to hear what your brother said about you working in a third world country.
Thanks for your responses to my comment, I appreciate y'all taking them seriously.
I brought up the SAT thing because it's never going to be just one thing, and like you said Matthias, it's good for poverty to be one of the considerations in giving aid.
I stumbled on this blog because I have my own blog on covblogs. I'm not a terribly political person, but I thought I should chime in on this issue.
One thing I want to say before I leave, though, to both Matthias and Steve.
Blogs are public forums. More than liberal or conservative or whatever brand of politics that you embrace, what you both represent the most, is the name of Christ. The way that you address each other is heart breaking sometimes. You both claim the name of Christ, and from what I see, want compassionate answers to complex political questions. But when you address each other, how is anyone to be convinced that compassion is important to you? I would just encourage you both to drop the ad hominem arguments, present your ideas clearly, try to learn something from the other's viewpoint, and treat each other as brothers in Christ. Others are watching you and how you treat each other.
Jeff;
Thanks for the back-up , Bro. I read your comment to Shyrel...she needed to remember i am not a total ass. I really do love Matthias...especially when he reacts like this...I figure I have hit a nerve. Like my best friend said: "I would rather you were hot or cold..." and Matthias is so cute when he gets hot under the collar.
Joanna:
I really mean it when I say I apreciate your presence here. That does not mean I agree with everything you say or infer...and hope that will not ruin our relationship!
What I mean is the idea you present that to be Christian we must be compassionate...erasing the passionate part. I could be sarcastic, and say I will stick to biblical phrasings, like Viper, and hypocrite, and white washed tomb. Being nice is not the only way to address issues in a chirstian context. I probably have gone over the edge, and I appreciate your bringing it up...but I do want TO ask your opinion about tough love. I Love Matthias...and like the heroin adicts I have loved and lived wiTH, I want to give him a shot of love...but tough love...something that will break the dependency of his drug of choice. I would suggest that your nice approach was like water off a duck's Back...evidenced by his laying the blame on you, rather than him, for his choice of analogies.
I am pretty sure that this blog has 99% Christian...maybe 95% Covenant College alumnae readership...only one clearly non religious christian type...that's Jeff. Can you help me understand how you feel about the idea of Rough, even rude comments to help people get over their biggest drug: self - righteousness. I am guilty...let me say this clearly: hello, my name is Steve. I am unsufferably self righteous. I don't want to be, and so pray the last verse of Psalm 139 everyday before I rise from my bed. But Jesus, as well as the minor prophets, as well as John the Baptist, and then the Apostle Paul, all were VERY rude ( oops, I forgot my namesake...read ACTS 5) AND ALL WERE VERY COMPASSIONATE.
Posted by: steve at June 29, 2006 09:24 PMjoanna,
i wandered on here once too and tried to get in on the conversation, only to be repulsed by the sport.
these guys are not here to be nice, they enter into this discussion knowing full well what it entails.
so one can only hope your kind words are heard, but as my dad (steve) has pointed out, self righteousness is a powerful drug.
matthias,
please stop referring to yourself as poor.
it's ridiculous.
anyone with a college education has no right.
Jeff,
I wasn't talking about steve's seething hatred toward the people he serves in Guatemala. I was talking about his seething hatred toward me. Honestly, are you going to condone rhetoric that labels an decent Christian who is trying to do the right thing a flaming racist Nazi? You are clearly not ever going to listen to me even if I lay it out as plainly as I can, so I'll try again: Why is steve's concern for the poor a valid concern while my concern is EVIL? Where did you get the right to judge the intentions and ministry of others? Granted, I'm not a missionary. But I serve as best I can and I simply do not understand why you are so dismissive of what I do when I am in no way dismissive of what you do. I've been the object of vitriolic attack by steve and Jeff. Attack my intelligence, my logic, my facts, I can handle that and I dish it out in return. But do not attack my intentions, my ministry or my salvation. I've never questioned those things in you and have always assumed that your intentions are good, even though I think your methods are bad. I get the feeling that your view of me is somewhat more... condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, elitist, take your pick, than mine of you, which is at least laced with respect.
I admit to a soft spot for pretty much everyone on this blog and I'll try to refrain from the overt ad hominim attacks in the future (but I'm so good at it!)
aeonomore,
I didn't say I was poor. steve did. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Anne and Joanna, pardon us while I take Matthias behind the wood shed for a little man to man
Matthias:
"I didn't say I was poor. steve did. Sorry for the misunderstanding."
These kind of statements make it impossible to take your statements seriously. It does cause me concern about your mental state...if you really believe that statement, you are pathologic. So to I can either take you seriously, or your statements like this. But not both.
Will you admit it is a bald faced lie if I take the time to go back to where you identified yourself over and over as poor, and argued when I said you weren't in a series about 4 weeks ago? I will be glad to do it...but want your assurance first.
You make it hard to sound both credible and NOT condescending while responding to you. But if you make a step in the right direction by just simply saying "That was not true", we are all here to help you.
Posted by: steve at June 30, 2006 02:57 PMsteve,
I looked back to through my comments for the last three months and found that I did mention that I was technically poor back in April, but have not done so since then. I am sorry.
But (for the love of God) that was three months ago and I haven't said anything about my financial situation since then. The result: I get blasted three months after the fact for saying something that was true. You're the one who called me "poor man Matthias" not three days ago, so I reasonably assumed that was the comment to which aeonomore was refering. It's kind of like saying I'm poor on Monday and then having you say I'm poor on Friday, at which point another person in that conversation tells me to shut the hell up.
Posted by: Matthias at June 30, 2006 05:08 PM“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Mahatma Gandhi
(For examples, proof and confirmation see http://nat.covblogs.com)
Posted by: Jeff at June 30, 2006 08:29 PMHi, I came across this blog reading Joanna's and found myself drawn into the tough love discussion.
Steve writes, "I am pretty sure that this blog has 99% Christian...maybe 95% Covenant College alumnae readership..."
I suspect that's an accurate estimate for the readers who are leaving comments, but is it an accurate estimate for those who actually visit the site? (I'm sometimes amazed at what google searches bring people to my own blog.) Even granting that 99% of the readers are Christian, two resulting questions would be 1.what words would be most edifying for other Christians and 2.might certain words cause some of that 99% to "fall away"--e.g. if they do not see words that seem to convey love?
Steve writes, "the idea you present that to be Christian we must be compassionate...erasing the passionate part."
Interesting. The etymology of "passionate" is from the verb to suffer/endure. Presumably, “passion” ought to mean that we endure all hardships and persecutions for God and for the good of others. I suspect nowadays we often use the “passion” of our own beliefs to excuse making _others_ suffer or endure our anger and/or name-calling. (I don’t mean to single anyone’s language out; I am speaking on the abstract level of how we are to conceive of our discourse.) To be compassionate would mean something like “suffering with another,” such as seeing how their circumstances cause them suffering, or how even our own words may hurt them and contribute more to their suffering.
Posted by: Leopoldtulip at June 30, 2006 09:39 PMmatthias,
one, i did not tell you to "shut the hell up"
two, yes, it was in my mind that you considered yourself poor from a previous post, and yes steve refered to it. but i was responding to the attitude you carry in your postings where you come across as as though you consider your self to be among the finacially poor,and i was commenting because i thought you would want to know how you are coming across
three, as people are saying that they read back through earlier postings, i hope all can see, as jeff pointed out, how un-Christlike we sound
we can all come with our defenses of working in 3rd world countries or the inner city, but
with out love it's an empty clanging cymbol
i write this as i am convicted of how quickly i caught up in the B.S.
and for what it's worth , i would like to have a real converation about education and SAT scores, as i teach in the innercity in a school that's whole aim is to get kids into college, and we are seeing after only our first graduating class how hard it is for them to stay in college,
they have no support system at all,
and now i will comment mo more and leave you all to this happy little time of good ole christian fellowship
Posted by: aeonomore at June 30, 2006 11:09 PMHey again,
Matthias, thanks for taking seriously the comment I made about ad hominem arguments. I really appreciate that!
My husband wants me to get out of this kind of discussion ASAP. Especially if the point of the blog is to expose other's self-righteousness through sarcasm, rather than discuss issues at hand. I just don't have anything to contribute there, as I feel that confrontation ideally should be done individual to individual, and if that doesn't work, bring one or two brothers along, rather than in a public forum.
Two or three last thoughts--
1) It seems to me like Paul's sarcasm was mostly directed at unbelievers, especially those who were claiming to be believers, and even more, those who tore down the faith of others.
2) The internet makes it way to easy to overly vent your own spleen, without consideration for the other's heart. I honestly (correct me if I'm wrong!) don't think that you would say some of these things you've said to each other face to face.
3) Has sarcasm *really* been that effective in changing each other's hearts/minds? I found that when I posted a respectful post, for the most part, I received respectful responses. Each of you is responsible for helping to set the tone.
4) Sarcasm is like salt. Yes, we're told to be like salt (yeah, I'm ripping the verse out of context, but stay with me), but a teeny little bit goes a long way. Another way for salt to lose its effectiveness is to OD on it. :-)
5) Yes, I confront when it's necessary. I don't particularly like it, and don't think I should particularly like it! But it seems like confrontation is most effective when its used in a relationship that's loving and respectful to start with.
6) aeonomore, I was talking with a high school teacher the other day who works in inner city New York City. The city has started a series of schools called "alternative school systems" or "alternative school initiatives." He works in one that's geared toward helping inner city students complete their GED's. Others are geared toward vocational training during high-school. E-mail me if you want me to try to get more information, or you could google it.
Bye, everyone! You're welcome to drop by my blog anytime!
Your sister in Christ,
Joanna
HI L-Tulip and Joanna;
Great to have you, thanks for stopping by and raising the bar.
The numbers I guessed at were readership, not commentership. Jeff's presence would have a distinctly higher impact on commenter stats. Can we get a response from people who read who do not comment, who are not related to Covenant? (rather than ask for a Christianity poll)
I would like to address a couple of points, as is, I think, the point of the comments part of the blog...but maybe I am wrong. I would hope that we comment, and hear other's comments so that we can learn. I hope that it will always be acceptable to disagree...as until we get to Glory, we all see darkly. And I do apologise for going overboard in my reponses when I feel "the rule" has been violated. ("The rule" is different for each of us, but for me is usually violated when poor logic is used. But for the sake of this blog, we might refer to the rules and thoughts of the Blogger, Nat...who has been noticibly and maybe mischeivously silent) There has been a lot of pure anger in these comments, and that is out of place. But I think it is OK to correct another's misconception. What do you think? If that is OK, then it might be a matter of manners, and I agree that we boys get out there when we don't have the occasional feminine touch to remind us we are not in the locker room, or on the basketball court. I have not been angry while I have written, but know that that does not mean my words have not come across as angry. Communication is a delicate thing! Intentions only cover 1/2 of the actual communication.
AND I want to say there IS a place for harshness...but not for Sarcasm. Like the mule skinner who hit the mule in the nose with a 2X4 said: " First, you gotta get their attention" I think Paul, and Jesus, and a lot of the Bible writers were harsh, even rude, but they resorted to rhetoric and sarcasm not as a defense to a point they could not answer, but to CLARIFY the issue (getting people's attention is part of clarification) .
So here is what i want to ask, and learn: do you think my comments have been sarcastic? I admit to harshness, but I think i have been sincere, in my harshness towards Matthias, for example. I think sometimes you might look at the end of the confrontation, and say " this was awful" and then say it must be the blame of all participants. This kind of logic would blame Stephen for being stoned, and I guess even blame Jesus for being crucified.
Which brings another question up: was Jesus tortured, and mutilated viciously because he exposed sin in a kind way? Like I said, when I said "I could be sacastic..." in a previous comment, his words were VERY rough, drawing extreme anger on himself, although I believe he was the sincerest person in history
**Now, when I have brought Jesus up, as an example, Matthias has pretty consistently said I was likening myself to Christ. I think you can see that as a cheap trick, but I guess I need to deflect...for the sake of staying on point: Using Jesus as an example is due to his perfection: If being harsh publically is inherently wrong: what do you do with the RED letters in the most widely read book in the world? I think we have culturally gravitated away from a harsh Jesus. He was extremely confounding to his disciples then, and to his disciples now: if we try to predict him, or bring him into line with our or any culture, he confounds us. We have 2000 years of Christians trying to say Jesus said what he didn't and didn't say what he did, because we want to comprehend, rather than be comprehended (look up the roots on those words, L-Tulip!)**
Matthias has often gone for the sarcastic route. I agree...it does not suit him or the blog ( even if he gets a kick out of it himself, and thinks himself so good at it); for instance, if you look at the last few months of comments, it seems that whenever a scripture is used by another commenter, matthias will respond by quoting another verse, VERY inappropriately and out of context of the blog discussion, or the Bible, it seems to me. This sort of use of scripture causes me to fear for him, more than his occasional sarcastic jabs at me, or outright tantrums.
I say tantrum, and you may think that sarcastic: but how would you refer to the following? I said his use of the SAT had elitist, if not racist overtones ... I mean that sincerely, and it is a real problem with well nurtured youngsters like him, who think that it is a fair indicator of adequacy for entrance into college, and ergo, that lower scores by minorities imply racially defined lower aptitude. Your response, Joanna, was right on the money...but as I said: "water off a duck's back". I suggest to you, by looking at his comments following your correction, that he totally missed your main point, while addressing the peripheral.
Well, his response was to call me a jackass. That seems to be a fairly undefined philosophical or moral position. I suggest to you that calling his use of the SAT "elitist or racist" was fair even though it was harsh, and in line with the ends you spoke of. AND that his calling me a Jackass in response was indeed, as you say, out of bounds. A tantrum.
Please don't judge my words by his response.
L-Tulip, I apprecate your trying to bring definition to the words! We cannot do much in this medium without clear definitions! However! I think you have made a mistake (that many theologians have, so you are in good company, and again: I present this because I may be wrong) In taking the original root, and saying "therefore the definition is this" you have not allowed for evolution. No matter what you think of Darwin, you must agree that languages evolve. If you went to church as long as I have, you can see how words have changed in meaning since the KJV, in 400 years. You can extrapolate to see that 2000 years ago, the meaning of a root of a word accurately matched the definition you gave, but does not necessarily accurately define that word today.
Indulge an anecdotal point. As I have gotten to know Spanish, I find we English speakers want to take every English word with a Latin root, and say it with a Spanish accent, and think we have comunicated. But those English words have changed, and so has the Spanish, and so phrases constructed like that rarely communicate accurately. The worst case for me was the divergent meaning for "embarazado" which looks a lot like "embarrassed" to us gringos, but caused me "verguanza" when I tried to say that I had embarrassed the Pastor's daughter. It is a barnyard way of saying "pregnant" in today's Spanish.
And so, of course, I was meaning the acceptable modern meaning for "passionate" as: (you can look it up...I will paraphrase here) "utterly sincerely excited about and devoted to" as in "passionate about the cause ..." The root, I am sure, was in pain, but you can almost see the evolution. Passionate Christianity will bring pain to the adherent. No doubt about it. Hopefully, this will originate from compassion with those with whom Jesus was compassionate. Jesus in his compassion for the weaker sheep, was extremely rough...passionately rough on the pastors, and on the leaders.
I say this as a product of this culture of which I speak, and so am not throwing stones as much as offering clarity: do you really think Jesus would have compassion today on Covenant Graduates and upper middle class churchgoers? Here is a hint: Pharisees ( and I say this filially) are really close in manner and culture and theology (pre Resurrection) to modern day Reformed Theologians.
Remember: co-suffering. Are we suffering? Compared to 99% of the world, we are economically rich. We truly lack nothing...but we feel we have to defend ourselves from the have-nots, and when those points of offering compassion to the outcasts, the dejected, the kids of crack addicts(attitude, NOT legislation)were brought up on this blog, again and again, a cold hearted, self righteous knee jerked every time.
I think that that is the shame of Christianity...I hear that again and again from the unchurched as the reason they do not want Jesus. I have never heard a non-christian say " You are all too hard on each other", but usually, "you all thnk you are so perfect"
Sorry...I got carried away there.
Posted by: steve at July 4, 2006 12:24 PMPerhaps my comments may be dismissed because I agree with Matthias’ position, but he has not been the one to break ‘the rule’ through the use of poor logic. You began by claiming that Matthias’ first comment was based on the assumption that poor people are not inherently equal to reach people. However, unless you can prove that lack of social mobility is the only possible reason that the percentage of low income students in top rated schools is so low, your claim about this assumption is invalid. This is not an either/or situation but can allow for many more factors. Matthias’ was simply pointing out that, given the possibility of other factors, lack of social mobility cannot be granted a default status. He then gave the conditions necessary to show that this is the defining factor. Your subsequent characterization of his statement as “seemingly racist and truly unchristian” has no logical support.
Since Matthias introduced SAT scores in order to defend his original statement, your claim that this use is ‘elitist or racist’ can have no more validity than your objection to his original statement, which objection has no logical support. Matthias did not mean to suggest that SAT scores are the only factor determining whether someone makes it into a school. He has explained as much and even stated when he introduced this argument that he was simplifying things. This is a ceteris paribus argument and, as such, in no way implies that he is ignoring other factors. It is simply a way to get straight to the point that, all else being equal, academic qualification trumps financial factors when it comes to admitting students into institutions of higher learning. The same standard applies to both poor and rich. Assuming a single opening, a student who is more qualified should not be denied admission because he needs more financial aid than a student who is less qualified. Conversely, a student who is less qualified should not be allowed to buy his way into being admitted over someone who is more qualified but not as rich. Nothing in Matthias’ argument suggests that this isn’t a much more complex issue and that a multitude of factors need to be considered. On the contrary, if you will connect this to his original statement, it will be apparent that he is arguing against simplifying student admissions to the single point of social mobility.
As illogical as it was to suggest that his use of the SAT was elitist or racist, this is not why Matthias called you a jackass. He did so upon your suggestion that he was a liar after he claimed to have earned $45,000 (57%) of his tuition working through school while carrying a full load. Adding to this that you expect him to believe your statistics (even though considerably lower) without proof, he is justifiably upset by both the insult and the double standard. His use of the term ‘jackass’, far from being ‘a fairly undefined philosophical or moral position,’ was, given the circumstances, about as precise a term as one could hope for. [Incidentally, I went to Covenant with Matthias and, although I did not know him that well, I am not blind; he is the first student who comes to mind who would have both the intelligence and the drive to do exactly as he has claimed.]
Finally, having identified with and defended Matthias’ position despite your admonition that anyone who is not a republibertarian Nazi not do so, I humbly bow to your superior reasoning powers and admit that the label suits me perfectly.
Posted by: Kevin at July 4, 2006 07:14 PMKevin, Matthias, and anyone else who simply does not get it, please try to leave your prejudices aside for one minute, and listen to what has been said on the original Blog (summed up by this: ("Only 3% of students at top colleges come from the poorest quarter of the population."):
There are many factors taken into account by the country's college selection committees. There are many things we all agree on here. you are repeating the dross, and missing the main point. This blindness is, I believe now, involuntary at some point, but it is almost a purposeful blindness, too. Appropriately, Balaam's jackass was treated pretty roughly also, until Balaam's eyes were opened.
The original issue that brings to mind "elitism" is that Matthias, and now you, both continue to assume that a disadvantaged young person with comparable inherent ability will test the same as an advantaged young person. (Understanding that the SAT scores are a portion of the decision, but Matthias chose that as his first example, which might suggest a confidence in their accuracy in reporting the idea of "a student who is more qualified ".) That assumption, connected with the 3% statistic, means that you must consider the poor as inherently inferior. This makes it elitist, if not racist, as it accepts as right and proper, the statistical superiority, rather than considering other factors. SO...before you go running off again, this is the question: Do you think that the fact that 3% of the poorest 25% of the country are in the better schools means that the poorer are inherently less qualified? Yes or No? In blithely moving into a discusion about SAT scores, Matthias certainly seemed to suggest just that.
For years, the advantaged have spoken of an even playing field, but have no idea how uneven it is. That is the basic point of Nat's post, and Joanna's comments, and my skewering of Matthias. Matthias' kind of thinking ... or that represented by his comments on this blog, resists social structures to even the playing field, and in so doing, either actively or passively continues the oppressive staus quo. in light of many Biblical references, such as Isaiah 3:15 :
"What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?” declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty."
That makes it Unchristian.
Lord Bless you, Kevin! I never asked Matthias to accept the R-L-N label...it was not directed at him, and i do not consider him to be one. But it sure is funny how people will grab it when thrown out there.
Posted by: steve at July 5, 2006 02:08 PMSteve,
I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you speak of an "even playing field." Through God's grace, all people have different skills and abilities; thus, when there is equal opportunitie, there will always be unequal incomes, unequal wealth, and unequal results.
You might want to clarify whether you mean unequal opportunities, or unequal results.
Posted by: Ben at July 5, 2006 03:22 PMOkay, Ben here I go again. Here's the "level playing field" in a nutshell. If there was a guy in Compton, an African-American born to a crack addict and a father noone has seen in forever who was an alcoholic who fought and dabbled in drugs and had an anger management issue, how long would his arrest record be? What would his prospects be? What would his position in society be?
He would be in prison, probably for life on a three strikes out conviction that may or may not have been something he did.
Compare and contrast our current President who was all of those activities, but not that person. Grandchild of a Senator, child of a President, heir to a fortune, propped up by Dad's cronies.
Do you honestly think that the exact duplicate of George W. Bush BUT born in poverty and black would be President of the US today? That is consistent with your argument.It's my core response to your argument. Do you actually believe it? Well?
Posted by: Jeff at July 5, 2006 05:48 PMBen;
I appreciate your saying you're "not quite sure..." That is a good step. But, like that elephant in "Horton hatches an egg" ...I meant what I said and I said what I meant.
Jeff's point is REALLY REALLY clear, but I want to give you, and our other Covenant grads as clear an opportunity to reject the truth as I can, so allow me to put it another way.
Individually, you will get varying outcomes from equal opportunities. Your point is correct in that. Take the Senior class at Eton, and you will have a bell curve outcome in most evaluations. Some will score much higher than the average, some lower, the majority in a group somewhere in between. That's statistically expected, and as a matter of fact, if everyone got a 100%, the teacher would expect foul play, or poor testmanship. AND at PS 186 in Harlem, you will get a very similar curve.
But if those two evaluations are significantly different, the notion that it is due to accurate evaluation of two groups who had equal opportunity, but inequal outcomes, is just plain not true. The assumption, that there was a level playing field, is a flawed assumption, and flawed in an elitist bend.
Over and over again, American social hisory has shown that given specific helps to their learning environments, (nutritious meals, for example, much less teachers of a better caliber) lower income kids' test scores rise, suggesting that given a truly equal opportunity (Opportunity!!!), these children would have variations of outcome (outcome!!!!)similar to those who sit on the top of the social and economic marvel called the U.S. Middle ( and or upper) class.
Suggesting that it would be good to help those children get that equal opportunity has caused outbursts in this blog's comment section (OK, it may have been a little harsh to call it R-L-N kneejerking) that suggest to give these children a more equal opportunity, we must take something away from those middle class children...usually stated as "choosing a lesser qualified student over a more qualified" or something similar, lamenting the injustice in that.
Statistics are a powerful tool, but not powerful enough to break through the smugness of the children who have benefitted from the best possible situation. And so, the idea that the poorest are not represented well in the universities is argued about, and specific points taken, and a lot of back pedaling done when called to task, BUT the underlying assumption, though very strong, is not spoken. A 1976 graduate of Covenant college once said to me "It's not that I think I am better than them. I KNOW I am better than them" He was saying it tongue in cheek, as he came to realize the depth of his self deception. Statistically, human beings succumb to that deception in direct proportion to their economic status and religious orthodoxy. That makes it something for each Covenant college Alumnae to ask him or her self about.
Speaking of schooling, Kevin. I went to college before you guys were born, and yes... it was that cheap. I forgot (truly forgot) that I earned 55 credits via a program called CLEP, while I was in the army. I don't think the army paid for it, and so did not consider it part of my tuition history. But after getting out of the army, I worked 60 to 80 hour weeks, finishing my education at night. It took a lot of hours, to pay for life, as well as school, and I took every opportunity to get a ride, like work place packages, etc. I, Like I am sure Matthias did, found studying and acing exams pretty easy, and so could take a heavy caseload. Unlike him, I kept changing my mind, and so ended up wiht over 200 credits, yet no degree, as by the time I had enough for a degree, I had an engineering management job well beyond the degree's help, and a wrecked marriage. Jeff and Nat can verify all that.
I did get my % mixed up when asking Matthias to verify...pardon my slip, and pardon my incredulity, but (even as you said that mine seems logically too low) the idea of working 14 hours a week, and covering living costs and then paying for that $45,000 education bill seems a bit ... far fetched. I then thought that maybe Matthias had had a really high paying job, and that maybe he really had earned a lot mre than minimum wage, and so had stopped pursuing it. THEN he said he was a tutor...5 years of 14 hrs/wk @..$10/hr? for 4 1/2 month semesters what's a semester..13 weeks? = $18,200 (take home...he said he was poverty level those years, and since he did not list summer jobs, that seems to not have been a part of his equation)
That's a bit short of $45,000
I have to confess that I was not really being sincere when I set the trap, and Matthias took it. I was curious to see who would trumpet their numbers, sort of like the Rich young Ruler did with Jesus, when he seemed to be looking for self-justification.
Sadly, I am not too often surprised on this blog.
Posted by: steve at July 5, 2006 07:20 PMJeff, I don't deal with ridiculous hypotheticals that involve nonexistent people.
The foundational principle of this country is that each person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I'm not willing to throw that out the window just because you can conceive of some supposed, hypothetical person who could, potentially, be born to irresponsible parents.
Posted by: Ben at July 6, 2006 09:05 AMJeff...don't feel bad that your allegorical (but unfortunately way too common in its particulars) story did not get through...I just finished saying ...and I quote: "Statistics are a powerful tool, but not powerful enough to break through the smugness of the children who have benefitted from the best possible situation. And so, the idea that the poorest "... are a reality in which bad things happen to children is truly beyond their imagination.
sadly
Posted by: steve at July 6, 2006 02:57 PMSilent observer up till now. Enjoying the discussion a great deal. I just have to ask, Ben were you kidding with that last comment? Sorry I don't know the folks here too well so I'm having trouble reading the sarcasm.
Posted by: Josh at July 6, 2006 03:34 PMSteve, I did not mean to imply that I, or anyone else, is incapable of imagining a scenario in which a person could be born to irresponsible parents. My point is that simply imagining that such a situation could be true does not necessarily make it true (truth and perception are not the same thing). Jeff, however, seemed to imply that this situation must be true simply because he can imagine it, not because it actually is objectively true.
Furthermore, even if it is true, it does not follow that just because some people are born to "irresponsible pus-brains" (to borrow a line from one of my favorite movies) that therefore other, more "fortunate" people should be deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If it is in fact true that some people are "disadvantaged" by being born to irresponsible parents, and I do think one would be hard-pressed to deny the veracity of this idea, then I think that the Bible is fairly clear that Christians, throught the Church, have a responsibility to help such people learn how to use their natural creativity and intelligence to be productive and to create wealth. I do not think that the Bible permits anyone to "help" such people by destroying the wealth, property, and person of more successful, "fortunate" people.
Posted by: Ben at July 6, 2006 03:39 PMAs a casual observer and sometime poster, Ben is serving a clear and definitive example of why I am a covenant child and a devout atheist. The hypocracy is so rampant, the milk of human kindness so non-fat and powdered, demonizing the poor, attacking the governments right to tax the rich...
Are the red words missing from your Bibles?
Posted by: anonymous at July 6, 2006 05:12 PMSteve- The sum of the original post is not a simple statistic. It is the suggestion that this low percentage is due to a lack of opportunity to climb up through the system and that this lack may be the fault of the United States. This is a valid hypothesis and probably true in many cases, but it needs to be proven in each one of those. It is not elitist to ask for proof that the poor are just as qualified. Lack of qualification may mean that a person is not inherently qualified; it can also mean that factors, such as poverty, can prevent someone from reaching acceptable standards; or it can mean that a person has freely chosen not to meet those standards. Charitable acts toward the poor or attempts to level the playing field for them are grounded on the second meaning; i.e., that poverty is preventing them from reaching the acceptable standards for an area in which they would otherwise be qualified. We help people in order to make them qualified. By refusing to ask whether the poor are less qualified, you assume that they are just as qualified and, thereby, undermine any reasonable assistance.
I do not believe that “a disadvantaged young person with comparable inherent ability will test the same as an advantaged young person.” Nothing that I have said or agreed with can support the assumption that I do believe this. The disadvantaged person in this scenario is more likely to test lower. The issue is not inherent ability. Your insistence that it is puts our position in the worst possible light. To answer your question, I do not believe that the poor are inherently less qualified. I believe that, whether due to circumstances beyond their control or to free choices, which may be related to their circumstances, they are actually less qualified.
The only way to blame the United States or someone other than the poor for the their lack of social mobility is to show that circumstances out of their control were actually in someone else’s control. This is the only disadvantage or lack of qualification that we can do anything about. Which leaves two ways in which society cannot be held responsible for a person who, though inherently qualified, is, nonetheless, actually unqualified. Either the circumstances are currently out of everyone’s control, or they choose not to be qualified.
The unspoken premise behind criticizing the low percentage within the bottom quartile, is that it needs to be increased to at least 25%. This would account for equal inherent ability across the board. This is unreasonable. It might not be if the people in the lowest quartile would stay put, but they keep moving up whenever they’re helped. I would be interested in knowing the percentage of students in top colleges who are in the second lowest economic quartile. Many of these would represent cases in which someone did help a family in the lowest quartile overcome circumstances beyond their control. The same assistance that can help someone overcome academic barriers is also likely to have moved his family into the next highest quartile. Any record of assistance will not show up in bottom quartile percentages. A less misleading statistic would be to count, not just those who are in the bottom quartile, but those who have ever been in the bottom quartile. The percentage would be higher.
The misleading nature of this statistic may also be seen in the comparison of the social immobility of our poor to the relative ease with which poor European children rise through their society. The European system is set up in such a way that helping someone overcome academic barriers does not entail helping their families to move out of poverty. The record of academic assistance may look more glorious, but the poor stay right where they are.
After accounting for circumstances that can’t be helped and for those people that have been helped but are hidden in the next highest percentile, any remaining gap must represent either people who could have been helped but weren’t, or people who have chosen not to pursue academic qualification. The question now is whether the choice not to be qualified occurs in the same percentages across the economic spectrum. It would be easy to say that it does because then you could blame America for as much social immobility as possible. But it wouldn’t be true. While many cases of poverty are due to unfortunate circumstances, in many other cases, there is a culture of poverty. Spend some time in both poor and rich households and you will note a marked difference in a families promotion of the value of higher education to its young people.
I am not against the use of social structures to level the playing field. Considering Matthias’ statement that he is not against distributing scholarships based on economic need, you cannot claim that he is against them either. The question is not on whether social structures may be used to offer help, but what kind of social structure and what kind of help. As to kind of structure, I prefer private, church, or corporate over governmental. But I am not going to call someone unchristian who sees this differently (grossly inefficient, perhaps, but not unchristian). As far as the kind of help offered, anything that can help a family overcome circumstances beyond their control. But, in its relation to qualification for college, there can be no more attempts at evening the playing field (other than financial assistance, if needed) once this is the immediate next step. Whatever caused it, whatever kind of disqualification it is, a lack of qualification is still a lack of qualification. At this point, the level of the playing field cannot be considered without making it more uneven. The fact that the poor are disadvantaged does not mean that everyone else is illegitimately advantaged. Removing the advantage of those who have experienced better circumstances is not a just option. Straight across academic testing needs to be the final determiner of academic qualification. Any handicap given based on poverty will only serve to lower the standards of the discipline.
One more thing, since you addressed it to me. Your figures concerning Matthias’ finances are a bit low (not that I know how they actually break down). If you’re going to question someone’s integrity, then you need to make sure that what they claim is not possible. Give it the best reading possible, not the worst. Bachelors programs are usually 4 years and Masters 2, so increase the total to 6. Semesters are 15 weeks. Living costs, at least while getting the Bachelors, are included in the price. He listed the minimum, which implies some weeks exceeding 14 hours. The fact that he did not list summer jobs does not mean that these shouldn’t be counted. Full time would account for around 4800 hours of extra work (you can take cost of living out of this). Not only is this possible, but it can be done without ever making enough money to pay taxes.
Posted by: Kevin at July 7, 2006 08:06 AMBen, I don’t quite understand why you so adamantly oppose Jeff’s hypothetical. The point of his comment is that it’s NOT just a hypothetical but an every day reality. The sense I get from your words (not mention quotation marks) is that you seem to think poor people growing up in the circumstances Jeff describes are an abstraction created on this very website. What’s even more baffling to me is that you not only reject a proposition about the circumstances of the poor in this country (you only concede that they could be imagined) but you counter with what is perhaps one of the most deceiving truth/perception issues of all, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Ben just because you imagine those to be the principles of this country doesn’t make it so. I submit to you that there is far more evidence to support Jeff’s proposition than yours. But your problems continue because life liberty, blah, blah, stands as the first line of defense for someone who in the end decides to evoke “what the Bible says”. Yet you don’t seem have a grasp on either these elements let alone what the Bible says about sacrificial love and taking care of the poor. Are you seriously arguing that the Bible doesn’t call us to sacrifice in love? Are you seriously suggesting that to love the poor means that I get to protect what’s mine, what I have a “right” to, while trying to train all the poor folk to be good capitalists? Are you seriously suggesting that when the Bible calls us to love as He loved us that it’s not referring to how Jesus left his “privileged” status in heaven to die on earth? And I don’t recall Jesus ever saying “When helping the poor make sure you don’t get ripped off.” Ben, I don’t think you understand how arrogant your words seem. Even the way you refer to the parents of poor children reveals a sense of condemnation and coldness without any understanding of the circumstances families face that have lived in poverty for generations.
Kevin, in lieu of a full response, here are a couple of thoughts. Biblical justice does not protect the riches of the rich or the privilege of the privileged. There are several instances that show this. The concern you share with Ben over protecting the rights of the well off even if it means abject poverty for others is disconcerting.
“The fact that the poor are disadvantaged does not mean that everyone else is illegitimately advantaged”
No it doesn’t mean that everyone else is, but I would say most are. It is as though you truly believe that the inner city is completely disconnected from White American privilege. A simplistic example: I am a white male in my mid twenties. I don’t have to compete with a black male from the ghetto for jobs or schools because of the racial, economic, social and historical oppression that my race has lorded over his. This may sound a bit grandiose but I have no doubt that it is true.
Posted by: Josh at July 7, 2006 05:19 PMJosh- By saying that “Biblical justice does not protect the riches of the rich or the privileged,” you seem to be equating Biblical justice with the Robin Hood principle. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. The assumption here is that, simply because they are rich or privileged, we can take advantage of this. But, since we’re talking about biblical principles of justice regarding the rich, how to does this square with Leviticus 19:15? “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the person of the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” Moreover, by claiming that I want to protect “the rights of the well off even if it means abject poverty for others,” you have presented a false dichotomy by casting the issue in extreme terms.
The Bible never condemns the rich; it condemns the rich who oppress the poor. And, yes, there is a difference. Oppression involves taking advantage of the poor. It does not emanate from the mere fact of being rich. As far as helping the poor, Scripture does not distinguish between the poor and the rich, but between the poor and everyone else. Anyone who raised crops was not to reap the corners of the fields but leave these for the poor to glean. There is no provision for making the rich leave more than the corners just because they had more left over. Much of the sacrificial system in ancient Israel had a dual function. One was religious and the other was to provide for the Levites. Everyone in Israel was expected to participate, even the poor. But there was a difference in what they had to offer. The poor’s offerings were considerably smaller than that of everyone else; however, that of everyone else was exactly the same as each other’s. While there is provision for the poor who could not meet the normal standards, there is no provision for requiring the rich to exceed the normal standards. The provisions for helping the poor are the same across the board. Once these have been met, there is no provision for taking even more from the rich. This is not to say that there is not allowance or encouragement for the rich to give even more. Ultimately, however, the decision is theirs.
Even if you think it will lift people out of abject poverty, there is no justification in violating the rights of the rich. “You shall not be partial to the person of the poor.” Aside from being outright stealing, the idea that it is okay to overlook the rights of the rich for a nobler cause is shortsighted. First, there is a certain arrogance involved in the idea that we know better than the rich how to use their money. Simply because people have more money than we think they need doesn’t mean that we can distribute it for them.
The rich are a vital component when it comes to charity towards the poor. However, if the rich are not in control of their riches, then the incentive to be rich goes away. Furthermore, if the self appointed manager of the rich’s money is incompetent, then the ability to be rich is gone. At which point, the ability to help is greatly reduced. Now, if the goal is an even playing field, then it’s been met. Never mind that this playing field is a hole that no one can get out of.
Consider two types of rich people. 1) Those who are rich due to hard work. This is often associated with having a higher education and with having been the best qualified to receive it. They are able to get into a high paying profession and invest a lot of time. We could also include those who start businesses that succeed. Many times, this doesn’t even require higher education; just a good business sense and the ability to use loans wisely. All of these rich have more money than they personally need. But anyone who is in favor of just taking this money for the poor betrays a serious misunderstanding of human nature. If people think that work will only get them so far before the benefits are taken from them, then they will stop working past the point of personal need.
2) Those whose riches are due to investment. The secret to being even richer is to become moderately rich (through work or inheritance) and then to put the money to work. Most wealth is the result of investing wealth in any number of interest bearing projects. Money makes money. Take away the rich’s money on the pretense that it is more righteous to invest in the poor, and the investment machine will shut down. There is no argument that taking the wealth of the rich and giving it to the more would help the poor. But this isn’t the point. If you assume control of someone else’s wealth and take it from them, you may have lots of money to distribute, but that’s all you’re going to get. If you allow the rich to handle their own money and distribute it when and how they see fit, then the supply will be endless. Rushing the process to help more people right now only harms everyone in the long run.
I do not agree that most of the non-poor are illegitimately advantaged. Even if you were right, though, this would have to be proven in each case. My statement was made in a specific context that assumed that the poor had already been offered every legitimate assistance possible to overcome any disadvantage. At this specific point, given one opening and two candidates, the one who is actually better qualified academically should be admitted. The question of disadvantage has already been addressed in the help received up to that point. An illegitimate advantage would involve things like cheating, nepotism, buying your way in, etc. It could not be the mere fact of not being poor or (per your example) being a member of a circumstantially more privileged race. A lower academic indicator could be accepted only if the higher is truly illegitimate and if the lower one has met the minimum standard. Assuming that both are above standard and nothing illegitimate can be shown, then the higher one should get it every time. This is because of the nature of top colleges. Academic fields must always be in the process of improving or else they will become obsolete and die. The standards should be getting higher all the time and this won’t happen if we import an assumption of past disadvantage into the decision making process.
Having said this, I am not applying the higher qualification standard everywhere. I do recognize the obstacles that the poor or minorities encounter simply because of who they are. I do not have a problem if someone, who though qualified for a specific job is less qualified than me, gets that job. My greater advantage gives me more subsequent options, which is why I agree with the notion of being denied a job due to over qualification. It is not right to deny a qualified person what may be their only option just so someone with more options can be choosy. Note, however, that common everyday labor and the top edges of academia are not the same thing and cannot be held to the same criteria.
Posted by: Kevin at July 7, 2006 09:57 PMKevin;
You are a good friend to Matthias.
I took your advice, chose 21 hours as a median work week (doubled his stated minimum and then split the difference)and still only got a reasonable expectation of about $31,500 earned during that period. This still does not cover his tuition, (including room and board? OK) Much less an occasional pizza, or soda pop.
I appreciate your desire to dialogue. I am sorry, though, that you are starting to slip into the tactics that Matthias and Ben have used when challenged in their initial assumptions. please watch out. When these kind of gentle tactics were also shown to be lacking, they then slipped into the shrill sarcastic quotes you see in these comments.
There were seeds in the previous essay, but I will not address them simply because of time, even though there is a distinct tendency towards the assumption that poor people have brought it on themselves, and wealthy people have earned their priviliege, simply because we are better. You also seem to have created your own ficticious character: the disadvantaged by choice. I won't even ask...you really do seem to actually believe that people choose to be disadvantaged by choice...I suppoe you are thinking lazy (rather be disadvantaged than work) or addicts (rather have their high than work) or perverse, and sinful ( living the life of ease and speed, rather than hard work). I am sure that there are poor people in each of those categories..JUST as there are rich people in each of those categories. But Jeff pointed out that the rich who pass through a period of those categories can still occupy the White House, while the poor just plain don't have the inherited safety net.
So here lies my major disagreement and disapointment: Making the part of Governement originally established " To promote the general welfare" to mean communism. Moving money from the bloated Armed forces and global saber rattling, and applying it to social programs at home will not cause the wealthy in our country to lose interest in earning wealth, as you so sincerely suggest.
Then, by saying that “Biblical justice does not protect the riches of the rich or the privileged,” you seem to be equating Biblical justice with the Robin Hood principle" You do a disservice to Josh and to the Bible. The bible is overwhelmingly vocal about justice for the the poor. Why? The rich can get their own justice! Your jump to the Robin Hood analogy suggests you have that innate fear of the poor that is used worldwide to justify horrible injustice to be meted out in the name of Law and Order, and property rights (once the properties have been safely stolen form the peasants)
Granted again, in the U.S. we have the richest poor in the world: right now. But what the article was suggesting ( and my original comment spoke to the use of trick phrases in it, please don't think that there is a monolithic liberal entity) is that that is a perceived reality, even as it erodes. We talk about the land of opportunity still, but D'Toqueville might roll over in his grave.
The Bible also points out an assumptive truth, that the rich can reach out to the poor a lot more than the poor can for the rich. I think anyone on this blog (virtually 100% wasp?) who has tried to cross economic and racial boundaries has seen the way it is a one way door of access. e.g. how many math tutors come from the ghetto to help kids in the suburbs? To call this a Robin Hood principle is to have the heart of Prince John, and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
BUT you also have been unfair, in your description of rich, (point "1)" above)you have suggested that the only social program is distinctly communistic, that taxation is tantamount to taking all the wealth of the wealthy. It is the same arguments we heard in the 60's and the ones that were used to send arms and sabbotage to little countries like Guatemala in the 50's. No one in the states back then wanted "all of our hard earned money to be turned over to the poor of the world", and so we became easy marks for that logic, and we were sold a bag of goods by McCarthy here, and by petty despots abroad. So that poor folks who had legitimate grievances and real justice issues, but no voice, were tagged Communists, and our enemies. We reacted strongly and OFTEN unfairly, and they were hounded right into the arms of the totalitarian regimes that were playing on their fears to cause them to hate rich people. We are not there yet, but this continual fear of giving a hand on the part of the state can, without vigilance, create a class warfare environment.
Lastly, please help me with your statements:
You said:
An illegitimate advantage would involve things like cheating, nepotism, buying your way in, etc. It could not be the mere fact of not being poor or (per your example) being a member of a circumstantially more privileged race.
The you said:
I do recognize the obstacles that the poor or minorities encounter simply because of who they are.
In the first quote, you spoke of legitimate and illegitimate advantages, saying, I think, that being a part of a priviledged race is legitimate, while bribery is not. In the second, you speak of generic "obstacles". Are these legitimate or illegitimate obstacles? Are you suggesting (ever so subtly) that these obstacles are either self induced or a result of inherent inferiority?
OK, I have a little more time, and so will go back to your phrase that hinted about this way back when.
Kevin, I appreciate your concern that the stats may not see the next group...the 25 - 50% people in the American Spectrum. I think that would be a really valuable study, to see the flow, back and forth between those groups, and the causes.
But this sentence:
"Lack of qualification may mean that a person is not inherently qualified; it can also mean that factors, such as poverty, can prevent someone from reaching acceptable standards; or it can mean that a person has freely chosen not to meet those standards."
Youn list three categories:
1) genetically dumb and/or lazy
2) smart and industrious, but poor,
3) willfully dumb and/or lazy
Then you spoke of a culture of poverty, as if it is a perverse desire to be poor.
These ideas get borderline elitist, if not racist.
You then go on to speak only in terms of monetary aid, as if the people who think there is a legitimate right for the states to help level the playing field only speak in terms of money. I beg to differ...I think the terms spoken cover a spectrum of help...but the fearful and advantaged only hear the part about the money.
The second person will probably benefit from just plain financial aid. The first and third person is a myth...when you say he has not been successful because of these factors is to disallow the wealthier folks of the same level of dumbness and laziness who ARE successful anyway...all of these categories fit into a bell curve...at every level of society. Their need is not purely a grant, or a scholarship, but also an open door to a job ( which was not so long ago a distant dream...which leads to the culture of poverty)
I have heard that phrase bantered about in the third world, and you sure see it. But the rich people have it as well as the poor. The rich keep saying it when asked ot help wiht a school, or an orphanage for handicapped kids. "we are a poor country, anhd so grateful to you Americans" And the poor folks are just plain docile, and have no dreams. And the corruption!!! Oy Ve!!!
Why is this?
Could it be that the poor folks with the gene that recognised justice and injustice were exterminated?
Could it be that the people who rose in the ranks of ingratiating service to the colonialists and so became the wealthy class were not the best and the brightest, but were the most self serving?
It might be good to step back from the states, and see where your attitudes, and assumptions have played out for a century or so, before you so quickly jerk that anti communist knee, where there are no communists...only a voice of justice.
Posted by: steve at July 8, 2006 09:02 AMBecause the fascinating issue of the breakdown of my scholastic finances has become such a level of contention here, I'll break it down for you. However, no one is allowed to read past this point without coming to the understanding that steve has now repeatedly implied that I am a liar and condescended to me at every turn, though I've shown far more willingness to be open to him than he has ever shown to me.
Given that I have now laid out the basic financial data of 7 years of my life, I trust steve is satisfied and will recant his rather insulting insinuations about me. I understand that he has alot invested into the view of me as a rich white boy who has been handed everything on a silver platter, so I doubt that even this breakdown will make a dent into his arrogant condescension. Nevertheless, given my degree of transparency on this issue, I await his humble apologies with bated breath since I know that he, as a good Christian man, would never want to unjustly slander a brother in Christ.
Posted by: Matthias at July 8, 2006 06:07 PMi think a vital point that people are missing here is in referring to "the rich" as anotehr group we are not a part of. i have never considered myself rich till i started spending time in the innercity and visited 3rd world countries. but the fact is, i am a rich white priviledged individual, though i can always look at others who have alot more then me, and i will never have an overflowing bank account. what i have is extremely supportive and genrous family, a college education (thank you uncle jeff), and a world view of how i should live my life from how i was brought up(this includes manners, and social interaction know how). this automatically puts me in a place of privledge, even though people of my own social and economic class would never consider me rich.
i write this because the bible discussed those who have and those who don't and we can fall on either side of that line on many different things,
but to remove ourlselves and at the same time defend the rich is not Christ-like.
besides, i think Jesus' point was that we are not to be so concerned with our economic state because we are richer then any man because of our relationships with HIM. i don't see people living out of that richness on this blog, and i am concerned that such current events minded christians as the covenant crew here, has such a detached view on the poor. as they say "you don't care about a million people starving in china till you know one."
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/jesusbushweb.JPG
Posted by: anonymous at July 8, 2006 11:48 PMMatthias: one thing you lack...
And trying for Sarcastic Irony, then laying down rules is a bit like wearing stripes with plaid.
and as far as style advice goes, here is a free one: Shrillness is in evidence when redundancy prevails...is there condescencion that isn't arrogant, my boy? And degrees of transperency are a bit (in this context) like degrees of being pregnant...you eihter are, or you are not.
Right, Anne?
Anne: I have this feeling of De Ja Vu. I think I enterd this blog months ago wiht a similar comment, about our relative wealth. You are right, and I appreciate your refocusing us on that. The amounts that Matthias made, for instance, for the goods produced show what a high priced group we americans are.
Josh, I opposed the hypothetical because Jeff was trying to compare a nonexistent person to a real person. If this hypotehtical situation is indeed an every day reality as you suggest, then I am confident that Jeff will have no trouble providing ample evidence to that effect.
I'm not really sure why simply wanting someone to prove a completely unsubstantiated assumption makes me arrogant and uncompassionate.
Posted by: Ben at July 10, 2006 09:42 AMben,
how old are you? have you no life experience?
why are you persisting in defending your weak close minded position?
why can you not except someone bringing up a hypothetical that is very realistic and probable?
you responding to josh like is what makes me think you guys are on here just for sport,
not to learn anything, not to actually discuss how we might service Jesus' will by looking into how one might best live one's life for others, and definatly not to listen to other people you might have never had to opportunity to hear,
you are wasting a very good opportunity to have open discussion
yet, sinful hearts take over and we find meaningless argument more amusing
but hey you do remind me of something i have heard in the bible, unfortunatly it was coming from the pharasies
Posted by: aeonomore at July 10, 2006 07:31 PMSo, Ben, you're saying there are no 60 year old African-Americans in prison in Texas whose only crime was to behave exactly as the President did?
Fighting, drugging and drinking he's basically admitted to. The underpriveleged African-American is only hypothetical to you? I don't even know how to respond. If the lack of opportunity for the oppressed in this country strikes you as a "completely unsubstantiated assumption" then we have no basis for discussion and you have no grounding in the state of America in 2006.
Perhaps you should get out more often
Posted by: Jeff at July 10, 2006 07:35 PMAenomore, I just talked with another high school teacher who works in an awful situation (two of her kids got killed last year in drug related violence), and there are actually about 20 universities that have started master's degree programs for teachers working in "high risk" schools/situations, some of them are distance learning programs. You might want to look into it, or there might even be web resources you can look at for dealing with innercity school problems. Good luck...it must be a difficult job!
Posted by: Joanna at July 11, 2006 08:02 AMJeff, for your point to be valid, you would need to show that there are actually "African American[s]" who are all of the following:
- Drug addicts
- Born out of wedlock
- Anger problems
- Arrest record
AND who ALSO aspire to be president of the United States. Do you know any such people? How many black drug dealers with prison records do you know who want to run for president?
And even if you did know any such person, you would then have to prove that these people have been discriminated against and forcibly prevented from running for president.
So perhaps I am not the one who needs to "get out more often." I will reiterate, your point is a ridiculous hypothetical involving nonexistent people.
Furthermore, how does this hypothetical person have a lack of opportunities? Who is forcibly preventing him from working? Who is preventing him from opening up his own business? Who is preventing him from running for president?
You claim he has a lack of opportunity, but you need to say who is actually depriving him of anything.
Of course, your comment didn't seem to be so much about poor people who have a lack of opportunity, but primarily about launching your typical ad hominem attacks against president Bush. How do any of those qualities make him any different than any other president who has ever held office? I'm no supporter of Bush, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he's any worse than any other president. Take Clinton for example. He's an alcoholic, an admitted drug user, an adulterer, he lied under oath, he is a war criminal (wars of aggression are war crimes in the Geneva Convention), he ordered dozens of women and children to be burned alive in Waco, and so on.
Posted by: Ben at July 11, 2006 08:56 AMBen, we're apparently from different planets. I don't understand how you can have so little empathy and imagination to see that some folks have it tougher than others, and it is a duty of a just government to tax people and corporations and to help out those who have so much less.
It isn't a question of logic, or a matter of ideology. It's just the nice thing to do, it's the just thing to do and it's difficult to imagine that you think He would forbid or oppose it.
(As for the slam at Clinton, I believe Bush was the admitted drunk and druggie. Are you trying to compare Kosovo with Iraq? What ever happened to "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"? I've heard Clinton confess, apologize and ask forgiveness. Why can't you people forgive him? I don't recall Bush ever apologizing for anything or admitting to a mistake.)
Posted by: Jeff at July 11, 2006 02:58 PMRegarding your first point, I certainly understand that some people have it tougher than others. I suspect that everyone who reads this blog would agree. What I was interested in, however, was a discussion as to why some have it "more difficult" than others. Perhaps a forum such as this one, with so many different political philosophies, is not the place to have such a discussion.
As for your second point about taxation, I obviously disagree, and for a variety of reasons. What concerns me though, is that you read such evil intentions into what I say. Why is it that arguing for lower taxes automatically makes me greedy or uncompassionate? There's absolutely no casual connection between paying less taxes and hating, or despising the poor.
Furthermore, it is immensely frustrating when you proclaim that everyone else should work to help the poor, but make yourself exempt. People only advocate higher taxes when they calculate that such taxes will be extracted from other people. Of course, you could live on a shoestring budget, and send all surplus revenue to the federal government to aid the poor, but you don't do that. Instead, you proclaim that everyone else should pay more, and then call them uncompassionate, and anti-Christian when they voice any type of counter argument.
One more note about taxes, you also seem to be advocating what Ayn Rand called the "collectivist stewpot," in which a person is coerced to pay for everyone else, and thus is deprived of the ability to fully pay for his own family's needs. For example, in a system of universal health care, a working father will be unable to fully provide for his family's medical needs because the funds he would otherwise use for his family's needs have already been confiscated by the State, and given to others who some government official deemed to be more "needy" than the father's own family.
So please realize that when you advocate higher taxes, you are saying, perhaps inadvertantly, that my family should be forcibly deprived of opportunities and well-being for the sake of some other people who I don't even know. Why are these peoples' needs greater than mine? Why do you get to decide? What right do you have to destroy opportunities for my family?
Of course, there's also the point that taxation for the purpose of helping the poor doesn't even help them. Over 100 years ago, Vilfredo Pareto made his famous discovery that in every country, 20% of the people owned 80% of the wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution). In over 100 years, irregardless of the political, social, or economic situation, or the taxation structure, no country in the world has been able to alter that ratio by more than several percentage points. The reason of course is that "income transfers" such as welfare payments simply transfer wealth from the productive citizens to the government bureaucrats. Of course, that fact is not too surprising, when you consider that if poverty could be ended by higher taxation, and more welfare programs, then Congress could end poverty with the stroke of a pen. The fact that poverty has worsened, as welfare programs have simultaneously increased, certainly points to the fact that higher taxation does nothing for the poor.
And of course, I didn't even get into the negative social effects of putting more people on the government dole....
Posted by: Ben at July 11, 2006 03:47 PMWhoops...apparently I forgot to close my italics tag.
Posted by: Ben at July 11, 2006 03:56 PMOkay, Ben. I'd like to refute you line about "People only advocate higher taxes when they calculate that such taxes will be extracted from other people." That's rather a harsh judgment of your fellow Americans.
Want to compare 1040's? Oh wait, you're poor. You don't pay income taxes. My bad, but please don't project to everyone else the flinty little lump of slate that is your sense of compassion.
U.S. budget bonus Thank bull market for deficit's end
[FINAL Edition]
USA TODAY - McLean, Va.
Author: Paul Wiseman
Date: Sep 30, 1998
Start Page: 01.B
Section: MONEY
Document Types: News
Text Word Count: 1743
Document Text
Copyright USA Today Information Network Sep 30, 1998
Politicians here like to claim credit for balancing the federal budget.
Maybe Jeff Osborn should take a bow, too.
A one-time sales executive with the high-flying Internet company UUNet Technologies, Osborn's personal wealth soared with UUNet's stock price. As a result, he has paid about $1 million in federal taxes each of the past two years.
"I feel personally responsible" for balancing the budget, he jokes. "I keep waiting for an invitation to the Lincoln bedroom."
Of course, Osborn's impressive tax contributions probably won't get him any recognition from the White House. His payments aren't even a ripple in the $1.6 trillion-a-year federal budget.
But he's onto something.
The stock market surge that made him rich and gave him huge tax bills has dumped so much unbudgeted revenue into the Treasury that the federal government this year will report its first budget surplus in almost three decades. President Clinton is expected to announce today the surplus will approach $70 billion for fiscal 1998, which ends today. That snaps a run of annual deficits dating back to 1969.
"Most of it's coming from the stock market," says David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's DRI. "That's been the big surprise of the last two years."
Explaining why the Treasury took in so much more tax revenue than expected this past year, forecasters at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cited "unusually high realizations of capital gains." They also noted that "a growing share of income was earned by people at the top of the income ladder, who are taxed at higher rates." And much of that upper-income wealth came directly or indirectly from the stock market's long bull run.
Even the recent stock market decline is unlikely to undo the budget gains over the past couple of years. In fact, it could temporarily bring in more revenue. As investors sell, they often book capital gains and owe additional taxes.
Dumbfounding the experts
Whatever the exact reasons behind it, the change in the federal government's financial health has been phenomenal. As recently as a year ago, the CBO was forecasting that the federal government's expenses would run a $57 billion deficit in fiscal 1998, and that the budget wouldn't be balanced until 2002.
By the time it announced its latest forecast in July, CBO was taking a rosier view: The federal government would run a $63 billion surplus in fiscal '98 and surpluses would total a staggering $1.6 trillion through fiscal 2008.
Experts are dumbfounded.
No question, the robust U.S. economy deserves much of the credit. The economic expansion has been surprisingly strong and surprisingly resilient. In its September 1997 forecast, the CBO predicted the U.S. economy would grow 2.1% in 1998. Now CBO has upped its economic growth forecast to 3.4% in '98.
The faster the economy grows, the fewer Americans need costly government benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid, and the more money citizens earn and pay in taxes. An unexpected 1 percentage point of economic growth, for instance, would dump an unbudgeted $10 billion into the federal Treasury this year, CBO says.
But the economy alone doesn't explain the federal budget turnaround. Federal tax revenue has grown faster than the economy the past four years and probably will again this year.
The taxes Uncle Sam raked in last year were equal to 19.8% of the U.S. economy as measured by gross domestic product, highest percentage since World War II.
Budget analysts can't say for sure why so much money is pouring in. They still don't have complete access to Internal Revenue Service tax records for 1997. And some of the economic and tax data they have seen aren't detailed enough to provide solid answers.
But the stock market is the No. 1 suspect. One piece of evidence: Much of the unbudgeted money has been showing up in April, when taxpayers settle with the IRS for the previous year's taxes. Investors typically have more complicated tax returns, the kind that lead to big adjustments in April or later. The Treasury has been pleasantly shocked with "April surprises" the past three years.
The beneficiaries of the stock market's success are themselves often stunned by April surprises. In April 1997, for instance, Osborn found himself standing in line at the post office holding an envelope containing a $685,000 check to the IRS. "I showed it to my wife," he recalls. "She said, `No way. No one could owe that much.' "
Just this past April, Steve Tobak, now a vice president of marketing at National Semiconductor, had to write the IRS a check for $44,000. "It's the biggest check I've written to anybody in my life that didn't result in me owning a car or a house," Tobak says. "It's crazy, out of control." Tobak's wealth is based largely on his stock in Cyrix, a computer-chip manufacturer that was acquired by National Semiconductor in 1997 when Tobak was a Cyrix executive.
The options explosion
Some ways the stock market's amazing run in the 1990s has produced a tax windfall for Uncle Sam:
Stock options. Companies have long rewarded top executives with stock options. But only in the past few years have options become a path to quick riches and huge tax bills, a result of the soaring stock market. Wyss figures there are $500 billion worth of options in the market now.
"The bull market made these things come alive," says Englewood, Colo., financial planner Judy Shine. "Options have absolutely, positively exploded."
Options give a person the right to buy a share of stock at a set price anytime during a specific period, typically 10 years. Suppose a person got options to buy 1,000 shares of stock at $50 a share, the price it was trading the day the options were received. If the stock doubled to $100 a share, the person could exercise the option to buy it at $50, reaping a paper gain of $50 a share -- $50,000 if the person exercised all 1,000 shares.
The bad news: The federal government would tax that gain as ordinary income -- 39.6% for the upper-income taxpayers most likely to receive options -- not at the 20% capital gains tax rate. At a 39.6% rate, the person would owe $19,800 in federal taxes on the $50,000 gain.
Some analysts believe stock options account for a big -- but unknown -- part of the unexpected tax revenue the Treasury has been taking in. CBO estimates the taxable value of stock options doubled in 1995, doubled again in 1996 and continued to grow rapidly in 1997. Options may have contributed an extra $5 billion in taxes in '97, CBO reckons.
Others shrug off options. They note that corporations can take write-offs on the stock options at a 35% corporate tax rate, potentially wiping out most of the federal taxes paid by executives exercising options.
Mutual funds. Investors increasingly enter the stock market by putting money in mutual funds instead of buying individual stocks. Mutual fund managers buy and sell stocks far more frequently than individual investors do. Wyss says individuals typically sell stocks after holding them seven years; mutual funds typically sell them every year. And that means mutual fund investors can find themselves owing more capital gains taxes than they expected.
"Last year was a shocker with mutual funds," says Washington, D.C., financial planner Alexandra Armstrong. "Capital gains distributions were higher than they had been. . . . People paid higher taxes and were surprised."
Then again, Atlanta financial planner Gary Webster jokes that he tells clients, "I will try to have their fund managers make less money for them."
But it's far from certain that mutual funds deserve much credit for helping balance the budget. After all, 35% of mutual fund assets are in tax-deferred accounts such as 401(k) plans; the figure is even higher -- 60% -- for stock mutual funds, which churn out the most capital gains.
Accumulated gains in stocks. Budget forecasters have consistently underestimated tax revenue from capital gains the past few years. In 1996, for instance, tax revenue from capital gains was up 45% from the year before, twice as much as forecasters had expected. Even the stock market's 26% gain that year couldn't explain the surge.
The CBO suspects that its forecasts have focused too much on year-to-year changes in the stock market and not enough on longer-term market trends -- particularly the sustained bull market of the 1990s.
"We have now had three consecutive 20% (annual) gains in share prices, the first time in history this has happened," economist Wyss says. Those who bought shares in the early 1990s and are selling them now are paying heavy taxes -- apparently without being accounted for by budget forecasters.
But the CBO has run into trouble trying to measure the tax impact of a long bull market: The year-after-year gains of the 1990s are unprecedented; there's nothing with which to compare them.
Budget analysts are now wondering whether the strong revenue gains will last. The stock market's recent troubles eventually could end the revenue windfall.
It's also possible the wealthy will rebel at such a large tax burden. "There's just no sense to it," says Tobak, the marketing executive. "To make a fortune, you have to work harder than ever before. A fortune means less. . . . Why bother?"
Conservatives in Congress are already seeking to cut capital gains and estate taxes, paid mostly by upper-income taxpayers. Some conservative economists complain about a new form of "bracket creep": Genuine income gains (not those caused by inflation) are pushing taxpayers into higher tax brackets. They want Congress to index tax brackets to offset real income growth, not just growth caused by inflation.
But Osborn isn't complaining. He took a pay cut to join UUNet in 1993 as a sales executive for $100,000 a year and a bunch of stock. His gamble paid off. UUNet stock rose 700% from the time it went public in 1995 until it was absorbed the next year by telecom giant WorldCom. Osborn's wealth surged past $10 million, raising his tax bill considerably but also giving him a chance to live the good life. He left UUNet last year and now invests in start-up companies, drives around in a Porsche and relaxes at his oceanfront home in the Florida Keys. "I don't begrudge the tax payments," he says. "It's been a pretty crazy ride."
[Illustration]
GRAPHIC, Color, Sources: White House, Congressional Budget Office (CHARTS (3)); PHOTO, Color, H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Posted by: Jeff at July 11, 2006 05:48 PMBen,
I can't sit this one out. Jeff's hypothetical is worthless because you don't believe certain people have fewer opportunities than others? What about it is unusual?
Surely you can step back, consider the implications of what you are saying and recognize that this is an absurd example of political dogma flying in the face of common sense.
Posted by: Nat at July 11, 2006 06:59 PMHi Nat!
So, the barking DOGma woke you up! I was wondering what level of tom - foolery we would have to sink to in the basement of your blog to provoke your presence! (like my dad when we were growing up: "If I have to come down there...!" ) You have an amazing ability to show your wisdom in remaining silent. Now you pose a very good,lucid point. Any bets on the kind of response it will elicit? My money is on the pareto principle here: 20% of the commenters provide 80% of the absurdity. There are mainly 5 commenters, and so that 20% rides on the mental shoulders of one contributor... I promised my daughter to be kinder and gentler, and so will not name him, just eneter his initials wiht my bookie.
On a more serious note:
Jeff: on behalf of my family, and all fair minded Christians ( all 3 of us) I want to say here on this forum that contains copyrighted input, that we forgive President Clinton for any offences he MAY have committed that would have affected us, and thank him for all the good work he did while in office that surely affected us.
Anything that did not have any affect on us is outside of our scope, and so it really would not be fair, much less Christian, to concern ourselves with judging him in those areas.
Seeing those budget surplus estimates that extend into 2008 in your article and the actual present budget CRISIS does make one nostalgic (etymologists note the root of "our pain") and makes it hard to offer the same pardon to the present custodian of our country.
Posted by: steve at July 12, 2006 08:31 AMJeff,
Regardless of your view of the necessity of taxation, of the history of the income tax in the USA, or your views on the merits and demerits of a progressive structure of tax rates, why is it wrong to argue for lower tax rates? Why do you assume that those of us who argue for lower taxes are greedy and irresponsible? Why can't you at least assume me to be mistaken in my economics rather than evil in my motives?
As Dr. Don Boudreaux, head of the department of economics at George Mason University said, "It's a cheap means of generating for yourself a rush of self-satisfaction and sense of moral superiority to assume that those who disagree with your policy positions are morally twisted, bad, and unenlightened compared to yourself."
I assume that you are a decent human being, even if perhaps some of my arguments lead you to believe otherwise. I try not to call you "uncompassionate" or evil despite your obvious preference for a government larger than one that I believe is optimal, a government that, I believe, greedily takes from the unorganized and gives to the rapaciously greedy organized, a government that officiously assumes that it knows better how individuals should conduct their lives than these individuals know.
--------
Nat, no, I believe it is worthless because I don't believe there are any people in existence who are black drug dealers in prison who also aspire to be president and who also have been forcibly prevented from becoming president. Those are the three conditions in Jeff's hypothetical person.
Posted by: Ben at July 12, 2006 08:49 AMBen, we disagree. The political discourse has been rough and personal since the ReThuglicans made it so in trying to oust Bill Clinton. I vowed during that nasty 8 year term of right wing invective that I wouldn't turn the other cheek when the other guys won. Payback, as they say is a female dog. We didn't start it. Jesus wouldn't support it. Yet you fall once again for lip service from politicians who use you for your beliefs to firehose money to corporate interests who support them and don't feel like paying taxes, so they can get that third Mercedes.
I honestly don't get it.
Posted by: Jeff at July 12, 2006 02:18 PMJeff, perhaps this misunderstanding is the tendency of most people in this forum to classify me as a "conservative," a "republican," or a "right-winger." I used to classify myself within the bounds of those terms, but no longer do.
The truth is, I don't see much difference between republicans and democrats as both of these parties start with the premise that the primary role of the federal government is to redistribute wealth. They only differ on how to redistribute it, and to whom to redistribute it.
On the other hand, I believe that wealth redistribution is inherently unbiblical, and I categorically reject it based on principle, no matter who receives it nor from whom it is taken, whether that be the wealthy, the middle class, or the poor. As the old cliche goes, when God gave Moses the 10 Commandments, I don't think He meant, "Thou shall not steal, except by majority vote."
So that's the basic premise from which I interpret political policy. I realize that it is neither typical nor popular. I suppose it's somewhat fruitless to discuss political issues in a forum in which everyone interprets politics from competing premises, unless of course the discussion is about from which premise one ought to interpret politics.
Posted by: Ben at July 12, 2006 04:03 PMBen- The problem with the old cliche you cite is that it eliminates too much. It isn’t merely an argument against wealth redistribution, but against any and all forms of taxation. It makes no sense to say that the government is not stealing if it uses taxes for infrastructure or defense but is stealing if it uses these to help the poor. What is it about putting tax revenue into social programs that makes it stealing? Moreover, your notion that wealth redistribution is inherently unbiblical does not stand up to biblical scrutiny. This is precisely what the gleaning laws of ancient Israel entailed. Those who raised crops were not allowed to reap everything they had worked for but had to set aside a specified amount for the poor. Their wealth was being redistributed. I personally oppose overdoing tax based social programs, not because this is inherently unbiblical, but because it is less efficient than encouraging both the production of wealth and charity in the private sector. Having said this, the State has a vested interested in the well being of its citizens and may use whatever means it sees fit to provide for them. That it may choose a less than ideal method does not mean that it was wrong in making the choice. I would hope that both sides in this debate recognize the value and even the moral duty to provide for the poor. However, this goal can be entirely overlooked when each one is accusing the other of being unbiblical or less Christian. Especially when those charges cannot be substantiated.
Steve- I still plan on responding when I have the time.
Posted by: Kevin at July 13, 2006 12:47 AMKevin:
I think my concerns were well answered in this last comment.
a friend posted this as part of his reflection of the death of a young man in the center city.
"At times it is a struggle simply to stay alive in the inner city. Struggle forms a common bond here: food struggles, financial struggles, housing struggles, learning and work struggles, safety struggles.
So much potential.
So much energy and promise.
So much charisma.
So much wasted life.
So much pain and loss."
Ben, I think you have focused on the extreme of Jeff's comparison. The point is that a privileged white man, who had problems with drugs, and alcohol and anger CAN aspire to be president. Many people at the lower end of the economic ladder, who aren't even caught up in drugs etc. are just trying to get any job, much less aspiring to something that will not happen in my lifetime.
Posted by: steve at July 13, 2006 07:20 AMKevin,
I think you might be confusing two different types of federal spending. Infrastructure and defense are actual services the federal government provides, for which it demands payment. Even though I believe that, ideally, the federal government should not be providing many of these services, and that the private sector would provide them with far better quality, and for much cheaper, I think we still have a duty to pay for them. If you use a service, then you should pay for it.
On the other hand, the second type of spending that you refer to is wealth transfers. In this case, the federal government forcibly takes wealth from one citizen, and gives it to other citizens (generally the political elite, the wealthy, and the middle class, but that's another issue). No service is rendered. I'm not sure how such a system is anything but theft.
I have not spent a great deal of time studying the passage that you cite, but I'm not sure how it applies to us, or to the United States. The nation of Israel, as you know, was the Old Testament form of the Church, whereas the United States is just a nation.
At any rate, Grove City College, from which my wife graduated this year, recently hosted a conference titled "The Road from Poverty to Freedom" (http://gcc.savvior.com/CVV%20Inaugural%20Conference%20The%20Road%20From%20Poverty%20to%20Freedom.php). I can highly recommend two of the papers presented at that conference, "A Biblical Theology of Poverty and Almsgiving" by Dr. T. David Gordon, and also "The Bad Effects of Good Intentions: Why the Welfare State Inevitably Fails" by Dr. Jeffrey Herbener, chair of the Economics department and senior fellow at the Mises Institute. I have read both, and they are both excellent resources.
Posted by: Ben at July 13, 2006 08:41 AMBen, when's the last time you read something that didn't adhere closely to your existing beliefs? You cite Mises and townhall.org as if they were anything vaguely reputable, scholastic or attempting to be fair and balanced.
You really need to get out more.
Posted by: