Random economic lives

At a very early age, society teaches us that proper education is the key to success. We are stressed to receive good grades throughout our high school experiences in order to get a higher education in an attempt to slingshot ourselves to the top of the occupational pyramid. Here, at the top, we can easily provide for our families. What this assignment taught me was that education is in fact important to our future, but not the only influence on it. Many of the scenarios we were given included a college education, but this did not mean that we could easily support our families. Even with a college education and having a median income, managing the distribution of money for basic needs was much more difficult than I would previously have thought. This difficulty was only compounded by the fact that I was a widower. This meant that a college education means nothing when you are abandoned and alone by your loved ones. What I am able to take a way from this is the idea that, although education is an undeniable necessity in the real world, it is not the only variable in determining our future.
After researching the distribution of wealth in America, I also realized that what politicians call the "middle class" isn't equivelant to an economists definition of the "middle class". Although the actual, statistical middle class (as determined by a 20% quintle where 40% receive a higher and 40% of peolpe recieve a lower income,) ranges from $38,000 to $60,000 dollars, the political or "Baucus" middle class ranges anywhere from $20,000 to $97,000. (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) What this means is that politicians, in an attempt to support an opinion or idea, are able to manipulate data an terms to thier advantage. In other words, a politician hoping to increase popularity among the masses during a campaign can appeal to the "middle class" by repealing the "alternative minimum tax (AMT), an overwhelmingly upper-income tax."This would in fact increase the taxes of the statistical middle class, but would greatly benefit the much larger and generalized Baucus class. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22600.html).
When combining my brief experience as a single widowed mother and my research into wealth distribution, I have come to the conclusion that our current tax system in general is flawed. This is due to the fact that economic statistics can be manipulated by governmental policy makers in order to influence the population. I believe that the tax system and the government (policy makers) should be separated, much like church and state. This way, taxes may be distributed fairly, dependent on your income and current economic scenarios. This would increase welfare while also increasing a tax on the rich. This socialist approach may have flaws, such as deterring the rich to stimulate the economy, but it would also create a larger middle class, meaning more of the wealth would be evenly distributed to the whole population. Also, policy makers would be less likely to manipulate the tax system in order to manipulate popular opinion.

Socialist America, Democratic China

I believe that a socialist shift within our own government as well as a capitalistic transition within the government of China is not only possible, but probable. With time, each society and their respective government will recognize, adopt and modify the beneficial characteristics of the other nation. This is by no means a new process. For hundreds of years this process has been vital to the evolution of histories' greatest nations, and it is happening now right before our eyes. For instance, CNN calls Obama's progressive tax reform as a socialist shift. Whether it is or not, there is a definite shift to the left within our own government, as seen in our recent election of both a Democratic President and Congress. China has already begun this process. The China of 2008 is very different from the China of 1949. Since the Chinese Civil War, the socialist policies of Mao Zedong have been not diminished, but capitalist characteristics have been adopted and modified to conform to 21st century economics. The failure of the 'Great Leap Forward' in agriculture, among other things, opened the way to Găigé kāifàng, the period of economic reform which placed many municipalities and heavy industries into the private sector. This reform, although capitalistic, has benefited China greatly.

As I have mentioned before, it is natural for a group of people to move, overtime, towards a moderate "center." Whenever this group strays too far from the center, there is always a tendency for a group to move back to this center through a variety of ways. May this be through means of rebellion, as with the Chinese Civil War, or elections, as with our own government, all peoples are centripetal. On the other hand, for a nation and its people to undergo a 180 degree change in government policy would be impossible. Change can only be taken in moderation, otherwise the peoples will resist in an attempt to return to the center. Due to this, the center is a moving target, a sort of pendulum. In the case of the United States, that pendulum seems to be moving to the right. When it will apex is uncertain, especially when political issues are compounded by an economic instability, and until it does reach a turning point we are likely to see many more socialist policies, much like FDR's New Deal. The same can be said for China. As our guests mentioned, a more democratic and capitalistic government is possible, especially if China stays on the path of reform they are following now.

The Radical Middle

Abraham Lincoln once referred to our government as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." I couldn't agree more with this statement; we are privileged as United States citizens to live in a democratic republic, a form of government where the voice of the people is, in its most perfect form, equally and fairly represented. This being said, the political party that would best serve the people would be the party that represented the voice of the majority, the party who's agenda most closely resemble the opinion of the masses. Using this logic, the far left and right would not be the best choice to lead our country. It can be safely said that the majority does not lie near the extremes; by sheer intuition one can deduce that most people, when asked individually and independently of party affiliation, are moderate and lie somewhere near the middle. If we lived in a Utopian society, 85% of the people would lie within one standard deviation, considered moderates. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a society. The popularity of the last ruling political party and their respective representatives, economic, moral, and technological issues swing the opinion of the masses, and whether the popularity is for or against a political party depends on how the majority moves. Although the ruling political party is ushered via the voice of the majority of the people, a mere 1-5% of the popular vote ever separates a normal national election. A party that was able to win by 15% or more of the popular vote would best serve the people. That is why I believe the Centrist party would be the best choice.
As I stated earlier, this party would represent somewhere near 75% of the populations opinions. The benefit would be a more direct form of political thinking; where the well being of the whole is placed before anything else. If the bill Congress was to pass would be unpopular to the average person, then it might not pass as easily as if the far left or right was the majority in congress. The special interests of the democrates or republicans, coorperate giants and federal montrosities would come second to that of "Joe the Plumber."
On the down side, the Centrist party isn't very organized. They have a hypothetical platform, and although they are a registered party, they have not gained anywheres near the amount of publicity or support that the Democrats or Republicans do. This is because we have settled into a bi-party system, and many drastic things would need to occur before this tend could be broken. Even if the Centerist party gained the support and placed a member in the oval office, our problems would not go away. The swinging pedulum between Democrat and Republican control brings about change in the government. Out with the old, in with the new. Again, the majority is a moving target. Unfortunatly, centrist party control would not bring about the same change as our current system; thier views would be too broad and moderate. The Centrist party would stagnate any political evolution. The pendulum would stop, along with many other fluxuating trends such as the economy. If that party was to then become consistently elected, either the center/majority of the people would have to change thier opinions far enough to the right or left to be considered non-centerists, or we would fall into a rut which would be difficult to pull ourselves out of.

The plight of the common migrant worker

Once known as the "Great Melting Pot" and regarded as the Utopian product of culturally and racially mixed origins by such transcendentalists as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, America owes a great deal of its success and diversity to immigrants. Let us not forget that these immigrants, including every single one of us and our families who aren't Native Americans, were necessary to the development of the United States of America. Whether these people where seen as necessities, inconveniences, or low cost labor, the immigrants who found themselves in the United States at any point in history all lent an important hand in creating today's society. In order to have a lasting impact on our society though, each new influx of immigrants had to endure a certain rite of passage. History has shown a repeated trend in relation to societal opinions of new immigrants and what must happen in order for these peoples to eventually assimilate into the natural population. The obstacles these immigrants must overcome are momentous; racism, prejudice, unfair representation, treatment, pay and rights, just to name a few. But these obstacles should come as no surprise to anyone due to the fact that history has clearly shown us that this cycle of immigration and assimilation is natural and reoccurring. So when asked if the plight of the migrant workers of today and their effects on our society are different than any of the other immigrant movements in United States history, the obvious answer is no. True, different factors and variables may cause a few discrepancies regarding the future of these immigrants, but the underlying theme is that immigrants of any kind, including today's migrant worker, can be thought of as "inconvenient necessities" at first, and from there they must overcome important generic obstacles in their search for equality and eventually assimilate into our natural population.

Immigrants have always been seen as a threat in the eyes of the average worker. Whether it was the Irish wave in 1845, the Italian push in 1901, or the Oriental increase during the construction of the west coast rail roads, every new influx of immigrants brings about new malice within the natural population due to the fact that immigrants are often willing to work for lower pay and for worse jobs. Migrant workers, or illegal immigrants are no exception to this rule. The natural human reaction is to reject and fight any change to its environment, and this rejection came in the form of prejudice and unfair treatment twoards these new workers. This is always a major obstacle which immigrants face. Ethnic slurs, slums in which some immigrants find solace amongst their own kind, and political manipulation are all byproducts of this natural rejection.
Apart from facing undeniable rejection, these people we consider an "inconvenience", or an actual threat to the working class, are also necessary. Although the introduction of newer and cheaper labor disrupts the economic system, the change these workers bring are necessary for the development. In order for an economy, or any dynamic system such as religion or government, to prosper the system must grow and spread its base, and from an economic stand point the cheap labor is the basis for which growth occurs. The immigrants soon become vitally necessary to the growth of the system, and gain power at the same time. This can be compared to the Union movements of the early 20th century. As the economy grows and becomes more dependent on this cheap labor source, the immigrants gain power. They were able to overcome inequality within the work place and fight for better pay all from this new found power. Whether this power comes in the form of increased numbers and a unified voice, or rather in the form of knowledge that the economy would fail if suddenly they were to disappear, does not matter. All that matters is that the immigrants who were once seen only as a threat become a necessary to the countries economy.

For example, the largest problem with relation to immigration today is illegal immigrants and migrant workers. Although this has been a hot topic, especially in recent elections, the issue is not as new or alien as it is made out to be. For many years illegal immigrants have moved across the boarder in search for jobs and opportunity. Already they have caused a negative reaction in society, having obtained the classic stereotypes and creating slums commonly associated with any new immigrant. Legislation has been passed on what should and could be done about the problem of illegal immigrants; everything from green cards to giant boarder fences. These factors, when put together, paint a perfect picture that represents the classic immigrant struggle. In no way does today's migrant worker or illegal immigrant vary from any of the immigrants of the past. The government actions they are causing are not new; the green card of today is the quota act of 1921. The slums and ghettos of the early 20th century have simply been reoccupied by a growing number of Latinos. There are many other parallels that can be drawn between the immigrants of the past and those of today, but the point is that illegal immigrants are on the same path as every other immigrant group the United States has seen to date.

Which brings me to the final step of the immigrant cycle; assimilation. In the case of migrant workers and illegal immigrants, the final process has already begun. The creation of Spanglish, increased acceptance into the mainstream media and educational system, and the growing percentage of Latinos in the total population, are all signs that our society has already begun to accept today's illegal immigrant into the melting pot that is America. As i said earlier, this process is long and hard for both the country and the immigrants, but eventually migrant Latino workers will overcome the final obstacles in their way, such as fair representation, pay and equality, and will become as much a part of us as the Italians, Irish and Orientals. So, when asked if an illegal immigrant is good or bad for the united states, the answer is neither; they are an "inconvenient necessity" that will eventually be accepted into the American society after during a specific and historically proven rite of passage.

For Liberty And Justice We Fall II: Revised and Streamlined

Since the end of World War II the United States has been seen, or at least seen itself, responsible for protecting the world as its leading policing force. After the Cold war, with the once great Russia no longer casting its threatening red shadow over the rest of the world, the United States, with its overwhelming military force and superior financial stability and prowess, was left without an enemy or common goal. The solution was to create freedom in third world countries; A goal made possible by our once seemingly endless economic success. Since discovering the basis of capitalistic freedom is a strong economy, the United States was not only able to create freedom and equality within its own borders, but also outside them. Now, as the U.S feels the draining effects of stabilizing freedom in other countries and experiences its own economic hardships, we face the same problem as the countries we once sought to help. The United States cannot finance the freedom of other countries if it cannot control its own financial freedom.

Our policing gaze soon turned towards the business of the Middle East. Implementing our aggressive foreign policy, the United States focused more and more energy on what was then seen as a new and dangerous common enemy to the ideals of Democracy. As we waved our flag and cried for freedom in such countries as Kuwait during the Gulf Wars, our country grew both economically and egotistically. But as we evolved, so did the rest of the world. No longer were wars fought with definitive sides and solid, visible enemies. They were now ghosts that would strike without warning, and just as quickly slip into the crevasses of the new battleground; cities. It was called terrorism, and after September 11th, 2001, the United States quickly vowed to take on this new threat, except that the U.S could never find the head of their new enemy. And this is where we find ourselves today.

We have yet to end this "War on Terror". Just by stepping back for a moment and analyzing the title of this war we can predict the outcome. The definition of the word "terror" itself means "intense, sharp, overmastering fear." There is no possible way to combat fear with guns and bombs and uniformed men. And yet the American people are told that the current U.S occupation of Iraq is creating stability and laying the foundation of freedom. Freedom, which we pay for through our nose. As George W. Bush himself said on January first, 2001, "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." The problem is that we have dug ourselves a hole, a five hundred eighty billion dollar hole, which we cannot climb out of. Although the war itself was not the sole cause of the current economic crisis, the financial consequences of this war are symptoms of the ailing cold war policies including the stabilization fledgling democracies at our own financial and military expenses. This ailing policy cannot be supported when the stock market is experiencing such a major crisis, a crisis which shows signs of becoming the next Great Depression. It may be true that most Americans do not understand or are ignorant of our current military situation all over the world, however we are very informed of our economic status, and are now wondering if we can support our own financial freedom, let alone the freedom of another country.

For many weeks there had been whispers of an economic recession in the media and government, but until recently no government official was willing to come out and address the issue. They feared that if the truth was laid in front of the American people they would panic, and the news of a recession would have a domino effect. The solution for the government officials; bide their time. This was possibly the worst plan since it dealt with neither issue of public reaction or economic stability. Then, on September 15th, Merril Lynch was sold after being denied government bailout. This was not the first event to set off the dreaded chain reaction, but it certainly was the straw that broke the camels back. The fallout has yet to be decided all while many financial giants struggle to keep their heads above water, but the country's economic future looks dim. Combined with the fact that our government is in a trillion dollar deficit, and stuck in the money hole that is Iraq, we are looking at a good deal of financial hardships ahead.

Bound to our government through the chains we call taxes, the American peoples are either bound to two fates; become indentured servants to the government when unable to pay the in surmounting taxes, or watch our own state of democracy crumble at its base, the economy. Although these conclusions are slightly harsh and subject to bias, the truth as President Bush said himself is that we cannot continue our current nation-building mission. Simply put, we cannot support both another unstable country's fledgling economy with a failing economy of our own.

For Liberty and Justice We Fall

Since the end of World War II the United States has been seen, or at least seen itself, responsible for protecting the world as its sole policing force. After the Cold war, with the once great Russia no longer casting its threatening red shadow over the rest of the world, the United States, with its overwhelming military force and superior financial stability and prowess, was left without an enemy or common goal. The solution was to create freedom in third world countries; A goal made possible by our once seemingly endless economic success. Since discovering the basis of capitalistic freedom is a strong economy, the United States was not only able to create freedom and equality within its own borders, but also outside them. Now, as the U.S feels the draining effects of stabilizing freedom in other countries and experiences its own economic hardships, we face the same problem as the countries we once sought to help. The United States cannot finance the freedom of other countries if it cannot finance its own freedom.

Thankfully the problem of finding a common enemy was solved as we implemented our aggressive foreign policy and began to involve ourselves heavily in the business of the middle east. As we waved our flag and cried for freedom in such countries as Kuwait during the Gulf Wars, our country grew both economically and egotistically. But as we evolved, so did the rest of the world. No longer were wars fought with definitive sides and solid, visible enemies. They were now ghosts that would strike without warning, and just as quickly slip into the crevasses of the new battleground; cities. It was called terrorism, and after September 11th, 2001, the United States quickly vowed to take on this new threat, except that the U.S could never find the head of their new enemy. And this is where we find ourselves today.

Now consider this; we have yet to end this this "War on Terror". Just by stepping back for a moment and analyzing the title of this war we can predict the outcome. The definition of the word "terror" itself means "intense, sharp, overmastering fear." There is no possible way to combat fear with guns and bombs and uniformed men. And yet the American people are told that the current U.S occupation of Iraq is creating stability and laying the foundation of freedom. Freedom, which we pay for through our nose. As George W. Bush himself said on January first, 2001, "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." The problem is that we have dug ourselves a hole, and five hundred eighty billion dollar hole, which we cannot climb out of. In fact, the tables have turned in regards to our war on terror. We, the people of the United States of America, are now living in a state of fear possibly greater than that of the Iraqis. Economically speaking, we have more to lose, and are on the verge of losing it all. It may true that most Americans do not understand or are ignorant of our current military situation all over the world, however we are very informed of our economic status, and are now living in economic fear.

For many weeks now there had been whispers of an economic recession in the media and government, but no government official was willing to come out and address the issue. They feared that if the truth was laid in front of the American people they would panic, and the news of a recession would have a domino effect. The solution; bide their time. This was possibly the worst plan since it dealt with neither issue of public reaction or economic stability. Then, on September 15th, Merril Lynch was sold after being denied government bailout. This was not the first event to set of the dreaded chain reaction, but it certainly was the straw that broke the camels back. The fallout has yet to be decided, many more financial giants are struggling to keep their heads above water, but the countries economic future looks dim. Combined with the fact that our government is in a trillion dollar deficit, and stuck in the money hole that is Iraq, we are looking at a good deal of financial hardships ahead. And now we are left to ask ourselves whether we can support our own freedom, let alone the freedom of another peoples.

Bound to our government through the chains we call taxes, the American peoples are either bound to two fates; become indentured servants to the government when unable to pay the in surmounting taxes, or watch our own state of democracy crumble as its base, the economy, implodes upon itself. Although these conclusions are slightly harsh and subject to bias, the truth as President Bush said himself is that we cannot continue our current nation-building mission. Simply put, we cannot support both another unstable countries' fledgling economy with a failing economy of our own. If we are to assume that freedom and equality, the backbone of Democracy, are dependent on a strong and prosperous economy, then as the economy fails so should Democracy. In order to stop this from becoming our own fate we must remove our military from Iraq, look at our own past to learn what can be done to avoid or dampen the effects of a depression, and elect a strong leader who can help us through these troubling times. Only then can our ideals of freedom, equality and democracy survive.