VTMBH Article: Body
America is the wealthiest country in the world and, at the same time, a country full of socio-economic contrasts and contradictions. For example, the following is a breakdown of children living below poverty level in economically developed nations: USA, 22 percent; Australia, 14.8 percent; Canada, 14.6 percent. During the last 40 years, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has declined, even though the general population has remained at roughly the same level: 35 - 40 million.
The least prosperous people are those below age 18 and over age 65. Forty years ago, 37 percent of the elderly lived in poverty, as did 28 percent among those younger than 18 years old. In recent years, figures have been 12 percent and 22 percent, respectively, with times clearly better for the elderly. The most prosperous group is middle aged, from 55 to 64 years old.
Here is another statistic highlighting the socio-economic contradictions in the States. The child mortality rate among the poor is 50 percent higher than among those in the middle and upper class brackets. Poverty among blacks is three times greater than among whites. A white male will live nine more years than his African-American counterpart. In Harlem, a predominantly African-American neighborhood, tuberculosis is 13 times more common than in the rest of the nation (the only place in the western hemisphere with a higher TB rate is Haiti). Neighborhoods in upper Manhattan that border Harlem, like the wealthy Upper East and West Sides, have almost no cases of tuberculosis at all. A black woman is three times more likely to die in childbirth that her white counterpart. Still-born children are twice as common among blacks than whites. This is not about genetics, not about the color of skin. The main criteria for health is not race but rather financial freedoms and the quality of life and of medical care that they bring.
Poverty in America, of course, is nothing compared to the suffering felt by people in the worlds poorest nations. At the same time, it would be difficult to convince a representative of the African-American community that if his ancestors had not been sold into slavery here, he would have a much better life than he does currently in Harlem. It would be equally difficult to convince many recent immigrants that their welfare or SSI money means a better life than they enjoyed back home on their ordinary salaries.
This is why the distribution of wealth and the quality of life differences always bring back debates on Socialism. Five percent of the wealthiest Americans have 60 percent (or, by some accounts, 70 percent) of the nations wealth. Consequently, the rich become richer, the poor remain poor, and the middle class is more likely to join the latter than the former. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the current situation in the community at large. The divide and conquer notion is not embedded in the American psyche. Rather, Americans are increasingly concerned that a massive portion of wealth distributed among such a narrow group of people is not due to the groups talents or hard work, but in fact, is because of their connections to prominent lawmakers and government officials. This dissatisfaction has only increased with the recent corporate scandals shaking America.
Of those Americans polled, 91 percent think measures must be taken to reassert control and accountability within big business, as well as limit its influence on government. Corporations support, at least in large part, almost every elected official. The lions share of political contributions falls upon the wealthy, who will not part with a penny if they do not agree with the candidates positions. Politicians who campaign ethically and properly are the exception to the rule.
Under these conditions, the financial elite not only supports political decisions in its favor, but also avoids the law without punishment. White collar crime costs the public 100 times more than any other criminal losses. In prosperous times, super incomes of dubious origin do not bother the public. But today, when most Americans polled by CNN/USA Today say that the country is suffering from a recession, the public mood is different. The president talks of war and of patriotism, while corporate bosses disgracefully manipulate their taxes, while lying to government and small investors. And though the President made promises and threats in a recent speech on Wall Street, the public remains skeptical. Most feel that proposed measures fall short of the mark; the involvement of the government, including Bush and his family, in corporate abuses, is also confusing.
The New York Times, and most other prominent media outlets, talk of Bush being engaged in moralizing about crimes of epic proportions, in order to avoid the spotlight on his own dubious financial dealings. Republican political analyst Kevin Phillips, in a Los Angeles Times piece, writes that Never in history has a leading corporation (Enron) grown so rapidly in tandem with a Presidential dynasty and a corrupt political system.
What can we expect in the days to come? The answer to this question will come not from public opinion polls, which have already gone beyond traditional political boundaries, but from a political struggle at the very top of the pyramid of power.
The least prosperous people are those below age 18 and over age 65. Forty years ago, 37 percent of the elderly lived in poverty, as did 28 percent among those younger than 18 years old. In recent years, figures have been 12 percent and 22 percent, respectively, with times clearly better for the elderly. The most prosperous group is middle aged, from 55 to 64 years old.
Here is another statistic highlighting the socio-economic contradictions in the States. The child mortality rate among the poor is 50 percent higher than among those in the middle and upper class brackets. Poverty among blacks is three times greater than among whites. A white male will live nine more years than his African-American counterpart. In Harlem, a predominantly African-American neighborhood, tuberculosis is 13 times more common than in the rest of the nation (the only place in the western hemisphere with a higher TB rate is Haiti). Neighborhoods in upper Manhattan that border Harlem, like the wealthy Upper East and West Sides, have almost no cases of tuberculosis at all. A black woman is three times more likely to die in childbirth that her white counterpart. Still-born children are twice as common among blacks than whites. This is not about genetics, not about the color of skin. The main criteria for health is not race but rather financial freedoms and the quality of life and of medical care that they bring.
Poverty in America, of course, is nothing compared to the suffering felt by people in the worlds poorest nations. At the same time, it would be difficult to convince a representative of the African-American community that if his ancestors had not been sold into slavery here, he would have a much better life than he does currently in Harlem. It would be equally difficult to convince many recent immigrants that their welfare or SSI money means a better life than they enjoyed back home on their ordinary salaries.
This is why the distribution of wealth and the quality of life differences always bring back debates on Socialism. Five percent of the wealthiest Americans have 60 percent (or, by some accounts, 70 percent) of the nations wealth. Consequently, the rich become richer, the poor remain poor, and the middle class is more likely to join the latter than the former. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the current situation in the community at large. The divide and conquer notion is not embedded in the American psyche. Rather, Americans are increasingly concerned that a massive portion of wealth distributed among such a narrow group of people is not due to the groups talents or hard work, but in fact, is because of their connections to prominent lawmakers and government officials. This dissatisfaction has only increased with the recent corporate scandals shaking America.
Of those Americans polled, 91 percent think measures must be taken to reassert control and accountability within big business, as well as limit its influence on government. Corporations support, at least in large part, almost every elected official. The lions share of political contributions falls upon the wealthy, who will not part with a penny if they do not agree with the candidates positions. Politicians who campaign ethically and properly are the exception to the rule.
Under these conditions, the financial elite not only supports political decisions in its favor, but also avoids the law without punishment. White collar crime costs the public 100 times more than any other criminal losses. In prosperous times, super incomes of dubious origin do not bother the public. But today, when most Americans polled by CNN/USA Today say that the country is suffering from a recession, the public mood is different. The president talks of war and of patriotism, while corporate bosses disgracefully manipulate their taxes, while lying to government and small investors. And though the President made promises and threats in a recent speech on Wall Street, the public remains skeptical. Most feel that proposed measures fall short of the mark; the involvement of the government, including Bush and his family, in corporate abuses, is also confusing.
The New York Times, and most other prominent media outlets, talk of Bush being engaged in moralizing about crimes of epic proportions, in order to avoid the spotlight on his own dubious financial dealings. Republican political analyst Kevin Phillips, in a Los Angeles Times piece, writes that Never in history has a leading corporation (Enron) grown so rapidly in tandem with a Presidential dynasty and a corrupt political system.
What can we expect in the days to come? The answer to this question will come not from public opinion polls, which have already gone beyond traditional political boundaries, but from a political struggle at the very top of the pyramid of power.