Skip to main content

[Cross Posted at Blog For Arizona]

I've never felt entitled to claim the U.S. is the greatest country in the world. Unlike all the worldly scholars who make that claim, I've never lived in another country, so I have little basis to make such a comparison. But, reading this article about poverty and income levels in America,

I'm starting to question of the wisdom of all those geniuses from South Dakota and Mississippi who are so sure of America's greatness. Most of them haven't even been to Baltimore, let alone Sydney or Berlin, but they're dead certain in their knowledge. It's reminiscent of that old Will Rogers line about Hoover: "It's not what he doesn't know that scares me, it's what he knows for sure that isn't true." Or something like that.

Back to poverty and income in America. A full 15% of the American population, over 46 million people, live iin poverty (defined as less than $23,000 per year for a family of four), and the median income for a family of four is a paltry $50,000 per year. So, I thought about whether the greatest country in the world ought be able to do better than that, and here's where I came out:

Those 12 million families that are living in poverty mostly have some income. So, it wouldn't take $23,000 of social safety net value to bring them out of poverty. Indeed, $10,000 per family undoubtedly be sufficient. At the same time, our Republican candidate for President is showing $20 Million per year in income, almost entirely in capital gains and dividends taxed at the preferential rate of 15%, a twenty percentage point reduction from the ordinary top rate of 35%. I did the math. For the cost of giving one Mitt Romney a tax break, we could provide social safety net services sufficient to lift 400 families out of poverty. I did some more math. For the cost of giving 30,000 Mitt Romneys a tax break, we could lift every family in the country out of poverty. More math. In an average state of 6 million people (Arizona, for example), with an average rate of poverty, poverty in that state could be wiped for the cost we pay to give just 600 of that state's Mitt Romneys a tax break.

So, are we the greatest country in the world?

Hubert Humphrey once said that "the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." It's one of my favorite quotes. Obviously, we fail that moral test miserably when it comes to how our government treats the needy. Do we do better with children? Hardly, if you check out how many teachers have been fired in order to build prisons and confer tax benefits on the wealthy at the state level. Do we do better with the elderly and the sick? No again. Check out the pressure to downsize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

If we measure greatness by the opulence in which the wealthiest of our citizens live or the capacity of our military to launch unmanned drone strikes, then we likely are the greatest country in the world. But if you see the world more the way Hubert Humphrey did, you should have your doubts.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It Was a Popular Expression During Recovery (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    One Pissed Off Liberal

    after WW2 and made some sense at that time. We were helping former enemies and allies rebuild, we were the leading power against the USSR, and since our nation was untouched our economy was roaring.

    However our older Scottish friends told us back in the 70's that some of their families were extremely put out that they didn't stay in Canada and instead came down to the US as new immigrants in the 1950's and 60's, with our inferior education, the racism, and other faults.

    That was way back during that time when ours was the big thriving economy.

    So there have been doubts abroad about our greatness all along.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 01:53:46 PM PDT

  •  isn't a missing part of this (0+ / 0-)

    how much is currently being spent by the government on aid to poor families?

    12,000,000 families and $10,000 / family =120 billion dollars.

    The budget for SNAP in 2011 was around 78 billion
    Medicaid is over 300 billion per year

    so those two alone are over $30,000  per family

  •  It appears that (0+ / 0-)

    the assistence people receive from the government is not counted when counting the number of people in poverty. So the # represents the number that would be in poverty if all government aid programs were zeroed out.

    Over the years there have been a number of critiques of the way the government measures poverty. One on-going critique is of the types of income that are included in (or excluded from) the poverty measure. By failing to include income that many low-income people receive in the form of public assistance, some critics maintain that the extent of poverty is over-stated. If the value of food stamps, publicly provided health insurance benefits, and cash welfare payments were counted as income in the poverty calculation, many people would no longer be considered poor.
  •  The test you mention (0+ / 0-)

    is a good one.

    We do not measure greatness by gold medals, military might or even by Nobel Prizes.

    At least two of those things come after the needy, the children and the seniors are living comfortably.

    By your test, the US is an also-ran among the worlds industrialized nations.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 03:36:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site