[
We agree on more than we disagree. A few points, however.
I don't consider the middle to upper middle class to be wealthy. I'm talking about the top 2-5% at most.
I don't blame the rich for the plight of the poor, but I do feel that they should feel an obligation to help the poor. It's a moral principle of mine which I realize that others may not necessarily agree with, at least not to the same extent.
I agree with you that we can never get rid of poverty altogether; however, I feel that we can fix failing public schools if we decrease class sizes and raise teacher pay to attract qualified individuals. I don't believe that public schools, even in the worst areas, are beyond help. Teachers make a lot less money than most other occupations with similar educational requirements, and if pay was increased to make them competitive, the quality of teaching would greatly increase. Also, even the best teachers can't teach effectively very easily in large groups; smaller classes will bring more individual attention to each student.
Another key is urban revitalization; tearing down old, decrepit buildings and expanding the concepts for renaissaince zones in which businesses would be allowed to move in tax free for a certain period of time. Also, increasing the number of police officers in high crime areas would help, too.
I realize that there is only so much money to spend, but my point is that we have to decide what we want to do. We have the money and the resources to largely defeat poverty, save for those who won't take responsibility as I said in my last post. We have to make a decision whether it is worth it to do it or not, and my view is that it is, and that we have the resources and the wealth, and we should have a purpose to our prosperity.
I realize that I'm a bit idealistic, but I do believe that we can do it if we are willing to sacrifice in order to accomplish it. Those who oppose the necessary efforts should no longer be able to hide behind the guise of "we can't afford it". It is a fundamental question of moral values and principle; we can do it, and if we choose not to, so be it, but we will have made that choice based on principle and not for a lack of resources.
One thing you should realize is that cost of living varies greatly throughout the country. Where I live, an income of $100,000 per year for a family is barely middle class. A family with that income buying a house today in my area could afford a basic house and few frills. In other parts of the country, this would be considered a very high income. What I fear is that the government can never get enough revenue, and once the idea of targeting the "rich" for ever greater taxes is commonly accepted, the definition of "rich" will be progressively defined down until the middle class are getting hammered.
When it comes to inner city education, I don't think that quality of teaching is really the central problem. On the contrary, I think that poor quality teaching is the RESULT of the unbearable conditions that exist in the schools, mostly as a result of the dysfunctional homes that the kids come from. Anybody who is good at what they do cannot stand to work in such an environment, and leaves for greener pastures, leaving the time servers, inexperienced and incompetent to teach in those undesirable areas. No amount of money can change that, and good teaching cannot materially change the toxic environment that exists in those communities, which comes into and contaminates the schools. It is impossible to superimpose good schools on such communities. It is only possible to offer those interested in getting an education a chance to get one in a more protected and less toxic environment.
People are generally only willing to sacrifice if they perceive it to be in their long-term best interests. When the war on poverty started, there were high hopes that it would be successful, and many were willing to sacrifice for a good goal. When it became clear that the approach advocated by liberals in the 1960s would not work, the willingness to sacrifice fell away. Why pay higher taxes to give money to people when they (hypothetically) use it to buy drugs? Why pay welfare to people who have kids that they neglect and abuse? The fact that liberals defended bad programs such as AFDC for so long, and were unwilling to admit that some people were abusing the social programs that were available, caused many people to simply write off the poor.
I think society needs both idealists and realists. Having grown up in the aftermath of the 1960s, I have a very strong sense of the dangers of idealism that is not tempered by a willingness to face reality. On the other hand, realists are sometimes too inclined to just accept injustices, particularly if they are not affecting them directly. But while idealists are the ones who bring attention to a problem and create a desire to solve it, I have always found that it is hard-headed realists, rather than soft-hearted idealists, who are actually able to design workable solutions. The failure of the liberal ideas in the 1960s still resonates today, because much of what the liberals did then (anti-poverty giveaway programs, busing, etc.) was based on a false diagnosis of the real problem, and was not tempered by reality.
