Posted on 03/05/2013 3:58:20 PM PST by bestintxas
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush Tuesday described the growing economic chasm between rich and poor as "un-American" and called it the biggest "structural" problem facing the nation on Tuesday.
"Going forward, we have to deal with our longer structural problems. The biggest one, as far as I'm concerned, is that we're no longer socially mobile as a country," Bush said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program.
"You have people that are born poor and there's a higher and higher probability that they're going to stay poor. And you have people that are born rich and there's a greater probability that they'll stay rich.
"It's just so un-American," he added. "And yet none of the conversation and the debates are really about this. But upward mobility is the chance to solve a lot of problems. . ."
Bush, often mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, said he worries that too many Americans "feel like life isn't fair to them, that they can't succeed."
Adding to the problem, he said, is the fact that the nation's education system no longer provides the tools to ensure that "every child has a chance to learn."
"If people don't have the skills to succeed, no matter how much they dream, if they don't have the skills to make those dreams come true it's not going to work," he said.
He added later that education reform must be made a top priority because there are still too many "pockets in this country of just illiteracy because we haven't had the same standards for them."
Bush, who was making the rounds at MSNBC promoting his new book, "Immigration Wars," was also asked about his apparent reversal on giving illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
It is un-American to begrudge the rich their wealth, but, it is communistic to decry the gap between rich and poor.
Jeb is a tool. In America there is equal opportunity. Why does he hate self-initiative and hard work? Oh yes...Jeb should redistribute his goofy family’s wealth. It would only be fair. How mean-spirited not to do so.
Jeb isn't saying the rich need to give up anything like the statists do; he's just saying the poor should get more of a chance to have prosperity.
I don't see a problem.
Not under this administration.
The increasing debt and regulation under Obama decreases opportunity and makes it harder for the less wealthy to get ahead.
: )
Jeb Bush is completely correct about income inequality. It is a real problem and people are trapped. Income mobility is critical to a well functioning economy and a free country.
FReepers better study up on Gini. He’s a fascist and his ideas are bad. Liberals have picked up on this concept.
The truth is that income inequality and income mobility are functions of government. Those trapped have these items in common:
1. Single parent households (welfare)
2. Unmarried teen mothers (welfare)
3. No HS degree or little/no college degree (government shcooling)
Who’s to blame?
Of course that's what he's implying. The only logical alternative is to make everyone rich thereby eliminating the "Un-American" gap.
Maybe you think Jeb will make us all rich.
BDS is a two sided coin.
Irrational hatred on one side; irrational love and devotion on the other.
I personally am a Bush realist. That is why if Bush is the republican nominee I will vote third party.
FReepers are going emotive lately. The cure is thinking.
No fan of the Bush family here, but you are absolutely correct. Jeb Bush has put his finger on what ails this country: People no longer believe that hard work will be rewarded, that the days of an opportunity society have passed. And they are scared to death for their children and what the future holds for them.
Disillusioned and frightened people are naturally gong to be receptive to the idea of government playing a larger role in their lives. Why do you think the Democrats have prospered during this period of stagnation? Economic growth and upward mobility are the death knell of big government.
“We should be concerned with the economic fate of flesh-and-blood human beings, not waxing indignant over the fate of abstract statistical brackets. Unless, of course, we are hustling for an expansion of the welfare state.” Thomas Sowell
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342221/how-measure-social-mobility-thomas-sowell
I think the GOP (and most other conservative standard bearers) will be consigned to irrelevancy if we don’t address the decline in real living standards that the lower middle class and working class are experiencing. It has nothing to do with obsessing about the Gini Index, but when people start to feel their hands slipping off the last rungs of that middle class ladder, they will turn more to the government for solutions.
And Thomas Sowell’s wise words should be heeded. Talk to some flesh and blood carpenters, electricians, secretaries, etc. about their economic fate over the last few years. If the conservative message to those folks is “You are a commie socialist lackey for being concerned that your wages have fallen in real terms over the past ten years,” then I guess we should just accustom ourselves to being perpetual losers.
It’s “Un-American” for some children to be born into wealthy families and others to poor families? So it would be AMERICAN for all children to be born into families of equal wealth?
I didn’t know that.
If your message to them is new programs from the Federal Government will help you with that then you ARE a commie socialist lackey.
I would be astonished if Jeb could say that “Government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem” without choking or catching on fire.
(and most other conservative standard bearers)
Yes, but it is important to know the origins of the Gini Coefficient. It was used to promote fascism, which is the same goal here.
That said, “income inequality” is good and expected in a free society. We don’t expect a hamburger flipper to make as much as a brain surgeon. Looking at incomes is the wrong approach.
Is it net or gross income? Given that less than half the population pays income taxes wouldn’t you expect top earners to earn more to make up the difference and bottom earners to coast on their new found after tax income?
What about purchasing power? You have to look at that as well. What can be bought and for how much?
The real problem is income mobility. If people can move up and down the income scale that’s critical. It means you’re not trapped in poverty or permanently ensconced in wealth. How does that happen?
Massive government intervention - licensing, fees, taxes, regulations, etc. Cab drivers cannot drive an vehicle without a permit. The permits are limited by government, bought by the wealthy and cost about $250,000-500,000, just to drive a cab. That’s nuts and that’s destructive to peoples mobility.
Finally and just as important - income isn’t wealth. You can be quite wealthy, have low overhead and a low income. What exactly are we measuring?
I’d ignore income and focus on purchasing power and income mobility. Both of those are negatively influenced by government intervention.
In a free market high prices cure themselves and people are free to pursue life as they see fit. Under government the opposite is true.
No, what he's implying is that statism is putting barriers in front of people who without it would be moving up.
Maybe you think Jeb will make us all rich.
Of course not. That never happens in any society. But prosperity should be returning which normally provides much more opportunity for the less wealthy to move up. Instead prosperity is decreasing which in turn decreases opportunity for the less wealthy and that is Jeb's point.
Their policies are the thing that cause the growing gap between rich and poor so show how the thing they decry is happening under a Democrat administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.