Yeah, Chris. I'm sure that little black girl from Kosciusko, Mississippi never would have been so foolish as to think that she'd ever be worth $2.3 billion some day.
I found the list very interesting. There are a lot of names I don't recognize. I won't deny that some of them made the list by accident of birth. I'm sure others cheated their way to the top. Still others must have left a trail of ruined lives in their wake, while others got to the top by either breaking the law or through dumb luck.
But even if Oprah Winfrey was the only one on the list who beat the odds, growing up as an African-American in the segregated South to become one of the richest women in the world, how many other countries in the world can you name where that would even be possible?
If you click on each name on the list, you'll get a thumbnail biography. Sadly, it only tells about where they are now, not where they came from. My guess is that there's more than just one who started from the bottom half and made it to the top 400. I'd love to know the story of each one.
Oh, and Ted: I know it's a small point, but not all 400 are billionaires - only the top 391!
The point I was trying to make is that upward mobility in the United States of America is still possible. Is it hard? You bet it is! But is it impossible? Just ask Chris Gardner. Not everyone will do as well as he did, but that's no reason to simply give up.
Precious few will make it into the top 400 richest Americans. I personally wouldn't want to be that rich anyway. But to say it's foolish to even try - to condemn that bottom 51% to permanent dependency on the largesse of the government - it worse than foolish.
No one, not even us evil liberals, is trying to condemn anyone to "permanent dependency on the largesse of government". But that doesn't mean the government can't provide decent food, housing, education and medical care to those in need of it. That's just helping our fellow man.
Nor do we evil conservatives want to privatize everything and leave everyone out in the cold to fend for themselves, as some have alleged.
The basic difference is this: we prefer limited government. If people can provide their own food, housing, education and medical care, that's preferable to government doing it for them - not only from a fiscal perspective, but from the standpoint of self-esteem.
If government must be involved, that involvement should be temporary rather than permanent, if at all possible. Obviously, people with permanent disabilities need permanent help, but multi-generational welfare does no one any good.
Finally, the level of government that is closest to the problem should resolve the problem, if at all possible. Local solutions are preferable to state solutions, and federal solutions are the least preferable of all. Obviously, there are some things that only the federal government can and should do; it's inefficient for every city to have its own standing army, for instance. But if Austin is already too far from Amarillo to understand our unique problems, how can we expect Washington to do so? The Founding Fathers wrote the Tenth Amendment because they knew from experience that a centralized government far removed from the people was less apt to respond effectively to the people.
In sum, conservatives measure compassion not by how many people the government is helping, but by how many people no longer need that help.
Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
From the excellent blog of Badtux, the Snarky Penguin.
The saga will continue as long as the people in the bottom 51% are foolish enough to think they can join the top 400 richest category.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Chris. I'm sure that little black girl from Kosciusko, Mississippi never would have been so foolish as to think that she'd ever be worth $2.3 billion some day.
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to the list (she's tied for number 141).
I found the list very interesting. There are a lot of names I don't recognize. I won't deny that some of them made the list by accident of birth. I'm sure others cheated their way to the top. Still others must have left a trail of ruined lives in their wake, while others got to the top by either breaking the law or through dumb luck.
But even if Oprah Winfrey was the only one on the list who beat the odds, growing up as an African-American in the segregated South to become one of the richest women in the world, how many other countries in the world can you name where that would even be possible?
If you click on each name on the list, you'll get a thumbnail biography. Sadly, it only tells about where they are now, not where they came from. My guess is that there's more than just one who started from the bottom half and made it to the top 400. I'd love to know the story of each one.
Oh, and Ted: I know it's a small point, but not all 400 are billionaires - only the top 391!
It's OK to have millions of poor people as long as Oprah got rich? That doesn't even make sense!
ReplyDeleteYou're oversimplifying what I said.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make is that upward mobility in the United States of America is still possible. Is it hard? You bet it is! But is it impossible? Just ask Chris Gardner. Not everyone will do as well as he did, but that's no reason to simply give up.
Precious few will make it into the top 400 richest Americans. I personally wouldn't want to be that rich anyway. But to say it's foolish to even try - to condemn that bottom 51% to permanent dependency on the largesse of the government - it worse than foolish.
It's cruel.
No one, not even us evil liberals, is trying to condemn anyone to "permanent dependency on the largesse of government". But that doesn't mean the government can't provide decent food, housing, education and medical care to those in need of it. That's just helping our fellow man.
ReplyDeleteNor do we evil conservatives want to privatize everything and leave everyone out in the cold to fend for themselves, as some have alleged.
ReplyDeleteThe basic difference is this: we prefer limited government. If people can provide their own food, housing, education and medical care, that's preferable to government doing it for them - not only from a fiscal perspective, but from the standpoint of self-esteem.
If government must be involved, that involvement should be temporary rather than permanent, if at all possible. Obviously, people with permanent disabilities need permanent help, but multi-generational welfare does no one any good.
Finally, the level of government that is closest to the problem should resolve the problem, if at all possible. Local solutions are preferable to state solutions, and federal solutions are the least preferable of all. Obviously, there are some things that only the federal government can and should do; it's inefficient for every city to have its own standing army, for instance. But if Austin is already too far from Amarillo to understand our unique problems, how can we expect Washington to do so? The Founding Fathers wrote the Tenth Amendment because they knew from experience that a centralized government far removed from the people was less apt to respond effectively to the people.
In sum, conservatives measure compassion not by how many people the government is helping, but by how many people no longer need that help.
Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.
ReplyDelete