On Christmas Day, it is traditional to remember those who are less fortunate and to resolve to make the world better for them, not just to offer charity.
It is important to recognize the growing inequality in America and the return of extreme poverty and to understand why this is happening.
The New Deal enacted programs that reduced poverty and enabled many to rise into the middle class.
But something changed. Many things changed. Over several decades, the social safety net built to strengthen our nation and spread hope and opportunity has been shredded by the rich and powerful.
“Since the 1970s, the safety net has been diminished considerably. Labor regulations protecting workers have been rolled back, and funding for education and public programs has declined. The poor have been the hardest hit. With welfare reform in 1996, poor single parents with children now have a lifetime limit of five years of assistance and mandatory work requirements. Some states require fingerprinting or drug testing of applicants, which effectively criminalizes them without cause. The obstacles to getting on welfare are formidable, the benefits meager. The number of families on welfare declined from 4.6 million in 1996 to 1.1 million this year. The decline of the welfare rolls has not meant a decline in poverty, however.
“Instead, the shredding of the safety net led to a rise in poverty. Forty million Americans live in poverty, nearly half in deep poverty — which U.N. investigators defined as people reporting income less than one-half of the poverty threshold. The United States has the highest child poverty rates — 25 percent — in the developed world. Then there are the extremely poor who live on less than $2 per day per person and don’t have access to basic human services such as sanitation, shelter, education and health care. These are people who cannot find work, who have used up their five-year lifetime limit on assistance, who do not qualify for any other programs or who may live in remote areas. They are disconnected from both the safety net and the job market.
“In addition to the reduction of public assistance and social services, the rise in extreme poverty can also be attributed to growing inequality. To quote the U.N. report: “The American Dream is rapidly becoming the American Illusion, as the U.S. … now has the lowest rate of social mobility of any of the rich countries.” In 1981, the top 1 percent of adults earned on average 27 times more than the bottom 50 percent of adults. Today the top 1 percent earn 81 times more than the bottom 50 percent.
“Declining wages at the lower end of the economic ladder make it harder for people to save for times of crisis or to get back on their feet. A full-time, year-round minimum wage worker, often employed in a dead-end job, falls below the poverty threshold for a family of three and often has to rely on food stamps.”
Do we want America to be the Land of Illusion, no longer the Land of Opportunity? Are we prepared to do something about it?

Before anything positive can happen, we need to get more progressives and true liberals into state legislatures and the US Congress. Things are looking up in NJ with Phil Murphy as governor. He is at least talking a good game so far, even regarding education. Keeping my fingers crossed that he will deliver on most of these promises. His appointments to his administration are encouraging.
LikeLike
Sickening! What is WRONG with the supposed great USA? Answer: GREED & ENTITLEMENT of the already insanely wealthy.
There must be GREED and MEAN genes passed on from one generation to the next.
LikeLike
I think it’s far deeper than that from a psychological POV.
I think that when one is THAT cut off and isolated from the masses, it becomes very hard (regardless of whose fault it is) to accept their reality and empathize . Thus, the greed and entitlement are merely byproducts of social isolation.
What do you think?
LikeLike
Power causes brain damage: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/
LikeLike
Under the influence of libertarians, conservatives and free market ideologues, our country is abandoning support for the common good. The fact that those that support a pro-life political stance can just as easily ignore the children that depend on CHIP is a symptom of our morally compromised society. We have become an oligarchy where the rich flourish, the poor, weak and elderly do not merit attention or compassion.
LikeLike
Exactly right. This infernal libertarian/rightwing/Ayn Rand mentality is our curse and stands in the way of making any progress in healthcare, abortion rights, unionism, welfare and the social safety net. It is just incredible and an obscenity that we still do not have universal healthcare. Truman tried for a national healthcare system in the late 1940s but was defeated by the usual suspects.
LikeLike
Peter Greene makes a very good case against the assumption “what is good for business is good for everyone.” This inaccurate belief is turning us into a dispassionate society. He asks “Why should business sense supersede religious sense, or humanist sense, or a sense of responsibility to fellow humans?” Greene’s post makes a very good companion piece to Nadasen’s. Our blind faith in the magical free market is turning us into nihilists.http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/12/it-makes-business-sense.html
LikeLike
I have always thought it ironic that those who believe that life begins as holy at conception seem to,think it is immediately degraded upon drawing a breath.
LikeLike
Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell agreed on Fox news that the food stamp program needs to come to an end. They both are leaning towards ending free and reduced lunches in public schools. Apparently, starving children is freedom.
LikeLike
Starving children and taking away their health care is definitely Dickensian.nothing to be proud of unless you are Paul Ryan or MitchMcConnell
LikeLike
If the federal food stamp program ends, a few states will probably start their own food stamp programs. For instance, California offered a food stamp program before the federal program existed. However, anyone living in a GOP dominated state probably won’t have any social safety net causing a migration for most of the working poor to move to the states that offer some assistance for those who earn poverty wages.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Rangitikei Enviromental Health Watch.
LikeLike
LikeLike
With NZ two behind! Neo lib economics only benefits the very few https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/keys-great-legacy-unicef-ranks-nz-third-highest-in-the-developed-world-for-child-poverty-guess-who-ranks-first/
LikeLike
Wonderful article. I too reposted on Facebook.
LikeLike
I think the “American Dream” has become a nightmare for many and a bonanza for a few.
LikeLike
Economist/Academician George Gilder , foresaw this phenomenon, in his best selling book “Wealth and Poverty”(1981). His analysis, was prescient, and spot-on. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gilder
LikeLike
Right, by advocating for supply-sided economics, he was very prescient in developing the rise of inequality. That’s what supply-sided economics does.
Incidentally, I don’t see anything original there. All he did was take Friedman’s, Hayek’s and Laffer’s ideas and write a book about them.
LikeLike
He wrote a best-seller. The conservative, pro-growth ideas set forth in the original text, proved to be valid.
LikeLike
Chas, what you call pro-flgrowth, others call unbridled greed and the explosion of inequality that shames our nation.
LikeLike
Since when is economic growth bad? Even the left (at least most of them) favor economic growth. Without risk-takers, and wealthy people, there is no economic growth.
LikeLike
“Without risk-takers and wealthy people, there is no economic growth.”
Are you delusional, Charles?
Without consumers, there is no economic growth no matter what the risk-takers and wealthy people do.
Tell me, what group has the most consumers?
What group buys the most homes and rents the most apartments?
What group eats the most food?
What group buys or leases the most cars and trucks?
What group buys the most clothing?
What group buys the most mobile phones?
What group takes the most vacations?
What group buys the most gifts during holidays like Christmas?
What group eats the most turkey for Thanksgiving?
What group eats out in higher numbers?
What group buys more flat screen TVs, refrigerators, HVAC systems, et al.?
A. 520 billionares
B. Eleven million millionares.
C. the rest of us, the working class, the other 308.5 million Americans
The risk takers might come up with new products, but it is up to the working people, the middle class, the consumers to buy that product or it tanks and fails.
LikeLike
Exactly right. No consumers, or a shrinking number, and the economy collapses.
LikeLike
I am not delusional. I have had the unforgettable experience of living in a socialist/communist country. I lived in the People’s Republic of Mozambique (1984-1986). It is one of the poorest nations on earth. There were about 14 million consumers in that nation, and no wealthy people nor risk-takers. The government planned the entire economy. As a result, the average person lived on about $1.60 PER DAY.
Of course, consumers purchase goods/services. But without the producers of goods/services, no consumer ever buys anything.
For an economy to function, it needs both consumers and producers.
LikeLike
Charles,
The new consumers will be people with lots of money and the rest of us will not consume, save for bare essentials. That’s known as an oligarchy, in part.
The new economy will be based on producing goods and services primarily for wealthy people, and that is how one will find employment with a chance to enter the small middle class.
Sort of like the Dutch in the 1500s and 1600s.
LikeLike
It took a Great Depression to make people ready for the New Deal and later, a progressive social revolution including the Civil Rights Movement. Unfortunately, the Great Recession led to enraging bailouts for the rich instead of a strengthening of social safety and civil rights. There will be more recessions. Be ready… But right now, be merry, all! And Happy New Year! Off with you, Year 2017. 2018 will be a year of elections and change. Ring it in.
LikeLike
It strikes me that there is something more going on besides faith in the markets. Markets, like other manifestations of the organic nature of human beings, can motivate both good and bad behavior. I was struck by the thematic contrast between the two opposing characters in the Christmas movie “it a Wonderful Life” when we went to a screening at a local civic center. The film made a distinction between a business that cared about its patrons and one that tried to take advantage of them.
Every human institution must be balanced against an ethical standard before it can be accepted. Every human desire must be balanced against the unforeseen consequences of the accomplishment of that desire. One of the first lessons I recall was the realization that one farmer wanted rain for his corn while another wanted sun to cure out his hay.
What we have is a country that does not think about the other guy and what he needs. Maybe there are good things that free markets do for us, but we have forgotten to play by the rules that assure the common good. Maybe there are no real free markets any more. Perhaps the people who walk around with this phrase on their lips are parrots for the wealthy who have sold what they are doing as natural and not of the dreaded government. Perhaps the government is the problem. Instead of being the referee, perhaps the government has become the opposing coach.
Welcome to Potterville.
LikeLike
We have a war on unions and the plutocrats are winning. We also have a simultaneous war on poor people as opposed to Johnson’s war on poverty. Poverty almost amounts to a criminal offense. What is really criminal is that things do not need to be this way, do not have to be this way. Escalating poverty and inequality come as a result of political decisions not fate or kismet.
LikeLike
The New Deal did very little to alleviate the unemployment/depression and neither did the New New Deal. It did not create the middle class. Nothing FDR did get us out of the depression—Winning WWII did.
We did not have a middle class until after WWII.
I do agree that the rich have made things better for themselves. They call it globalization. I call it the greed of the rich.
We now spend 4 times the money on education than we did 50 years ago, adjusted for inflation. We misspend it on needless and endless testing and on needless technology.
I thought it was 50 million Americans live in poverty. It was about 40 million in the 1960s. I know that the poverty rate has gone down a few percentage points since about 1960s but the sheer number has gone up. Our population has about doubled since then.
Insofar as 25% children living in poverty I have to say that I looked at some states’ poverty rates and found that only 3 states and the District of Columbia had rates of 25% or more—New Mexico has the highest at 29.9% and at the other end New Hampshire has a 7.4% child poverty rate.
So, I cannot see how we have a 25% child poverty rate nationwide. Also, many of those with highest poverty rates have relatively low populations.
<< https://talkpoverty.org/indicator/listing/child_poverty/2017>>
Wages/purchasing power has declined as has the middle class, over the 30 years or so. Most of us are not in the middle class as it is defined as those making between $40k-$120K annually. Most of us make less than $30k. Most of us are economically lower class and not middle class. But middle class was a phenomenon of the latter half of the 20th Century. There is nothing to say it needs to continue but it would be nice.
We live in a nation of illusion. The streets of the New World are not paved with gold.
LikeLike
Yeah: The New Deal did nothing to end unemployment . Why it was 25% in 1933 and it was 10% in 1941. That is15% of nothingness or 1 in 4 vs 1in 10 of nothingness . Let it also be noted that it can matter little what Government spends money on as long as they spend money . In 1937 they tried to stop spending money it did not work too well . So it
would matter little whether FDR was building a Dam or Building a Tank in 1940 .
But part of the new deal was the NLRA and I would like to see you argue that it was not . Not only was it successful. It was responsible for the greatest downward transfer of wealth in history. So successful that it had to be reversed in 1947 . Among other things the healthcare and retirement systems the middle class enjoyed grew out of that act .It was so successful that it is being attacked to this day . As the proverbial middle class ,continues it’s slide.
And when we talk about the New, New Deal before Medicare 1/3 of Seniors vs 1/10 living in poverty since. And add medicaid to that as well . Just call it an anti extreme poverty measure . Taking nursing home care off of the family tab and on to a collective tab.
The claims on child poverty are based on 2 different metrics the state maps are based on an artificially set number by US labor dept. . The International studies based on medium incomes . Neither is more valid . What is valid is that the number of families by either metric not doing well is increasing dramatically.
We are all middle class, of course the myth works well . The dishwasher and the accountant can then call themselves middle class . The explanation I was given for middle class was a mid level managerial class. Thus the Bank manager and and the Lawyer are middle class, the bank teller and the Lawyers receptionist were never.
But if the vast majority of Americans thought of themselves as working class that would be very dangerous indeed . The plutocracy is very happy Americans see themselves in the murky middle. As the myth is dispelled, the anxiety increases and that can be dangerous .
LikeLike
Median incomes . (Next Christmas for the edit button )
LikeLike
Thanks, Joel. What our commentator doesn’t understand is that we don’t want our streets paved with gold. We want them to be paved with what’s needed, with no potholes or gaping cracks so that everyone has the opportunity to travel on them, unhindered and safely toward their destinations.
LikeLike
Thanks Joel for blowing up this right wing meme/myth that FDR did nothing to alleviate the depression, it was really WWII, blah, blah. I have heard this phony argument before that FDR’s efforts were irrelevant and that it was really WWII that saved us from the depression. It’s partly true but demeans the successes of FDR’s pre war efforts. When FDR came into office the unemployment rate was 25% and a few years later he had reduced it to 15%. As you pointed out, it bounced back up to about 19% in 1937. I think that at that time, they did not count the workers in the government programs, created by FDR, as employed? Not sure. In any case, WWII represented a huge spending program, a huge government sponsored works program. Big government did get us out of the depression with some “help” from Japan and Nazi Germany.
LikeLike
And to pay off the debt caused by World War II, the tax rate for the wealthiest American’s was higher than 90 percent.
“The highest rate for regular marginal income tax in the twentieth century was instated under Franklin D. Roosevelt toward the end of World War II at 94 percent. A marginal income tax of over 90 percent for top earners lasted well beyond the end of the war.”
The higher than 90 percent tax rate for incomes over $400,000 didn’t end until LBJ in 1964 dropped the rate to 77-percent.
And if you go back to World War I, the highest tax bracket for those earning $1 million or more was more than 73 percent. After WWI, the tax rate dropped as low as 24 percent by 1929 when the Great Depression hit.
http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/
It’s obvious that the elitist Trumpets and the Bannoneque Alt Right doesn’t care about the United States.
After World War II, there were the costs of the Cold War, the costs of the Korean Conflict, the costs of the Vietnam War (the highest tax broked during Vietnam was 70 percent for incomes $203,200 and higher, the costs of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and around the world have seen the top rate on income drop, drop, drop, and drop starting with Reagon.
It is arguable that the working class was better off when the wealthiest earners had the highest tax rates. Many of the Wealthiest Americans today are not willing to pay higher tax rates to fund all the wars the U.S. keeps fighting. Instead, they are shifting the burden on the working class that actually ends up shedding blood and dying in these wars while most if not all of the wealthiest Americans shield their children from going to war like the Bush and Trump families did.
LikeLike
“We now spend 4 times the money on education than we did 50 years ago, adjusted for inflation. ”
Any comparison of US education that doesn’t include the cost of special education is invalid.
We spent less on education partly because we simply didn’t provide education to children with special needs. Of course it was less expensive.
LikeLike
Documentation: Richard Rothstein’s “The Way We Were.”
LikeLike
I don’t remember Barbra and Robert discussing education policy. Must have escaped the corners of my mind. (Sorry for that.)
LikeLike
U-S-A! U-S-A!
LikeLike
🤣😂🤣
LikeLike
Eewww, GregB, for your 3:23 PM comment.
Not funny, girl (er, guy). &…sorry..that was just as bad.
Seriously, though, GregB, your comments here are pretty sagacious.
Thanks, & let’s all make a better 2018 happen (IOW, vote, & vote by paper ballot ON election day).
LikeLike
Ah yes, the Popular Mythology of Capitalism — JOB & MITH —
AKA the Jolly Old Banker and the Man In The Hardhat …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz9fX_HfsXA
They sold it then and they keep trying to sell it today —
But the Jolly Old Bankster today “invests” more and more money on propaganda for the myth and and less and less on funding the Man In The Hardhat.
LikeLike