Income Inequality and Its Effects

Growing up, my father worked in his family's business<<<NAME THIS BUSINESS, one that had been established by his grandfather and passed down to his father, then onto him. My brothers and I would work in the store when we were old enough. Unfortunately with the changing times, my father was forced to close the store and took a job at a low rate of pay working for the City of New York, <<<NO COMMA to support our family. My brother's did the same, as did many of our neighbors. One day we realized that we were living near the low end of the income spectrum.

The income divide that my family experienced is not new to America . <<<NICE TRANSITION Income inequality has been an issue since before the Great Depression. "Unemployment rates, which had wavered at about 3 percent before October 1929, rose to 9 percent by early in 1930. And in the next two years, this rise continued to a crippling 25 percent" (Nardo). In today's economy, "Poor and middle-class Americans are working longer hours, experiencing greater economic insecurity" (Moyers).

Income inequality is bad for America resulting in a lack of education, poor health among the impoverished, and increased crime rates across the nation. <<<V. CLEAR THESIS AND DIVISIONS

Income Inequality: Destructive to the Health, Upward Mobility and Voice of Average Americans

The income gap between the rich and the poor has been growing by bounds in recent years and has reached an all time high, leaving the United States with "the worst inequality among all Western nations" (Moyers). Those who are rich are only getting richer and those who are poor seem to be stuck at the bottom with little hope of climbing upwards. Charles Morris shares in an article for _Opposing Viewpoints_ that the richest one percent of the United States population now owns a third of the nation's wealth, and the top five percent owns about 58 percent of the wealth. This "represents the densest concentration of wealth since the peak of American wealth inequality, which was in 1929, a not entirely reassuring precedent." His point is that it is not a coincidence that a substantial income inequality, a stock market crash and the Great Depression all happened in 1929.<<<GOOD JOB OF SETTING OUT THE PARAMETERS OF THE INEQUALITY It may indicate where the country is heading yet again. What is more threatening is >>>that clear<<<NEEDED? that the success of the rich is not trickling down to the middle and lower classes, and Americans need to take care of each other for the sake of the future development of the nation. The rapidly expanding income inequality is harming countless Americans by negatively affecting their physical and mental health, preventing the upward mobility of citizens, and giving an extreme amount of economic, political and social power to the super wealthy. And when they have the power, the gap only expands further, resulting in a vicious cycle.

Growing up in America , income inequality has put higher education on the back burner for some high school students. For one thing, just surviving in this world is more important than going to college when you don't have the right necessities in life. Their parents didn't go to college and they are working at jobs just barely making the bills never mind sending their kids to college. The high tuition is one other reason they don't have a choice, they are scared to be put into debt. For example, the average tuition, fees and room-and-board charges at private four-year institutions have more than doubled since 1978-79, to $34,132 and still rising today (Billitteri 207). Unless you get a scholarship or have a lot of money, there is little hope for the average student to go to college and go further up on the economic ladder.

Getting a scholarship could be even a task for the lower class. First of all, there is even a difference in "income class" in the school system and what district your son or daughter lives in. Gregory Mantsios, director of the Labor Resource Center at Queens college of New York explains the differences between three students living in three different school districts coming from three different social backgrounds. >>>USE NAMESThe first student goes to a school on Manhattan 's Upper East Side , a small, well-respected primary school. Classmates included the sons of ambassadors, doctors, attorneys, television personalities and well-known business leaders. This student has the best of classes, tutors, after school activities including private riding lessons. He then went on to receive a higher education at an Ivy League liberal arts college and became very successful in life. He is now an executive vice president of a company. The second student went to a medium-size public school in Queens , New York , characterized by large class size, emphasizing basic skills and student discipline. This student received no tutors and after school activities included playing handball in the school park. He then went on to a two-year community college and now works as a sales manager in a building supply firm. The third student went to a public school in Brooklyn , New York . This school focused on the importance of good attendance, good manners, and good work habits; school patrolled by security guards. This student also received no tutors and the after school activities included domestic chores and a part time job. This student went on to do one year at the community college and dropped out for financial reasons. With no further education, now works as a nurse's aid at a hospital cleaning out bedpans. As you can see, Mantsios showed how they all lived in the same city<<<GOOD POINT but income inequality caused the difference of income bracket and social class they belonged in just because of where they lived and what school they attended and the education they received.<<<WORDING IS A BIT CONFUSING HERE It shouldn't matter what school you go to or what district you live in, the needs of an individual in how we teach them should be the same across the board no matter what class bracket you belong in.

PAGE NUMBERS FOR MANTSIOS ESSAY

A higher education is necessary for the lower class because the way businesses are being ran today, with more technology, kids in high school need to be prepare more to handle difficult situations. A college education is more important now, in the year 2009, because "throughout the economy, jobs paying high wages in fields requiring more education are more available today than they were a generation ago, while low-wage, low-skill jobs are decreasing" (Sherk). There is no doubt, according to Thomas J. Billitteri who wrote "Middle-Class Squeeze" >>>says, "For people in jobs disappearing from the economy, it's going to mean a substantial downward adjustment in standard of living." But it seems,<<<NOT NEEED " those in the middle class who have some college, or have gone to a community college or have skills, broadly speaking, most will wind up on their feet again"(219). This is why we need to help all of the children in America to get an education no matter what class they belong in. Income inequality between the upper-class and the lower-class needs to be reconfigured and Americans need to find a way to send every child to get a higher education so everyone has an opportunity to live a better life. GOOD JOB OF REALLY DEVELOPING THIS IDEA

Another factor >>>in the thwarting of<<<THWARTING upward mobility by income inequality is taxes. The amount of tax breaks for the rich is exorbitant and the poor end up paying a higher percentage of their income to the government. Payroll tax is one that is regressive, forcing middle-class and poor families to pay a larger chunk of their paychecks in taxes than wealthier (Morris). Social Security taxes and state sales taxes also make the system even more regressive, and perpetuate the cycle keeping the poor down. It seems only fair that everyone pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. Bill Moyers, a television journalist, author, social commentator and former press secretary, illustrated in his keynote address at the Inequality Matters Forum at NYU , which was adapted by _Opposing Viewpoints_ to prove the harmful effects of the income inequality gap, that with these tax exemptions "our political, financial and business class expects [the poor] to climb out of poverty on an escalator moving downward" (Moyers). It is now necessary to correct this problem. Chrystia Freeland and John Thornhill point out that recently President Obama "has unveiled a sweeping progressive agenda aimed not merely at sorting out the market economy's travails but addressing a deeper failing in the current manifestation of American capitalism. That flaw, in his view, is the rising income inequality and median wage stagnation of the past three decades." He advocates a very substantial move to a more redistributive tax system, where the very rich would pay for the programs that "he hopes will alleviate the stagnation of wages of those in the middle" (Freeland and Thornhill).

While so many Americans are struggling to keep their heads above water, the C.E.O.'s are still getting paid even when they fail simply because they have the power. This is especially evident in recent times as huge corporations such as AIG are forcing the US government to bail them out after losing millions of dollars of American's money, when those who work in the corner offices are still being paid more than $165 million in bonuses. And what is worse, they are claiming they have every right to these bonuses simply because it is in their contracts. They are taking these extreme amounts of money, more money than most Americans would ever dream of having, after having lost the life savings and retirement money of millions of average Americans (Skiba). It is unsettling to see that these are the people with the power. Louis Uchitelle describes the reason for this concentration of power at the top of the income scale to be that "The new titans often see themselves as pillars of a similarly prosperous and expansive age, in which their successes and their philanthropy have made government less important than it once was." While the US government is trying to fight these problems, if the income gap was tightened or the super rich were not able to buy political power, legislation such as universal health care could be passed, allowing the physical and mental health for American citizens to improve and allow those who choose to work hard and get an education to climb up the ladder to success.

Introduction, Definition and Thesis

Loud Mouth: The Voice of Dissent Needs to Be Heard<<<great TITLE SHANNON

Americans have an obligation to their country to question their leaders in order to remain strong as a nation. This is especially important during times of war when the government tends to make quick decisions that could potentially be more harmful than helpful to our nation. <<<GOOD JOB OF GIVING A QUICK REASON Therefore, we must continue to challenge government officials and speak out when policies are suggested that would infringe on our rights or that we feel is not in the best interest of our country. Joel Westheimer, professor of social foundations of education at the University of Ottawa , Ont. believes "dissent is the hallmark of a democratic society". However, many Americans disagree arguing that criticizing the government is somehow disloyal and accuse dissenting citizens of being unpatriotic. <<<TRANSITION?>>>Government officials do not always make the correct choices and staying informed is the most effective way to ensure that we do not make the same mistake twice. Dissent should be encouraged in America because it is what our founding fathers guaranteed every citizen when drafting the Constitution, allows us to see more than one side of an issue, and ensures we will not become a society that will allow our government to pursue the wrong goals.

Members of everyday society show their lack of patriotism during wartime as well. From burning flags in protests, to speaking out against the U.S.A. , Americans around the country practice dissent. Showing no patriotism towards a country that is in need of it. After the September 11th attacks on the Twin Towers , New York City firemen, raised the American flag on that very same attack cite. This picture was scattered across newspapers, magazines, and news reports across America , showing that through these bad times we have to stand up and fight for our country. Brady, who wrote "Patriotism Should Be Enshrined in America", reminds us of this when he writes the definition of a patriot, " A patriot is one who loves, supports and defends one's country" (2)<<<TRUE. IS IT THE IDEALS OF THE COUNTRY THAT IS SUPPORTED OR THE FALLIBLE PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY RUN IT? . On that September day those fireman raised that flag in support, love, and defense. That flag brought back a meaning to the American flag that had slowly been lost. That American flag, a symbol we see almost everyday, a symbol that represents America , is burned in antiwar protests. Burning the America Flag is an unpatriotic form of dissent. The America Flag is not only used as a symbol for America , but in military services it is folded 13 times, each fold represents a symbol from the American way of life. Folds for American Fathers, American Women, for the Armed services, for those whom have died for America , are just a few symbols of what each fold of the American flag stands for. In each fold, America is represented. Burning the America flag does not mean stop the war, or the government sucks; it means you care nothing about what your country stands for. When other countries are protesting against America they burn the American Flag. The people that you are insulting by burning that American flag are the same people who fight for your liberties so that you can have that choice to standup and protest. "No nation can survive if its people refuse to support and demand it" (Brady, 3). When Americans protest by burning the American flag they are insulting other Americans and what the American way of life means!<<<AVOID EXCLAMATION POINTS IN ACADEMIC WRITING.

The [BLEEP] Truth About [BLEEP] Censorship

Censorship should not be permitted at any time, not even in a state of war, because it curtails Americans' rights under the first amendment, it prevents citizens from forming their own solid opinion on the war, and it can be used to hide faults of the government that America should be aware of.

Censorship in time of war is not a good political power to exercise during times of crisis because it hinders citizens rights under the First Amendment. The Constitution Clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances." In America it is the right of a citizen to voice their opinion whether it is equal or opposing to that of the government. Joel Westheimer states in the Phi Delta Kappan, "Any democratic society must respect dissent, especially when it's unpopular and when the issue being debated is of such monumental consequence." Not only do the opinions of the people matter, they help the government to see what they otherwise may have overlooked on an issue, especially concerning war. These amendments are put in place in order to keep the government in check, as it is the government's job to reflect the people of America . A government for the people, by the people cannot be silenced on issues concerning something as epic as a war. Michael Aliprandini presses why democracy and censorship do not mix, "Both authorities who censor and international organizations which decry censorship recognize the connection between maintaining totalitarian power through the suppression of information and expression and, by extension, the incompatibility of heavy censorship and open societies." If the government is so afraid of communism, I.e. the red scare, then censorship should not be used as it is a means of keeping power over the people.

Restrictions on our rights may pose as a serious problem to Americans. These restrictions on our First Amendment effect everyone, including a war Veteran and amputee Gary May. May opposes the Flag burning act which would ban any American citizens from defacing the flag in any way. Why does he feel this way? Because he fought for the freedoms of this country, not for the flag that symbolizes those freedoms. By adding an amendment to the constitution prohibiting flag burning would constrict the freedoms initially fought for years ago. Flag burning is a type of free speech and symbolism and is not a clear and present danger to any person. He explains how adding amendments to the constitution as a restriction to the people is not what he wants to give his children and grand children, a world with less freedoms then he had in his time. "The strength of our nation is found in its diversity. This strength was achieved through the exercise of our First Amendment right to freedom of expression--no matter how repugnant or offensive the expression might be. Achieving that strength has not been easy--it's been a struggle..."(May). A good HISTORICAL example of the government curtailing first amendment right<<<S is the Sedition Act of 1918, which was around the time of the Red Scare, during which the American government was panicked Communism<<<EARLIER THAN THE RED SCARE WHICH IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS A 1950S OCCURANCE would try to take over our democracy. The Sedition act "outlawed virtually all criticism of the war and the government. Under that law, a man was sentenced to twenty years for stating in a private conversation that he hoped the "government goes to hell so it will be of no value" (Solomon).<<<THIS HAD MORE TO DO WITH WOODROW WILSON GETTING INTO WW I THAN COMMUNISM As terrible as that statement sounds, even if it disagreeable, does that make it wrong? Every citizen is entitled to his or her own opinion and should not be jailed for stating it.

Not only would the government be restricting our Rights under the First Amendment; increased censorship in time of war would prevent Americans from forming knowledgeable opinions on the war.

Many Americans feel that criticizing the government is wrong and propose that citizens who dissent are, according to Patrick H. Brady, retired U.S. Army major general, "faux patriots." Brady even goes so far as to suggest that those who promote peace are merely doing so to ensure they will not have to fight. This is ridiculous because there are countless veterans of wars who come home and protest even if it means ending their careers in the military (Schamberg). Kirsten Schamberg, writer for the Chicago Tribune, points out "more and more members of the armed forces are publicly questioning the war they are being sent to fight." Some have even "sign[ed] ‘An Appeal for Redress,' an initiative that sends troops' demand for an end of the war directly to Congress" (Schamberg). Are these men and women cowards? Not even close. They are deeply concerned citizens that understand their civic duty to inform the public of the problems with the mission. <<<NICE REBUTTAL AND SPECIFIC ANSWER THAT FOLLOWS IS A GOOD IDEA They are true patriots like Gary E. May, veteran of the Vietnam War and double amputee, who states "the strength of our nation is found in its diversity. This strength was achieved through the exercise of our First Amendment right to freedom of expression--no matter how repugnant or offensive the expression might be." Perhaps a democracy is not what people like Brady actually prefer. Maybe they are looking for a dictator because "the idea that citizens shouldn't publicly criticize the government is at the epicenter of virtually every aspiring fascist nation in the history of the world" (Westheimer).

Our reasons to attack Iraq were that we believed, they were involved in the attacks on our nation; whether by funding or planning, and said to posses weapons of mass destruction such as chemical warfare and nuclear missiles. Another reason that I am against the war in Iraq is the cost that was inflicted on the American people.

Iraq was blamed for the attacks made to us on September 11th 2001. Right away the media and press pointed the finger and talked about how Saddam Hussein was involved somehow. The American people were outraged by the attack and wanted to bring down whoever was involved. President Bush made a speech about the war on terrorism. He stated that we have a zero tolerance for terrorism attacks on the U.S. and we will retaliate in any means possible to end the strikes. "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" (President Bush, CNN News). America did not know all the facts. All we knew was that we were attacked by someone, but who? Upon further investigation we learned that a country Afghanistan, led by Osama Bin Laden, was to blame for the attacks. "Afghanistan is believed to be where bin Laden, who U.S. officials say is possibly behind Tuesday's deadly attacks, is located" (CNN NEWS). At this point though we were set on attacking and invading Iraq . We needed to bring down the man who stood up our president years before as well. It was ironic that they are both related, one being the father and the other the son. Seems like the son wanted to finish what his Dad should have done years before. Now with the attacks, it was the perfect excuse, maybe too perfect.

The war against Iraq was costly. Our nation was already in debt but now we are greater in debt. According to this website, costofwar.com, so far the war cost nearly 93 billion dollars. Yes I did say 93 Billion!!! According to the same website with this money the U.S could have hired 1.2 million teachers, or 27.7 million children could have been provided with health care for a year. This is a lot of money that could have been spent here in the United States . Of course Iraq is not going to pay for this, in the end the American people will have to pay for the war. Our economy is suffering, but somehow we have all this money to spend elsewhere. President Bush stated that we are going to rebuild Iraq by setting up a new government and education system, among many other things. "Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more" (President Bush, CNN News).

A national healthcare system hurts America because its going to cost taxpayers a trillion dollars, the government is going to cut 500 billion dollars from Medicare, and their plan is going to have to ration care.

>>>START OFF WITH TOPIC SENTENCE OF YOUR OWN TO SET UP YOUR ARGUMENT. >>>NEED TO INTRODUCE DIRECT QUOTES. "American taxpayers are about to see an unprecedented expansion of the federal government that will cost a staggering $2.5 trillion when fully implemented.<<<NO PERIOD HERE"(Turner p1<<<NO PAGE NUMBER FOR HTML SOURCES). So where do you think this money will be going, toward the National Health Care Plan.<<<ALL OF IT? President Obama will be raising taxes up to $267 billion dollars by limiting the tax deductions of high income wage earners. Plain and simple, this plan is just to<<<O expensive .Congress can lower the cost of healthcare and make it more attainable without costing the tax payers billions and trillions of dollars. Honestly, do you really want to give control to the same fools who are unable to smoothly run social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and financial aid.<<<THEN WE SHOULD GET RID OF SS, MEDICARE, AND FINANICAL AID TOO? FUNNY THAT PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM, BUT USUALLY AREN'T INTERESTED IN ELIMINATING THEM. Its like Turner says, "We have many problems with health costs and health coverage in the United States, but more government is not the answer" . The current health care system has been costing taxpayers a high amount of money as it is, but taking more money from the American people will just make things worse and may even put our country more into debt. This is about liberty and once they have their hooks into the healthcare system, there is nothing to stop them from prying into every aspect of your life under the lie of "cutting costs".

SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE MAIN CONCERN IS GOVERNMENT CONTROL, NOT NECESSARILY COST. KEEP THE FOCUS ON COST HERE.

"Egalitarians believe that inequality is unjust and justice requires a society to move steadily toward greater equality. This is the aim and the justification of proportional taxation, affirmative action, equal opportunity programs, and of the whole panoply of anti-poverty policies that bring us ever closer to the socialist dream of a welfare state. These policies cost money. The egalitarian approach to getting it is to tax those who have more in order to benefit those who have less. The absurdity of this is that egalitarians suppose that justice requires ignoring whether people deserve what they have and whether they are responsible for what they lack. They suppose it just to ignore the requirements of justice"(Kekes, John). Income inequality in the United States is the extent to which income, most commonly measured by household or individual, is distributed in an uneven manner.<<<THIS SENTENCE IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE WIKI ESSAY ON INCOME INEQUALITY AND IS NOT CITED. THIS EQUALS PLAGIARISM It has been going on since society ever discovered a higher, middle or lower class and it still growing today. Income inequality is good for America because it increases motivation for individuals and promotes a free market capitalist society through competition, which in turn, creates more wealth for more individuals.