Another reply to Uncle T

Uncle T,

To answer yet more of your must-answer questions:

1. Yes, in Bangladesh I would be rich. So what? That's why we look at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and inflation. How much does rent cost in Bangladesh, or a meal at a restaurant? When comparing developed and undeveloped countries, wealth is relative. A better comparison is between people in developed countries. Like, why does the U.S. have such a high infant mortality rate, or such high dropout rates from school? Why doesn't our wealth solve those problems? What's missing?

2. Because people don't always reap what they sow, and who are you to judge who is "deserving"? Is Paris Hilton deserving? Are Sam Walton's children deserving of being the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th richest people in the world? What did they reap to sow billions? You must be consistent and admit that people are not always to blame for being poor, just as people do not always deserve their wealth. Sometimes all the poor need is a hand to help pull themselves up.

3. In my last letter I gave you several examples of incentives that you may call "liberal" and disagree with, but they're still incentives.

4. We already have such provisions to prevent people milking the system, it's called Clinton's Welfare to Work program. It's already law that able-bodied people can't stay on welfare indefinitely. Isn't that good enough for you?

5. America allows the possibility for success for very many, but not all, people. The heart of many of our disagreements is that you accept people's starting position in life in morally neutral terms, while I do not. You and I have had many advantages in life that others have not. Yes, you worked hard and made the most of those advantages. But as a human being with empathy and sympathy, you must realize that not everybody gets such a great start in life. What do you say to those people, "Tough luck"? Or, "The world needs janitors, too"?

6. As long as people don't start out equally in life, there will never be such thing as equal opportunity. I'm realistic about that. Are you? The question is, what do we do about it? Do we just say, "Oh well, some people are born inheriting millions, others are born eating dirt, and we're morally compelled not to interfere in the status quo, because that would be stealing"? Or do we try to help people without making them dependent?

In my previous email, if you read carefully, I did answer all 4 of your questions, even though you may not have liked/agreed with my answers.

That program you liked... Which party pledged in its first 100 hours to lower the interest rate on government loans for college?

I wish you'd get over the "giveaway" issue. The kind of welfare which drives you to fits of rage is actually not so common. Most people who receive welfare get off and get back on their feet. I really don't understand why this enrages you so much. Again, I can't think of any liberals who are asking to increase "giveaways" like the ones you despise. They do, however, ask for things like: more college loans; more spending on education and pre-school programs; more spending on day care for working families; and universal access to health care. I don't consider these giveaways, since they would make working people healthier, happier, and more productive. They are also family-friendly, thus encouraging real family values.