Published: Thursday, May 8 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
To quote Paul Krugman, New York Times, "...what’s really new about
“Capital [in the 21st Century]” is the way it demolishes that most
cherished of conservative myths, the insistence that we’re living in a
meritocracy in which great wealth is earned and deserved."You
assert that stable families are the key to overcoming income inequality. By
that you must mean that the reason for the increasingly top heavy distributions
of income and wealth is unstable families. According to economist R.D.
Wolff:"Piketty’s mastery of the dynamics of economic
inequality leads him to conclude that, barring a major wildcard or sustained,
aggressive state interventions, the economic system of the developed world is
primed to deliver ever greater returns to capital over the next few decades (at
least), and relatively lower returns to labor."So it would
appear that the best we can say for your argument is that stable families
certainly will help, but they in no way can be a fix.
I am glad to see the DN promoting marriage, for the benefit and success of
children.I hope this means that the DN has finally come around on
understanding that the Gay couples who adopt the children others do not want
should marry and raise those kids in stability.I hope it does not
mean that we should pretend that broken people in troubled situations are
somehow magically going to avoid having kids until married.
If people really believe that "stable families are the key to overcoming
income inequality" then they should support both opposite-sex marriage and
same-sex marriage. There are a lot of children in families headed by same-sex
couples. Those children could really benefit if their parents were allowed to
The author articulates rather eloquently the argument for marriage equality.
" ... progressives seeking to improve income equality should ally with
conservatives promoting marriage."Conservatives should ally with
progressives in promoting marriage equality as this will increase the number of
stable families by including stable LGBT families in the number.
‘In our opinion: Stable families are the key to overcoming income
inequality’======= So, The Deseret News
believes that the 1% income represent stable Families, [Paris Hilton,
Lindsay Lohan, OJ Simpson, Hugh Hefner?]whilst the 99% of us
represent "unstable" families?[the rest of us]I
seriously beg to differ.
I suppose that if Marxist can quote Paul Krugman as an authority, I would submit
that the following quote is more authentic and has proven itself over the ages
to be a far superior summary of the issue that those who advocate that the
exception should become the rule are willing to accept."THE
FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His
eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and
to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete
fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded
upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families
are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance,
forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational
Surely it could also be said that stable family economies promote stable family
I think I understand where the DN is coming from on this:The atomic
family, where dad works outside the home, mom works mostly inside the home, and
where there is abundant resources for the kids to focus on school until after
they graduate from high school, is the best way to counter the concentration of
wealth and income in our economy.This makes good sense, and it works
pretty well if dad has a stable, well-paying career. But it starts
to unravel as dad gets bounced out of his career by economic forces far beyond
his control, which forces him to take multiple lower paying jobs, and mom has to
work outside the home, too, and then who is watching the kids?I see
it across the street from me. Dad loses self-respect as his former career is
nicely handled by machines or people in India, he works odd hours doing odd
jobs. Mom admits the pressure is tremendous, there is yelling and fighting,
church helps, but the kids are getting the message that unless you marry into
wealth, having a family is a daunting prospect.Marry into wealth and
It has never been a secret that financial stress is a hugely toxic factor to
stable families. Whether it's medical bills or dealing with unemployment,
nothing hammers a family like money problems.We're swimming in
research data that show, clearly, repeatedly and powerfully, that the economic
environment for poor and middle class American families has been increasingly
tilted to their disadvantage and to the advantage of they hyper-wealthy. Moreover, we know beyond any doubt that this rigging of the economy to
favor the "1%" is wholly intentional; a cynical, deliberate manipulation
of tax laws and economic policies implemented by a government that has been
bought by the hyper-wealthy exclusively for the benefit of the hyper-wealthy.So my question to those Utahns who fret, justifiably, about the
deteriorating state of the American family is this - why do you continue to vote
for the same Republican politicians who so consistently demonstrate that they
support tax laws and public policies that are aggressively hostile to the
interests of average, wage-earning American families?
We can either actually solve the problem or we can just keep on wasting
trillions in taxpayer money with welfare programs that only exacerbate the
The original study states:"We caution that all of the findings
in this study are correlational and cannot be interpreted as causal
effects"Although there were correlations between rates of single
mothers and upward mobility there were many other factors that correlated to
upward mobility, such as race, size of the existing middle class, early
educational policies, and even geographic location.I think that this
editorial cherry picks a few factors, and draws unwarranted conclusions.
If the theory is solid, put it into law. Legislate stable families by
eliminating divorce. Stable doesn't mean happy. It is a state of not
being easily changed.
My 2nd thought on the matterr --- This article is the Tail wagging
the Dog.If the #1 cause of Divorce and creating the un-Stable family
is a poor economy, then the 1% shoudl be doing more to with their vast
fortunes in promoting sustainable wages for Husbands and Fathers, Healthcare for
their Families, and Retirement or when they are old.Instead -- they
offload, outsource, and off shore their jobs to further increase their insane
wealth, and the 99% - who HAVE the families - have no where else to turn
but the Government.The LDS 1st Presidency's "Proclamation
on the Economy" addresses this spot on -- but since it hints at Socialism,
the far-right completely rejects it.
Blue, you came so close to the best response yet, but it deteriorated into
hackneyed partisanship like so often happens here. It's not just the
Republicans who are to blame. It's the political class aligned with
recipients of political largesse who are creating this criminal disparity.
Democrats and Republicans both have their hands dirty in the scheme.
LDS Liberal. The LDS church teaches self reliance, not socialism! Go figure!
@ Thid, please, no more slogans and belittling. We know where you stand, but I
sure wish we could get some substantive arguments. Social programs have made an
enormous contributions to millions and been beneficial overall. Certainly they
have not solved every problem, but doing nothing would be far worse. Parroting
the talking points of the billionaires who control the GOP serves no purpose and
is not constructive in the least.
Blue: First you said, "Moreover, we know beyond any doubt that this rigging
of the economy to favor the "1%" is wholly intentional; a cynical,
deliberate manipulation of tax laws and economic policies implemented by a
GOVERNMENT that has been bought by the hyper-wealthy exclusively for the benefit
of the hyper-wealthy."You then ask why Utah voters vote for
Republicans. My question to you, is why do you vote for Democrats? If you
acknowledge that a corrupt government is the cause of this rigged government,
why do you support a party that advocates an even larger, more powerful
government?Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The
only solution to our problems is to reduce the size and scope of government.
Until some of the power is taken away from them (both sides of the aisle), they
will continue to push the limits of corruption. If you want to fight the
"hyper-wealthy", then take away what their money currently will buy them
I place great faith in the following quote from Elder Theodore M. Burton:“God’s way is the way to solve our political, moral,
ethical, even our financial problems. The way of the Lord can eliminate wars,
riots, discrimination, suffering, and starvation. What the world then needs is
direction from a true prophet who, knowing the mind and the will of God, can
speak in his name with power and authority and say, ‘Thus saith the
Lord!’”There is a prophet on the earth today, Thomas S.
Monson. If we listen to him and follow the counsel we receive, we’ll know
the mind and the will of the Lord and our problems will eventually be resolved.
Thank you, DN. Someone needs to stand up and point out these glaring facts.BTW, folks, this wasn't a study about the 1%. This was
a study looking at correlations across large populations, all of which have to
deal with the same political environment. Two-parent families
correlate to better results on all sorts of things from income mobility to
anti-social behavior etc. Mobility also means mobility. This means
poor becoming richer and rich. You want to help the poor become rich in our
current environment? Looks like one major way to do that is to support
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments