refuse to support their own children” (Reynolds 396).
Examining Reynolds’ above contention makes one sad he is not joking. He actually contends that improved investment opportunities are useless on those who do not save. Do not? Obviously Reynolds is on another planet than the poor he so summarily dismisses through a series of preconceptions. If he were on the same planet as this group of poor, he would realize they do not save because they cannot save on their income level. Further, if he recognizes this type of legislation is useless for helping the poorest of Americans, why does he not suggest legislation that would be useful for helping those of them who work? As for the deadbeat father theory, why has the government made it so easy on fathers who refuse to pay child support? Reynolds might have a few good points to make that are closer to the truth in his contention the 1980s were not a decade of greed. For instance, his clarification of the meaning of such terms as “income gap”, “top fifth”, and “average income” versus “real income”.
However, it is difficult to listen too seriously to anything he says, because his elitist preconceptions of the poor keep undercutting his validity. He accuses the rich of being so because they work harder than the poor, especially the poor. He fails to give the reasons why the poorest Americans might only work part-time (lack of childcare funds, single parents, etc.) but implies this is why the rich have more income. His askance logic is not the only obstacle to taking his argument seriously; his preconceptions of the poor compounds the difficulty. He suggests even though the poorest Americans have a certain income, statistics show they spend more than double that annually. However, he attributes this to the fact that when times are economically tough, the poorest fifth of the population dips into their savings. Excuse me, this is the same writer who conte...