Eric Pinsker's Response to Arnold and Velasquez

The pieces by Arnold and Velasquez both play on the fact that America's poverty class is suffering greatly at the hand of the middle and upper classes.  Both authors argue that the poor are mistreated and society as a whole is not doing anything to reverse the problem.  It is the classical case of "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

Arnold's argument is very powerful in that it convinces the reader that America's welfare and workfare system, while intended to help the poor, actually harm them.  Along with the parentheses, as Bryan said, Arnold also builds her argument using many credible annotations and quotations.  A major injustice discussed is that, in an attempt to "reform" the poor, those participating in the program must give up certain privacy and certain rights.  This is extremely counterproductive because it inhibits people to reach their full potential.  Arnold believes that these programs do not benefit the poor very much at all and says "welfare and workfare indicate bare-survival- recipients are not meant to rise even to lower-middle-class status" (363).  Instead of keeping the poor in a rut, an attempt should be made to help lift up the poor.  Another main point of her argument was based on the false assumptions that "participants must be forced to work; and they have no motivation to do so and thus must be guided, shaped, and disciplined" (363).  While many Americans probably do assume this, I do not believe it is true.  Many people have the desire to work, but just need a small amount of guidance to find a job.  Restricting their rights and freedoms only deters people from wanting to work.  Comparing the working conditions of workfare and the guest-worker programs seems a bit extreme; however, the workers shouldn't be stricken of their rights.  If these programs deem it necessary to monitor and restrict workers, then they should at least provide comfortable, safe working environments.

Velasquez argues that the middle and upper classes hurt the lower classes in New York, and across America.  She builds pathos and ethos through the use of facts and allusions.  The main injustice she discusses is the fact that landfills and toxic-waste sites are placed in poverty-ridden areas, but not in wealthy areas.  I agree that this is completely immoral because those living in poverty should not be treated any differently than the wealthy.  The main flaw in American society that Velasquez discusses is that people focus on the unimportant things, as she says "the simple fact is that our current unsustainable 'more-is-better' culture undermines any hope of achieving justice..." (765). She believes that our houses are unnecessarily large and that we should admire true hometown heroes instead of turning the wealthy into heroes.  The gap between the rich and poor is very large, as supported by the staggering statistic of the wealth distribution in America, as Bryan mentioned.  The poor are getting left behind, or in this case, in the dumps.  The medical problems Velasquez discusses that accompany living in poor environmental conditions only perpetuates the issue and makes it even more difficult for the poor to thrive.  Both Arnold and Velasquez realize that our society focuses on the upper classes to much and neglects those in poverty, which makes the "American Dream" a nearly impossible achievement for the poor.