The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes

Why are the poor, poor?

<< < (27/72) > >>

brokeplex:

--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 04, 2008, 07:28:17 pm ---Newsflash to broketrash! (Hey, that rhymes!) I was joking -- in fact, being sarcastic -- and you apparently missed my point. When I mentioned "economic opportunities" I was merely quoting YOUR previous post in which you said:

So I asked what makes you assume that the two -- opportunities for the poor and the work of "gov poverty pimps" --"will never happen" simultaneously. Here's what I said:

You didn't answer my question, so I guess I'll have to answer it for you. You apparently think either that

1) Businesses are so overburdened with the taxes they must pay to support anti-poverty programs that they can't afford to expand and create more jobs.

Don't think so. We've already established that Welfare constitutes 1 percent of the federal budget. THAT'S not what's causing the recession.

2) The poor are too lazy and irresponsible to get jobs, because they'd rather cash those juicy Welfare checks.

Sigh. From your own remarks and the quote you provided from the venerable sage Ann Coulter, I'm guessing this is your viewpoint. But several people have already filled 18 pages of thread trying to show you that often is not the case. They've described the experiences of their own poor but hardworking mothers. They've quoted statistics about the working poor. They've posted articles (well, I posted one) explaining why this notion of

Cadillac-driving Oprah-watching multiple-partnering frequent-birthing Welfare queens is a myth.

For some reason, you persist in holding onto this opinion. And why not? It's certainly a popular and tenacious bit of conservative dogma. But it's not based on actual fact. It's based on speculation and assumption. For some -- I'm not saying this of you, but for some people, most likely including the narrow-minded Ms. Coulter -- it is also the result of class prejudice. In some cases, perhaps (and here again, I definitely don't mean you) also racial prejudice.



--- End quote ---

rhymes are always cute!  ;D

I did not mean to avoid answering your question. There is an implication in the creation of wealth and jobs and the present tax system that I just didn't discuss. Businesses don't pay taxes, only the middle class in this country pay, the wealthy pay some, and the poor none - at the federal level. Sure, there are federal taxes levied on all sorts of production and gains, but those taxes are always passed on to the consumer of whatever goods or services capital creates. So, your point # 1 is not what I meant to say. New jobs are created by capital formation, chiefly from individual investors who have effective tax rates far below that of average middle class families. That is one of the reasons why I advocate a universal and equal consumption tax to fund the federal gov, but that is another thread and I will keep on target.

point #2 comes closer to what I am saying and definitely as to what Ms Coulter is saying. A culture of poverty has been created allowing a permanent underclass to develop. When the underclass expects, as a given right, to received welfare benefits, then for some but not all, there is really no motivation to work a 9-5. And for the men who father babies, there is a definite motivation to move on to other females and abandon the mother and their children. I am not sure that I would call it laziness, but I would definitely call it irresponsibility, and its an irresponsibility abetted by the welfare system itself.

 ??? Now I don't know about driving Caddies, but the facts about single parent households with multiple offspring where the head of household does not hold down a full time job is no myth. How could the head of household keep a job and adequately supervise multiple children? Neighbors, grandparents? maybe, but in most cases, the head of household stays in the home to care for the children. Watching Oprah and eating Twinkies, not far fetched, but I am sure that there is other day time TV and other snacks available. In spite of what I am sure are truthful anecdotal stories, this is the reality of most of the urban underclass.

Two parent households, those where the men did not chose to abandon their responsibilities are another matter entirely. Intact families have a much, much greater likelihood of avoiding the welfare underclass trap than do single parent households.

I think to ascribe class warfare and racial hatred motivations to those who wish to change the welfare system into a system which does not encourage permanent dependency is false and not conducive to finding alternate solutions to a very clear problem.

18 pps of thread trying to lead me into the error of my ways? I think that you must have skipped those posts who offered qualified approval of those ideas which I posted.

I know, spin, spin, spin!  ;)

Artiste:
Sterilization was tried, not only in Germany, but in Canada, the USA, and likely in other countries, and it took much liberty away, rendering the poor more poor !!

I am totally against sterilization... and I know that that does not help humans !!

I wonder why some started that ?

Au revoir,
hugs!         Sterilization isn't it a from of cruelty and torment ? !! Why not be kind to another human being, that I prefer !! Creating decent jobs and markets as well as products, that helps the poor and the rich too, as everything goes to help all persons!! That's my view !!

Artiste:
Merci injest !

This is food for thought:
   It seems the quagmire here is that the working poor are stuck in a perpetual cycle of problems. Society is based on the Darwinian theory that only the strong will survive and the strong don't want to allow more people to enter the competition. The playing field is not level. Do you have any thoughts on this?

         
..............

Injest and all others too: May I ask therefore:
What are ways to share the wealth ??

Au revoir,
hugs!

serious crayons:

--- Quote from: broketrash on May 04, 2008, 07:53:42 pm ---Sure, there are federal taxes levied on all sorts of production and gains, but those taxes are always passed on to the consumer of whatever goods or services capital creates.
--- End quote ---

Of course. But that doesn't mean businesses shrug off taxes as no big deal. They like to keep expenses down, even if they pass them on to the consumer, because if their prices increase, demand decreases. And if demand decreases, profits decrease, and eventually jobs decrease. But you knew that.



--- Quote ---point #2 comes closer to what I am saying and definitely as to what Ms Coulter is saying. A culture of poverty has been created allowing a permanent underclass to develop. When the underclass expects, as a given right, to received welfare benefits, then for some but not all, there is really no motivation to work a 9-5.
--- End quote ---

But again here, you're making a big presumption based on a mixture of hearsay and myth and conservative doctrine. No doubt there are people here and there who fit this profile. But when you say that "the underclass expects" something or other "as a given right" -- i.e., the entire demographic group of people on welfare, or people whose income falls below the poverty line, shares some vast monolithic unreasonable attitude -- I'm afraid I don't find it convincing without evidence. And not just some essay from a conservative website, but poll results or sociological studies or Census figures or something empirical and ideologically neutral.

Perhaps something like this, from Wikipedia:


--- Quote ---In the United States, according to the government Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 6.4 million working poor in 2000; by 2003 the number had grown. In 2004, Business Week suggested that "the share of the workforce earning subpoverty pay [is] 24% [in 2003]".

Different numbers were found by The Working Poor Families Project, a national initiative that examines the conditions of working families both nationally and at the state level. In 2005, using U.S. Census American Community Survey data, the project found that 2.8 million working families are poor (earn less than 100% of poverty) and that these families constituted 12.2 million people. In addition, 9.6 million, or more than 1 out 4 working families in America (29%), are low-income, earning less than 200% of poverty. The 200% of poverty threshold is considered a reasonable estimate of the amount of earnings needed to be economically self-sufficient ($39,942 for a family of four in 2005). Among states, the range for low-income working families extends from 15% (New Hampshire) to 42% (New Mexico).
--- End quote ---



--- Quote ---How could the head of household keep a job and adequately supervise multiple children?
--- End quote ---

Yes, it's a wonder they manage, but nevertheless lots of people do it, including many in the middle class. From About.com, quoting a report released by the Census Bureau:


--- Quote ---According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005, released by the U.S. Census Bureau in August, 2007, there are approximately 13.6 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.2 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today). 79% of custodial single mothers are gainfully employed,  50% work full time, year round, 29% work part-time or part-year. 92% of custodial single fathers are gainfully employed, 74% work full time, year round, 18% work part-time or part-year. 27.7% of custodial single mothers and their children live in poverty. 11.1% of custodial single fathers and their children live in poverty. 31% of all single parents receive public assistance.
--- End quote ---

It is easier, of course, when there is reliable and affordable daycare available.



--- Quote --- Watching Oprah and eating Twinkies, not far fetched, but I am sure that there is other day time TV and other snacks available.
--- End quote ---

And, conversely, I'm guessing not only the poor like Oprah and Twinkies.  ;D



--- Quote ---I think to ascribe class warfare and racial hatred motivations to those who wish to change the welfare system into a system which does not encourage permanent dependency is false and not conducive to finding alternate solutions to a very clear problem.
--- End quote ---

I'm sorry, broketrash, I know this is an ugly generalization, and I hope I made it clear I did not include you. But the fact is, the concept of racism or classism influencing some people's opinions on this issue is absolutely not false. if we're going to toss around generalizations, here's one I've actually seen, on numerous occasions, with my own eyes and ears.



--- Quote --- I think that you must have skipped those posts who offered qualified approval of those ideas which I posted.
--- End quote ---

Hmm. Well, I do recall seeing something like that by HerrKaiser, and I wouldn't even call it "qualified."

Jeff Wrangler:

--- Quote from: broketrash on May 04, 2008, 06:43:57 pm ---Jeff, in a federal system, the only rights guaranteed under the constitution are what we call our civil rights. No state may abridge those rights, the courts and the history of the 20th cent have made that point loud and clear. However, a "minimal" income is not a civil right. Those states who under the direction of their voters choose to, in my opinion wrongly, defund welfare programs completely, will under the federal system be able to successfully do so. But, under our system, since we have no internal passport controls in moving from state to state, people can and will migrate. Think back to the post WWI era, when Blacks in the south migrated north to seek industrial jobs, and also think back to the "Dust Bowl" migrants who found jobs and prosperity in California. Those who can not get along in states which curtail welfare will migrate.

--- End quote ---

Well, first of all, I'm going to take another risk at being offensive and suggest that you can cut out the civics lessons on the Constitution, etc. We've all been to school around here, and, frankly, I find the sentences I've highlighted in red more than a little condescending in its tone, and it is not appreciated.

As for interstate migration, I brought that up on Friday, 5/2, as follows:


--- Quote ---There is a great potential for interstate conflict here. What's to prevent states with numbers of urban poor, say, in the Rustbucket Northeast, from buying those poor folks bus tickets to Texas and Florida just to get rid of the problem? Seems to me I remember reading accusations of that sort of thing happening already.

I suppose you would address this by creating some sort of residency requirement for assistance, so then we would just have numbers of poor people getting kicked out of one state with nowhere to go.

Reminds one of the old English Poor Law, where the poor could be forcibly chased from parish to parish until they returned to the parish where they were born, which was held to be responsible for supporting them.
--- End quote ---

I question the validity of your comparison to the migration of Southern Blacks to the North and Dust Bowl "Okies" to California because the world and the economy have changed a great deal since those days. For example, the industrial jobs for which those people migrated North no longer exist.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page