Why are the poor, poor?

[delalluvia]

the question is not one of "bias", but how much research or serious scholarship is a part of the articles which scholars produce as a part of their work for the Heritage Foundation. If the research is done well and is noted by other serious scholars as being worth discussing, then blanket condemnation without an attempt to understand the context is out of place in a serious discussion.

But that's the point.  A site that's so obviously biased toward the right may have done good scholarship, but then may have just as easily slanted the results in the direction they want it to be interpreted, either by omission or selective information.  This is the problem I had with the article in general. 

"WWRD" may seem weird to you, but that is because you are not a conservative.

It's not weird to me, I'm familiar with the acronym.  What it demonstrates to me is that this site is used to its visitors and members being of the overtly Christian persuasion who will take WWRD in a positive light instead of the humorous light it is seen by the more secular of our society.

Conservatives have very happy memories of Reagan, and think that many of the solutions which he offered back in the 1980's if fully carried out would solve many of the problems with the federal gov. The Heritage Foundation is not a stealth conservative organization, it is frankly conservative, and free market oriented. If there are those that do not wish to even wish consider that approach, then there really is point in having a discussion. If I were unwilling to even consider that gov at any level has a role to play in this issue, then there would also be no reason to have a discussion.

The approaches of the conservatives have been looked at, the discussion exists because not everybody is a conservative and goes along with their approaches.   

It is certainly a part of any ongoing debate to consider the sources of information, but to use blanket labelling and demonization is not a part of a serious discussion.

Well, that's what you call it.  As crayons so rightly pointed out, it's quite obvious that Reagan is lionized on this website, you yourself pointed out that conservatives believe him to be the source of many happy memories - not unlike Clinton is these days to another part of society - and it is a frankly conservative website.  You yourself have just blanket labelled the website.  We agree.
 

[delalluvia]

I would suspect that it would depend on individual community standards of habitation. Some communities have stricter standards than others.

    Um, yeah.  If you live in the slums of Calcutta or Mexico City, then I'm sure a kerosene lamp is the ultimate in luxury.  But we're talking the United States, broke!  Ye gods, if I saw someone living in a hovel with the only way to heat their food and water and home was with a kerosene lantern because it was all they had, I would have no doubt whatsoever in stating that this is a poor person.  I wouldn't matter where they lived in the U.S.!

Certainly, you are not forced to read the 19 page report! It is an option which I presented because you asked about the sourcing of the article. Open minds make for better discussions, however. And I have found that people who are looking for something with which they can disagree with, usually find it. Census statistics are always open to manipulation and interpretation, I know that from running political campaigns.

I agree.  There are statistics and damned statistics, I am not commenting on the information the Census Bureau provided.  I am commenting negatively on how the article writer used the information. 

One time both myself and a lefty Democrat woman with whom I shared campaigns took the same TX state issued report from CPS and made two entirely different presentations based upon our individual interpretations of the data. We laughed about that, and we later got the contract to represent the client.  I know I can parse just about any leftist report out of one of the left think tanks, and parse them to death as well. So, what would I accomplish by doing that? Nothing, but if I look for ideas that may be useful, then I gain a new perspective. If your goal is just to make debating points, enjoy, its painless.

No, my goal is to get a good idea of who and how many poor there are in the U.S. and despite the scholarship shown by the writer, his article is a disservice to anyone reading it who is not paying attention.

[Artiste]

It remains that one must be fervent not to become too poor, as poverty is another added dire stress in life !!

Fervent too, one must be to help others get out of poverty, or not to become too poorer !! Homeless, being so is not deserving !!

One can NOT live alone ! If one can not help another person, then there is no humanity!

Life can only exists when humans help !! ??

Au revoir, keep care,
hugs!                   

[Artiste]

There is always a special opportunity every day to help someone and yourself !! ??

That way, there is less poverty !!

And great times to share !!

[Jeff Wrangler]

whereas if we used Broketrash's plan we could be rid of the poor in a few generations...(making a realistic assumption that we wont' be able to sterilize ALL the poor the first generation)

who we are gonna get to wash dishes, clean our toilets, and do all the menial low wage jobs though...that is gonna be the hard question.

Undocumented immigrants? 

[Jeff Wrangler]

As you read my post, you will notice that I said that I don't know how much of a burden individual states will take up. there will be 50 individual state solutions. Some will take up the entire burden that the feds currently shoulder, others may offer more creative solutions, some may sadly do nothing. It will be an "experimental laboratory" as to what works and what doesn't work. In the end, those states which make progress in eliminating an underclass problem, will be the winners and will attract investment and growth. So, the states will be motivated from the stand point of economic development to find creative solutions and lower the welfare rolls.

Well, thanks for the clarification. However, this still indicates a willingness to allow some of the poor in some of the states to be thrown under the bus, and the easist way to lower the welfare rolls is simply to kick people off them. States, like people, are not always known for acting in their own best interest. Pennsylvania is again a case in point; the bulk of the state doesn't seem to get that it's good for whole state if Pittsburgh and Philadelphia prosper. 

What is definite is that if we keep the present system, the problem of the underclass will NEVER GO AWAY.

"The poor you have with you always. ..."

[brokeplex]

Why do conservatives always insist on making this comparison? OK, sure. A private-sector company that spends a bunch of money on a charitable program and doesn't at least break even goes out of business. But government in fact ISN't a private-sector business -- the public and private sectors have different purposes. A private-sector business that spent a bunch of money on roads and bridges without any immediate payback would go out of business, too. A private-sector business that funded schools and libraries and parks and police and fire and gave tax breaks to other businesses and supported farmers and paid social security benefits and mortgage deductions and shipped food to starving people overseas and funded a war in the Middle East so on would go out of business, too. That's why we HAVE a public sector, and don't just rely on the private sector to take care of all our needs.

However, if there ARE any private-sector businesses that want to step forward and solve poverty, have at it! Who's stopping you? Know what? I'd even buy some stock and not complain too much if the stock price didn't soar up from one year to the next.

the comparison made between the management techniques and goals between the for profit sector on the one hand and public sector on the other is a fair one. the reason it is fair, is simply because the measuring of the criteria used to achieve either particular corporate or administrative pubic sector goals must be similar. good management is good management. true, the public sector is not going to run a profit, although the TX Prison farm system did run an actual bottom line profit, and if a humane version were to be revived, the penal system could pay for itself again. but even though the public sector does not use profit loss benchmarks of success or failure, and there have to be bench marks used, the principle is sound in both the public and the private sectors.

The problem with the "War on Poverty" and just about any feel good leftist program that one can find, is that benchmarks are deemed irrelevant by the out of touch, unelected, overpaid, bureaucrats who administer the programs and justify their existence before authorizing funding committees. These administrators are in reality treated by the elected representative as if they are unaccountable, and the programs develop a life of their own and regardless of whether the programs come anywhere near achieving their initial goals, they just live on and on. I like to recall the Ken Starr and the Lawrence Walsh witch hunts. A perfect example of a public sector program  (OIC in this case) which took on a life of its own, lived way beyond its initial investigatory charges, and metastasized without achieving its original goals and created unnecessary harm along the way.

programs such as the complex of assistance programs to those "deemed" as in need, must be subject to yearly sunset rules, and frequent voter referenda. This is the only way to make such programs live up to their initial charges. this will never happen if these programs remain federalized, only if the power to administer and authorize these programs is returned to the individual states can the voters get control over the process again.

[brokeplex]

Um, and tell me again why the two are mutually exclusive? Is it because businesses, despite all the tax breaks they do get, are nevertheless so burdened by taxes that they aren't able to offer all the economic opportunities they are just itching to provide for the poor? Or is it because businesses try and try to offer jobs to poor people, but those lazy poor people are so used to living on the dole they won't take the plentiful economic opportunities that are handed to them?

newsflash to crayons!   :)I know that you mean well, but businesses are usually not engaged in their business operations in order to provide "opportunities for the poor". they are in business to make a profit for the owners. and in doing so they hire workers who then can better their economic circumstances. private sector jobs are the only sure way for a poor person to grow away from the underclass.

Crayons, how many jobs are created by the poor?

How many jobs are created by those with capital to invest?

How much additional wealth is created by the poor?

How much additional wealth is created by those who have capital to invest?

Who funds thru their taxes whatever jobs which are created in the public sector?

How much additional wealth is created by the public sector?


answer these simple questions and you will see that the jobs which are necessary for the poor to leave charity behind do not come from the gov, or even the middle classes when you get down to it, they largely come from those who invest capital in order to make a profit. This process not only turns an underclass dependent on charity into working people who can pay their bills and contribute to the economy, it also turns the working poor into the middle class. this is an old story, proven over and over again to be successful not only here in the US but around the world.

How strange that the left in this country doesn't seem to understand just how the economic engine actually works.

How strange that the left can not seem to comprehend that the rocks around the necks of the underclass have their origins in the very gov programs designed to "save" the poor.

Or does the left really understand what they are doing? Some like Ann Coulter certainly think that the left has struck a truly cynical bargain.


WARNING / DANGER / COULTER QUOTATION!

"Every time the government tries to help the poor it ends up removing the marvelous incentives life provides to do things like buy an alarm clock, get a job, keep your knees together before marriage, and generally become a productive happy member of society" 

from article on 08/09/2000 Bush's Compassionate Conservatism

[brokeplex]

Well, thanks for the clarification. However, this still indicates a willingness to allow some of the poor in some of the states to be thrown under the bus, and the easist way to lower the welfare rolls is simply to kick people off them. States, like people, are not always known for acting in their own best interest. Pennsylvania is again a case in point; the bulk of the state doesn't seem to get that it's good for whole state if Pittsburgh and Philadelphia prosper. 

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.

[serious crayons]

newsflash to crayons!   :)I know that you mean well, but businesses are usually not engaged in their business operations in order to provide "opportunities for the poor". they are in business to make a profit for the owners.

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:

the only thing which will permanently lower the poverty rate and keep it lowered is economic opportunity for the underclass, and that will never happen as long as the gov poverty pimps have the poor by the throat.

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:

Um, and tell me again why the two are mutually exclusive? Is it because businesses, despite all the tax breaks they do get, are nevertheless so burdened by taxes that they aren't able to offer all the economic opportunities they are just itching to provide for the poor? Or is it because businesses try and try to offer jobs to poor people, but those lazy poor people are so used to living on the dole they won't take the plentiful economic opportunities that are handed to them?

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.