Why are the poor, poor?

[brokeplex]

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.

rhymes are always cute! 

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]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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).

How could the head of household keep a job and adequately supervise multiple children?

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:

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.

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:

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.

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.

[Clyde-B]

   It's always seemed to me to be risky and a bit arrogant to suggest solutions to society's ills that you would not care to be subjected to yourself.  You may have the good life now, but it is presumptuous to assume that it will always be so.  Karma can be a bitch.

   I also notice that, for some, the discussion of the poor sounds strictly theoretical.  As though the people speaking had never known anyone poor.  In some ways it reminds me of the discussions I used to hear of straight people discussing us gays.  Do we really want to do the poor the same kind of disservice that was done to us?

   

[brokeplex]

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.


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:


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:

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


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


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.


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

As far as taxes on businesses. Of course businesses would love to not have to pay local, state and federal taxes. But, the ultimate payer of business taxes are the consumers : poor, middle, and rich.  And I would add, that many businesses can write their various taxes off to a large extent : hence the IRS honored phrase "cost of doing business". This shift the tax burden on to others who can't write off their taxes to the degree that businesses do, usually middle class families.

I don't mean to be difficult and you are so patient, but tell me again, what is the point that you are making with the references to the Census Bureau data?

I freely agree that there are people who are at or below the national standard of poverty set by the census bureau. I earlier agreed that there were single parents who also held jobs. I opined that the children must be cared for by neighbors, or relatives. I did not consider day care as an option, but I am sure that it is also true. If your point is that not all single parents are at home watching Oprah eating Twinkies, I am sure that you are correct. National standards of poverty are very misleading. A uniform national standard does not take into account the regional differences in the cost of living in a country as large as the US. What is middle class in Waco, might not allow you to pay the bills in Manhattan.

 But, you know, I have an even better vision for that single parent working that job while someone else watches the kids. Avoid the pregnancy in the first place. Don't go on welfare, don't get trapped in an insidious system. Finish an education which opens the doors of opportunity for you so you don't have to be a part of an underclass. Isn't that a better vision? And shouldn't we really get back to what I was speaking of a few days ago? That is how do we either eliminate or reform the welfare system, the educational system, the penal system, so that we can eliminate the present seemingly intractable poverty of the underclass? Can we go forward on that basis?


p.s. I think that if you look you will see some agreement with me by a few other than my bud Kaiser!

[brokeplex]

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.

I did not think that you were targeting me.  My point is, that type of generalization takes our eyes off what should be discussed within this context, and that context would be alternatives to the present welfare system.

It is clear to me that someone who is not interested in changing the present system may wish to throw up red herrings that do not contribute to a meaningful discussion, and that is fine if they wish to discuss "classism" and "racism" within the context of the debate over welfare. There are people on this web site who are more interested in making little debating points than meaningful discussions of public policy. But from my point of view that is a waste of time, as I won all the debates that I needed to win back in high school. So, I would prefer to look at what is ailing the present system and look for realistic alternatives.
 

[brokeplex]

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:

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.

Jeff, it is truly regrettable that you are offended. Since I have no desire to offend you, and since based upon your responses here and elsewhere I feel compelled to make the same points again and again, I will not comment any further on any of your posts. Have a nice evening.

[HerrKaiser]

Well, well, well...the hornets' nest seems to have been stirred up on this one!    I've got my spray can ready just in case...and according to the label, it can hit a nest from 25 feet away! 

Personally, having read through the commentary and having BTDT (been there done that) with the snide and sarcastic remarks that have become commonplace, I am not so interested in joining the fray with my point of view and possibly valuable insights. However, some facts about the sarcasm and/or personal digs may help get some misinformation on the right track for you all to continue the war:

1) Holland is often viewed as one of the most liberal and progressive countires in the world. Not sure of the status at the moment, but they are planning to institute a eugenics program that controls birth rate and death based on a variety of factors. Fact is, nearly all major issues on the left or right side of the polictical/social spectrum can be traced back, quite easily, to too many people.
2) "forced labor" is a buzz term that is often misused and has been here. When the U.S. "forced" german pow's to work the ag fields during WWII, it was not called such. Prisoners on prison are forced to perform tasks. Even full time, happy employees are forced to perform or they get fired. Sure, they may have a choice, but ulimately everyone has to buck and and perform or they are left on the sideline. For those on public aid, their being required to perform as all other workers do for compensastion is not forced labor.
3) actually, the idea that one's opinion is as valid as another's is somewhat absurd. Opinions not based on facts and not supported with logic are not as valid.
4) if the princilple "he who has the money makes the rules" is a conservative tenet (which it is not), then conservatives would have failed. The welfare rules are largely made by the power of the lobbyists for special interests for the poor. Conservatives are attempting to add reason and responsibility to the entitlements.
5) "My goodness the conservatives miss the days of mint juleps and tea on the veranda (as the sound of whips reverberate thru the evening air!)" Good example of why not to participate.