Why Republicans like keeping people in poverty

[fabius]

Really a good academic discussion with reasoning and facts from the Blogging of the President website.

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/000233.html#000233

In 1968, the Liberal consensus, which had governed since 1933 began its fall, to some extent its own poor decisions can be blamed, to some extent poor luck, and to some extent a more general failure of a society to understand that while old limits had been superseded, new limits were about to be imposed. The spectre of famine, pandemic and catastrophic failure of economic system had been put aside - many of the long demons of human history seemed beaten, or in retreat.

The new restriction was, paradoxically, a result of American success. American leadership and fiscal discipline had not only overcome the problem of a paper money system - which had plagued political economy for centuries - but a host of other limitations. A society which had beaten famine, pandemic and was on its way to beating poverty, could look forward to defeating war and other great constants of human misery. It was an age where putting a man on the moon was a symbol of liberation from that which had held human behavior in check.

<snip>

But, in a zero sum economy, there is an economic logic to forcing people down below the poverty line. An individual who does not own a car, who is at the margins, uses a great deal less of the bottlenecked resources. A person who goes to bad schools cannot get into the best colleges - and therefore is one less competitor for the few golden tickets upward in society. When rising tides lift all boats, such thinking seems regressive - when society is built on waves that only a few people will catch, the fight to be in position to catch the wave becomes life or death.

To put this bluntly: while it might seem that racism is a cultural construct and the result of poor education, its persistence is because of a sound, if ugly, economic logic. As long as there is a zero sum of affluence, there is a strong payoff keeping a large group of people below a critical threshold of affluence. It also changes the nature of political alliances: away from those who want to move up against those who want a rigid and stratified society - that is growth versus stability - and towards "class civil war" with alliances of individuals who are at the same economic level attempting to get ahead of others who are no different - except in how they make their livings. This shows up increasingly in the regionalization of the political parties.

Read the whole thing, (pretty long) but thoughtful. It's all there, oil, money, gold, the Great Society, Vietnam, the story of our times.

[bain_sidhe]

1. Fits really well with the fact

that whether or not a child goes to college has more to do with his/her family's wealth than how he/she does in school.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4050965/

Colleges' New Tuition Crisis

Tom Mortenson, a higher-education policy analyst, calls this "creeping privatization." If the public can't or won't pay enough for state schools ("no new taxes"), then the students must.

For lower-income people, that's easier said than done. The cost crisis is resegregating higher education, not by color but by class. Students of modest means are finding it harder to afford a bachelor's degree. Increasingly, they're shifting out of four-year colleges and universities and into two-year community colleges.

...

Fine as our community colleges are, their missions differ from those of four-year schools. They lean toward practical job training (for which Bush just proposed an extra $250 million in funding). For higher-level jobs, however, businesses usually want college graduates, so fewer of the able poor will have the opportunity to rise.

...

Who earns a college degree by the age of 24 is largely determined at birth, Mortenson says. Among families with incomes exceeding $85,000 or $90,000, 51.4 of children get their sheepskins young. But with family income in the $35,000-$65,000 range, only about 12.4 percent of children do. Among families with lower incomes, the portion is only 4.5 percent. Even comparing kids with the same academic scores, low-income students enroll in college at sharply lower rates. Costs count. Opportunities aren't as equal as Americans think.

[leftyandproud]

2. "But, in a zero sum economy,"..

um, we are not in a zero sum economy.

all of his arguments after this may be eloquent, but they are meaningless...since he begins with a false assumption.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

6. Yeah, its called selling out

Republicans have a country without poverty. They just pretend the remaining 99% of the nation doesn't exist.

[tkmorris]

8. True in a way

Sounds like a wonderful argument for why more people should be Dems. Who do you think understands compassion and humanity better? Poor people or rich ones?

It feels good to be on the moral side. How bout you?

[Fear]

4. Some information please........

Hello there,

Since I'm not a frequent poster but just a reader I was not able to make this *reply* to be a normal post, my appologies for that.

I have a problem and I would hope some people can help me out with this. With some people (yes indeed, conservative republicans who just don't understand it yet) I've had some heated up discussions. It's hard when you just constantly receive LIES from them of the stuff that they believe in so badly but backed up with only bullshit....then they expect YOU to show otherwise, but since the questions are so much without any reason and understanding it's hard to nicely guide them onto the path of the truth, or at least a better part of the truth.

Basically the biggest thing I would like to take out of their minds is their idiocity in regard to setting the Iraq war into the same light as WWII. Reason makes me understand that there is no way you can compare these wars, but I would like to make a better statement then just reason in regard to that. Making statements such as *if we didn't go to war in WWII, what would've happened?, so that justifies the war for Iraq (somehow they forgot they got lied to in regard to the reasons the government gave them, and they use this).

I hope some people can help me out a bit with this!

Also if you have any proper links in regard to ANYTHING, please provide me with that. There's lots out there that I'm using, just would like to know of some more reasons (and yes, I use google too ;)

Thanks!!!!!

PS, this one is great........they say.......If Bush looses this election, it's because he says what he wants to say and people are having problems with that (in regard to abortion, gay marriage etc. etc. etc.)........

It's hard to look the truth in the eyes I guess.

[SideshowScott]

5. Fact of the matter is...Republicans like less Jobs

Less Jobs and a crappy economy means...
...More workers willing to work for less pay
... Workers willing to give up benifits for a job
... People willing to put up will less health standards at work for a job
..... Bosses are more able to treat employees like crap with out trouble
And many more reasons..They dont care..Its all about more ways to fatten already fat pockets with money

[RUredE4me]

7. You're absolutely correct...

Republicans worst nightmare is an educated, self-sufficient group of people. They want us to basically kiss their azzes for throwing out a few bones. They don't want the 'competition'. After all, the name of the game is MONOPOLY. More MONOPOLY, means more POWER. If every one is RICH, then who could they get to scrub their toilets for a penny of day?

[Nikia]

9. Our upper management is happy with higher unemployment

In 2001 our company went a series of improves including a new facility. I remember my boss commenting on how it was good that there was higher unemployment because we could have stricter rules and those problem workers would leave and could be replaced and that we could be pickier about who we hire.
At a recent employee meeting where employees tried to get such things as sick leave and bigger raises for longevity (People working 1 year or 20 years make almost the same rate of pay), employees were told that these things would not be offered at this time and that over 150 people applied for two jobs that they had posted through the unemployment service. Basically the implication was: If you do not like what we have to offer, you can leave because we know that we can replace you.
Higher unemployment does mean all these things. It is good for business to have less competition for potential employees and for employees to have fewer options. There are fewer places of employment that become good in most ways.

[evil_orange_cat]

10. Social Darwinism... they believe it's the poor's own fault

it's that Calvinist form of protestantism... born again Christianity, etc...

I hope there is a God... I'd love to watch God send all these people to hell.