"Enabling" the poor to live, w/ hndouts vs. "But RR caused mass poverty "

When the RW claims we dems "enable " the poor to survive without getting a job, and so try to blame us for poverty,

tell them

"RR suddenly caused mass poverty in the early '80's when he cut housing vouchers by 2/3rds. Causing sudden mass homelessness and death"

No enabling was ever a part of the sudden appearance of mass homelessness. Totally a result of the real cause: RR's savage cuts.

The cuts have remained in place, and the mass poverty also continues as a result. Blame the GOP.

======================
As to getting a job, mention that there is a 14 million Job Shortage. See my sig for official stats documenting it. Job Shortage, not laziness, is to blame.

Jobs started offshoring in the 80's, even though the companies swore they wouldn't do that. :eyes:

Cuts to all sorts of programs began under that weasel. Further cuts to programs continue under the NEW WEASEL. It's a criminal shame.

We need millions of well paying permanent jobs for the underskilled as well as the professionals AND we need housing costs to either come down or continue with subsidies for the poor. In a humane society, WE NEED SAFTY NETS; crisis can happen to anyone at anytime.

Clinton has dirty hands also; killed welfare for fatherless children!! Smooth move exlax; he kills helps programs for the single parent just when the economy and employment goes berserk.

why is that so absent from american thinking?

The swedes have got it right, at least they did for the decades about sixty thru eighty. Till the RW lied its way into control.. {now the LW has a minority gov and rules a bit weakly}

For decades they had a panic attack if joblessness rose over

ONE PERCENT.

As to sugarbleu's fine post, yes, "even" the unskilled deserve secure jobs with benefits. All do.
I wish all my countrymen/women thought as clearly and compassionately as Sugarbleus does. Perhaps we can clone him/her. LOL.

the evil of the current situation is best seen in "day worker" setups.

they are fired every day and must get re-hired every day. A pen pal says his small town's garbagemen work like that.

Outrageous.

Another example of good jobs is that Japan , about '8O, had a tradition of big business hiring a guy FOR LIFE.

Think that is gone now. Japan has been in a recession since '90, and i hear mid management "is being worked literally, and i mean literally, ... to death". They and underlings often take the midnight train home. Some rent tiny bed cubes and sleep in downtown and never go home till the weekend.

Koreans work seven days a week.

Egypt, the normal workweek minumum is eighty hours.

GOP Utopia.

It is the "trend" of runaway uber-conservative capitalism (sometimes it's a royal elitism mindset), outsourcing, dumping on the poor...all of these and more spreading around the world--especially in westernized countries!! This is not good.

I understand Canada is struggling with some of it's political Right-Left issues. I've read where Germany and other euro countries are also ticked that so many jobs are going to cheaper labor markets.

If the type of power capitalism we have in America gets rooted around the world, how can we ever overcome that? Who would be our role model-- our ally in this struggle for equality and basic human dignity??

I'm not against capitalism per se but when it becomes a slavery model with no controls nor intelligent design/planning, I become antagonistic.

Mankind is returning to it's savage roots I guess. Every man for himself. What a damn, scary shame.

GOP/FASCIST Utopia..Indeed

Who embarked on a second career as a financial advisor after retiring from the priesthood. He described in such a cogent, clear way why unbridled capitalism does not work, why it's failed in the past and why it should never be tried again. Wish I'd had a tape recorder with me.

for 1959 through 2003, from the Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html


In this chart, it becomes clear that "boom" years and recession years affect the chart the most. Mostly recession. From 1966 to present, the poverty rate hasnt' changed more than about 3%, and this includes several recessions and periods of economic growth.

Recessionary high points...

1993
1983

Years of relative "boom" have no large drop. This statistic might be explained by the following chart...

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html

These are the "definitions" of what is considered "poverty". I'm not sure what factors are involved, but there are some significant items to note that have a considerable effect on the statistical poverty.

For instance, the percent change in the "threshold" for poverty is relatively large for the years 1979 to 1982. I would assume this is because the relatively large inflation in the years 1977 to 1980 was "caught up with" by 1983. Unfortunately, the trend seems to apply on the previous end, as well, where poverty rates are unusually low during the mid-1970's, yet the economy was quite weak... It appears a lack of historical inflation skewed the numbers for the early part of the inflationary cycle lower, and the end of the inflationary cycle higher.

The raw number of families, for instance, considered to be in poverty was in a relatively steady trend downward from 1983 until the early 1990's.

Also, confirming the "inflation" skewing of hte numbers I'm theorizing, shows a really large drop in the raw number around 1997 to 2000. And, at the same time, the percentage change in the raw dollar threshold for those years is very, very small, in comparison to the historical trends.

Overall, it appears that times of negative economic growth cause a rise in poverty... and that inflation seems to impact our ability to define a threshold and thereby generate statistics.

This is my first statement ever posted on an forum pertaining to my concerns for my generation. I believe the one of the reasons things have gotten so bad is because people are no longer acting within the values and morals we have unfortunately lost throughout time. Not to say the original ones were perfect or acurrate, and that could be very well the reason that we have lost them. It seems as though people have traded morality for physical satisfaction. Anyway, I am having to reply to a forum in order to post something, until I have built a reputation within democraticunderground.com. My main question for the day is why do we (human nature) care so much about the welfare of other people. Is it because we actually connect and sympathize with the one who has lost, or is it because have been taught that it is heartless not to. Therefore, when someone has lost, in order to make things easier for the them, we just simply answer with sympathy? Or do we just like to give the impression that we care? I would like to know your thoughts on the subject.