Last week's news reports included the jarring juxtaposition of two very remarkable stories. The first was Mitt Romney's amazing confession that he didn't lose any sleep over poor people in America. Or to quote the candidate: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it." He went on to say that he was also "not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America -- the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
The second story that contrasts sharply with Mitt's mistake was reported in a New York Times series about the 40,000 homeless people now living in New York City. The story points out that most of New York's homeless are working families with kids and parents commuting long distances from shelter to school and work. Today, there are more homeless New Yorkers than at any time since we started collecting data on homelessness. There are many causes of homelessness just as there are many causes of poverty.
Poverty must be seen as a relative rather than absolute status. Poverty in America is not the extreme poverty that my Earth Institute colleagues are working on in Africa. Most poor people in America are not in daily danger of starvation. In Africa, the issue is often sheer survival. But even when there is sufficient food and shelter to scrape by, poverty's impact, especially on children, can be devastating. You don't need to be in imminent peril to feel poor. To hear a Presidential candidate dismiss the issue, even as he dials his comments back and tries to retract them, is still unbelievable. Then there is his assertion that 90-95% of the country is "struggling." For a guy with a reputation for being a sharp analyst, those numbers are pretty far off. I very much doubt that 95% of the country is now struggling. The official poverty rate is about 15%, and some analysts believe the actual rate is closer to 25%. Many working families are staying in the middle class by working multiple jobs and long hours. Lots of people are in rough shape, but if the number was 95%, there'd have been riots in the streets this past weekend instead of Superbowl parties. Is this really the same guy who ran a (very) profitable business, managed a successful Olympics and did a decent job of governing Massachusetts? Perhaps it really is true that running for President can damage ones intellectual capacities.
I agree with Governor Romney that we must rebuild the wealth and confidence of the American middle class. But I also think that we have a moral responsibility to understand and address the issue of poverty here in America. Despite the Great Recession, America remains a land of almost unimaginable wealth and plenty. Poverty in the midst of great riches is at best puzzling and at worst a failure of a community's ethics. The causes of poverty are complicated and I do not pretend to understand all of them, but we deserve an honest discussion of its causes and its cures. I want a President who is concerned about poverty and worries about how to break the cycle of poverty we see here in America. I want a President who pays attention to issues not just because his pollsters tell him to, but because he sees a problem that government must try to address.
I accept the idea that there are different ways to address poverty. Conservatives believe that a rising economic tide lifts all boats. That may be true - but first you've got to have a boat. Otherwise the tide simply sweeps you away. It is clearly true that a shrinking economy hurts poor people more than it hurts wealthier people. So any real solution to poverty must involve both economic growth and economic mobility. In a global economy with foreign governments assisting their own corporations, a totally free market in America will not create the growth or the mobility we need. Nor will government-managed corporations. We need a sophisticated relationship between government and the private sector to achieve both economic growth and economic mobility.
FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society/War on Poverty were the last two concerted efforts to reduce American poverty. Neither achieved perfect success, but both reduced poverty. The New Deal established the "safety net" we hear so much about today and the War on Poverty reduced the poverty rate to about 10% - still the lowest rate in American history. The New Deal probably saved American capitalism by laying the foundation for the great American middle class that was finally built after World War II. In both cases, government carved out an effective role in the nation's economic life.
Assuming Mitt is finally able to close the deal and secure the Republican nomination, the fall campaign should be interesting. Mitt has a particular problem this fall. He must maintain the Republican base, including the Tea Party, while moving to the political center to attract the largely a-political independent voter. Obama will be doing the same as each tries to redefine the political center in their own image in order to win the election. Despite the efforts to strip Obama of the legitimacy of his Presidency, President Obama still has the advantage of incumbency. The American President is both our head of government and head of state. As head of government he is Prime Minister. As head of state, he is our monarch, representing the nation and providing a useful symbol of unity. Presidential incumbency is a powerful political tool. As Governor Romney moves closer to the Republican nomination, he needs to understand that moving forward he must play error-free ball. No more dismissing poverty, $10,000 bets, or delays in disclosing his income. Any more fumbles and Mitt will end up retreating John Kerry-like to his many sumptuous homes.
Follow Steven Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earthinstitute
I am no Romney fan, but I and many in the middle class get what he said. The fact is that there is a safety net for the poor that does put a hard bottom. As the author says there are poor but ain't starving. They may be homeless but that doesn't mean there ain't a roof over there heads (mission, hotel, or car). Our poor would be the middle class in any 3rd world country- so being poor is relative.
The middle class has no safety net, they can go from middle class to poor and there is no real help for the middle class if they get in trouble.
The issue at hand is that the middle class does not qualify for these programs that help the poor because they are too "rich," but they do not have the actual funds to pay for said benefits.
While the poor get free medical care and college tuition from the fed, a middle class family will have to take out student loans or actually pay the medical bill (or go into bankruptcy).
Where's the surprise?
Romney certainly reflects the values of both the Tea Party and the Taliban in terms of political, economic, social, and cultural control over the masses by the dominant hierarchy of 'Empire-thinkers' using either economic or physical power, while only posing as being open to 'democracy-thinking'.
Best luck and love to the "Occupy Empire" educational and revolutionary movement.
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality
Over
Violent/Vichy
Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
serve to concentrate wealth and power to the detriment of the vast majority of
americans - if they do take issue and stand in the street in protest -
there's always a way to deal with it -
put a price tag on it! JP Morgan gave 4.6 million dollars to the NYPD amidst
the wall street occupyers - those contesting a machine that rigs markets toward
the large outfits that can toss large sums of for gov't influence
He better lose the cement glove first.
And where it is.
He has to hop on one foot.
Talk about the poor, waitin' for their ride, hopin' for improved economy.
Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk. Talk about things the poor can be.
They gotta have a boat, if they don't have a boat, won't get one from the Gee Oh Pee.
Or sink it.
Look at his words: "I don't care about the very POOR. We have a safety net THERE(are the poor a place or a disembodied world apart from his?). If IT(the thingness of poor people) needs REPAIR(the idea that as an object or condition which can be fixed) I'll fix IT(the objectification of the people, condition, and solution in one breath. Of course, ostensibly he didn't mean this, but the mind and heart that produced this facile I-ITscenario in his language is lacking in the ability to carry on the discourse needed in this country.
h'dog
Mostly because of their increasing numbers.
Why do you think they want Photo ID's tied to residency?
It ain't about 'voter fraud".
It's about having to face the possibility of "poor voter's revenge"..............................
Kinda like passing a bill in Congress a couple of years before the big crash to limit one's ability to declare bankruptcy.
Yes, the 1% is thinking ahead.
A growing poor class spells real trouble for this country in so many ways. I doubt these evolving changes are in Romney's field of understanding.
Several tens of millions of prefectly employable people, frustrated by several years of sending out usseless resumes will get pretty restive, when those long-term unemployement bennies run out.
If my choice were to jostle for room under a bridge, or grab a club or pitchfork and take out my ultimate frustration on the rest of society, I know what I would choose. If a few million people lose all hope that their society can provide an economic system that actually works, if they give up, and turn on the society that ignored them, then all the taseers and tanks on earth won't stop it.
The 1% in this country had better be really, really concerned about creating a bunch of jobs soon or indefinitely extending unemployment benefits. We are not talking about theoretical arguments about which economic theory might be best, we are talking about tens of millions of lives. There is a helluva big difference. The people in power in this country had better come to understand that soon, or they will get a very rude education. All of us will.
The natives will start to get restless, if they are not already.
Then they won't be poor any more and all our problems will be solved.
The real problem is the loss of all personal accountability and self respect. Today people that make the worst possible life choices get all the “help†and the rest of us get to pay for it.
If we continue to reward poor choices, while telling successful people "be thankful for what you have" and "pay your fair share" eventually everyone will be abusing the system like so many are today!
If liberal social programs work, why do they punish people who actually want to work?
You have food stamps and federal housing? ---As long as you don’t get a job!
You have high credit card debt?---We will let you settle for pennies on the dollar!
You bought a house you can’t afford?---We’ll force the banks to refinance even though you don’t qualify!
You have a job, don’t run up CC debt, and live in a house you can afford…. LUCKY YOU!
It should be “RESPONSIBLE YOU†and here is a reward for living within you means!
If you reward responsible behavior maybe the deadbeats will finally understand, because we can’t blame them for playing the liberal socialistic game.
Do you really think that any of us that have well-paying steady jobs, have no problems providing for our own health, comfort and well-being, would actually trade any of this to "sit around" while collecting food stamps and unemployment? That's not a life I would wish for myself, and I seriously doubt that most people who are on such programs actually wish to be there either. You can't solve for 100% of them- but that doesn't mean we should scrap it all.
I guess when you've seen the results of the entitlement programs first hand, you develop a different feeling about them. I know people, who before they knew I was conservative, would tell me about working construction for cash, or selling drugs, or running numbers all to make a buck, while letting the State pick up the tab for their house, food, health care and so on.
My mother teaches in an inner city school with a student turn-over rate of over 60%. These kids don't even get to finish 1 year of schooling and their parents are off to the next town they can pick up government assistance in. They have nice cars, cell phones, fancy clothing, and their kids come to school late, tired and hungry.
So you tell me how giving these types of parents more free everything will help the kids? That’s the only person in the equation I'm concerned about.
Personally I think we should give the schools more resources to feed the children of these deadbeats because it's obvious they aren't concerned about it. And another thing, all people should have to make some sacrifice to send their kids to school, be it a % of income or reduction of assistance. Parents today treat the schools like their own personal FREE day care and expect teachers to fix 30 dejected kids from broken families.
I honestly believe the more we cater to these types of people, and families, the more we will have. It all comes back to personal accountability and more people each day seriously lack it.
If our government programs were serious about helping the poor, having a job would be the first requirement of any government handout. WE do the exact opposite. If you get a job you loose your assistance, I want you to explain why that’s not a backwards system…and remember it’s yours!
After all, we don't want all those rich kids to suffer 'moral hazard', do we?
Actually, your idea is almost right. We should do two things, which, combined, would solve most of our chronic economic problems.
1. Implement full employment. Any worker who can work and is willing to work, should have a job. If the private sector fails to provde it, the situation we're in now, then the government must step in.
2. A minimum wage should be established that is a LIVING WAGE.
A LIVING WAGE includes:
enough to live on+
enough to educate your kids+
enough to pay for medical insurance+
enough to save in a retirement insurance fund to support you in retirement (and pay for that medical insurance!)
Face the facts: If you don't pay a LIVING WAGE for full-time work, then someone, by definition, MUST SUBSIDIZE that job, or you are slowly grinding that worker to death.
So, I agree. Let's get people back to work and pay enough to live on, so we can get rid of all these social programs that you don't like. We still have to take care of the ones who can't though.
What other options are there?
1. Suppress/Repress/Oppress the bottom third (half?) who can't find work that pays a LIVING WAGE?
2. Exterminate them?
3. Keep givin' 'em all handouts, which you dont like...
Take your pick.
would be correct but one more than others, namely, they are a growing percentage and represent
a significant voting block. Despite republican efforts to disenfranchise them, they cannot dis-
enfranchise them all, So paying them lips service will be of little use. To put it simply.. they have
been listening to and waiting for reagan( voodoo economics) to work as advertised but that is the
ugly little secret that cons never mention, it was never intended to trickle down just make the rich richer.
The problem begins when "we" impose our moral responsibility on "you". It becomes more nettled when "we" impose the depth of our moral actions on "you".
It is all so easy to be morally responsible when spending what somebody else earned. Perhaps true responsibility to others should be redefined.
A society must take care of its own (however it has to), or else face the consequences.
What are those consequences?
Well, if you create a society in which a third or half of it is effectively shut out completely, because there are not suitable means for them to make a reasonable living, then you have created an organization that must be destroyed by those people, in order for them to survive.
And guess what? That is exactly what they will set out to do, sooner or later.
At that point your options are:
1. Support them however you must, either providing jobs or handouts
2. Suppress/Oppress/Repress them. This must usually be done continuously and brutally, because, remember, they have nothing to lose by destroying your society.
3. Exterminate them.
I vote for supporting all the people who cannot work, after we get all the people who can work back into jobs so they can make a living. Anything else forces the decision to Options 2 or 3, above.