3 Big Conservative Lies about Poverty

[calamity]

Funny, but for the past thirty-five years, I've heard these three main talking points...and, about twenty years ago, I understood them for what they were---lies.

Lie #1: Economic growth reduces poverty.

"The best anti-poverty program," wrote Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, in the Wall Street Journal, "is economic growth."

Wrong. Since the late 1970s, the economy has grown 147 percent per capita but almost nothing has trickled down.

Lie #2: Jobs reduce poverty.

Senator Marco Rubio said poverty is best addressed not by raising the minimum wage or giving the poor more assistance but with "reforms that encourage and reward work."

This has been the standard Republican line ever since Ronald Reagan declared that the best social program is a job.

...But simply having a job is no bulwark against poverty. In fact, across America the ranks of the working poor have been growing. Around one-fourth of all American workers are now in jobs paying below what a full-time, full-year worker needs in order to live above the federally defined poverty line for a family of four.

Lie #3: Ambition cures poverty.

Most Republicans, unlike Democrats and independents, believe people are poor mainly because of a lack of effort, according to a Pew Research Center/USA Today survey. It's a standard riff of the right: If the poor were more ambitious they wouldn't be poor.

Obviously, personal responsibility is important. But there's no evidence that people who are poor are less ambitious than anyone else.

The Three Biggest Right-Wing Lies About Poverty | Robert Reich

 

[Renae]

Lol. Thanks for the morning laugh.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Funny, but for the past thirty-five years, I've heard these three main talking points...and, about twenty years ago, I understood them for what they were---lies.

1) ecomonic growth of 147% since 1970 but MW has gone from $1.60 to $7.25 - a bit over that 147% I would say. I would also say that federal spending on poverty programs has gone up considerably more than 147% since 1970.

2) those with good jobs do not tend to be poor

3) see #2.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Funny, but for the past thirty-five years, I've heard these three main talking points...and, about twenty years ago, I understood them for what they were---lies.

Economic growth leads to more jobs which if a person has ambition (I define that in this instance as the drive and ability to learn new skills, get an education to allow advancement, and the willingness and ability to do other things that are necessary - including an internal drive to overcome adversity without blaming others for the place they find themselves) will in fact lead a person out of poverty.

Now, that said, there are always going to be a number of people that because of a myriad of reasons will never climb out of poverty. These reasons include, but are not limited to, low intellectual capability, mental or physical disorders that prevent self sustainability, drug and alcohol abuse, chronic despondency (which could be described as a mental issue as well), a perspective of over entitlement (that they're owed the basics of life from others), a plain lack of self motivation or cultural norms that in their life create a cyclical and generational quagmire of poverty driven choices that feeds upon itself.. and them.

Not everyone in poverty currently falls into these or other chronic poverty categories, nor have they ever. Those that do not, can rise up and move from poverty to self sustainability either on their own given the proper environment (as described by numbers 1 and 2) or with minimal assistance from the rest of us, which I do support, BTW.

In other words, they aren't lies... they're just uncomfortable to acknowledge, and non-PC, truths.

I was on my own when I was 15. I had an alcoholic father that put me in the hospital a number of times before he finally kicked me out. However, I've never done drugs, I worked three part-time jobs and finished High School, then I joined the military and got a college degree, then got a job with the state, then started my own company and have continued to educate and advance myself... without government assistance (working for the government isn't government assistance). I am in no way disparaging those that need government assistance to get ahead in life to rise out of poverty. I had some luck, worked my ass off and took many risks to get ahead. Hard work the way a lot of people think of that term is not all it takes. A guy that digs ditches with a shovel works damn hard all day every day, but he'll not get ahead unless he does what else is needed to do so, and just working hard isn't it. When you hear conservatives saying "hard work", most of us, at least me, are talking about the other hard things to get ahead, not just sweat and calluses. Although that's part of it, and I still have my calluses to this day.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Funny, but for the past thirty-five years, I've heard these three main talking points...and, about twenty years ago, I understood them for what they were---lies.

Quoting Robert Reich is "rich" - pardon the pun.

The problem with this analysis is trying to apply it to a country where poverty really doesn't exist, in the true sense of the term.

Take these principles to most countries in the third world, where poverty is rampant, and you'd soon find that those wishing to rise from poverty would do so fairly easily. The problem with applying them to America is that too many people are quite comfortable with existing in American style poverty where the government will see to your every basic need and you can survive easily with little effort or ambition. In the third world, people don't have the luxury of waiting for someone else to give them the means of survival.

 

[Amadeus]

Quoting Robert Reich is "rich" - pardon the pun.

Who should he quote? Steven Moore?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Who should he quote? Steven Moore?

Seems I'm under surveillance.

 

[calamity]

1) ecomonic growth of 147% since 1970 but MW has gone from $1.60 to $7.25 - a bit over that 147% I would say. I would also say that federal spending on poverty programs has gone up considerably more than 147% since 1970.

2) those with good jobs do not tend to be poor

3) see #2.

1. And yet the poverty has grown

2. If someone can find one.

3. Yes, see #2.

 

[Amadeus]

Seems I'm under surveillance.

No, but I do delight in seeing you post.

 

[ttwtt78640]

1. And yet the poverty has grown

2. If someone can find one.

3. Yes, see #2.

No, the US poverty rate was ffalling fast before the "great society" programs and has remined fairly constant at 12% to 15% since then.

The US has indeed shed many manufacturing jobs but has gained jobs in other areas.

 

[calamity]

Economic growth leads to more jobs which if a person has ambition (I define that in this instance as the drive and ability to learn new skills, get an education to allow advancement, and the willingness and ability to do other things that are necessary - including an internal drive to overcome adversity without blaming others for the place they find themselves) will in fact lead a person out of poverty.

Now, that said, there are always going to be a number of people that because of a myriad of reasons will never climb out of poverty. These reasons include, but are not limited to, low intellectual capability, mental or physical disorders that prevent self sustainability, drug and alcohol abuse, chronic despondency (which could be described as a mental issue as well), a perspective of over entitlement (that they're owed the basics of life from others), a plain lack of self motivation or cultural norms that in their life create a cyclical and generational quagmire of poverty driven choices that feeds upon itself.. and them.

Not everyone in poverty currently falls into these or other chronic poverty categories, nor have they ever. Those that do not, can rise up and move from poverty to self sustainability either on their own given the proper environment (as described by numbers 1 and 2) or with minimal assistance from the rest of us, which I do support, BTW.

In other words, they aren't lies... they're just uncomfortable to acknowledge, and non-PC, truths.

I was on my own when I was 15. I had an alcoholic father that put me in the hospital a number of times before he finally kicked me out. However, I've never done drugs, I worked three part-time jobs and finished High School, then I joined the military and got a college degree, then got a job with the state, then started my own company and have continued to educate and advance myself... without government assistance (working for the government isn't government assistance). I am in no way disparaging those that need government assistance to get ahead in life to rise out of poverty. I had some luck, worked my ass off and took many risks to get ahead. Hard work the way a lot of people think of that term is not all it takes. A guy that digs ditches with a shovel works damn hard all day every day, but he'll not get ahead unless he does what else is needed to do so, and just working hard isn't it. When you hear conservatives saying "hard work", most of us, at least me, are talking about the other hard things to get ahead, not just sweat and calluses. Although that's part of it, and I still have my calluses to this day.

See, what we have here is a perfect example of how the Right, in the face of facts to the contrary, sticks to their antiquated belief system.

Thanks for proving several of my other threads right.

 

[calamity]

No, the US poverty rate was ffalling fast before the "great society" programs and has remined fairly constant at 12% to 15% since then.

False. Poverty rates were falling until the war against the worker and labor unions commenced. Lowered tax rates on the rich also correlate perfectly with increase in poverty.

 

[CanadaJohn]

1. And yet the poverty has grown

2. If someone can find one.

3. Yes, see #2.

This is really quite enlightening.

You post charts that show a reduction in manufacturing jobs has coincided with a rise in poverty. Wouldn't that be proof that at least the first two allegations in your OP are false? Less jobs, means less economic activity, means growth in poverty'

 

[Beaudreaux]

See, what we have here is a perfect example of how the Right, in the face of facts to the contrary, sticks to their antiquated belief system.

Thanks for proving several of my other threads right.

Care to attempt to discuss each point individually, or are you satisfied with just a flipped ideological dismissal and a snarky quip? Truthfully, I'm fine if you do not respond since I already have a headache from just reading the OP. But, I still offer in polite respect that I will be glad to describe to you the facts of the real world should you wish to elaborate on the above. Warning though, it may not be nice to see... reality that is.

 

[calamity]

Care to attempt to discuss each point individually, or are you satisfied with just a flipped ideological dismissal and a snarky quip? Truthfully, I'm fine if you do not respond since I already have a headache from just reading the OP. But, I still offer in polite respect that I will be glad to describe to you the facts of the real world should you wish to elaborate on the above. Warning though, it may not be nice to see... reality that is.

Picture tells the story

Here we see how growth, hard work and ambition still lead to no gains for those doing all the work.

 

[The German]

These arent lies. And if they were they wouldnt be conservative but liberterian.

Your views are completly centered arround the US. Maybe you should take a look at the numbers from 1980s Britain, 1990s Spain or 2000s Germany.

 

[calamity]

This is really quite enlightening.

You post charts that show a reduction in manufacturing jobs has coincided with a rise in poverty. Wouldn't that be proof that at least the first two allegations in your OP are false? Less jobs, means less economic activity, means growth in poverty'

Uh...there aren't less jobs. There are less good jobs.

 

[calamity]

This would explain why work no longer pays.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Picture tells the story

Here we see how growth, hard work and ambition still lead to no gains for those doing all the work.

What industries does this chart cover? Is it adjusted for inflation? Are profits included or is it just production numbers? I could keep going, but without reference to how this chart was formulated and to exactly what it refers... it's just a pretty chart.

In fact, all it shows is that productivity is up in comparison to costs, which means nothing in your argument without knowing how that productivity compares to actual pricing of the products adjusted for inflationary dollars. In other words, if the price of the products produced have risen below the inflation curve but the income of the workers has stayed stable, that would mean that the mean wage has increased to keep up with inflationary dollars. For instance, you can't say that cars have become less costly to drive simply because the miles per gallon have increased by 50%, without including the cost per gallon of the gasoline which has increased by over 400% in the same time frame, which wipes out any cost savings and puts it into a huge net negative.

So yes, it speaks a thousand words. None of which form a sentence.

 

[calamity]

What industries does this chart cover? Is it adjusted for inflation? Are profits included or is it just production numbers? I could keep going, but without reference to how this chart was formulated and to exactly what it refers... it's just a pretty chart.

In fact, all it shows is that productivity is up in comparison to costs, which means nothing in your argument without knowing how that productivity compares to actual pricing of the products adjusted for inflationary dollars. In other words, if the price of the products produced have risen below the inflation curve but the income of the workers has stayed stable, that would mean that the mean wage has increased to keep up with inflationary dollars. For instance, you can't say that cars have become less costly to drive simply because the miles per gallon have increased by 50%, without including the cost per gallon of the gasoline which has increased by over 400% in the same time frame, which wipes out any cost savings and puts it into a huge net negative.

Uh...real wages of goods producing workers is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Uh...real wages of goods producing workers is pretty self-explanatory.

Sure it is. But it doesn't explain the supposed causal relationship in the graph, nor how it was derived.

 

[bubbabgone]

Funny, but for the past thirty-five years, I've heard these three main talking points...and, about twenty years ago, I understood them for what they were---lies.

heh heh ... Robert Reich ... he's a scream.

But I especially like ... "But there's no evidence ..." ... he should have said that before each of his points.

 

[What if...?]

Picture tells the story

Here we see how growth, hard work and ambition still lead to no gains for those doing all the work.

Anybody ever determine what exactly happened circa 1974?

The change is so abrupt.

Biological weapon that made the ownership class vastly more ambitious and everybody else terminally lazy?

 

[Helix]

Funny, but for the past thirty-five years, I've heard these three main talking points...and, about twenty years ago, I understood them for what they were---lies.

as usual, you have picked a poor and inflammatory way to present an argument, but i'll agree with one of the points : trickle down is a failure both for the average worker and for the country.

as for jobs not helping poverty, that's pretty much nonsense. if we had more prevalent well paying jobs, they would definitely be filled quickly. personally, i don't see the private sector supplying them, so i would support more people working in the public sector. hire some people to ****ing work and pay them well so they can buy stuff and raise their damned kids. if the private sector can't do that, then the government needs to, and we need to tax individuals enough to pay for it.

 

[Renae]

1. And yet the poverty has grown

2. If someone can find one.

3. Yes, see #2.

Poverty grew despite the war on poverty! Thanks for admitting liberal progressive ideas fail. Let's dump them and get real success going.