Poverty is due to moral lacking

[thir]

"One of the underlying threads of conservative thought is that the rich are inherently hard working and “earn” their good fortune, and the poor almost always are poor due to some sort of moral lacking."

"This is the assumption that makes the right believe that most people on welfare, on unemployment, using food stamps or other government aid must be lazy, or lacking in courage, determination or pride. No one “needs” government assistance because they should be able to care for themselves, and a “handout” just makes them try even less."

"It’s usually not discussed publicly in so many words, even though that’s what many believe. But David French of the National Review Online doesn’t have any qualms about coming right out and voicing it himself:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.""

(Italics are mine.)

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/conserva...#ixzz1XRnZONUW

I don't think it is specifically a political view, but probably also a world-view shared by many, which is why I put it here.

What do you think? What exactly causes poverty?

[ksst]

No, it's not a moral failing. Otherwise some very rich people would be falling into poverty very quickly. They are certainly not all hard working, morally incorruptible and staying married for life. It's more about what you learned when you were young, and the opportunities you had, for a lot of people any way. You learn to be poor, or you learn to be middle class, or you learn to be rich. A different set of coping strategies is needed for each. Which leaves open the possibility of learning new strategies or giving people new opportunities even as adults.

There are certainly better ways to help reduce poverty than the welfare system. Head start has made a huge difference. Keeping people from going broke due to medical expenses would be a big step in the right direction also.

[Thorne]

I think they have this a little bass-ackwards, there. The primary cause of poverty is ignorance, not the other way around. Teach people HOW to handle money and their lives and they will be more likely to get out of poverty. But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of.

As for divorce, just look at all those rich people with their second or third or more spouses. Or with children via several partners (illegitimacy). And how many of the wealthy in the US, at least, wind up in clinics and/or therapy to battle their addictions (or stay out of prison.) As for morality, well, it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.

Chances are if you compare a wealthy businessman with poor laborer, the only real difference in their histories will be the opportunities for a good education. Everything else is pretty much a wash.

[thir]

I think they have this a little bass-ackwards, there. The primary cause of poverty is ignorance, not the other way around. Teach people HOW to handle money and their lives and they will be more likely to get out of poverty. But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of.

Not surprising.

As for morality, well, it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.

To get away with it, anyway :-))

Chances are if you compare a wealthy businessman with poor laborer, the only real difference in their histories will be the opportunities for a good education. Everything else is pretty much a wash.

That would be based on the old idea that if you really want a job, it will be there. Which is a myth.
we are as dependant on economical ups and downs as farmers are on the weather.

And as for those, people far out of our reach are free to make a mess of everybody's lives, as we have seen with the banks. But it is also a matter of the government policies. A right-wing government wants unemployment, because it gives them control of the employees. (At least in DK they accidently said so to an open microphone - ha!)

But I agree that education is a huge factor in all this, and with the other statement about health care.

In DK we complain about not having enough access to loans for living while you study or whatever, but education itself is free. In UK they have just made university education an impossibility for any but the rich, at least, you get saddled with a dept that will cripple you for life.

Serious illness can knock you out completely. In UK our government (right-wing) is trying to dismantle the public health care system and throw it to the commercial wolves. In Denmark a less ambitious attempt was done with private hospitals. When it wasn't so popular to go more to the US system, they contended themselves with having a sucking straw down in the puclic treasury, by way of charging 25% higher prices than they were allowed. It was a scandal involving the prime minister.

In later years I increasingly get the impression that some parties see their country as consisting of only their own 'class' of peple, and no one else matters. About 90% of all 'help' to unemployed - insane 'courses' consiting of building house of pasta and the like - was and is nothing but a milking cow into the public coffers. I am also thinking of Bush and his wars and personal interest in the oil industry.

Have I stopped being naive, or started to become paranoid? ;-))

[DuncanONeil]

"But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of. "

The current educational system gets more money than it needs. Cost of education has increased by a factor of 14 since 1970 and yet the outcome has remained flat in that time. Meaning no improvement.

So money has not solved anything, how is more money going to solve the problem?

[Thorne]

So money has not solved anything, how is more money going to solve the problem?

That depends on where the money is being allocated. Instead of paying for new office furniture for administrators, and higher administrators' pay, why not put that money into hiring qualified teachers and quality classroom equipment? Instead of paying for psychologists to pamper kids who get their feelings hurt, why not pay to teach kids self-respect, self-discipline and good manners? Instead of paying for lawyers to appease hysterical parents who just "know that my kid is a good boy/girl" why not find a way to truly discipline bad students, and bad parents?

[DuncanONeil]

But these are the arguments always presented for an increase in allocations to schools! It has been a few years since I looked specifically at my local schools, but the statement is still true. We have 16 high schools in the district. Each of these schools has FOUR assistant principals. As is usual their responsibility is the disruptive. One per grade! The total cost of these is $9,056,512. Plus benefits which average about $50,250 or $3,216,000
Total cost of these 64 positions $9,272,512. I think this is overboard! The district has a budget of about $1 billion.

That depends on where the money is being allocated. Instead of paying for new office furniture for administrators, and higher administrators' pay, why not put that money into hiring qualified teachers and quality classroom equipment? Instead of paying for psychologists to pamper kids who get their feelings hurt, why not pay to teach kids self-respect, self-discipline and good manners? Instead of paying for lawyers to appease hysterical parents who just "know that my kid is a good boy/girl" why not find a way to truly discipline bad students, and bad parents?

[ksst]

it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.

I'm going to remember that. Good one.

[Thorne]

I'm going to remember that. Good one.

I'm going to have to start writing these down somewhere. For posterity's sake, you know.

Or is it posterior?

[ksst]

You left yourself wide open for a rude comment on that one. Must... resist...

[Thorne]

You left yourself wide open for a rude comment on that one. Must... resist...

Resistance is futile!

[ksst]

You will be assimilated!

[denuseri]

You not paranoid thir...and you would may or may not be surprised to know that it isn't a phenomenon that's regulated to any one political party alone...here in the states the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans when it comes to abuse of power and giving in to the wishes of corporate special interest groups.

[Thorne]

the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans when it comes to abuse of power and giving in to the wishes of corporate special interest groups.

There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

[denuseri]

There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

Not at all, they both like to say they will do things to help the poor and middle class but what they actually do once elected is both take money from the middle class and poor alike and give it to themselves and their rich friends.

[Thorne]

Not at all, they both like to say they will do things to help the poor and middle class but what they actually do once elected is both take money from the middle class and poor alike and give it to themselves and their rich friends.

Yeah, I suppose it works that way, too. Whether they call themselves jackasses or elephants, they're all pigs in the end.

[thir]

There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

The middle class seems to have played a real important part many times in history, though. In Europe they meant that the king could join with the them against the nobility with the end of feudal times as a result (but stronger kings) if I got it all right, and it seems to me that many parties do court the middle class - hence all the (in my eyes) rather exaggerated emphasis on family values and so on.

They do get squeezed, I think that is true, but not as much as the really poor. The rich always gets the cream.

[DuncanONeil]

There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

The middle class is not shrinking!

[ksst]

And they both claim to be the party of the middle class. How does that work?

[denuseri]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!

[Thorne]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!

Enjoy it while you can, dear. I haven't been feeling well, so my game is off.

[thir]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!

I marked the day in my calendar :-))

[Thorne]

I marked the day in my calendar :-))

Me too! It's not every day I get to see denuseri's panties, after all.

[DuncanONeil]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!

Can I get a visual of that!?!?

[DuncanONeil]

Tried to answer & timed out. Oh well!

Tried to answer & timed out! Oh well@

"One of the underlying threads of conservative thought is that the rich are inherently hard working and “earn” their good fortune, and the poor almost always are poor due to some sort of moral lacking."

"This is the assumption that makes the right believe that most people on welfare, on unemployment, using food stamps or other government aid must be lazy, or lacking in courage, determination or pride. No one “needs” government assistance because they should be able to care for themselves, and a “handout” just makes them try even less."

"It’s usually not discussed publicly in so many words, even though that’s what many believe. But David French of the National Review Online doesn’t have any qualms about coming right out and voicing it himself:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.""

(Italics are mine.)

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/conserva...#ixzz1XRnZONUW

I don't think it is specifically a political view, but probably also a world-view shared by many, which is why I put it here.

What do you think? What exactly causes poverty?

[Snark]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person. Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it? Washington, DC schools are the highest funded in the country; clear evidence that more money is not the answer. Conservatives (as compared to Republicans) desire less government, lower taxes. I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else. Large government sucks capital out of the economy to dole it out to those areas to maintain dependence on large government. The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work. The larger the government, the less effective it will be. The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

[lucy]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

[Thorne]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Depends on how you're using the term 'Theory'. The layman's concept of a theory is basically that it's little more than an educated guess, and that almost any theory is just as valid as any other. But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

[lucy]

But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

Not in this case. In this case, we tried to model reality according to the theories. Well, not we, since I didn't ....

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

Sorry, but in recent years it was the economists who dictated the rules, the politicians just followed them blindly. It really wasn't the other way round. At least that's the impression I got here.

[thir]

Depends on how you're using the term 'Theory'. The layman's concept of a theory is basically that it's little more than an educated guess, and that almost any theory is just as valid as any other. But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless. One of which is the incompetance of banks.

Anyway, it is not a science. It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.
The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.