Open Discussion: Who Hurts the Poor More

I actually agree with most of these things, but the agreement is on face-value at the present. What I wanted to try to find out (though i have a sneaking suspicion it will be impossible because such things are really ambiguous based on interpretation) was, in practice, who was hurting the poor more.

The Republican's certainly ignore them, or even demonize them in certain cases, and it was a good point brought up to me by a friend, who actually was a Republican (the sane kind who don't hang of the edge of their respective wing) that a pro-business and middle class apporach by the nations law-makers and social administrators is, in itself, a considerable slight and burden on the poor who go without representation and may be injured by those policies which are endorsed withou any consderation for them- some policies, like the endorsement of businesses who increasingly ship jobs from the country, actually creating the poor and sinking the middle class. It's almost like ignoring one of your children. Do they get better or worse from this lack of attention?

The Democrat's, as troiani pointed out, could be hurting just as much. It doesn't feel like it, intuitively, but I'd have to take a look at the actual effects of most of the things associated with Democratic iniaitives. The Welfare case is the best exmple. A patronization that might actually result in stagnation, but the problem is it's not complete stagation and that even with the presence of abuse, it still does something for the poor, versus nothing. However, then we have the argument of whether we should help the poor...or whether they deserve it...which is valid...and sticky.

However, any solid pieces of information you can bring up concerning your points would be greatly appreciated. (not commentary or anything, I mean like solid or as near to as you think)

 

I think the honest answer is liberalism is generally more harmful. Yes,I am a conservative,but I try to be fair. If you look at my posts you will see that. My reasoning? Well,for one thing we see unions blocking companies like WalMart from entering cities like Chicago. Those are entry level jobs for some people,a way to either gain experience or as a good part-time opportunity. The minimum wage also can keep employers from hiring,especially with the obsession on raising it. Obamacare's employer mandate keeps employers from hiring,or keeping their employers under 30 hours.
On a bigger level,the Great Society did great damage. Changing the welfare rules,where it was "better"to not be married with regards to benefits. Job programs that didn't do a thing except grow government.
Then you have the regulations. Blocking of good paying jobs(Keystone pipeline),plus other rules keep many people without college degrees from making better wages and moving up.

 

My main point was that neither the republicans or the democrats are effectively trying to help the poor.

This article is from Mother Jones which may turn the more conservative off, but its sources are valid, and I think it supports my point.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

If you examine the charts you will notice that democratic and republican leadership has done nothing to the overall trends.

I found this an interesting TED talk on technology and employment and the need for workers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMF-Z74C1QE

This points to the fact that the plight of poor workers is getting worse. He puts a positive spin on it but I think it is easy to see from what he shows that things are likely to get worse if people do not change their thinking.

 

We've been pumping increasingly more money into our welfare state, but instead of helping people, it traps them in a racist, crime ridden system that is very difficult to escape from. Instead of helping them, we have handicapped them & done them a great disservice. The socialist agenda has failed in this venture, because they do not understand human nature & motivations. Govt housing, food stamps, ADC, & welfare checks do not help people in the long run. They do not help a community. They are not good for the culture. The KKK could not have come up with a better racist agenda to oppress & enslave minorities. They give the 'poor' just enough to survive, but it's also enough to take their motivation. They herd them into govt housing projects.. how is that working? They are just gulags for the poor.. concentration camps to keep ethnic poor trapped in poverty.

The welfare state is like a wall, built to keep the poor on one side, & the ruling elite on the other. Some escape & climb over the wall. The longing for freedom is great, & there are those who will not live under oppression. But the wall remains, oppressing those who cannot climb over it, & trapping generations in a life of poverty & oppression.
The solution is simple:

'Mr. Obama, tear down this wall!'

 

Well...Unions are not evil. Some are, but they were created to combat the extorions of the evil practices of employers. Like the minimum wage. In both cases, somehow there is this convincing ideology going about that these protections should be abolished. The Unions are debatable. I think only a few Unions prove to be corrupt or extortive, the same way insurance companies or health care companies, cops, lawyers, congressman and government entities, business firms, or whatever prove to, but tearing down the whole thing is overkill. I think there is potential for Unions to be a problem, but their danger has been blown out of proportion and is, ironically, part of a well funded and hyper-lobbied concerted act on the part of various corporate and industrial entities to destroy the Unions.

My gripe with minimum wage is eternal. You want to pay people less? In this time? And you want to remove the restrictions on what employers pay people? I mean ust adding jobs is not a virtue in itself. Are they good jobs. Do they jobs pay fairly or $4 an hour and, truthfully, will people care if they are fair? We already know our stuff is made by people in sweatshops overseas. We don't care because it's a good deal for us. We already hold issues with China's treatment of it's own people, but then we want to bring that same culture to the US? Only, it's worded differently to make it seem awesome instead of extortitve.

Minimum wage has to be one of the more obvious protections of workers I can think of. I can' think of anyone who works below the need to be paid $7.25 an hour for the trouble.

And the Keystone Pipeline. Just off the top of my head, it is foreign owned, it is not required to clean up it's own spills like other oil companies are, and it's jobs are only temporal. Added to that, this Pipeline does not help with US reserves, it's oil is likely going to be sold to China- the higher market. But, like all things, the put a rosy image on it and claim. "It's for you. It's all for you. We love you."

 

That was very informative. Thank you very much.

I'm going to sit down with that one for while and see where it leads.

 

If it concerns anyone, I'll have to apologize if I didn't respond or post any amplifying information. I had just begun reading about it when I started the post and am still reading more information on it and, honestly, it's so confusing and criss-crossing that there is no way to blame one side or the other exclusively. Actually, the problem is multiidimensional in scope and the contributions to the creation and/or stagnation of the poor are from a diverse group of parties and interests- including the common public. Pining the problem on Democrat and Republican would be like trying to prove the left side of a rain drop is wetter than the right.

At the very least, aside from the nice things and the discussion concerning the poor, all parties effectively ostracise the poor in practice. In a variety of cases, charity is often seen as a way of buying a clear conscience toward the issue, rather then helping the issue- a way of guilt-dropping or appeasing the conscience. (sociological studies)

As it stands, I don't believe the existence of the poor is the fault of eveyrone else, entirely, and I do understand that the concept of helping the poor places a burden on people, but we are supposed to be a nation that heads toward a more conscious, just land when concerning the people. A nation that aids others who are in need of help. It is understandable if we willingly don't want to help poor people, but then you have to drop the great nation just helping people act. In truth, personal, societal, and national charity- whether in money, diplomatic, or military aid- would be a deceptive description of ventures made in pursuit of our own self-interests.

At the moment, these are my opinions. If we are the great nation that sets the model example of how others should be, at least we should be a good model. That's my final thoughts on the state of the poor in the US.