The Reagan Revolution
Published May 28, 2009 @ 03:29PM PT
We're still feeling its effects today. I'm doing some dissertation research and I'm reading the book description of "Poverty and Power: The Political Representation of Poor Americans." Here's a stat I've long been looking for:
In 1981 alone, 70 percent of the $35 billion cut from the federal budget came from programs for the poor.
It goes on to talk about the "Reagan/Bush agenda," which seems fitting for George W. much more so than George H.W., wouldn't you say?
The high point of the 1980s, according to this book?
His findings delineate how electoral policy and economic change in the 1980s posed a direct threat to the welfare of the poor, and suggest reasons why no massive mobilization for social justice emerged. Still, the dogged efforts of advocates and activists culminated in the passage of the 1987 McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, the first positive federal intervention into domestic social policy since the Reagan inauguration.
Discuss.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (28)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
Featured Poverty in America Actions
-
-
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
88 People
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
Not to defend the "Reagan Revolution", but I think the missing piece here is why Reagan's rhetoric had appeal, which by 1980, after 4 years of Jimmy Carter (and a reason, I think, why Democrats need to be realistc about the problems of his Presidency) led people to follow Reagan (and the right's) conclusion that social welfare spending wasn't working. What that probably illustrates is how entrenched cycles of poverty are, but it also points to some lack of creativity in crafting solutions - we threw money at poverty... and people were still poor. That must mean... it's not working, right? Cue Reagan and his selling of the "people need a push to pull themselves up by their bootstraps", rhetoric that appeals to notions of American self reliance and individual success. I think, unfortunately, that after a long generation of political successes - from Roosevelt to Kennedy and Johnson to Carter (which is really the period of consistent Democratic control of Congress) - Democrats were badly in need of a shakeup to introduce new blood and new ideas (the eighties are also the period where suburbs finally asserted dominance over the urban core, remember, which was the anchor of many city and state democratic machines). And all we needed to accomplish the shakeup... was to make things demonstrably worse for people in poverty. Maybe my mom is right to be quite as angry about Reagan as she is. I think, unfortunaely, that it was something that couldn't be stopped... not by the Dems as they stood in 1980 or well into the nineties.
Posted by NYC Weboy on 05/29/2009 @ 08:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It goes deeper than that, with the rightward shift beginning under Nixon - this is when economic liberalization began globally and devolution - shifting federal programs to the states - began at home. This followed Johnson's War on Poverty, obviously, and the racial unrest that swept cities in the 1960s and early 1970s, which contributed to a racial/urban backlash as whites moved to the suburbs, etc. etc. and Nixon and Reagan both capitalized on this sentiment and demographic shift in their campaigns.
But it was under Reagan that HUD and social welfare budgets were eviscerated so deeply, and we have never recovered. I'm not sure even GWB's cuts were as bad, and Nixon's certainly weren't.
I'm not sure Dems "deserve" it - though I know you didn't say this explicitly - and I still think Reagan was the worst President for us domestically in terms of social policy. His political career was dependent on this rightward trend and one of the ultimate examples of this shift. It's called the "Reagan Revolution" for a reason, and it's why our current GOP still can't stop looking backward wistfully.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 05/29/2009 @ 08:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the racial and anti-urban resentments accompanying the rise of the right can't be overstated, btw. I also think that the liberalization and devolution trends initiated during Nixon's time also triggered the economic downward spiral and insecurity we faced in the 1970s, further prepping white America in the 1980s to embrace Reagan.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 05/29/2009 @ 08:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You're right that Nixon's role matters... but even conservatives today have a hard time embracing him, because he supported the idea of government programs, not rejected them (the kind of "law and order" he represented, Kent State, and his war policies... these were the real divides he created between left and right). Welfare, healthcare... Nixon didn't move to strip out a federal role... not the way Reagan's army did.
In effect, we don't disagree; I think the nuance is about why... and what the left should learn. Reagan was able to accomplish what he did, I think, because of the shifts at the Congressional level - that was the real "revolution" as Republicans learned how to make substantial gains in the South and elsewhere among disaffected "Reagan Democrats" (that's what I mean about Reagan's appeal). By making the message essentially less cruel ("it's for your own good"), he allowed an aging white population, who had not seen results in the left's poverty agenda, to try a "new way." Which really was the "old way" (do nothing) in a new dress. And Democrats were really only defending what they'd already been doing, and as Danetta points out, even on the left, by 1980, people like Moynihan were observing that entrenched poverty was harder to solve than anyone liked to admit. And no, this isn't about "deserve"... but I do think in some ways the move to Reagan's conservatism was an inevitable pendulum swing as the public looked for another answer. As Dems, I think, all we could have done - and didn't - was to begin adapting welfare programs and HUD approaches... but it took years in the wilderness for some real shaking up of lefty thinking. And it's that, 25 years on, it's now clear the right's way didn't work either. And back we swing.
Posted by NYC Weboy on 05/29/2009 @ 09:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Nixon did not "reject" federal policies as explicitly as Reagan, but he did undermine them, by shifting power to the states, as I mentioned. I know the housing examples the best, and under Nixon, HUD shifted to a Community Development Block Grant model, which localized formerly federal affordable housing and neighborhood investment decisions. Though the letter of affordable housing/social equity is the same, the spirit - and outcomes - are quite different and less targeted toward the very poor.
I'd also challenge the idea that an "aging white population" didn't see results. Why didn't these people benefit from social security, the #1 contributor to reduced elderly poverty in the US?
In 1960, we had a national individual-level poverty rate of more than 20%, which we reduced to 12% by the end of that decade - and it hovered there until 1980, and started rising again during Reagan's first time. (Except for his 1st term, it's more or less hovered around 13% ever since.) For elderly whites the reduction was even greater. So I'm not sure about these people who were "bypassed" by Democratic anti-poverty efforts of the 1960s. And I don't know what the "old way" of "do nothing" is, as our national anti-poverty efforts were fairly aggressive beginning with the New Deal through the 1970s.
Because the reduction in poverty rates, the development of the suburbs, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security in the New Deal, public housing (before budgets were eviscerated) for the working class, etc. - so much of this happened under Dems, I think it's really hard to say the left was a) unsucessful in our social welfare efforts, and b) that there was anything less than a racist, anti-urban and corporate backlash beginning in the 1970s following urban unrest and the growth of a conservative, suburban white majority that didn't want federal dollars spent on low-income, non-white urban environments. Well-intentioned reports like The Moynihan Report in 1965 didn't help, but they fed a fire of resentment and retreat, not a legit response to actual failure.
I don't see how we agree, other than to say there's some sort of pendulum shift happening now.
But we have much worse inequality.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 05/29/2009 @ 10:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And I don't know what the "old way" of "do nothing" is, as our national anti-poverty efforts were fairly aggressive beginning with the New Deal through the 1970s.
Exactly. The conservatism of Reagan was anti-New Deal. That's how far back the right's opposiion has gone ("privatize" social security? Easy to embrace if you never liked it to begin with).
You may see disagreement... I'm really not. In terms of what the Reagan and subsequent reversals meant to our society and how bad that backlash was, I have no argument. How we got to 1980, well I do disagree somewhat, but even that seems to me about perceptions, which are in themselves quite subjective. You can show statistics of success, but I know the mood I saw and heard growing up - something was off, something wasn't working... Reagan's convenient suggestions had an appeal. And Democrats at the time didn't offer much except status quo. After Carter (and even because of Carter), that status quo was unlikely to have political appeal... even if, factually, you could point to some progress on poverty (which I'd still tend to say wasn't the kind of progress promised by, say, Johnson). Objectively, did the rejection of government programs to fight poverty make ssense? No, partly because Reagan offered essentially no alternative. But did it have an appeal to people who felt things were off track? Yes. And they were - we also know from statistics - older, whiter, suburban voters who, yes, did not see results in poverty programs (even if, as elderly voters, they benefitted from social security and medicare - programs Reagan really didn't successfully change). And in that sense, yes, the left failed - because the cycles of poverty and the problems it left, especially in the urban core, were just not geting solved - and suburbanites couldn't be convinced that was because more needed to be done (especially when liberal establishments rejected many calls for at least adapting programs that weren't working, or could be improved). Reagan's alternative - let's do less - had an appeal. I didn't like it, I think it harmed us tremendously... but I think the lesson is many people - the "swing" in swing voters - had to see the conservative "plan" fail before the pendulum could swing back to us. And I think we'll keep having those swings, unless progressives show some new flexibility on adapting to critiques - because much as the left was failing o adap in the late seventies, the right really got stuck in the Bush years, failing to reject bad policies and losing political stances - and you can see, even now, the romancing of those "Regan years" gains. The right can't win until it finds some way to adapt, as the left has, since Reagan.
Posted by NYC Weboy on 05/29/2009 @ 11:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think one of the biggest things the "Reagan Revolution" succeeded in doing, as far as the poor go, is to write the Moynihan Report in stone and make an even more politicized version of it policy. After all, while Moynihan spoke mostly of "Black Culture" (though that wasn't exactly his choice of words) he did kind of start the blame the victim mentality about poverty. You can read more about Moynihan, his report and its impact on society at http://www.slate.com/id/2213618/pagenum/all
Reagan just used his flowery rhetoric to convince people that smaller, cheaper government was ALWAYS the BEST thing and that those in poverty were somehow ALWAYS responsible for their situations and ALWAYS in need for a Dr. Phil type swift kick in the tushie to make them go back to a job (any job) to get them off the (as conservatives love to call it when poor people need government help) "government teat".
What I really don't get though, is how Reagan sold his followers on the idea that helping individuals is BAD because those individuals who need help are ALWAYS lazy, irresponsible, fraudulent, etc. - yet helping BUSINESSES is a societal/national NECESSITY and absolutely must be done without regard to the cost or why the business is in dire straits (i.e. the first Chrysler bail out). Or how he sold his followers on the idea of "trickle down" (aka "voodoo" or even "doodoo") economics - whereby helping the "rich" would eventually "trickle down" and result in helping the poor...after all, it's been just shy of 30 years and those of us at the bottom STILL wait for more than insults and platitudes.
Yes, SOME who receive welfare, food stamps, SSI, SSDI, TANF, Medicaid, etc. DO commit fraud. But to single out those in poverty as the ONLY ones who commit fraud oversimplifies and to claim ALL in poverty are lazy, fraudulent, irresponsible, etc. is no more true than if claims of irresponsibility and greed were to be similarly applied to ALL of the rich. People of all classes can have good - or bad - ethics. People of all classes may - or may not - be able to work. Besides, not all fraud in welfare, food stamps, SSI, SSDI, TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. is committed by the recipients. Much of the MAJOR fraud has been traced to stores who take food stamps, medical providers, medical equipment providers, designated payees who are supposed to be receiving and RESPONSIBLY spending the SSI or SSDI monies of a disable person or people, etc. - not the people in poverty.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/29/2009 @ 08:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
After a discussion elsewhere on change.org today (specifically homelessness), I realized some other stuff about the Reagan Revolution and how it's impacting the poor. Not only did the Federal Government cut their portion of the budget for many services to the poor and/or cost shift budgets onto state and local governments, but states are doing the same to counties and counties to cities, etc. and quite often on the same or similar justifications. Thus proving what we all should have known all along - nothing you want rolls down hill. In this case, what we at the bottom are getting from Reagan's "Trickle Down" economics was some sort of twisted combination of smoke & mirrors, cow patties and the bills that SHOULD have been paid by those who had the money but who chose not to pay rather than shifting the cost and finding better things on which to spend the money.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/29/2009 @ 06:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The idea was, a person is not supposed to stay on the bottom forever. Until recently the economy has been booming. There are still plenty of oppurtunities even now, at least until this new level of national debt flattens the economy even more, much like what happened in the 30s. Then unemployment never dropped below 14% for an entire decade. If government had let it alone this time We would already be in recovery.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/29/2009 @ 08:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mr. reed,
I haven't commented much in here because for 40 years I have been a die hard Rep-lickun.
I think the first time I got to vote was in 1968 or 9 (been to long ago) so I have seen the good years and some bad years. BUT the one thing I learned in HS way back when, was to think for myself and to NEVER be a sheepel like so many people today who listen to the likes of Tush and oFiley or on the left the likes of Franstine and then the spin monsters of ALL political parties. It seems no one knows how to do their own research anymore or more likley they choose not to. Now on to a few questions about your post:
"Until recently the economy has been booming." Where did you get that information from? all of the facts from, and please try and give a real answer with documentation.
Next:
There are still plenty of opportunities even now, at least until this new level of national debt flattens the economy even more, much like what happened in the 30s.
Well lets look at the facts here, Herbert Hoover (R. Pres. 1928-1932) led us into the Great Depression by raising of taxes and then having thi stock market crash.
There are fewer jobs today than ever before in history for many of those lower income people or those like myself who have a BA but in a subject that isn't in demand when you're 60 and disabled. The other fact is now days the unemployment figures are cut off at 6 months in most states so if your unemployed still after 6 months you are deemed chronically unemployed and dropped from the rolls which drops the unemployment rate. hmmm... At the last count the true rate is more like 19-20%. Just dropping people from the figures doesn't make them go away. And it doesn't mean their not looking either. Here in Seattle they have job HIRING faires where 5,000-7,000 people show up for at best 100 jobs and only 20 of those are full time.... Down in Tacoma they held one for 5 openings and they had 4,000 people showed up some spent two days sleeping out in the rain for a chance for one of those FIVE jobs Then just a month ago a bunch of companies and the people at Qwest Field had a homeless employment day where if you were homeless and needed a job you came in got a shower where the Seahawks showered haircut and a new set of clothes so you could be interviewed in the afternoon. Know how many showed up more than 5500 and they had to turn many of those away because there just wasn't enough time because of people telling the employers that "the homeless are that way because they want to be that way to that we say "BUNK".
So I don't really know where all these jobs are maybe Tush has had a relapse or the spin monsters have spun off the wheel but we all need to be realistic and take off our rose colored glasses and start looking around to see what we can do for someone else.
Posted by Paul Amschler on 05/30/2009 @ 01:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Danetta, I have found You to be abosolutely correct in Your statement " nothing ou want rolls down hill" I have always had to climb the hill to get what I wanted. Government or a union has always been right their to steal some.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/29/2009 @ 08:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unions don't steal, they defend workers against abuse by bosses, management and owners who otherwise wouldn't uphold what basic morals and ethics say about how workers should be treated or in many cases even about the applicable laws (including labor laws). Governments don't steal either. Governments take what they're allowed by both law and Constitution to take for reasons like their own operating costs and purposes. How on God's green earth is the government doing what it was performed to do and collecting taxes and fees, etc. so that it can do so "stealing"?
Unemployment statistics are one of the world's greatest examples of how if you play with how statistics are taken, you can make the statistics say whatever you want them to say. A good look at the laws about who counts as unemployed would reveal that an amazing number of groups who really ARE unemployed (or at least underemployed) DO NOT get counted in the statistics as unemployed due to things as stupid as how long they've been jobless.
Opportunity alone isn't enough to automatically lift one out of poverty. What if all jobs are in North Carolina and Joe Smith is one of 3,000 unemployed people in poverty living on the west coast? How does Joe Smith get to North Carolina? What if all the jobs in North Carolina are in a specialty field like, let's say, unix programming (just as a wild example) and Joe's job skills are in carpentry? Joe is NOT going to get a job in unix programming even if he IS in North Carolina, if his only skills are in carpentry. Similarly, many jobs or at least many employers, require a minimum of a college education - what if Joe only has a GED? He's not eligible for those jobs and his access to college is limited to his chances at financial aid - and then his chances at decent employment are pushed back by however long it takes him to finish college. Will the chances at decent employment still be around?
To say that the economy might have done X if Y had only been done or that it did Z because A was what our government did instead is pure speculation and opinion. NO ONE knows anything beyond our economy is in the following state and our government has done the following things - and even the degree of how bad our economy will be for how long is getting debated. Even economists hotly debate causation and degrees of causative effect.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/30/2009 @ 10:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Danetta, when government uses taxes productively it is not stealing, hypotheticallyanyway, that's an idea that can only be hypothetical at this point. From what I have seen of unions so far, I think they are a corporate division of the mob. Regards to what should have been done regarding the recession, history shows that the less the government gets in the way, the faster the economy snaps back. Check out the facts re: the very short recession of 1920/1921 vs. the prolonged disaster of the decade long 30s recession that became a depression with the help of the government.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/30/2009 @ 11:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul, I have been doing plenty of research. First of all You are right about Pres. Hoover. Even though He has been accused of doing too much, He actually started lame brained govt. programs before He left, just as Bush did. The 30s depression was the hoover/roosevelt depression, just as this one will be the Bush/Obama depression. I know of two cases where the numbers were worse than now and because govt. stayed out, in both cases recovery was swift (20/21 and 78/79) I am definitely not a republican sheep. I have been enraged at the republicans for not being the conservatives this country needs. As a conservative, I believe in helping people with cash, food, housing, and education in an effort to help them get a start or a second chance. I do not believe in people living on the dole for life without any effor to get off. (I imagine the second is rare)
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/30/2009 @ 04:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul, sorry, I meant to say Hoover was accused of not doing enough.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/30/2009 @ 04:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul, one point of agreement. I think We need a system that counts all citizens Who desire a job but do not have one. That would be an accurate measure of unemployment. Of course People need to not turn down jobs for any reason. I did not work at a job for three years because I like seagulls and rats.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/30/2009 @ 04:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
FYI to the commenters in this discussion - I'm getting some abuse reports with which I disagree. Differences of opinion are allowed; it's name-calling that isn't. Please keep that in mind. Thanks.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 05/31/2009 @ 09:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
For the record, I have no problems at all with differences of opinion. I have problems with name calling, posting opinions (be they of self or others) as fact even when implied as such, and being openly judged.
For example, I would *love* to go back to work. Really. But without health care reform AND a working ADA that is PROPERLY enforced that IS NOT going to happen. Why? I have too many health conditions that rank as disabilities and no employer in their right BUSINESS (i.e. capitalist/business cost) mind is going to hire me because of the costs involved and the accommodations necessary and if necessary, they'd fight tooth and toenail to prove why they couldn't/shouldn't hire me or couldn't/shouldn't grant necessary accommodations. Morally wrong, sure. Ethicially wrong sure. But they're taking advantage of ways to twist the law to fit THEIR purposes. Besides, as I've stated on the Universal Health Care blog, last time my husband and I figured it (which was a few years - so lots of inflation and quite a few health conditions ago), it was going to take going from my SSDI and various assistance programs to a job of $90K/year to cover just the costs of MAINTENANCE care and medications without losing our POVERTY standard of living while waiting until I had insurance and any exlusionary periods for pre-existing conditions ended...and this presumed neither of us developed any new conditions or needed anything beyond basic/maintenance care for any of our conditions AND that there would be no inflation. Now just what are the odds of that with a long employment gap due to disability in today's economy despite repeated assertions of plentiful "opportunities" from people in my real life, various posters, and political pundits? Actually, with my disabilities and long employment gap, what are my chances of being employed AT ALL in today's economy?
And to reply to Charlie, just how much abuse is a person in poverty or trying to escape unemployment supposed to take just because they're supposed to take anything? Was I supposed to keep that job where even the State of CA agreed my boss was actively plotting against me (and a few others) and that it was quite reasonable for me to quit for my sanity? They thought it was reasonable enough that they granted me unemployment. Or what about jobs with sexual or other forms or harrassment or discrimination? Those are out there too. Are people supposed to endure that, no matter how bad it gets, just because "it's a job"? This not only impacts mental health, it can get quite dangerous.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/31/2009 @ 11:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dannetta, don't be silly. I have had too many conservations with to believe that is Your level of intellect. You have had too many with me to think I would want you or anyone to suffer abuse. I think people should never just give up and become a ward of the state without even trying qand yes, I have met more than few personally Who have no intentions of ever getting off the dole. People who have no choice for whatever reason, I would actually to give more to. Regarding healthcare. I have met people Who have stayed on welfare because they need it even They want work. I have met people Who stay at a job They hate because they need it.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/31/2009 @ 02:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry for the rush typing, My grandson wants to play catch.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/31/2009 @ 02:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Then your recent posts both could and should have been clearer on many points to have saved us both much trouble. For much of the above was easily taken from your postings.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/31/2009 @ 07:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Danetta, perhaps You are correct in that, but understand that We will have disagreement I am slightly right of center, and will not apologise for it. The problem is, the minute a conservative express an opinion liberals are thinking the worst. I believe Ronald Reagan was a great American Who did much to improve the world We live in. Many people moved up in economic level. I do not expect Liberals to agree. I enjoy the dialogue at this site especially, Leigh and commenter's such as yourself have shown Me over these months that I am not as far right as I thought. (of course it depends on the issue)
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/01/2009 @ 04:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I just found out that one of My comments above has been deleted. (I should check My mail more often) I would like to apologise to anyone who took offense to that. I do not actually remember the complete text, but I think i was refering to the way some people settle into sedentary, unproductive lifestyles. It does them great harm, and it does Our people as a whole great harm. I did not mean to imply all people receiving government help are like that. The ones that are, I actually wish I could help somehow.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/01/2009 @ 04:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh you must have been referring to the rich as sedentary. No they can afford tennis lessons. It is the working poor, who cannot afford to go to a movie or a health club, or any where else. What aren't the underpaid still humans, or are they slaves for the rich to make more profit?
One question what is a productive lifestyle? Making money? Americans seem to have more esteem for cash than they do for god.
Interesting topic, which US president hurt the poor the worst? I believe Clinton did. But that is not important. Who is the president who can do the most for the poor? Obama
How can Mr. Obama be remembered as the president who ended poverty? By making a Livable wage the new poverty Level. After all, shouldn't a wise poverty level include all of the basic needs?
I feel like a broken record, but it will take relatively the same amount of energy to raise the minimum wage to an arbitrary amount of $9.40 an hour-when it takes $19.90 an hour to BREAK Even.
I do not care how far right, a person is- They cannot justify paying less than a living wage. There is a Native American saying what you do to others, you do to yourself. If you pay a worker less then the cost of rent your actions says all people efforts or work are meaningless.
Right now some, of the wealthy is finding out paying less than a livable wage is not a good thing. They are learning first hand-that burger flippers, pays the same $700 for rent as anyone else.
Only full-time jobs at flipping burgers or Walmart are not in Vogue. So if the person gets 100 hours a month they can pay their rent-but not food, health, utilities, ect.
It would lift up human kind if, all worker no matter what job were paid the price to pay all necessities. A women of 38 years who does not feel competent for any other job, should not be tortured to death, by being paid less than it cost to eat and care for her family. She too is a human being the rent is $700 whether you have an IQ of 87, or 102.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 06/03/2009 @ 08:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What it all comes down to is this: is theft legal or not?
If theft is legal, then there should be no protection of property rights in this country. In that case police is not needed, justice is not needed, and the state altogether is not needed.
If theft is not legal, then anyone forcing involuntary transfers of property titles should pay for their crimes, and possibly be put in jail.
What you call the welfare state is simply coercive transfers of property titles. In one word, theft. If you find this difficult to swallow, try to picture in your head these coercive transfers of property titles, but without the existence of the state... how could you call that anything but plain thefts?
It doesn't make sense to have laws that only apply to a subset of a population: "stealing is ok if you work for the government, it is not ok otherwise". Having inconsistent moral values is like having no moral value at all.
Promoting volontary charity and volontary help is great. Promoting state-enforced "charity" is promoting theft, it is promoting the degeneration of moral values.
Posted by Sylvain Gravejat on 06/04/2009 @ 06:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The reality of the Reagan Revolution was that it was the destroyer of countless lives. He wasn't just decimating human rights with his contra-terror wars world-wide, but also implementing policies that were devastating to the poor and causing homelessness to skyrocket. Further, policies set new heights in how much the government became a servant of the corporate elite, paving the way for extreme de-regulation. That was justified with the lies that corporate America would just naturally pursue the interests of the public, never rip anyone off, respect the environment, and think beyond short-term mega-profits. Reagan's Revolution set back justice, ethics, human rights, and our economy nearly to the stone age. The outcome is still rippling through our nation. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 06/04/2009 @ 05:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The reality of the Reagan Revolution was that it was the destroyer of countless lives. He wasn't just decimating human rights with his contra-terror wars world-wide, but also implementing policies that were devastating to the poor and causing homelessness to skyrocket. Further, policies set new heights in how much the government became a servant of the corporate elite, paving the way for extreme de-regulation. That was justified with the lies that corporate America would just naturally pursue the interests of the public, never rip anyone off, respect the environment, and think beyond short-term mega-profits. Reagan's Revolution set back justice, ethics, human rights, and our economy nearly to the stone age. The outcome is still rippling through our nation. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 06/04/2009 @ 05:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jan Lightfootlane, Like most liberals you have assumed the worst. Breathe deeep, relax. I am refferring to some pretty close friends of mine. A productive lifestyle refers to whether or not someone is producing that person can be proud of. A child, book, playground, affordable housing, etc. It also refers to whether or not that person is earning Her or His way in life, or depending on others for support. For the second, I have already stated I would help get started or with second chances. Some people are disabled and will need help all their lives. I have already said I would actually help these people even more. If We help the others get off welfare with an education, housing, and/or health care We could actually give more to people Who need to stay on. I honestly do not see what the problem is. Are You just that opposed to anything a conservative has to say?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/05/2009 @ 04:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.