Republicans Call for New Approach in War on Poverty

[Frodo]

It would carry a lot more weight if they extended unemployment benefits:

Republicans call for a new approach to fight poverty

By Michael A. Memoli
January 8, 2014, 7:19 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Prominent Republicans are working to recast the party's message about tackling poverty and boosting the middle class amid concerns that a relentless focus on the troubles of Obamacare will not be enough to guarantee electoral success.

The move seeks to address widespread public anxiety about the uneven economic recovery, a topic that Democrats have largely had to themselves in recent months. But even as party strategists push for a higher-profile approach, conservative lawmakers face a difficult challenge in crafting a message that appeals to middle-income and working-class voters while maintaining support among the party base.

It's the latest acknowledgment that Republicans' traditional emphasis on fiscal austerity and smaller government — while popular among grass-roots conservatives and gospel to much of their House majority — has been difficult to sell among the broader electorate. As Republicans approach a midterm election in which they hope to recapture the Senate, they are increasingly worried about being portrayed by Democrats as hard-hearted and unconcerned about the plight of poor and struggling Americans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gop-poverty-20140109,0,2942077.story#ixzz2qAZmAVBK

[Mordecai]

Just more empty words.

[Likely Voter]

So what is their plan? Soylent Green*?


*look it up kids

[Franzl]

lol

[Indy Texas]

One of the most tired memes in the Republican Party at this point is, "We believe in a hand up. Not a handout." And at this point, I don't even know what that means anymore. Maybe some of the blue (or yellow) avatars can explain it.

"Handout" implies, to me, something given without condition or restriction, with the recipient not doing anything or changing their behavior in response to it (think of giving money to a panhandler and seeing him in the same spot the next week asking you for more). There is no part of the American welfare state that is unconditional or unrestricted, with the exception of Social Security (sorry, old white people who voted for Ronald Reagan, it's a welfare program, pure and simple). If you want unemployment benefits, you have to be looking for work and you have to provide proof that you are doing so.

There are about 5 unemployed people for every job opening in this country. So assuming we take away the "handouts" you're putting 1 person into work and 4 more people are basically left with nothing. How is it a "hand up" to tell someone to get a job when there are none to be had?

How is it a "hand up" to tell a single mother with little education that she needs to find gainful employment when all of the jobs are out in the suburbs, she can't afford to live there and you refuse to invest in the public transport that would get her there or in the childcare that she needs in order to be able to work?

("Well maybe she should've thought of that before she had kids she couldn't afford to support!") Here's a thought, when she actually had those kids, maybe she wasn't unemployed or in poverty! Perhaps we should all refuse to reproduce at all as long as there is a greater-than-zero chance that we might become poor at some point. In which case no one should have any children ever. See how that works out.

How is it a "hand up" to cut state funding for public universities when you know all that is going to do is shift the burden of maintaining them away from people who already have money and an education (perhaps from one of those very state schools) and onto people who have no money or education?

How is it a "hand up" to deny someone any healthcare that doesn't involve a life-or-death trip to the ER because you not only refuse to expand Medicaid but you also refuse to come up with any kind of state-based alternative to doing so?

[Franzl]

The thing is, Republicans do indeed believe in very generous handouts.

[Cassius]

'War on poverty'... Three words that should never come from a right-wing political party. It's a self-defeating turn of phrase. I mean, after all, will a more 'caring' approach to people who live in poverty convince them to vote for the GOP. A clue: no. The GOP can always be outbid by the Democrats on the issue of poverty, so getting into a bidding war with them in the hope that a few more poor voters who see their financial problems as the biggest priority will vote for them is at best a foolish idea. Right-wing parties shouldn't bother getting themselves tied in knots asking 'what can we do about poverty'. Not that, necessarily, the party should do nothing at all to help the poor, just that it shouldn't bother campaigning on an issue that, when it comes to rhetoric at least, will always be won by a party further to the left.

[IceSpear]

("Well maybe she should've thought of that before she had kids she couldn't afford to support!") Here's a thought, when she actually had those kids, maybe she wasn't unemployed or in poverty! Perhaps we should all refuse to reproduce at all as long as there is a greater-than-zero chance that we might become poor at some point. In which case no one should have any children ever. See how that works out.

And you gotta love how these same exact people wanted to force her to have that kid.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I thought a War on Poor People was how Republicans interpreted the War on Poverty.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

'War on poverty'... Three words that should never come from a right-wing political party. It's a self-defeating turn of phrase. I mean, after all, will a more 'caring' approach to people who live in poverty convince them to vote for the GOP. A clue: no. The GOP can always be outbid by the Democrats on the issue of poverty, so getting into a bidding war with them in the hope that a few more poor voters who see their financial problems as the biggest priority will vote for them is at best a foolish idea. Right-wing parties shouldn't bother getting themselves tied in knots asking 'what can we do about poverty'. Not that, necessarily, the party should do nothing at all to help the poor, just that it shouldn't bother campaigning on an issue that, when it comes to rhetoric at least, will always be won by a party further to the left.

Yeah, the side with actual modern results in improving standards...

[pbrower2a]

One of the most tired memes in the Republican Party at this point is, "We believe in a hand up. Not a handout." And at this point, I don't even know what that means anymore. Maybe some of the blue (or yellow) avatars can explain it.

The "hand up" is something that one must earn -- even the opportunity to survive at harsh  terms offered by those who offer the "hand up".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Social Security was intended to get older workers who could no longer earn much on the job and were particularly vulnerable to industrial accidents out of the workforce. It was originally a pittance little less than what one could get paid as a very marginal worker.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unemployment insurance is intended to keep people from taking jobs from people already employed -- and driving wages down by allowing employers to exploit the desperation of people who do not have jobs. The solution is to create jobs -- but as it is, the low-paying jobs whose best chances of advancement (as in retailing and food service) are to get a job elsewhere can't be created. The growth in fast food and retailing is no more because those activities are saturated.      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe it would be better if she got childcare so that she could attend a community college and get career training (not to mention some liberal-arts learning that would make her a more competent parent)... inexpensive college education as we had in the 1970s would be a good thing again.  Maybe it would be good that she got some stipend to cover the living expenses of the time. Maybe it would also be better that people like the fellow who gave her the baby would get a similar deal. But that implies investment in people that America now casts off.

Industrial labor was the most reliable means of getting people out of poverty, and in an age of robots such work is more skilled than it used to be. But don't we need to make solar cells and windmills?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dehumanizing poverty is one of the tools of control of workers, and it works best if it is capricious. With it the Master Class can give the order "Suffer for my greed -- for it is my virtue -- that you may be poor, but not THAT poor" because of threatening images of children with distended bellies. If the Far Left has typically allowed the Perfect to be the enemy of the Good through sheer recklessness of thought, the Traditional Right has knowingly allowed the Horrific to be the defense of the Dreadful, at least for the common man so that the economic elites can enjoy sybaritic excess. Economic exploitation has been one of the typical tools for maximizing profits and the elite share of the productive capacities of a country.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As significant is that people who graduate with great burdens of debt will be obliged to work in high-paying activities (let us say commission sales) instead of doing work that does real good for humanity (as teachers, clergy, social workers) yet pays badly. Consider that the land-grant colleges were originally designed to make their students better farmers -- not the investment bankers.

We went as far as we could when Dubya was President with people getting filthy rich by gambling on other people's money and taking a cut from investors who believed that a 10% return on investment was possible by selling people real estate that they could not afford on predatory loans. We are going to have to go back to long-term, low-yield, high-personal-involvement investments that people can't run from when things go bad. That was the difference between the 1920s and 1930s -- or the Double-Zero Decade and the 2010s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a hand up -- but it is also a hand out of reach!

For the ultimate "hand out of reach" just think of a fascist (or Klan) salute.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

lol

This is my only comment.

[Cory]

One of the most tired memes in the Republican Party at this point is, "We believe in a hand up. Not a handout." And at this point, I don't even know what that means anymore. Maybe some of the blue (or yellow) avatars can explain it.

"Handout" implies, to me, something given without condition or restriction, with the recipient not doing anything or changing their behavior in response to it (think of giving money to a panhandler and seeing him in the same spot the next week asking you for more). There is no part of the American welfare state that is unconditional or unrestricted, with the exception of Social Security (sorry, old white people who voted for Ronald Reagan, it's a welfare program, pure and simple). If you want unemployment benefits, you have to be looking for work and you have to provide proof that you are doing so.

There are about 5 unemployed people for every job opening in this country. So assuming we take away the "handouts" you're putting 1 person into work and 4 more people are basically left with nothing. How is it a "hand up" to tell someone to get a job when there are none to be had?

How is it a "hand up" to tell a single mother with little education that she needs to find gainful employment when all of the jobs are out in the suburbs, she can't afford to live there and you refuse to invest in the public transport that would get her there or in the childcare that she needs in order to be able to work?

("Well maybe she should've thought of that before she had kids she couldn't afford to support!") Here's a thought, when she actually had those kids, maybe she wasn't unemployed or in poverty! Perhaps we should all refuse to reproduce at all as long as there is a greater-than-zero chance that we might become poor at some point. In which case no one should have any children ever. See how that works out.

How is it a "hand up" to cut state funding for public universities when you know all that is going to do is shift the burden of maintaining them away from people who already have money and an education (perhaps from one of those very state schools) and onto people who have no money or education?

How is it a "hand up" to deny someone any healthcare that doesn't involve a life-or-death trip to the ER because you not only refuse to expand Medicaid but you also refuse to come up with any kind of state-based alternative to doing so?

[DINGO Joe]

Didn't watch the press conference, did they lay out evidence for poverty having weapons of mass destruction?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I expect Republicans think this is just a messaging problem.  They'll repackage their failed policies into something shiny and change the message.

And Americans will probably buy it.

"Give it back to the states"... so the Republican states can gut their welfare programs despite being home to most of the poor... hoping the poorest will just move to the welfare friendly states.

And really... do we need poor, broke states like Mississippi funding their own welfare programs?  Isn't that the point of the federal system?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This sounds like nothing but empty rhetoric and platitudes. Just like all the "alternatives" to Obamacare they were supposedly going to propose.

[Person Man]

They can always save poor people money by canceling or phasing out programs that help poor people which poor people can't afford to pay for if they were the ones paying for them. Combine this with some retaliatory or mob style mass firings by Papa John's or Walmart and you have a popular policy. This of course becomes harder as the other guys have no power and haven't been heard from in a few years. At that point, you can always fight poverty  by letting people borrow their money you've taken back at that point. Of course they wont be able to pay it back a few years after that and that's where we're at a loss but at that point, they've gerrymandered the place and the points moot.

[Ban my account ffs!]

They can always save poor people money by canceling or phasing out programs that help poor people which poor people can't afford to pay for if they were the ones paying for them. Combine this with some retaliatory or mob style mass firings by Papa John's or Walmart and you have a popular policy. This of course becomes harder as the other guys have no power and haven't been heard from in a few years. At that point, you can always fight poverty  by letting people borrow their money you've taken back at that point. Of course they wont be able to pay it back a few years after that and that's where we're at a loss but at that point, they've gerrymandered the place and the points moot.

Well put. 

Look what they're doing buying up foreclosed houses in Phoenix, expecting to rent those houses back to the people they kicked out. 

[Person Man]

They can always save poor people money by canceling or phasing out programs that help poor people which poor people can't afford to pay for if they were the ones paying for them. Combine this with some retaliatory or mob style mass firings by Papa John's or Walmart and you have a popular policy. This of course becomes harder as the other guys have no power and haven't been heard from in a few years. At that point, you can always fight poverty  by letting people borrow their money you've taken back at that point. Of course they wont be able to pay it back a few years after that and that's where we're at a loss but at that point, they've gerrymandered the place and the points moot.

Well put.  

Look what they're doing buying up foreclosed houses in Phoenix, expecting to rent those houses back to the people they kicked out.  

I guess this is like being bought out and forced to be an employee in your own shop or not being able to make enough money to live or, again, to be foreclosed on.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/01/13/marco-rubio-marriage-and-lgbt-families/
An interesting article.