Liberals and class

[David S]

Complete rubbish. First off there is not a single estate in the entire U.K as deprived as the ghettos in most large American cities. Sure there's a serious poverty problem in many inner cities in the U.K but it's just not on the same scale as in American inner cities; there's no U.K equivilent of the South Bronx for example. It should also be noted that the sitution in these estates are nowhere near as bad as they were; due to effective and sustained government action (both central and local), something there's been a distinct lack of in the U.S.
The problems in these estates are NOT caused by the welfare state AT ALL; they're mostly caused by bad planning, collapsing local economies, overcrowding, poor community and race relations, outmigration etc. etc. etc... to try to pin the blame on the Welfare State is absurd and intellectually dishonest (we had serious poverty in our cities long before 1945; it was actually worse, far, far, worse, than anything we have now).

The sitution in the U.S is worse (and to deny that it's worse is just burying your head in the sand; sucessive adminstrations of both parties have failed the urban poor) for a whole range of reasons; everything from a welfare system that doesn't work to some of the worst examples of urban planning in the developed world ("I have a GREAT idea! Let's build a big road through the middle of a city!") and it's time that something gets done about it.
Drug abuse, defrauding the welfare system etc. etc. certainly don't help, but even if you could wave a magic wand and make 'em vanish, there'd still be a huge problem in the inner cities. These things didn't cause the problems and nomatter how serious they can get (and they do need to be dealt with) they are ultimately secondary problems, even if they can make the primary problems worse.
Sure some people bring poverty upon themselves, but it's important to remember that the vast majority don't.

Social mobility doesn't really come into this; sure there's always a couple of poor kids who come good, always will be, but focussing on it to a large degree is highly misleading for several obvious reasons.
What matters is the living conditions of the bulk of an areas population.

Not that any of this (or the article) has a lot to do with class. I should add that class doesn't have a lot to do with absolute income; relative income yes. Absolute income, no. $20,000 is a lot more in Tuskegee, AL than New York.

We had a welfare system that was more "generous". What it did was create generations of people who thought of welfare as their birthright. Single women sometimes would had families to increase their welfare checks. The children grew up believing that was the way to live. After 60 years all we had was bigger ghettos. The new welfare system, signed into law by Bill Clinton, aims to get people into the workplace instead of being perpetually on the dole.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We had a welfare system that was more "generous".

When did I say I was in favour of a more "generous" welfare system? I didn't. The welfare system before the "reforms" didn't work. The welfare system as it is now, doesn't work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but mainly due to the fact it was designed to maintain people in a sort of less bad poverty than to get them out of poverty full stop.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem is for them it was due to the flaws in the system

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the bigger ghettos have been caused by the same sort of causes that have effected inner cities across the western world, but certainly the old (and the new) welfare system helped to perpetuate the situation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, yes, yes... it aims to do with it aims to do that... but does it work? No... not really; it wasn't really designed to work in a meaningful way, it's gesture politics basically. It doesn't work, it's flawed, the pre-reform system didn't work, it was flawed...

[dazzleman]

Philip, I agree with you 1000% that liberalism is part of the problem, not the solution.

Liberal programs have enabled destructive behavior, such as out-of-wedlock childbearing, that contribute to the perpetuation of poverty, crime, etc.  All these factors come together in a deadly vortex to trap people into the cycle of poverty.

[opebo]

Philip, I agree with you 1000% that liberalism is part of the problem, not the solution.

Liberal programs have enabled destructive behavior, such as out-of-wedlock childbearing, that contribute to the perpetuation of poverty, crime, etc.  All these factors come together in a deadly vortex to trap people into the cycle of poverty.

Blaming the victim.