CNN has a disheartening article about how "millions of Americans live in poverty, more families are suffering and hunger is seen growing." An increase in the wage gap and slow and negative job growth have been the biggest contributors over the last few years.
"According to the most recent Census Bureau statistics, nearly 36 million Americans lived in poverty in 2003, an increase of 1.3 million from 2002. And since 2000, 4.4 million more people in this country are living in poverty. The Census Bureau defines poverty as an individual earning $9,393 or less and $14,680 or less for a family of three. And American families are faring worse than they have in years. Last year 7.6 million American families -- or 10 percent of all families -- lived in poverty, a big jump from 2000."
"...Even more troubling is the growing disparity in America between who is rich and who is poor... This 'wedge' has prevented the benefits of economic growth from being spread equally. In addition, the current economic recovery is the weakest since World War II in terms of job growth. Traditionally, the United States has used economic growth and job creation to reduce poverty, but in today's world that's only meaningful to the extent that wage inequality is reduced."
Despite three years of supposed economic "recovery," poverty has continued to rise.
"In fact, the latest numbers show that nearly 6 percent of all working Americans lived in poverty last year -- a level that's remained stubbornly high."
The article doesn't try to make any connection between this situation and any policies that have been instituted. I can't blame the poverty rise of the last four years on the Bush administration, but I can blame conservative policies instituted by Republicans over the last twenty years, and I can blame the Bush administration for doing nothing to recitify the problem in regards to job losses and further shifting the tax (and, by default, other monetary) burdens from the upper class to the middle and lower classes. And I can blame the apathy towards this issue of most politicians be they Republican or Democrat. Those on the left especially should be fighting for a living wage and the end or major reform of "free trade" policies, as well as policies and programs to help the poor, in general.
This is an issue everyone should take notice on. These new poor aren't coming out of nowhere. No, more often than not, they are people just like us in the middle class who have fallen on hard times, usually through not fault of their own, and into poverty. The loss of a job, and the inability to find another adequate one, can happen to any of us, and for many, it has.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
There is absolutely no excuse for an increase in poverty in this nation. Whatever slowdown we may be experiencing in our economy now, the truth is we've experienced twenty years of unprecedented economic growth, and we have only our failure to attend to poverty to blame for it's increase. The sad fact is the Republican constituency are the wealthy and the powerful, and the Democrats are the numerous interest groups that it comprises. No one speaks for the poor.
Well, Democrats only don't represent the interests of the poor when they become more conservative - when they try to cater to the wealthy and powerful as well. If that's what you mean by special interests I agree.
Well, gay people and minorities aren't "special interests." They are people!
But nonetheless, none of that would get in the way of economic policy.
Well, I don't think it can be in doubt that it is more on the agenda of Democrats (especially liberal ones) than Republicans. And that's not even saying Republicans are heartless bastards (though some are), but it's an obvious difference of ideology. And remember... people think of "helping the poor" as meaning welfare in the vernacular, but it includes things that benefit a lot of people like unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, trade reform, etc. - all things Republicans are against to some degree or another.
You could propose that, but what does that matter if they actually succeed in helping their constituent base? Are the poor and minorities supposed to demand a bunch of liberal idealogues who aren't in it for self-beneficial reasons? It's a system that works: the rich and powerful liberal elite stay that way and the poor and minorities get policies passed that help them.
Right, Nat-Wu. I wouldn't pretend that Democrats are by and large some awesome altruistic force (though some are), but I do think they care more just by the nature of their policies, and even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter if the results are the same.
Well, that's fine, but that wasn't your original point.
I still say that that point is irrelevant. Nothing proposed by the Republican party even comes close to being real aid to the poor. At least giving poor people money to get by gets them by! We already know that Republican economic policies are simply shams which don't even result in providing for the basic needs of the poor, or are we supposed to believe that churches and charitable organizations will provide enough help when Republicans pass new tax laws? I don't get the point of arguing against Democratic policies on welfare and such because right or wrong, it's all that there is. Gripe about it all you want, until the Republican party quits being the pro-elite, pro-rich party, the Democrats are the only thing that make sense for the poor.
Post a Comment