"What Makes People Poor?"
What Makes People Poor?Opinion, Thomas B. Edsall at the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/opinion/what-makes-people-poor.html?smid=re-share
"SNIP......................
In a series of emails to me, Baker argues that the Federal Reserve’s determination to limit inflation has boosted unemployment, that policies that keep the value of the dollar high hurt employees who face foreign competition, and that trade agreements pit American labor against workers in low-wage developing countries.
Despite the conflicting nature of these left and right analyses, there is a strong case to be made that they are, in fact, complementary and that they reinforce each other. What if we put it together this way? Automation, foreign competition and outsourcing lead to a decline in well-paying manufacturing jobs, which, in turn, leads to higher levels of unemployment and diminished upward mobility, which then leads to fewer marriages, a rise in the proportion of nonmarital births, increased withdrawal from the labor force, impermanent cohabitation and a consequent increase in dependence on government support.
The major roadblock to synthesizing competing explanations has been — and continues to be — political polarization. Vested interests on the left and right have delayed, and in some cases prevented, recognition of the overlap between liberal and conservative hypotheses, and have pointedly ignored evidence that contradicts their preconceived partisan positions.
..................
The emergence of a rough ideological consensus on the causes of poverty and inequality would increase the likelihood of, but by no means guarantee, agreement on such initiatives as raising the minimum wage, increasing and expanding the scope of the earned-income tax credit, programs promoting marriage and paternal involvement, as well as stronger efforts to improve the quality of education, especially in poor neighborhoods.
........................SNIP"
= new reply since forum marked as read
People already have one dream. They want to be healthy. They want homes. They want to be safe. They want to have free time. They want meaningful work That's not a cult, that's a basic understanding of human nature.
The problem with what you're describing, is that the democratic party just isn't willing to commit itself to any of this. It's pulled by competing forces, and sadly the people who need to be healthy, who need homes, who need safety, who need free time, who need meaningful work are not big-ticket donors to campaigns.
Another basic truth of human nature? "follow the money' is always productive advice. That guy who called people like me "fucking retards" yeah, that's Rahm Emmanuel. Look him up, especially his policy towards "kick-ass good education." And then look at why he as the record he does there.
The democratic party could draw its focus onto the impoverished, the poor, the working class, and bust ass to rebuild the crumbled supports and stairwells that used to exist down here, things that created the middle class by giving lower-income people ways up, access to the higher tiers of income. In doing so it would greatly benefit the upper tiers of income as well - as the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats.
On the other hand, giveaways to the wealthy stay with the wealthy. You golf-clapped the left for "noticing" that trickle-down doesn't work, well, did you notice the failure of trickle-down while back-slapping for free trade deals and shit like that in your last two posts? And adequate taxes? Oh lord are you tripping or something? This nation hasn't seen adequate taxation since Nixon. And we certainly show the wear and tear of that situation, don't we?
Speaking of finances and wealth giveaways, any plans from the Democrats to slice off all that pentagon bloat? Maybe remove DHS? Or are they going to keep shoveling money down the endless gullet of wasted opportunity that is the military, and keep funding a redundant gestapo department? Speaking of gestapo, how about the war on drugs? Do the Democrats have any plans to remove at least marijuana from schedule 1 status? doing so would save everyone a lot of money and social destruction.
How about health care? If the Democrats are in charge, any plans to use the ACA as a springboard towards true socialized health care? hey, how about expanding HUD? Maybe they can try increasing TANF instead of cutting it for a change! You know, health, shelter, food, shit everyone needs?
Let's get a little more esoteric, what's the democrat's energy plan? strong move towards replacing petroleum with solar, right? right? Of course there has to be a transition phase, can't do it cold-turkey, but... clear and rapid goals, right?
Hey feel free to stop me at any time if this is feeling Jim Jones-y to you, by the way 
Look, you're asking for me to give my total and absolute, unquestioning loyalty to a political party, while... calling me a cultist... weird... but at the same time you're basically telling me that this party isn't real interested in actually achieving the shit that i know needs to be accomplished to improve the state of the nation. Your rationale for this lack of interest seems to be that the party is just too busy dividing its time and loyalty between groups that can be roughly divided into "could use the help" and "oppose helping anyone." This is supposed to be a selling point i think, but you may have mistaken me as someone who's wowed by bipartisanship and compromising one's principles for a quick buck.
I don't listen or hear your complaints. I believe in a big tent. And so do you according to your post, where not everyone wants or needs exactly the same thing from government. I have always been for all the policies you describe, with the exception with trade. I‘n for universal childcare too. I am for higher taxrs on corporations around the world and penalties for inversion. I do worry that because the left has been so antitrade that all liberals have not had an adequate seat at the free trade talks. That benefits the GOP and corporations in the end. But getting back to the article, do you think Obama should push to implement the solutions to poverty that both parties can agree on, which he is starting to do, or should we wait until the Democrats have a supermajority to start fighting poverty. 
What do we do with what the congress we have (will have)?
