Centrism is for "LOSERS" -- what Thomas Frank says about Carter/Obama is a MUST READ

[jtuck004]

66. Makes me wonder. We know from records that, historically, people with little or no income correlated

positively with people who have less education < and that group votes less than nearly anyone. That group is now bigger, but with people who very likely thought they would never be there.

- There are 1.1 million new millionaires since 2008, but about 12 million people who were not in poverty in 2008. Who are now. On top of that are tens and tens of millions now living in near poverty after losing homes, jobs, families and family members, many working in dead-end part-time jobs with the same life ahead for their children <-who used to vote more
- About 4 million families of the 7 million foreclosed on happened since 2008 < homeowners vote more
- About 9 million home loans are underwater and more to come when we quit artificially depressing interest rates < again, homeowners who used to have $/time to vote
- Tens of millions of people who had jobs that provided a living wage who have found those jobs replaced with lower wage jobs, IF they got one at all, jobs that will not support even half a family without some permanent government handout < used to vote, now among those who traditionally don't
- Banks, on the other hand, after creating an ongoing criminal conspiracy, have reported profits higher than any in history.

Will they vote now? And if so, how?

When people ask me what I want, I show them how Mondragon was started under a dictator much worse than today, and things like we used to do, "When Poverty Was the Enemy, Not the Poor", Here. There is no comparison or equivalency between those policies and the neo-liberal policies that are burning up the lives and assets of most Americans to support the wealth of a few because, we are told, the alternative would have been worse. Worse for the banksters, maybe. With any luck.

...
Today, rather than a war on poverty, we seem to have a war on the poor. Wealth inequality is growing. State support for education is withering. Social safety-net programs are under attack in Congress. Many Americans believe that if people are poor, it’s their own fault. The only “solution” for poverty that many people advocate is allowing companies to create jobs offering wages too low to support a family.

Although it is now widely—and inaccurately—portrayed as a costly welfare program, the War on Poverty was not a failure. If not for government anti-poverty programs since 1967, the nation’s poverty rate would have been 15 percentage points higher in 2012, according to a study published recently by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
...
At its core, the War on Poverty was not about a handout, but a hand up. It was about creating economic opportunity and giving poor people the skills and support they needed to take advantage of it. And it was about giving poor people a voice in decisions affecting their lives. A half-century ago, Americans made a commitment to fight a war on poverty, and we could do it again. Creating a society that is more fair, just, and prosperous for everyone is a fight worth winning.

That was back when government investment was for growth, and relief was something between better things, not just spending to create an imaginary lifestyle.

It will be interesting to see how this new philosophy plays out going forward. I wonder if it will have an impact in November?