Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe, but not all regions' economies are driven by the same fundamentals. And there are those who would point out that NYC has many advantages that should have helped it bring more prosperity for its residents.
I agree with everything in your post, except the highlighted. Obama isn't to blame for this.
Bush was, but in reality it really began under Clinton when he signed NAFTA.
It doesn't matter who would have taken office at this time, the economy wouldn't have changed and it's NOT going to. It will continue to get worse for everyone, except those who are connected to the 1%.
I really wish people would open their eyes and see this, instead of believing in a "it will get better" fantasy.
No it won't.
It maybe went back a little further. The deregulation manta first gained a little steam under Carter when he deregulated the airlines. You had greater attempts at deregulation under Reagan and Bush, but it certainly went full steam ahead under Clinton.
A big part of the problem is Americans until recently would not discuss poverty. It was TABOO. Everyone wanted to say that they were "middle class". Things had to get much worse until you could find more serious discussions about poverty in the mainstream.
It maybe went back a little further. The deregulation manta first gained a little steam under Carter when he deregulated the airlines. You had greater attempts at deregulation under Reagan
I think the beginning of what could be the "end" was when Reagan deregulated the banks. There was a REASON why laws were created to make sure that certain banks couldn't cross state lines or merge with another.
Quote:
but it certainly went full steam ahead under Clinton.
Clinton is the reason why social services is in the awful state that it's in. No one wants to believe this, but it's true. Welfare reform IS a FAILURE. When he signed NAFTA, there was no way he could not know that it would increase unemployment in the millions with people needing a safety net.
Quote:
A big part of the problem is Americans until recently would not discuss poverty. It was TABOO. Everyone wanted to say that they were "middle class".
The 'middle class' are just poor people who moved into a higher tax bracket. They are just one or two paychecks away from being poor again.
The 'middle class' are the main ones condemning social service programs. I guess they do this to try to align themselves with the rich or upper class, but these two groups see the 'middle class' as simps and idiots for falling for the false mantra of welfare being "evil" and "draining" government coffers.
I think the beginning of what could be the "end" was when Reagan deregulated the banks. There was a REASON why laws were created to make sure that certain banks couldn't cross state lines or merge with another.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marilyn220
Clinton is the reason why social services is in the awful state that it's in. No one wants to believe this, but it's true. Welfare reform IS a FAILURE. When he signed NAFTA, there was no way he could not know that it would increase unemployment in the millions with people needing a safety net.
I think making matters far worse is the WTO agreements he signed. You had a lot more offshoring to Asian countries like China and India. But even before NAFTA, the first trouble the US steel industry had was Japan. The US imported a lot of products from Japan, when the Japanese were refusing to import American products much. Why did the US let them get away with it? Japan has US bases there. The US was worried about Japan going over to the side of the Soviet Union. So in exchange for remaining an American ally, they were allowed to export to the US and not import here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marilyn220
The 'middle class' are just poor people who moved into a higher tax bracket. They are just one or two paychecks away from being poor again.
The 'middle class' are the main ones condemning social service programs. I guess they do this to try to align themselves with the rich or upper class, but these two groups see the 'middle class' as simps and idiots for falling for the false mantra of welfare being "evil" and "draining" government coffers.
If you're just a paycheck or two from disaster, you are STILL poor. Originally middle class meant people who were doctors, lawyers, engineers, small business owners, etc. It was hijacked politically and used as a term to hide the working poor behind. All so you couldn't even talk about poverty publically. It had to get to this point before people could openly discuss poverty.
And if we're talking about the erosion of the middle class, both here and nationwide, let's not forget one of the major turning points, which was Ronald Reagen breaking the air traffic controllers strike. Although it was a government union, that action gave private employers the greenlight to go after the unions, which they have done, more or less successfully ever since. Union jobs generally pay well, provide security, and have long been a way for people to move up the economic ladder. But that way is nearly dead now. The entire tenor of the national discussion is about how unions are lazy, greedy, get too many benfits, are too liberal, etc etc etc Very little in the public discourse about how a strong unionized labor force can expand the middle class and thereby expand the eceonomy. Reagen broke PATCO with America's blessing, and now millions of Americans are paying the price.
Last edited by citylove101; 09-20-2013 at 10:42 AM..
And if we're talking about the erosion of the middle class, both here and nationwide, let's not forget one of the major turning points, which was Ronald Reagen breaking the air traffic controllers strike. Although it was a government union, that action gave private employers the greenlight to go after the unions, which they have done, more or less successfully ever since.
Yes. I'm glad someone remembers this.
Quote:
Union jobs generally pay well, provide security, and have long been a way for people to move up the economic ladder. But that way is nearly dead now. The entire tenor of the national discussion isnt about how unions are lazy, greedy, get too many benfits, are too liberal, etc etc etc
Bloomberg tried to do this with the school bus drivers. He doesn't believe any of them should be making more than $7.25 an hour or have benefits. He tried to make them out as evil, but no one in the city was going for it. That only works with his rich friends in Manhattan. The Other New York supports unions 100% without question. We know what's up.
Quote:
Reagen broke PATCO with America's blessing, and now millions of Americans are paying the price.
Absolutely. I wonder when the rest of america, especially those living in "tent cities" in the red states where all the manufacturing jobs used to be will wake up to this fact?
And if we're talking about the erosion of the middle class, both here and nationwide, let's not forget one of the major turning points, which was Ronald Reagen breaking the air traffic controllers strike. Although it was a government union, that action gave private employers the greenlight to go after the unions, which they have done, more or less successfully ever since. Union jobs generally pay well, provide security, and have long been a way for people to move up the economic ladder. But that way is nearly dead now. The entire tenor of the national discussion is about how unions are lazy, greedy, get too many benfits, are too liberal, etc etc etc Very little in the public discourse about how a strong unionized labor force can expand the middle class and thereby expand the eceonomy. Reagen broke PATCO with America's blessing, and now millions of Americans are paying the price.
People in union jobs were publically put down. Everyone was supposed to get a college degree and magically get this fantastic career path. We see how well that's working out, don't we?
Actually, the REAL NUMBERS of NYC's poverty is not being printed in the media.
Bloomberg and NYC's HRA has made applying for CASH assistance in this city the toughest and most difficult in the nation. While cash benefits have risen elsewhere, even in cash strapped southern states who are traditionally poor, they've basically stayed low here or got lower.
Foodstamps and medicaid are only up, because it's government backed and encouraged. Medicaid is hardly, if ever, cut off from folks.
If you want this info, you have to search for it. New York City's HRA has to pay back over $80 million dollars worth of foodstamps to recipients that were illegally cut off with good reason:
Actually, the REAL NUMBERS of NYC's poverty is not being printed in the media.
Bloomberg and NYC's HRA has made applying for CASH assistance in this city the toughest and most difficult in the nation. While cash benefits have risen elsewhere, even in cash strapped southern states who are traditionally poor, they've basically stayed low here or got lower.
Foodstamps and medicaid are only up, because it's government backed and encouraged. Medicaid is hardly, if ever, cut off from folks.
If you want this info, you have to search for it. New York City's HRA has to pay back over $80 million dollars worth of foodstamps to recipients that were illegally cut off with good reason:
Welfare programs were just ANOTHER attack on working class people.
Basically, people on welfare programs, if they are there long term tend to withdraw from things. They are miserable because its rough, yet at the same time there's a weird sort of complacency there. Had NYC's underclass been politically activing (not just voting, but massive demonstrations, speaking out publically, etc.) Bloomberg never would have been able to work his magic.
Its no coincidence that major activist movements such as OWS, Stop and Frisk, the fight to get fast food workers more money plus benefits started in NYC and spread nationally. Not just because of the decline in standard for working people, it was also the cuts in welfare programs (which forced more people into the workforce).
I'm all for people getting helped when they need it. But as Hillary Clinton said, the best social program is a GOOD JOB!
Yet working poor people did not address the decline in manufacturing or shipping in NYC when you had easy welfare in the 70s or 80s, did they? The welfare programs bought the silence of the public.
And lets be honest. I have friends and relatives who work in the welfare complex. A fantastic amount of money is made off these programs, with those who head these programs making six digits, often upper six digits a year.
For the people on these programs? They have barely enough money to physically live, and they'll never get enough money to really live off in any normal sense. And they are encouraged to stay on these programs, in part because the more victims the welfare complex has, the more money they make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
