White working class acting against their own interests?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
1+, unfortunately. Happiness, political or otherwise, does not necessarily come from a rising tide lifting all boats. Many would prefer a smaller lift to just their boat, or I'd argue, even just the perception of this. Two quotes: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." LBJ. "Richer [higher income] people tend to be happier. Experiments suggest, however, that what matters most is not income per se but income relative to the income of one's peers. Americans compare themselves to other Americans the same age, resulting in a hedonic treadmill because incomes in the United States rise over most of the adult lifespan. Rather than promoting overall happiness, continued income growth in rich countries could promote an ongoing consumption race where individuals consume more and more just to maintain a constant level of happiness." Professor Glenn Firebaugh |
Anonymous
|
Many people want to be self-reliant - even if they aren't now. They have an optimistic outlook and don't want the government putting them the a box that is reliance on government. Many that rely on the state for food stamps, housing and other benefits find themselves in a vicious circle where it is too hard to jump from poor to middle class because they will lose their benefits in the interim.
The Great Society has been an ongoing failure and has trapped many in a cycle of poverty. These people have to rely on government largess to survive and the system makes it very difficult to escape. We also seem to have failed to have done much about teen pregnancy and especially out-of-wedlock births which are a huge part of the problem. Single motherhood is no longer stigmatized and is more of the norm now. Single Moms have learned how to game the welfare system by keeping the Dads out of the picture, while in fact they are doing themselves a disservice. Poor whites are as much of the problem as anyone else and I have no idea why they sometimes vote conservative, but it doesn't really matter - there is no party that is looking to change the system and no clamor for people to change this self-destructive behavior. It's all very sad. |
Anonymous
| Sorry, meant "can't" |
Anonymous
I went from not being able to get private insurance to now being able to.... thanks Obama, indeed! |
Anonymous
| I read some article a while ago about how this really poor southern town, predominately white, hated Democrats, but most of these folks were on welfare. This would be what OP is referring to. I'm Asian, well to do, Republic-turned-Independent (thanks Bush), and I don't understand why these folks hate Democrats so much given that most Republicans always want to cut welfare. |
Anonymous
So renegotiating trade agreements, deporting illegals holding U.S. jobs, and preventing further illegal immigration is "trickle down economics"? |
Anonymous
Why were they on welfare? Because they didn't want to work (love democrats) or because there were no jobs (Trump will fix). Get it? |
Anonymous
Exactly...these very people are cutting their own throats just so they can get a familiar (white) face in office no matter what that persons intent for them is. Republicans cut welfare and social services but for some reason the whites, who need these services, would rather vote in a guy who has nothing but disdain for them. So irrational it makes your head swirl. |
Anonymous
This quote from LBJ is dead on "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." LBJ. |
Anonymous
It was under the Reagan administration when the factory jobs started going down south.. get it? And some of these people are generational welfare recipients. Even if they do want jobs, they don't want to have to work for it, as in get an education. In a free market economy, companies have the right to move their ops anywhere they want to. But, they want the gov't to change the laws so they can have those jobs where you move a widget from point a to point b then push a button; get good healthcare and a pension. So, they want a President, ie, the gov't, to get all those things for them. So, it's not that they don't like big gov't, it's that they want big gov't when it suits them, but not when it doesn't suit them. Get it? |
Anonymous
|
I know quite a few white working class people. They do see how the policies behind some of the Democratic agenda is designed to help. They just feel, from a practical perspective that they are getting screwed and that that particular demographic is being left out.
I'll just give one example and respond to what's written here by some of the posters. I know a guy, mid-50s I don't know if he graduated high school or has a GED. No college. Born and bred in Northern Virginia. Started out as a kid making minimum wage scrambling around construction and the like. Became a heavy equipment operator and eventually owned his own small business. No help. Just hard work and opportunity. Through his own fault, he lost the business, divorced, etc. No problem. start again. He started as an hourly employee at a grocery store. Through the store he got health insurance. (He had always known the value of insurance and had always had it and provided it to all his employees). Cost 12 bucks a week, pre-ACA. This came through for him with 2 major medical issues. Fine. He's grateful. He got promoted. That promotion got him a 4 dollar an hour raise. And his insurance (employer/union) went from 48 to 75 dollars a month. Pre-ACA. OK. The policy was a bit better and he fully agreed that the higher paid union workers should help out the lower paid. After the ACA, he is paying 400 a month for the same insurance. This is hard to stomach. Lower income, hourly worker and your monthly insurance premium gores up more than 4 times? As a result of a law that was intended to help him? Can you see why this might not be seen as a great victory? Someone mentioned "racial resentment". I think that is shorthand for postulating that white working class are all racists. Sure its an issue. But it is throughout the entire white demographic pyramid. Is he? He grew up working class. In a mixed race neighborhood. His son-in-law is a working class black man and his grandchildren are mixed race. I don't think it would be ok to call him racists. He doesn't hate Muslims or immigrants or gays or transexuals He does not like terrorists. And while he has a great deal of compassion for the US born children of illegal immigrants, he doesn't get why the parents get a break. Surprise, a lot of white working class people have been "judicially involved" (that's currently the "proper" term, isn't it?). And what they see is the fact that they didn't get a break from the justice system, why should they. Oh. And they see the potential for abuse too. They ask, what is to prevent people from coming specifically to give birth? And then trying to stay? Its a good question. And while it has been discounted as a problem by those in favor of amnesty. It just doesn't happen that often. I am not sure that's accurate. The New York Times had a long article a couple years ago documenting this a a trend in China. My own personal experience living overseas? I saw dozens of younger people. Lawyers, bankers, doctors and other professionals who were British, Australian, from every European country who would time their pregnancies and annual leave in order to give birth while vacationing at Disney World. Of course, the idea for them wasn't necessarily to remain immediately. But it gave their children a future choice. And it opened options for them to move to the US, as I understand that employers have an easier time sponsoring a foreign professional if a family member is a US citizen. Like it or not, and as disliked as we may be, US citizenship is still coveted. What about the rest? Why so angry about "civil rights"? It really isn't racism or homophobia as far as I can tell. It's more a feeling of being completely left out. They are hourly workers. They make 15, 20 , 25 dollars an hour. They see affirmative action and diversity initiatives. And no one focuses on them. Instead, they are called stupid. Redneck. Racist. The beneficiaries of white privilege (try explaining that to a white working class family). All in all, they really don't want much more than to be able to work. I don't know anyone in the white working class who is against birth control. Or having it provided for free. Most have single other relatives and see what a strain it can be. Oddly, working white people like to have sex for fun too. They do understand. I don't know more than a handful of working white who are anti-abortion. For the same reasons they are not against birth control. They are for states rights. But this is less a result of some "redneck" notion than it is experience. They come from neighborhoods where there is a lot of "under the table" community support. People help each other fix houses, cars, plumbing, childcare, etc. It is a true barter economy. It is unspoken that when I look after your kid today, your husband the plumber will stop by this weekend and help us install the hot water heater. Nothing is asked, no money exchanges. It just happens. As a result, a lot of working class people don't trust a bunch of policy wonks in Washington preening themselves with their HYP degrees that they earned after attending Cranbrook or Exeter or Sidwell pronouncing what is good for the white working class. They hate the condescension "We know what's good for you; you are a stupid rube! My Masters in Public Policy from YALE let's me tell you that. Now sit down and do as you're told. To me, it really isn't that the white working class are against what the Democratic social platform is. What they hate is feeling left out and and being condescended to . . .as do you and I. So at the end of the day, it is a total marketing failure by the Democrats. Stop telling them what to do. Stop talking down to them. Put as much focus on how they are being screwed as is put on the poor children of illegal immigrants. Put the focus on them. After all, there a ton more white working class voters than there are transgender voters, AA voters or immigrants. And that doesn't mean skew the program, it means change the tone of delivery. Know your audience and speak to them Stop speaking AT them. |
Anonymous
Race and gender has nothing to do with it. They want good manufacturing jobs and the democrats have not delivered those, only low paying or part time work. How many people like the ones you describe do you know? I know and employ plenty. I have been to picnics, happy hour, etc. with them. Most blue collar support is from people who have jobs, not those on welfare. They want someone who is going to fight for them, trade agreements, China, illegal immigrants, etc. - the ones they blame (rightly or wrongly) for the lack of higher paying jobs that disappeared. Why are you lumping blue collar workers and welfare recipients in the same category. I am sure the democrats will win the majority of long term welfare recipients, so you can relax on that demographic. |
Anonymous
Read more............It is one of the 10 mandates that Congress decided we HAD to have. Q: Can you explain the requirements for pediatric dental coverage? I’ve read that it’s an essential health benefit that has to be covered on all plans, but I’m also hearing that it’s optional? A: It depends. There is no penalty for not having pediatric dental on your policy. And in most exchanges, you can purchase a plan without pediatric dental. But off-exchange, carriers are required to include pediatric dental unless they have determined that you have pediatric dental from another source. Pediatric dental coverage is one of the ten essential health benefits (EHBs) that the ACA has required on all individual and small group plans since 2014. But section 1302 of the ACA (see page 61) explains that a policy sold in an exchange without embedded pediatric dental coverage can still be a qualified health plan (QHP) as long as there is also a stand-alone pediatric dental plan available in the exchange. Exchanges must offer pediatric dental, either via coverage that is embedded with the medical plans, or in separate stand-alone plans. But in most states, enrollees are not required to have pediatric dental coverage if they buy a health plan through the exchange, even if there are children on the policy. They can simply purchase a QHP that does not have pediatric dental and will have satisfied the ACA’s individual mandate (There are some exceptions: Washington State exchange enrollees are required to purchase pediatric dental coverage; Covered California began requiring all health plans sold through the exchange to have embedded pediatric dental coverage starting in 2015; Connecticut’s exchange required embedded pediatric dental coverage on all plans starting in 2014.) https://www.healthinsurance.org/faqs/is-pediatric-dental-coverage-included-in-exchange-plans/ |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Yes, you are correct that the jobs started to diminish under Reagan, then Bush, then Clinton who helped it along with NAFTA, then Bush and Obama. What all those have in common is that they are republican or democrat CAREER politicians. Many of those supporting Trump are not labeling him as Bush III, but rather an outsider who is a successful businessman who has and will create good paying jobs. They want neither democrat or traditional republican. any who want jobs have high school educations and cannot find decent opportunities. Labeling them as uneducated is a stretch. |