Bill Moyers: The Fight of Our Lives (excellent!)

[NewHampshireDem]

http://www.alternet.org/story/18954/

Excellent Moyers speech about the growing inequality in America and the class warfare it embodies.

I'd snip and post, but the whole damn thing is so good, I couldn't do it justice.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. If there IS any silver lining

It's that poverty rates are rising in families headed by white males, specifically in the south. This info, I am recalling from an LBN article approximately 2 years ago...now I am NOT saying that it's good that these people OR their families are poor...but for a change it isn't reserved for minorities....this is the part of Dean's message that got a bit clouded by the one liners he undermined himself with....and one I hope he continues to pursue....class warfare.

[Warpy]

3. The problem is that the Democrats

headed by the DLC, don't seem to give a rip about rising poverty rates in families headed by white males in the south, or raising poverty rates anywhere. Why the hell do you think these southern men who are falling deeper into poverty are voting GOP? It's because the GOP at least offers them a tax cut, even if it doesn't actually deliver. The Democrats have offered them nothing but more of the same policies that are killing them.

Kerry may win in 2004, but only because Bush is such a total disaster. However, if the Democrats want to win Congress and if they want to win the presidency in 2008, they are going to have to address the subject of ongoing class warfare against their traditional base.

If they don't, they deserve to lose.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Can you back that up?

Wages went up and REAL poverty went DOWN during Clinton...although I have issues with the DLC and their CORE strategy, I really DO believe that Clinton aimed toward the economy growing in a manner that took people UP with it in spite of SOME policies such as welfare reform.

[Fovea]

21. The DLC has stepped out of the left leg

of the Third Way's trousers...

They, like the repugs, are the creature entire of the corporatists.
Want corporatism with a human face, support the DLC.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. I just emailed a friend who worked in government and knows more than I

His reponse to you was this:

From Memory - which I barely trust - LBJ War on Poverty began with rates around 20% - and lowered them to about 11% of the population - but in the late 70's they were again in the mid-teens. Reagan did nothing - the lower 20% actually lost ground despite the rising tide - the rising tide did not lift all boats!

Under Clinton the rising tide did lift all boats - the lower 20% were making more in real dollars after inflation than they had since about any year post the mid-70's. However it is true that under both Clinton and Reagan the gap between the the top 20% and the bottom 20% got larger. Under Clinton the lower 20's just did not lose out totally - they actually had an increase in after tax/after inflation income (these numbers are from the BEA.doc.gov and IRS.gov sites and census data).

To answer your question I would need to check out where the poverty level was set - and WARPY appears to want to do this by "families headed by white males in the south".

I wonder where he gets the idea that "families headed by white males in the south" got nothing from the Clinton years ?? or as he says "The Democrats have offered them nothing but more of the same policies that are killing them"??????


So I guess, he too would like you to back up your assessment.

[papau]

14. Some real data is below - as you can see from the 2003 press release

they use the 100% level poverty number in the press release which is derived from the table by subtracting from the 125% number the % that is between 100 and 125%

So 2002 = 16.5 less 4.1 = 12.1 poverty rate

So the Press release was "The nation's official poverty rate rose from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.1 percent in 2002 and median household money income declined 1.1 percent in real terms from 2001 to $42,409 in 2002, according to reports released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Median earnings increased 1.8 percent for women who worked full-time, year-round and 1.4 percent for similar men, and the child poverty rate remained unchanged in spite of the recession.

AS you can see from the table, JFK's first year 1961 was at 21.9%, LBJ in 1968 got it down to 12.9, Carter 1980 had 13.0% with years between a bit below 13%.

Then we had Reagan. By 83 it was 15.2%, and that is where it was at in Clinton's first year 1993. By the time Clinton left office he had 11.3% (year 2000).

And under Bush it is rising again.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html

Table 6. People Below 125 Percent of Poverty Level and the Near Poor:
1959 to 2002
(Numbers in Thousands)

____________________________________________________________
Below 1.25 Between 1.00 - 1.25
____________________ ____________________
Year Total Number Percent Number Percent
____________________________________________________________
2002..... 285,317 47,084 16.5 12,514 4.4
2001..... 281,475 45,320 16.1 12,413 4.4
2000 12/. 278,944 43,612 15.6 12,030 4.3
1999 11/. 276,208 45,030 16.3 12,239 4.4
1998..... 271,059 46,036 17.0 11,560 4.3
1997..... 268,480 47,853 17.8 12,280 4.6
1996..... 266,218 49,310 18.5 12,781 4.8
1995..... 263,733 48,761 18.5 12,336 4.7
1994..... 261,616 50,401 19.3 12,342 4.7
1993 10/. 259,278 51,801 20.0 12,536 4.8
1992 9/.. 256,549 50,592 19.7 12,578 4.9
1991 8/.. 251,192 47,527 18.9 11,819 4.7
1990..... 248,644 44,837 18.0 11,252 4.5
1989..... 245,992 42,653 17.3 11,125 4.5
1988..... 243,530 42,551 17.5 10,806 4.4
1987 7/.. 240,982 43,032 17.9 10,811 4.5
1986..... 238,554 43,486 18.2 11,116 4.7
1985 .... 236,594 44,166 18.7 11,102 4.7
1984..... 233,816 45,288 19.4 11,588 5.0
1983 6/.. 231,700 47,150 20.3 11,847 5.1
1982..... 229,412 46,520 20.3 12,122 5.3
1981 5/.. 227,157 43,748 19.3 11,926 5.3
1980..... 225,027 40,658 18.1 11,386 5.1
1979 4/.. 222,903 36,616 16.4 10,544 4.7
1978..... 215,656 34,155 15.8 9,658 4.5
1977..... 213,867 35,659 16.7 10,939 5.1
1976..... 212,303 35,509 16.7 10,534 5.0
1975..... 210,864 37,182 17.6 11,305 5.4
1974 3/.. 209,362 33,666 16.1 10,296 4.9
1973..... 207,621 32,828 15.8 9,855 4.7
1972..... 206,004 34,653 16.8 10,193 4.9
1971 2/.. 204,554 36,501 17.8 10,942 5.3
1970..... 202,183 35,624 17.6 10,204 5.0
1969..... 199,517 34,665 17.4 10,518 5.3
1968..... 197,628 35,905 18.2 10,516 5.3
1967 1/.. 195,672 39,206 20.0 11,437 5.8
1966..... 193,388 41,267 21.3 12,757 6.6
1965..... 191,413 46,163 24.1 12,978 6.8
1964..... 189,710 49,819 26.3 13,764 7.3
1963..... 187,258 50,778 27.1 14,342 7.7
1962..... 184,276 53,119 28.8 14,494 7.9
1961..... 181,277 54,280 30.0 14,652 8.1
1960..... 179,503 54,560 30.4 14,709 8.2
1959..... 176,557 54,942 31.1 15,452 8.7


Footnotes


Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements.
Poverty and Health Statistics Branch/HHES Division
U. S. Bureau of the Census
U. S. Department of Commerce

[dumpster_baby]

19. yep, but the Dems have made the "politically correct" issues the focus

of the debate. THey have allowed the GOP to do that. Why?

And why should rural and suburban whites vote for a Democratic party that wars against them culturally, and wars against them on race issues?

THe Dems should have a CLASS-based, and not a RACE-based platform. But of course they are not going to change, because that would mean less profits for the capitalists. And that is what both the Dems and GOP are all about!

[FloridaPat]

2. Fantastic piece of journalism. Thank you.

[SharonAnn]

4. Thank, you'r right. This is outstanding! I'm sending it to my email

group that is interested in Progressive Politics.

[DoverFrank]

5. Very nice

Thanks!

[newyawker99]

9. Hi DoverFrank!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[2Design]

6. Great article but how do we do it.... they arrest and deny anyone

who opposes them. They trash and hurt them. How do we do it?

[redqueen]

11. Talk to people

I find it's the best way to convert former republican voters... just talk to them.

Sure there are lots of Bush-Party Loyalists, but there are far more garden variety republicans, and they may not know of the sordid details of the bushgang's business. Fill them in and you might be surprised at the reaction! :)

[teryang]

8. Excellent summary

Good read.

[NewHampshireDem]

12. IMHO the poverty thing is difficult to broach with people

I remember back in the fall when I went to the furniture store to pick up my new recliner, there were two guys working the warehouse. One was older--I'd say mid- to late-50's, the other looked like he couldn't be 2-3 years out of high school. The younger one nudged the older one and snickered, pointing to my "Dean for America" window sign. From their looks I could tell what they were thinking without a word.

I let it slide, but here's what I wanted to say:

"In 1968 when my own father graduated from high school he was able to enter the workforce without any post-secondary education. By the time he was 23 he was married, had two children, owned his own home and the family stationwagon. AND my mother stayed at home to raise us! AND my father is an immigrant! What will you be doing when you're 23? Humping furniture for minimum wage, maybe $8? You won't be able to buy your own house for that. (I have a college degree and a white-collar job and couldn't afford those things until I was 30!)

"Now that my dad's in his 50's he's ready to retire with a nice fat pension and health insurance for the rest of his life--thanks to belonging to one of this nation's best unions, the AFL-CIO. He won't be spending his golden years humping furniture into yuppie's SUV's. What are you doing right now? But I bet you voted against unionizing, or believe that because this company has free snacks in the break room it 'really cares about you.'

"Why do both of you face such bleak futures? Because you vote Republican, and trade the promise of a couple of bucks in your pocket today for your whole future--and your kid's futures, and grandkid's futures. Do you really think the rich mo-fo's in this country really care if gay's can get married or no? Do you really think they actually WANT you to own guns? Do you really think they are sending kids off to die in the Middle East to protect you?"

I know that gets a little rantish and off-topic, but the point is talking about poverty hurts people's pride. Those guys know their economic life sucks, and they really didn't need me to point it out. By by voting Republican, they can participate in the illusion that they too will be paying less taxes when the "death tax" is repealed, or tax rates on interest and dividens are cut to zero. IMHO, it comes down to pig-headed, foolish PRIDE.

<gets off soapbox> :)

[glitch]

13. great rant - I wish you would've said it but I understand why you didn't

Compassion.
But sometimes you aren't doing anybody any favors by being compassionate and staying polite and quiet.

[dumpster_baby]

17. yes, and also because of "wedge issues" promoted by Dems and GOP

You wrote:

"I know that gets a little rantish and off-topic, but the point is talking about poverty hurts people's pride. Those guys know their economic life sucks, and they really didn't need me to point it out. By by voting Republican, they can participate in the illusion that they too will be paying less taxes when the "death tax" is repealed, or tax rates on interest and dividens are cut to zero. IMHO, it comes down to pig-headed, foolish PRIDE.

<gets off soapbox> "


Great post! You have covered much of what I have been thinking about for the past 5 years or so. I was so puzzled by the incongruities in the approach to politics taken by most Americans. They do not seem to actually THINK and consider actual evidence when considering politics.

Also, the success of the GOP in attaining electoral success among middle class and lower middle class and poor whites is also due to how the GOP AND the Democrats have been able to set the agenda with respect to what "issues" are in the public debate. Really, much of the public debate revolves around race (affirmative action) and gay rights. This two issues comprise the core of what might be called "the "politically correct" agenda". These are WEDGE issues, designed to distract the lower and middle class whites from the real economic and healthcare and progressive taxation issues that SHOULD be occupying th minds of the the lower and middle class whites when it comes to politics.

BOTH the Democrats and the GOP collaborate with the media to establish these wedge issues as the core of the political debate. Those issues may not "offcially" be at the center of the Dem and GOP platform, but they are the center of the debate in minds of the lower and middle class whites, and let me tell you, that is NOT an accident.

BTW, getting on our soapboxes is the biggest part of what DU and political blogs are all about. If you do NOT get on your web-based soapbox, we cannot make America a better country. Thank you for getting on that soapbox....

[drb]

15. Man, what I wouldn't give to have the audio of that speech!!!

anybody got a link?

[dumpster_baby]

16. sure is good to hear Kerry echoing these same liberal themes </sarcasm>

"the most liberal Senator in the Senate," huh?

[spooky3]

18. He and John Edwards share a lot of views. Beautifully written!

[GOPFighter]

20. Damn Straight!

Conservatives are big on personal responsibility. Your poor and out of a job? It's you're own damn fault. That's BS! But they are right when it comes to politics. The corporations have taken over America because WE LET THEM! We have no one else to blame. It's time kick some serious ass, folks. Moyer's right, this IS a class war.

KICK!

[struggle4progress]

22. Let's stop pretending there is no class war.

The rich wage it constantly.