My family bought a house in this area over 30 years ago. The house-- newer construction, nice neighborhood, nothing fancy-- cost two years' worth of the average middle-middle class person's salary. The same house today still costs two years' salary... if you're a member of the Tax Cut Class. This is just the tip of the poverty problem iceberg.

In a basic way when you're talking poverty, you get down to the "conservative vs. liberal" view of the role of government-- if government gets out of the way people can live their best lives, vs. if government intervenes people can live even better lives. That's the simplified American Politics 101 version.

...Which doesn't play out any more, of course, because the key to the "conservative" view is the idea that non-governmental groups will, in an economy freed up thanks to conservative governance, step in and help people who need help. The false conservatism that governs our country at the moment has drained the public of its ability to support the nonprofits and the religious organizations (and for that matter, the families) that take up the slack of a conservative government.

Further complicating matters (when did I start talking like a textbook already?) is the fact that a lot of formerly typical Democrat voters (your white lower-middle class, for example) are "goddamn sick and tired of the government helping out all those poor black people all the time and doing nothing for the people who really work and deserve help." This isn't a reflection of some sort of inherent evil or ignorance or calousness in those who think this; it's a reflection of the fundamental misunderstanding that all but like three people in this country have of how poverty happens, of why you can career counsel a former Welfare client into a job but that job still won't get her out of poverty. And it's a reflection of what you're talking about, Benny G-- people who used to be able to get by no longer can.

But the result is that even Democrats-- in an effort to get the votes no matter what it takes-- promise away our social safety net just as much as Republicans do, and then propose new programs that are targeted exclusively at the middle class. Not that the middle class don't need help-- middle class is the new poor-- but it's not the only class that needs help.

In the end, I think there always will be poor people, but there is a difference between being poor and being desperate. There is a hell of a lot more desperate going on right now, and I believe that this is the problem that we as a nation have the obligation to solve. REAL conservatives agree with this too-- our only true disagreement is on which sector solves the problem.

Taking a look back at the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness that kicked this country off, I would say that embodied in Life is an obligation on the part of the government to provide-- either directly or by ensuring that attainment is possible-- food, clothing, and shelter to all of its people. And Happiness (by which Jefferson meant freedom of economic and intellectual and spiritual pursuit, not some hippie drug trip butt sex bullshit some evangelicals would like you to believe) can't very well be Pursued by a person with no education, untreated schizophrenia, and three working teeth.

For those of you just joining us, this is exactly what I am talking about, the real reason that BetterDonkey should be around and try to push new ideas into the conversation:

Happiness (by which Jefferson meant freedom of economic and intellectual and spiritual pursuit, not some hippie drug trip butt sex bullshit some evangelicals would like you to believe) can't very well be Pursued by a person with no education, untreated schizophrenia, and three working teeth.

You're damn right Amy!

I feel like burning!

what exactly is wrong with hippie drug trip butt sex bullshit? I'm actually a huge fan of it. I think all conservatives (especially those on the far fringe right) should be subjected to, then possibly they might lighten up.

Of course, I'm a stupid liberal, so what do I know?

I too am a huge fan of hippie drug trip butt sex bullshit, and intend to engage in some at my earliest convenience, possibly after tonight's event.

However. In their attempts to discredit the morals of the left, evangelicals (I am searching for some links here, I promise) like to say that we think Jefferson was talking about getting high and contemplating our navels or insert your favorite 1960s culture joke here when he talked about Happiness. But progressives know that's not the way it was.

If we the progressive movement want the freedom to have our hippie drug trip butt sex, we first need to make clear that our basic values are rooted in the philosophy upon which our country is based.

And then we can kick some ass.

Based on the thoughts you outlined, those are the three values that connect our goals with the intent of the founding fathers.

Opportunity, or a country where success is possible for all people, even if some do not attain it.

Community, or a country where the many come together to serve the few, where individual achievement is not valued if it comes at the expense of the long-term health of the neighborhood, the family, the city or the county.

Progress, or a country that leaves the world better than the way we found it, that creates the context for our children's success, not new and possibly insurmountable obstacles to their survival.

yes? no? crazy?

In the end, I think there always will be poor people, but there is a difference between being poor and being desperate. There is a hell of a lot more desperate going on right now, and I believe that this is the problem that we as a nation have the obligation to solve.

While I agree that that the nation has an obligation to help the poor, I can’t help but wonder whether there really is a hell of a lot of more desperation now than in times past. For the sake of argument, let’s confine ourselves to the U.S.—the desperation of the impoverished around the world is monumentally greater than anything faced in this country. But what about the Depression? What about the plight of Native Americans through time? What about slavery? Desperation and poverty is always there, but its shape is mutable.

Don’t get me wrong—as a country, we should strive towards Jeffersonian ideals, but let us not forget that the vaunted inalienable rights were at that time meant only for one specific group of people among many. This is the legacy reflected in the demographic breakdown of the poor in this country.

America was built on that desperation, that poverty. Think of the squalor of working class during the Industrial Revolution, the share-cropping farmers in the Deep South, the slave-boats docked in Atlantic harbors, the native tribes that that we cleared out to make room for our high-rises. I cannot help but feel disgusted for how our country was built. Yet where would the country be if not for these events? Where would I be? By simply living here, I have profited on the impoverished and the desperate.

And here we come to what I believe is the real issue: profit. As long as we live in a capitalistic society, there will always be a lower tier. And the more control the highest tier has on the governance of that society, the greater the gap between the highest and lowest tier. So it was since the time of the pharaohs, so it will be in tomorrow’s tomorrows.

But even in our democratic system, our freedom to choose enforces such stratification. As a former educator, I feel strongly that the best ticket out of poverty is a sound education. But think of the bonds and school levies that don’t pass because at a fundamental level, people choose not to share. How can we give a sound education to students if the system itself is impoverished? How can we make talented people choose careers in public education when the market is stacked against that profession? I personally think a huge step to shifting society’s socio-economic tiers to a higher base level would be to make it a university requirement that all candidates for bachelor’s degrees spend a term’s class-hours volunteering in public schools. But how many will pay money to do this?

I feel that any workable solution to poverty in America would involve sacrificing some aspects of capitalism and democracy to some degree, hence guaranteeing its unpopularity and ultimate failure. I am not arguing for communist revolt, but for the discussion concerning poverty and our forefather’s ideals to be balanced with practicality, realism and the knowledge of how we profit from this tiered society. In very simple terms, we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

PS: Cool site.