Too Poor to Care
The government and politicians are always blamed for being the reason why the lower classes are not able to progress. After decades of exploitation the poverty-stricken have to understand how being exploited can be beneficial. Of course some programs and incentives do come out being lower class but this does not mean the lower class try to stay poor they just use the status to their advantage was we all.
In 2012, the US Census Bureau reported that there were approximately 46.5 million people living at or below the poverty line. Politicians talk about strategies to combat poverty, but little has been done to decrease this number. With the recession and state and federal social service programs being cut, the poverty rate will most likely continue to grow unless there is more political action and public pressure.
Politicians are always looking for a platform of issues and positions upon which the candidates will run. If they would exhibit an ounce more interest in the conditions of the poor than their opposing candidates, they would be guaranteed votes from the low income population. The poor class is likely to vote less than any other class; however, there are valid reasons why. According to the U.S. census, 47 percent of eligible adults with a family incomes of less than $20,000 a year voted in 2012 and just one in four voted in the midterm election of 2010; whereas families that earned more than $100,000 had an 80% and 60% turn out rate. I believe this is reflective of the amount of trust that both classes have in their politicians to advocate on their behalf.
Lane Kenworthy, professor of social and political science at the University of Arizona, tells CNNMoney, “People with more income are more likely to feel they have more at stake in terms of taxes, public services and various benefits,”, whereas, “People with lower incomes are more likely to feel disillusioned, because they tend to feel like policy never changes.” This is confirmed by Cassandra, a former self-proclaimed “welfare mother” in an interview by Daniel Weeks, “We’re not equal citizens.”
Many middle and upper class citizens criticize the lower class population for not taking a stand against their low paying jobs by striking or bringing attention to issues. This criticism of the poor is unfair because many upper and middle class people do not understand that the poor accept minimum wage because they are grateful to have a stream of income, despite how low it is. The poor are faced with making a decision to strike for increase wages, which could result in lost wages and possibly loss of their jobs, or continue to work at a low paying job to be able to survive.
Yes, the lower class would like to get out of public housing and off of public assistance, until the opportunities that are provided for them help. With the limited amount of programs available for the lower class, some have no choice but to exploit themselves. Some of the poverty stricken exploit themselves knowing that there is a slim chance of them progressing. Although the poor understand that allowing themselves to be exploited comes with huge disadvantages; their actual thoughts and feelings are dismissed and are seen as just a vote. This decision to be exploited is most of the time the only choice they have to try to progress.
Works Cited
Edsall, Thomas B. “Is Poverty a Kind of Robbery?” Campaign Stops Is Poverty a Kind of Robbery Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.
“Voting and Registration.” In the Election of November 2012. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.
Weeks, Daniel. “Why Are the Poor and Minorities Less Likely to Vote?” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.
Can I please receive feedback
Feedback and grade provided. —DSH
Here’s some feedback, Troi, as I write your grade for today’s conference. Ask for more if you need it.
P1. I’m almost with you here, Troi. (Not with the syntax of your sentences; they need a lot of help; but with the thrust of your argument.) You make a strange misstep between sentences 1 and 2. (There is no clear connection between turnout numbers and being shown an interest.) Eventually though you connect those ideas a bit better. Find a way to start strong and stay strong. (Changing the topic immediately following your first sentence is not the right strategy.)
Maybe what you mean really is “faith in politicians.” But possibly you mean “faith in government.” They’re not identical. And you’d be drawing different conclusions depending on which one you mean.
P2. A good example of your syntax trouble is this: why the poor and lower class do not go on strict for higher minimum wages. That makes no sense to me at all.
You appear to have changed the topic again. The first paragraph was apparently about the voter apathy of the poor (based on their lack of faith). This paragraph seems to be about misunderstandings of the poor by the middle class. But you cite the source: Why the Poor Don’t Vote, so you must think the two paragraphs are more closely connected than your readers do. What’s the connection?
P3. Wow. There’s not P3? You haven’t fully or clearly explained the points you were making in P1 and P2; I was really hoping P3 would help me reconcile the two.
I hate to say you appear to be wasting some very good material here, Troi. You have plenty of time to rescue this project, but not much to waste.
Grade recorded. Always improvable (but not for long) with revisions.