Coming Soon đ At the beginning of April, youâll be
introduced to a brand-new GoComics! See more information here. Subscribers, check your
email for more details.
To the fully humane streets of course. And all the Republicans stand around and say âAre there no poor houses?â And the Democrats all stand around and say âWhy doesnât our Government do something?â And all the truly compassionate people are out volunteering their time and monies to help whoever they can. And itâs on purpose that I excluded the first two groups of people from the last.
âIn addition , the reduction of corporate taxes was pursued with a renewed vigor (Barlett and Steele, 1994).
In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state. This objective was carried out by the Reagan administration (Abramovitz, 1992). After taking office in 1981, the administration set out on a course to alter the (relatively) labor sensitive political economy to be more business friendly. Reagan appointed anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board, âimplicitly [granting] employers permission to revive long shunned anti-union practices: de-certifying unions, outsourcing production, and hiring permanent replacements for striking workersâ (102). Reagan himself pursued such a policy when he fired eleven thousand striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Regulations designed to protect the environment , worker safety, and consumer rights were summarily decried as unnecessary government meddling in the marketplace (Abramovitz, 1992; Barlett and Steele, 1996). Programs designed to help the poor were also characterized as âbig government,â and the people who utilized such programs were often stigmatized as lazy or even criminal. With the help of both political parties, the administration drastically cut social welfare spending and the budgets of many regulatory agencies.
The new emphasis was on âsupply sideâ economics, which essentially âblamed the nationâs ills on âbig governmentâ and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives â (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).â
If you have any desire to read the entire scholarly article, itâs here (and goes into greater detail re dismantling of mental health services):
lewisbower over 14 years ago
In my state they closed all the mental illness hospitals as inhumane. Wonder where all those people went?
MisngNOLA over 14 years ago
To the fully humane streets of course. And all the Republicans stand around and say âAre there no poor houses?â And the Democrats all stand around and say âWhy doesnât our Government do something?â And all the truly compassionate people are out volunteering their time and monies to help whoever they can. And itâs on purpose that I excluded the first two groups of people from the last.
jpozenel over 14 years ago
They should go to the library and sign up for GoComics accounts and start posting comments immediately. Thatâll straighten them out!
Ushindi over 14 years ago
âIn addition , the reduction of corporate taxes was pursued with a renewed vigor (Barlett and Steele, 1994).
In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state. This objective was carried out by the Reagan administration (Abramovitz, 1992). After taking office in 1981, the administration set out on a course to alter the (relatively) labor sensitive political economy to be more business friendly. Reagan appointed anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board, âimplicitly [granting] employers permission to revive long shunned anti-union practices: de-certifying unions, outsourcing production, and hiring permanent replacements for striking workersâ (102). Reagan himself pursued such a policy when he fired eleven thousand striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Regulations designed to protect the environment , worker safety, and consumer rights were summarily decried as unnecessary government meddling in the marketplace (Abramovitz, 1992; Barlett and Steele, 1996). Programs designed to help the poor were also characterized as âbig government,â and the people who utilized such programs were often stigmatized as lazy or even criminal. With the help of both political parties, the administration drastically cut social welfare spending and the budgets of many regulatory agencies.
The new emphasis was on âsupply sideâ economics, which essentially âblamed the nationâs ills on âbig governmentâ and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives â (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).â
If you have any desire to read the entire scholarly article, itâs here (and goes into greater detail re dismantling of mental health services):
Electronic Journal of Sociology (1998)