Conservatives vs. Liberals

Conservative Andrew Reynolds, on the other hand, contends that the economic policies of the 1980s lifted the "boats" of 90 percent of the American public. His main point of evidence to support his contention is his deconstruction of one source by Krugman and Nasar favoring a liberal view. Reynolds takes the conservative approach that poverty results from individual behavior. For example, his argument for why the poorest percentage of Americans is poor, a number he says is much lower than actually reported (as he says of most statistics disproving his point) is based on his logic that this percentage is lazy, is unwilling to save, and counts many deadbeat fathers among its members, "About 9 to 12 per cent continued to be poor, but this group increasingly consisted of female-headed households with young children. More and better jobs cannot help those who do not work, improved investment opportunities cannot help those who do not save, and increased incomes cannot help families whose fathers refuse to support their own children" (Reynolds 396).
Reynolds' conservative approach addresses factors like family structure, the culture of poverty, and a lack of sound behavior on behalf of the poor as the main reasons for poverty during the 1980s. He argues that the poor refuse to save and have poor habits in this area.

For those who blame Republicans for what has happened and believe that equitable taxation will be restored if only the Democrats can win back the White House, there is this disquieting fact: The turning point on tax politics, when the monied elites first began to win big, occurred in 1978 with the Democratic Party fully in power and well before Ronald Reagan came to Washington. Democratic majorities have supported this great shift in tax burden every step of the way.
Time and time again, Reynolds blames the behavior of the poor for their poverty, not any kind of Republican economic policies. For example, he accuses the rich of being so because they work harder than other people, especially the poor. He fails to give the reasons why the poorest Americans might only work part-time (lack of childcare funds, single parents, etc.) but implies this is why the rich have more income?an honest fact even if a heartless one. Reynolds has many views on the poor as responsible for their own poverty. He suggests even though the poorest Americans have a certain income, statistics show they spend more than double that annually. He attributes this to the fact that when times are economically tough, the poorest fifth of the population dips into their savings. He also says that the poorest fifth of the population are the only ones who receive a good deal of benefits from not saving. Reynolds' argues that the poorest Americans are also able to spend twice more yearly than they make because they get government assistance not counted as income and they are involved in crime, "Another reason why those in the bottom fifth are able to spend twice their earnings is that many in-kind government transfers (such as food stamps) are not counted as ?money income.' Census surveys also acknowledge that a fourth of the cash income from welfare and pensions is unreported. And, of course, very little income from illegal activities is reported" (Reynolds 394).

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.