er 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. Reynolds’ does recognize the types of economic legislation enacted during the 1980s are useless for helping the poorest of Americans. Yet, he still blames the behavior of the poor for their plight, such as his insistence that the poor have among them many deadbeat fathers who refuse to give economic support to their children. Reynolds makes more than a few good points where his contention the 1980s were not a decade of greed is concerned. For instance, his clarification of the meaning of such terms as “income gap”, “top fifth”, and “average income” versus “real income”. By clarifying these terms he clarifies the economic situation in a way which separates myths from realities.
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...