What do U.S. conservatives think causes poverty?

As usual, Rob Weir nails it.  Recognition of the fact that poverty is the natural state of man is  necessary if we are to understand either wealth (and that it must be created) or poverty.  In the past 30 years, China and (a bit later) Vietnam have increasingly adopted what you refer to as 'conservative principles' with respect to free trade, private ownership and profit motivated innovation and competition.  Never before in human history have ao many people been lifted out of poverty in such a short period of time..

I don't fit very well on the US left/right scale and I'd consider myself more of a libertarian than anything else.That being said, lets get to your questions!My understanding of how conservatives think about poverty is this: "If someone is poor it is most likely his or her fault."Well.. yes and no. I certainly acknowledge that there are bad circumstances that a person can be born into but you must also acknowledge that there can be bad choices made by individuals. I see poverty as a combination of bad circumstances and bad choices. In other words, if someone is in poverty, it is partially his fault.As for the rest of your reasoning, I certainly agree that it is more difficult for someone born into poverty to get out of poverty but it is certainly not "almost guaranteed" that you will remain poor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States According to a 2012 Pew Economic Mobility Project study 43% of children born into the bottom quintile remain in that bottom quintile as adults. So the implication is that 57% of children who were born into the bottom quintile move up higher as adults. This is hardly "heroic".More important though isn't what the perception of the cause of poverty but rather the possible solutions. It is my opinion that government currently has no good solutions to the problem of poverty. One solution that I would probably be in favor of is universal basic income while scrapping all the other entitlement programs. This automatically pays every adult citizen a certain amount of money so that if they are in poverty, they can be free to utilize their time to get out of it while receiving the basic income.

I sit on the board at a one room schoolhouse in south Dallas. I see institutional poverty up close and fight it very personally. We do not take any public funds and are funded entirely by individuals and foundations. Lots of reasons cited here, many are good ones. We've got kids at our free tuition school that can't get public assistance. Some because (incorrectly) they are afraid that their outstanding warrants will be a problem. Some because they are illegals. Some because their identities have been stolen and the funds are already in someone else's hands. Some because their identities were sold or bartered intentionally. Regardless of the dire situation these young adults are in (we have 26 year old sophomores reading at a 5th grade level), they are still infinitely more wealthy than the bottom 20% of the worlds population. And they know it.  I am conservative because I think helping your fellow man is a personal responsibility, not one to be outsourced to government and coerced upon your fellow man. We all die. Sorry, but it is true. Human connection and the ability to share Gods love is all we truly have while we are here. I don't think that voting for another guy to forcibly help someone else actually accomplishes anything truly meaningful even when the program is successful. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in a basic safety net of some kind. Guess what? Just about every conservative I know does too. If you don't you are a libertarian or anarchist more than a republican conservative.  However, looking at it up close and personal in the very impoverished hood does not make me in awe of its effectiveness. 

The problem here is the fundamental difference in the way Constitutional Conservatives and Progressives view the role of government. To a Progressive the individual is granted rights by government and is terminally tied to government.  This means government can withhold rights and change them.  Under this way of thinking, a person can have his personal property taken  by taxation when the government decides there is a "greater good" in using that money for any of a number of things the government wants to do. Progressives set up government as an entity that competes for resources with individuals.  This is why you hear so many progressives talk about the need for government to be funded to do X Y and Z. The view of Progressives is when the government funding is increased for additional programs, the nation prospers. The Constitutional Conservative sees the individual as free.  Those rights are inalienable.   Freedom means you can do as you like but you cannot infringe on other people's freedom.  Individuals enjoy their property but they are not allowed to enjoy other people's property. To a Constitutional Conservative government is there to protect individual rights.  A nation is a sum total of free individuals.  So when the individuals prosper the nation prospers' The Constitution provides for specific ways for the individual to make his will known when it comes to government spending. Directly, through the House of Representatives and also through local government the States and Senators. Our Progressive President has made a mockery of "consent of the governed" As a Progressive and imperial President, he is not worried because government is getting larger.    He has used his time in office to enlarge government and hand out favors to his political allies Back to the question.  The Constitutional Conservative quite correctly views every individual as being born with the same freedom. As so capably point out, it is the choices people make when free that determine their outcomes.  Every day I am faced with choices ordinary choices of how to spend my time and money.   Some choices improve my future prospects.  But only I as an individual can optimize my situation. Only I can decide to pass on the 32 ounce Coke for the cup of tap water. Thus saving money and trimming my waistline. Both of those effects position me to be able to take advantage of other choices other opportunities in a never ending cycle of achievement and advancement. Progressives do it completely backwards.  They decide government needs so much money so they take it from the private sector and give it to individuals they determine are needy. They decide what is adequate housing. They hand out free cell phones and ignore that the individual can be using it for illicit transactions. They also tell you what size soft drink you can have. All because they are Progressives and know better and have power. Progressives have a rather depressing view of the individual choices. They view the individual as basically unable to advance without government help government assistance.  It is a demeaning attitude The is considerable demonization of Conservatives on the poverty issue.  Progressives take delight in skewering Conservatives for political gain.  But Conservatives are the only adults in the conversation when that happens.  It is shameful that Progressives portray conservatives as mean and cold hearted. In a country where religion and state are separated. I find it offensive that Progressives take unto themselves the power to tax and spend and also the moral high ground. They are the good people.  And those who follow the Constitution are mean and evil. Bottom line, to a Constitutional Conservative it is not governments role to micromanage individual lives.

Poverty seems to be the human default condition. Special circumstances and luck allow some people to rise from that state to a more prosperous condition. So, perhaps the question should be what causes wealth?By analogy, what causes a vacuum. It is the natural state of the universe, with exceptions where gravity holds something together. The analogy suffers from one point: there is no monetary gravity. Dollars and rupees don't coalesce by themselves.Obviously, inherited wealth is one of those exceptions from the default state. Being in a position to direct resources, such as politics, is another. Intellectual character of a certain kind, such as entrepreneurship is a third.If this question is really directed toward socio-political answers, then the role of government is an certainly an issue. Some forms of government seem better at allowing more people to rise out of poverty than others. Market capitalism seems ti be the big winner in that area. Free or almost free markets do better than centrally planned economies. Allowing capital to accumulate toward beneficial ends in the hands of those who create it is much more likely to happen in a market economy than in a socialist economy.I’m equating socialism with centrally planned markets because the two are inseparable in practice. A government can’t redistribute wealth unless it takes it away from the wealthy, and that requires a strong central government. Such a government reliably takes over many aspects of the economy. This interference in the natural market cycles slows or prevents recovery from instabilities caused by natural and artificial disruptions. Endemic high tax rates and endemic social classes on the dole are the inevitable result.While poverty is not “caused” by the form of government, that form certainly affects the exceptions to the default state.

There are some fantastic answers on here already. I have already written extensively on how I view the poor and poverty, so let me see If I can add a different spin to this question. First of all I would like to define  poverty is the lack of wealth. So the next step would be to define wealth. Your wealth is an accumulation of everything you learn and achieve in your life. This includes, discipline, family, education, savings, experiences, reputation and property. Another component of wealth that may be as important as the others is happiness. I have to list this separately because it is both the easiest and perhaps the most difficult concept. As a side note, this is why I believe the concept of wealth redistribution is evil. Your wealth is who you are and what you have accomplished. Now there are people with lots of money, but no family and no happiness. These are truly miserable people, and while some many covet their bank accounts they do not wish be be that person. It seems kind of simple so far doesn't it. You can increase your wealth by educating your self, applying discipline and choosing to be happy. I have to also state that family does always mean a blood relationship. The bonds between military brothers can be stronger then some family ties. So, you can choose your family. If you choose to associate with people who are stoned all day, the odds are you will spend days being stoned. If you associate with dynamic successful people, you will emulate their qualities and become more successful yourself. So, if you want to increase your wealth, the ideas are kind of simple, but they require first the understanding of what wealth is and then the drive to make changes in your life to achieve it. Wealth takes work, there is no question about it. The saddest thing about the arrogant progressives is what they have done to the education system of this country. There are people coming through high-school who think wealth means the hottest pair of shoes, not that hottest pair of new shoes is a by product of being wealthy. Finally there are external components to the acquisition of  wealth. That is the prosperity of the nation. Prosperity is a function of freedom and opportunity. Since progressives seem to despise the components of freedom and opportunity it is not surprising that they demonize wealth as well. So to make it simple, if you embrace prosperity and wealth for all, there will be less PERMANENT poor. After all there will always be poor people, but when they can make their lives better we all benefit. On the flip side, progressives seem to enjoy keeping people permanently poor as a method of consolidating their voting base. After all, who profits from the poor? Here is my explanation of prosperity:

First, I hate these labels (“I’m a liberal”, “I’m a Conservative”), I form my views on what I believe to be common sense and moral principles. Not out of the desire to be in the “liberal” or “conservative” crowd.Second, your question really is begging on what we should do about poverty. By demanding to know if “conservatives” assign blame to being poor, or as if you say “it’s not a choice, but unfortunate circumstances” you are positioning yourself to tackle the question of our moral responsibilities as a society in taking care of the poor.Let me answer your question though, not as “liberal”, or a “conservative” but as Stefan Progovac:Poverty affects millions of Americans. Since this is a large group, there is no one reason but rather a multitude of reasons.Are some people irresponsible, lazy, and/or criminal (violent felons) and is this the reason they’re poor? You bet.Are some people born into poverty to no fault of their own? You bet.Are some people poor due to incredible unfortunate incidents? Perhaps temporarily but I believe those people will climb out of poverty unless the unfortunate incident is incredibly catastrophic (such as brain damage, or a debilitating sickness).I think as a society we owe it some segments of the poor (not all) to make sure they live and have access to basic health care but we have to balance this against just how much we tax the people who made their money through honest hard work. Remember by taxing these people, we lower their QOL to give to others. And we definitely have to hold the poor accountable for receiving social services, there needs to be strict guidelines to accepting the money of others.

I grew up in a third world country. My family, by US standard, was very poor. I lived with my grandmother in a village when I was little, barely seeing my parents. They were young couples, just moved to the city, fighting for their own future. We moved to the city to join my parents, when I was 4. We lived in a small apartment, with no toilet. Every day, I peed to a bucket, and my grandmother will dump it the next morning. When I turned 10, we moved to a newer apartment, now with a toilet. It was a flushing one. It was so exciting. I played with the flush for a while, until my parents yelled at me for wasting too much water. They were not environmentalists. They were just worried about money. When I turned 13, my city welcomed the first American fast food chain. It was KFC. It was such a fancy luxury restaurant that, every kid wanted to spend their birthday there.I graduated high school at 17, and went to the other side of the country for college. For the first time, I traveled out of my city. Before then, the furthest I had traveled was less than 50 miles.When I was in college, I decided to migrate to US. The only practical way for me, was to get admitted to some graduate program, find a job and get an employer sponsored green card. It was quite a challenge. I not only had to get admitted, but also needed to get financial aid. Otherwise, the US consulate officer would think I would become a burden to the society. They wouldn't even issue me a visa. Luckily, I received both.So in 2006, I boarded a plane to US. I spent the first few weeks in my uncle's house. He migrated to US 30 years ago. His son, my cousin, was 10 years younger than me. He was already a frequent world traveler. He once told his parents that one of his friend had never traveled out of their state. It seemed unbelievable to him. I told him it was me too, before 17 years old.Fast forward 3 years, I graduated, at the worst time for a job seeker. It was 2009. Very few companies hired at that time. Even worse for a foreign student, we needed H-1B visa sponsorship, which made us more expensive to hire. Every morning, the first thing I did was to check job sites. Very few openings. Even if there were, they most likely did not sponsor visa. Language was another challenge. I spent a lot of time doing mock interviews, to hopefully minimize this disadvantage. After sending a couple hundred resumes, luckily, I landed my first job at a large company, that sponsored visa. I changed jobs a couple times since then. I now live in a nice middle class neighborhood. If you think I am an anomaly, then there are a few million anomalies in this country.I am by no means rich. It will probably take me another decade to reach somewhere that some rich kids were born at. I wondered how my life will be like if I was lucky enough to be born in my uncle's family. I am sure I would be better off. At least I wouldn't have to deal with USCIS. At least I would be able to express my ideas freely in English. I wondered if my cousin wondered about similar things, like being born to a billionaire family. However, I am still luckier than many people around the world. At least I did not grow up with wars.Life is like a poker game. Some people get good cards, some get bad cards. You get what you get, and the rest is your choice. As long as the rule is fair and clear, and you have tried your best, there is no shame if you lose. I respect hard working, law obeying people, no matter how rich or how poor they are.This is my conservative view.

I am 28 and am a conservative.  I grew up in a lower/middle class household where my dad was the only wage earner and earned average of less then $20k for the first 10 years of my life.  In fact, I remember growing up that he made $7.50/hour at one point. (He worked at the same place for 10 years but could have gotten a raise at some point) For the next 10 years he got a better job that averaged around $50-$100k a year but was contracted work.There was 5 of us total and we were sent to a private school where the monthly fees were around $300 per kid (3 of us) per month.We lived in a new but small 3 bedroom house with around 1000 sq ft. for the first 9 years or so of my life tell we moved a bigger house (around 2500sq ft).My parents never had enough money to give us any or purchase us cars or luxury items. My mom was a big garage sale shopper and all of our clothes and toys came from garage sales. (hardly anything we had was new)We didn't have cable tv, computer(much later), or any of the latest video game systems.  (We had a NES from a garage sale)  We didn't have new bikes or the latest new toy, but that didn't matter to us.  We were content with what we had and happy.We didn't eat out a lot (maybe once a month to McDonalds or some other cheap place) and the only time we had sit down was on our birthdays or if a grandparent or relative came to visit.For the majority of my childhood my parents had a paper route that we did every Wednesday and all us kids would be out on roller blades (parents walking) and deliver newspapers for 3-4 hours after school.I purchased my first car at 16 with money I had earned mowing lawns, pulling weeds, shoveling snow, my own paper route and whatever other odd jobs my brother and I would find.After high school my parent didn't have money to send me or my siblings to college so I along with my brother went into the landscaping industry starting off at $8/hour.  (This was back in 2006.)  Eventually, I started earning around $13/hour and also purchased my first home with this income. (A two bedroom 900sq ft home.)I was only able to afford the home due to the saving I had done the past 6 years of working.Fast forward a few years.  I am part owner of a landscape company now and while I still live in the same house and still drive a car worth less then $6000 and is over 10 years old,  I am content even though I could afford more.   I haven't broken the $50k/year mark yet so while I am not rich I am not poor either.   I am no genius and and have no particular skill that I am great at, other then working hard and saving.  I bring this up as I believe anyone can make something of themselves even with no college education and a lack of any great skill.Now I am not saying I lived in poverty as a child, as I never considered myself poor growing up.  My parents were just thrifty with their money and made it go farther.I see this as something that is missing today.  No one is thrifty anymore.  Everyone thinks that everything they have needs to be new and needs to be the BEST.  No matter what income level they are at.   The goal for many people is to have the next best thing and instant gratification even if they can't afford it. So many people live right on the edge of complete financial failure, so when these people do fail (which sometimes happens) us republicans tend to blame their lifestyle habits for their downfall and poverty.Of course, there is always those that are born into extreme poverty but I am one of those that believe there is always a way out of almost every situation.  There is always an exception to the rule, but for the most part, if you are born into poverty or are even in poverty currently there is almost always a way out and that way out is hard work, dedication, saving the money that you earn, and not buying the next best thing.Our world today is based off of pleasure madness where all anyone ever does is think about the next big purchase, the next party, the next home, the next car instead of being satisfied with what they have. If you are living in poverty, living off a welfare check and watching tv all day when you are perfectly capable and healthy enough to work then I do not feel sorry for you. I know people like this from living in a lower income neighborhood as I do.  I see people that are home all day and do nothing.  Their yards are a mess and their house is run down and they complain about their situation and lack of income while having no desire or will to change things for themselves even though they could. Again, there is always exceptions to why people are in poverty and sometimes its just not their fault.  I won't go into detail but I am sure everyone can think of a scenario.