"War against the Poor"

waterfield wrote:

This is the type of hyperbole that turns good people off. Good people who can actually make a change for the betterment of people who have little. No one -not even Trump or Hillary-is “against” the poor. No one believes these people represent a threat. There is no “WAR” against people who are poor. When people hear these “magical” words they automatically tune out. Of course there are policies and even laws that adversely impact those who have little. There always have been. And we need to elect those who will actively help those in need. But there is no “war” against the poor. Neither Hillaryh nor Trump have any ill will toward those less fortunate. “War against the poor” language does more harm than good because it takes a very serious issue and turns it into nonsense.

That seems less like a critique, w, then just a slam. First I don’t see it as hyperbole. It’s basically a summary slogan line for a position, and you don’t seem to address the position. So yes you’re right–no one takes it literally. In terms of the actual intent, when you don’t over-literalize the line itself, yes there are actual positions referred to, and they go to the heart of a great deal of actual politics. What Hillary and Trump have in varying degrees (with Trump far worse) is policies that disenfranchise people, harm people economically, and build an economic climate that heavily favors the more well off (unless you haven’t heard about the effect that economic inequality has on people). It’s reflected in health care, labor policies, and so on. All you addressed was the slogan which you unaccountably took as literal, and did not address the policies.

Yes american economic policies, unlike many countries (which are actually doing better than we are), do in fact strip power, rights, and opportunities from the disadvantaged and less well off. It seems to me to deny that is just to deny a significant reality.

And try to steer clear of antagonistic language like “childish nonsense” for positions you dont’ personally agree with. It goes against the spirit of the rules.

.

waterfield wrote:

This is the type of hyperbole that turns good people off. Good people who can actually make a change for the betterment of people who have little. No one -not even Trump or Hillary-is “against” the poor. No one believes these people represent a threat. There is no “WAR” against people who are poor. When people hear these ridiculous words they automatically tune out. Of course there are policies and even laws that adversely impact those who have little. There always have been. And we need to elect those who will actively help those in need along with our own personal work. But there is no “war” against the poor in the sense that we intentionally wish harm to those who we perceive as poor. Neither Hillary nor Trump have any ill will toward those less fortunate. “War against the poor” language does more harm than good because it takes a very serious issue and turns it into pure childish nonsense.

Waterfield, to be honest, we simply don’t know what their intentions are. That would require mind-reading abilities. We don’t know if they have ill-intentions on this or any other subject. We can’t read their minds.

That said, even if they are the purest of heart, with all the best intentions in the world, their actions have consequences — sometimes dire. Are civilians any less dead for being blown up “accidentally”? Are they any less dead for being taken out along with “official” targets?

And there are solutions right now that could help alleviate tremendous suffering — and they won’t pass them. There are obvious things they could have done decades ago, and never have, and probably never will, that could alleviate suffering.

If we keep the economic system in place which is the cause of most of this suffering — and we shouldn’t — there are still things we could do right now, yesterday, last century. Like capping the ratio of ownership/executive pay to rank and file workers. Like setting aside the majority of stocks in a company for workers, along with profit-sharing. Like guaranteeing seats on every corporate board to Labor. Like setting a living wage floor for all people working 35 hours or more. Like implementing Single Payer health care insurance for all, and free clinics in all under-served areas. Like free public universities and trade schools for all. Like national apprenticeships to learn trades, artisanship, crafts, the arts.

And if we can have an amendment that guarantees the protection of deadly pieces of metal — albeit for those in state militias, only — then surely we can add another to the Bill of Rights for a good job, a safe home, clean water and safe food, a healthy environment, quality education and healthcare. As in, life’s necessities. Deadly pieces of metal aren’t necessities.

waterfield wrote:

zn wrote:

waterfield wrote:

This is the type of hyperbole that turns good people off. Good people who can actually make a change for the betterment of people who have little. No one -not even Trump or Hillary-is “against” the poor. No one believes these people represent a threat. There is no “WAR” against people who are poor. When people hear these “magical” words they automatically tune out. Of course there are policies and even laws that adversely impact those who have little. There always have been. And we need to elect those who will actively help those in need. But there is no “war” against the poor. Neither Hillaryh nor Trump have any ill will toward those less fortunate. “War against the poor” language does more harm than good because it takes a very serious issue and turns it into nonsense.

That seems less like a critique, w, then just a slam. First I don’t see it as hyperbole. It’s basically a summary slogan line for a position, and you don’t seem to address the position. So yes you’re right–no one takes it literally. In terms of the actual intent, when you don’t over-literalize the line itself, yes there are actual positions referred to, and they go to the heart of a great deal of actual politics. What Hillary and Trump have in varying degrees (with Trump far worse) is policies that disenfranchise people, harm people economically, and build an economic climate that heavily favors the more well off (unless you haven’t heard about the effect that economic inequality has on people). It’s reflected in health care, labor policies, and so on. All you addressed was the slogan which you unaccountably took as literal, and did not address the policies.

Yes american economic policies, unlike many countries (which are actually doing better than we are), do in fact strip power, rights, and opportunities from the disadvantaged and less well off. It seems to me to deny that is just to deny a significant reality.

And try to steer clear of antagonistic language like “childish nonsense” for positions you dont’ personally agree with. It goes against the spirit of the rules.

.

I didn’t intend to address the economic policies that disenfranchise the poor. I intended to address the slogan-period. Because I think it impacts on a person’t credibility on issues that I completely agree with that person. I’m not writing here to debate any policies that affect the poor because there is no debate as far as I’m concerned. It’s tragic and we need to do stuff to turn it around.

I appreciate the fact that ultimately, people are coming from the same general place. But, slogans are slogans, and the guy who wrote that one (wv) is famously into darkly playful language. I got that, it was a darkly ironic but also funny slogan. If we don’t factor that in, then, we might as well take literally the fact that wv also calls all human beings “talking monkeys.” It wouldn’t accomplish much to lecture him about zoology and paleontology and evolution and point out we’re not monkeys.

Anyway no harm no foul. This election is making everyone tense. I think I will shoot ahead time to when the apes take over. Seems like a more reasonable world.

…

It wouldn’t accomplish much to lecture him about zoology and paleontology and evolution and point out we’re not monkeys.

Actually, humans are talking monkeys. Unlike the outdated Linnean taxonomic hierarchies modern taxonomic systems are based on evolutionary history so a named group would include the common ancestor and all of its descendants. Since humans are apes and apes are descended from a monkey progenitor, then humans are also monkeys. Technically, we’re all sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish) as well, since this group gave rise to the tetrapods which is the group that includes all reptiles, birds and mammals.

So not only are humans talking monkeys, we’re also talking lobe-finned fish…technically speaking. Obviously it’s usually not useful to talk about humans in these terms but we are sarcopterygii.

nittany ram wrote:

It wouldn’t accomplish much to lecture him about zoology and paleontology and evolution and point out we’re not monkeys.

Actually, humans are talking monkeys. Unlike the outdated Linnean taxonomic hierarchies modern taxonomic systems are based on evolutionary history so a named group would include the common ancestor and all of its descendants. Since humans are apes and apes are descended from a monkey progenitor, then humans are also monkeys. Technically, we’re all sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish) as well, since this group gave rise to the tetrapods which is the group that includes all reptiles, birds and mammals.

So not only are humans talking monkeys, we’re also talking lobe-finned fish…technically speaking. Obviously it’s usually not useful to talk about humans in these terms but we are sarcopterygii.

I stand corrected.

…

waterfield wrote:

I know all that. I guess I’m one of those who is getting too emotional over this election. Can’t think of when I was ever this bad. Need something lightheartedness.

Speaking of that- if you need to read something funny go over to the Herd board and the Pub section where I tell how I almost died yesterday-seriously !

Cut and paste that herd thing here, please.

Well, I hear what you are saying, W, but otoh, I can think of a couple of things that are intentionally done to damage the interests of the poor. Is that “war?” I would think it could be called that.

What do you mean by “war on the poor?”

I am going to go with “intention to damage the interests.”

And voter ID laws do that. So is the obstruction of the dispensing of services to the poor, such as health and legal services. That happens. The deliberate placing of toxic sites in poor neighborhoods can’t be done unconsciously, can it? How about people who berate the guy ahead of them at the grocery store for using food stamps? That’s kind of deliberate hostility.

The reduction of services from public transportation, to policing, to city maintenance, and so on.

I dunno.

If in order to qualify as “war on the poor,” there needs to be a panel of government officials in a conference room discussing strategies to make life worse for poor people…well, then, you are right. That isn’t happening.

But my goodness. There are all kinds of people sitting around discussing single issues, and coming up with plans that, when implemented, are going to be to the detriment of the poor. That may not be the primary objective. But it’s happening all the time.

From the point of view of the poor…we are just arguing semantics.

waterfield wrote:

Speaking of that- if you need to read something funny go over to the Herd board and the Pub section where I tell how I almost died yesterday-seriously !

I did read that. It;s a classic. The one where you got locked in your own car on a hot day. You’re right it was hilarious. Glad you’re okay.

http://ramsrule.com/herd/read.php?4,481978,481978#msg-481978

And all throughout the Dem Conv, I noted hearing about the Middle Class again and again and again. To the Democrats, the Middle Class seems to be synonymous with the “bottom 90%.”

Poor people are so unpopular, talking about relieving their poverty with programs is so unpopular, they never got mentioned. The closest thing, iirc, was saying that a person who works 40 hours a week should get paid a living wage.

Otherwise…invisible.

nittany ram wrote:

Zooey wrote:

And all throughout the Dem Conv, I noted hearing about the Middle Class again and again and again. To the Democrats, the Middle Class seems to be synonymous with the “bottom 90%.”

Poor people are so unpopular, talking about relieving their poverty with programs is so unpopular, they never got mentioned. The closest thing, iirc, was saying that a person who works 40 hours a week should get paid a living wage.

Otherwise…invisible.

That’s because in America, poverty is considered a self-inflicted wound.

Yep.

How many Facebook memes do you see about corporate welfare vs. some meme about a guy on food stamps needing to work or some such thing? Hell–he may work at Wal-Mart for all they know.

We have a tiered pay scale where I work and guys like me who are fortunate to be on the higher end work with guys who do the same jobs–on the lower ends. One guy the other night was complaining about the lower wage guys and saying they should be out looking for something else. “There”s LOTS of jobs out there!” When questioned where he named ONE place he knew that was hiring.

Corporate welfare? Not a blip. No one cares.

People welfare? Horrible crime.