Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › "War against the Poor"
- This topic has 20 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 30, 2016 at 1:45 am #49722waterfieldParticipant
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.
- This topic was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by waterfield.
July 30, 2016 at 1:57 am #49724znModeratorThis 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.
.
July 30, 2016 at 7:40 am #49733wvParticipantThis 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.
——————
Well, we disagree on that Waterfield.No big thing, but we have fundamental disagreements on Politics/Economics.
I think the Corporotacracy that we live in, is destroying the poor. You, apparently, do not think that. We’ve gone round and round on this for years, i am not gonna say the same thing for the gazillionth time. We just disagree.
Hillary is going to win. Be happy.
w
v- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by wv.
July 30, 2016 at 9:16 am #49745Billy_TParticipantThis 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.
July 30, 2016 at 1:16 pm #49774waterfieldParticipantThis 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.
July 30, 2016 at 1:36 pm #49775znModeratorThis 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.
…
July 30, 2016 at 2:07 pm #49777waterfieldParticipantI 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 !
July 30, 2016 at 2:30 pm #49778nittany ramModeratorIt 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.
July 30, 2016 at 3:13 pm #49780wvParticipantIt 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 can trace my family all the way back to a small pool of primordial ooze,
in the Naples Italy region. Just so you know.Where did ‘life’ come from Mr Science?
w
vJuly 30, 2016 at 4:29 pm #49781znModeratorIt 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.
…
July 30, 2016 at 6:35 pm #49788bnwBlockedThis 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.
I agree but that is the nature of unsubstantiated political claims.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 30, 2016 at 6:39 pm #49789bnwBlockedI 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.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 30, 2016 at 6:54 pm #49791nittany ramModeratorIt 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 can trace my family all the way back to a small pool of primordial ooze,
in the Naples Italy region. Just so you know.Where did ‘life’ come from Mr Science?
w
v‘Where’ is the one of the easier questions about the origin of life. It either came from Earth or originated somewhere else and was transported to Earth. Probably somewhere around the Naples area.
‘When’ depends on who you ask. It ranges from 3.65 – 4 billion years ago.
‘How’ is the toughy. No one knows for sure. But it probably began with lipids coacervating in water trapping organic molecules within the ‘membrane’…
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_04
July 31, 2016 at 1:19 am #49814ZooeyModeratorWell, 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.
July 31, 2016 at 1:26 am #49815znModeratorBut 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.
Yeah war on the poor is a metaphor. Wait I should use end stops and poeticize that:
war on the poor
is a metaphorAnyway, it’s not that people deliberately say “bring misery to the poor by policy.”
It means that their needs and interests and wants are neglected or ignored, don’t register at the policy level, get in the way of giving money to other people and things, are discounted, and/or aren’t heard at all…and meanwhile things are being done that directly damage their health, needs, interests, livelihoods, economic standing, and living conditions. They aren’t taken seriously. They don’t count. What happens to them as a result doesn’t register.
It doesn’t require deliberate, planned socio-economic assault. Just the combination of things I’ve named, like neglect, lack of understanding, dismissiveness.
.
July 31, 2016 at 3:00 am #49823znModeratorSpeaking 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
July 31, 2016 at 7:02 am #49828nittany ramModeratorAnyway, it’s not that people deliberately say “bring misery to the poor by policy.”
Yeah, but policy decisions are made knowing full well they will harm the poor as a consequence. That’s more than just neglecting or ignoring the well being of the poor, to me. To me that’s an attack on the poor.
So yeah, semantics.
Whether the Viet Nam conflict was a war or police action is meaningless to the villagers of Mai Lai. The outcome was the same, so I wish people wouldn’t get tied up by semantics and focus on the real issue.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by nittany ram.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by nittany ram.
July 31, 2016 at 9:57 am #49830ZooeyModeratorAnd 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.
July 31, 2016 at 10:05 am #49832nittany ramModeratorAnd 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.
July 31, 2016 at 11:27 am #49833PA RamParticipantAnd 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.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
July 31, 2016 at 3:31 pm #49841znModeratorWikiLeaks reveals DNC holds unions in contempt
The latest WikiLeaks document dump — containing emails by high-ranking staffers of the Democratic National Committee — caused considerable heartburn for America’s oldest political party. Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign over charges she helped rig the primary process against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
But what’s just as interesting is the dog that didn’t bark — the fact that wasn’t regarded as a scandal but perhaps ought to have been.
Even casual political observers can see that labor union leadership and the Democratic Party are allied. AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka spoke at the convention the other night, endorsing Hillary Clinton and calling the Republican nominee “wrong, wrong, wrong” for America.
Yet the emails that have been released highlight the rather one-way relationship between the Democratic Party and labor unions. DNC staffers see the unions as good soldiers in skirmishes with Republicans, as a pain when it comes to getting things done and, ultimately, as pushovers.
When brainstorming what to do about last week’s Republican National Convention, the DNC’s Rachel Palermo urged her party to “meet with the hotel trades, SEIU, and Fight for 15 about staging a strike.” She said the result could be a “fast food worker strike around the city or just at franchises around the convention.” The aim would not be to improve working conditions, but to bloody Republicans.
Alternately, the DNC could “infiltrate friendly union hotels and properties around the convention that Republicans will be patronizing to distribute ‘care’ packages” — probably not chocolates.
Palermo also noted that “SEIU has space in downtown Cleveland close to convention that can be the base of operations and host the wrapped mobile RV.”
The union-DNC alliance does impose a few constraints on the DNC, which staffers both mocked and worked to circumvent. DNC staffer Katja Greeson, for instance, complained about delays involved in getting new business cards printed.
She explained to an irked communications director that sending work to union shops caused delays. “Believe me — it is equally frustrating to us,” she said. Greeson also threatened “if they can’t deliver,” DNC staffers would “go to FedEx Kinkos” and do it themselves.
The DNC pledges to use only unionized hotels. But it turns out there’s a workaround for that, too. Trey Kovacs, who has done yeoman’s work spelunking through the DNC WikiLeaks dump, uncovered this one. In an exchange over whether they could use the non-union Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., a DNC staffer says they could just get a “waiver” to use it.
“It is unclear from the emails how or what circumstances must arise to obtain a waiver, but it seems that convenience for the chairman trumps loyalty to adhering to some kind of internal guidelines of exclusively patronizing unionized establishments,” Kovacs, a policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told me Wednesday.
Because this document dump has emails both to and from the DNC, we also hear from the unions themselves, which might explain why the party can count on their support come-what-may.
For instance, Sandra Lyon of the American Federation of Teachers asked for any “regular talking points” the DNC might have to pass on to AFT folks who speak with the media.
And the National Education Organization’s political communications director Michael Misterek wrote longingly to the DNC in May, “I’m hoping we can sit down to meet some time soon, over coffee or a cocktail. I’d love to figure out how we can work together and be most helpful to each other these next few months.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.