Our first move, LETS MAKE THE POOR A PRIORITY!!!!

[inthebrain]

This is something I think that will difuse much of the evangelical base. At least it keeps them from voting Republican. I think instead of triangulating we need to get to some fundamental liberal principles.

This is one issue that can propel us. Call it, "No Child Left to Die".

As our first order of business being raising the minimum wage and the Iraq war, healthcare and food need to go up there as well. Think of places like Ohio and the rest of the midwest that have been ravaged by Wal Mart and the other welfare corporations (Here's lookin at you GE and GM). Those states are turning very blue.

Now it's time for the abused to spouse to realize they've been abused. Afterall, these folks are coming off of an extremely abusive relationship with the Republican party. Lets say we take care of these people and put food on their table.

LITERALLY!!!!

[CitizenLeft]

1. this is John Edwards' personal crusade

I think it should be prominent on the '08 platform.

[inthebrain]

2. It can't wait till 08

Biggest problem people have with the Democratic party is the "What have you done for me lately."

Voters need a reason to vote democrat and that's only going to come with results. We absolutely can not blow this opportunity. The number one reason people vote Republican is apathy. They figure, "Why bother helping anyone else when it's much easier to help yourself."

Republicans were able to use Iraq in 04 to paint the left as selfish bastards. Remember that was when they claimed we were in Iraq to, "Liberate and spread Democracy." Many voters did feel like they were voting for a positive change in the world (I know. I know. They were being lied to.)

We were handed this election. Bill Maher made a point tonight on Larry King that this election was like the St Louis Cardinals winning the World Series. The Cards didn't win, Detroit lost!!!!!! The Republicans lost this election and come 08 we will face a very different Republican party.

Opportunities like this don't come along very often.

[CitizenLeft]

23. I didn't say "wait"

...I said it should be prominent in the platform.

Anything and everything can happen between now and then, starting first and foremost with a national rise in the minimum wage to $7.50 - to start.

Please don't put words in my mouth. :)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

38. MW apparently is a great "wedge issue" for evangelicals, and already

apparently has split off some evangelicals to the Democratic side in states that had minimum wage referenda this year, according to a NY Times article (see the snippet below). The $7.15 likely to be achieved over two years in an early 2007 vote won't be enough, and more state minimum wage referenda for 2008 could be the path to a bigger Democratic share of evangelicals.

Groups like Rev Jim Wallis's "Red-Letter Christians" ( http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.redletterchristians ) are doing a great job reorienting evangelicals toward what Jesus actually is credited in the Bible as having said. By my reading of the Bible, Jesus's number one issue was helpeng the poor, not protecting private property with "supply side economics" or taunting scapegoats each campaign season.

IMO the more evangelicals who actually read their Bibles rather than rely on the interpretations of Falwells and Robertsons, the more they'll stand with us and not with them.

From http://www10.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09relig.html?pagewanted=print :

"Religious Voting Data Show Some Shift, Observers Say

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN November 9, 2006

... "The biggest change appears to be in the states where the Democratic candidates made a real effort to attract these religious voters," Mr. Green said. "It seems to have paid off." Never before in any election had the religious left been so organized and so active. They held rallies and passed out hundreds of thousands of voter guides, all with the message that religious conservatives' traditional agenda of opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage was too narrow. With the help of religious liberals, six states passed ballot initiatives calling for a raise in the minimum wage.

"This was a significant shift in the religious vote, where you see a reclaiming of the values debate," said Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a liberal group formed after the last election to counter Catholic conservatives. In Ohio, voters elected all four state board of education candidates who opposed the teaching of intelligent design, and victories like that gave religious liberals cause to proclaim the end of the right's dominance of religious voters.

Bobby Clark, deputy director of ProgressNow, a liberal group in Colorado, said, "After 2004, people were saying that the religious right owns this country now. Far from it. They have networks and the ability to move quickly and to dominate the airwaves, but they do not represent most Americans. Most Americans are pretty moderate people.""

[CitizenLeft]

44. one passed here in Ohio...

...to raise it to $6.85. While that's not enough, it passed 56% - 44%, in fact there was no county in the state with less than 50%-50% result. The state Republicans tried to label it a "privacy" issue, saying that now your personal info will be available for all the world to see. Straw man that didn't work, I'm happy to say.

I've heard Jim Wallis on AAR a few times, and I'm so glad that the Christian left is speaking out.

[durtee librul]

65. with all due respect

mw is not all that is needed to address the poverty issue in this country. John Edwards was saying this years ago with his "Two Americas" theme. Unfortunately it was drowned out by Kerry and other issues.

[survivor999]

3. I'd say, let's make the middle class a priority.

Which would mean getting some of the previous middle class people (now poor) back into the middle class. Without a strong middle class the US is fucked.

[Impashund Ubique]

4. This attitude IS the problem

I think your idea of focusing on the middle class is much more politically effective. Voters are looking out for themselves, and since most of them are middle class, they want to hear about issues that will help them.

But politics sometimes misses the point. The POOR need a champion. They need someone to stand up and fight for their plight. Yes, there are some who live at the edge who've been driven into poverty by the Bush administration, but there is a whole segment of America that is stuck in a past century. The African-American young men in inner cities, our rural communities are all living in a state of disillusionment.

If we don't pull these people up by creating new rungs in the economic ladder, then the class of the poor will just keep expanding.

No national figure since RFK has even brought up the issue, except for John Edwards. But he is not in congress. A progressive agenda is incomplete without specific efforts to alleviate poverty in America. We continue to grow economically stratified and, yet, no one has cared to find out why those who are stuck at the bottom are unable to rise. The American Dream is a distant target now. And the poor, not the middle class, suffer the most from it.

So, let's make the POOR a priority. Because whatever reform we initiate to help them, it will ultimately make America a better, stronger, and more progressive nation. The middle class benefits if the poor are being helped - this can be proven empirically.

[inthebrain]

5. That IS divisive

I'll explain to you why. This where Democrats and Republicans both fuck up the class argument (Some do it to their advantage). I'll try to keep it brief.

Democrats use class in a "Middle Class" sense to keep the buffer alive. This isn't really about lifting people up as it is about securing the economic system and keeping the poor off the throats of the rich. The common mistake made is that if there are enough middle class folk then we can tolerate a certain degree of poverty.

This keeps the poor and the middle class at each others throats fighting for table scraps.

Republicans on the other hand like to create ghost boogie men. I'm talking about the image of the volvo driving, wine and cheeze liberal. The idea of liberals, Democrats and leftists who read Oliver Twist at some funky starbucks bookstore amongst their other wine and cheeze friends. This myth is so successful because of folks that see themselves as middle class as a class amongst themselves.

They know all too well that this image is divisive and they get away with playing the cowboy, sports fan or blue collar folk. Those that live in place like the south and midwest buy this because they appear to speak their language. Republicans have cut their teeth in those areas by appearing like they arent ashamed to be blue collar or "trailer trash".

Keep in mind I'm trying to keep this short and to the point. This whole thing works in one bug huge catch 22. I was also going to mention how living in a stratified society plays into all this but that's too deep for now. Just think of how the "Fear of falling down" plays into this.

BUT!!!!!!

By focusing on the concerns of the poor and working to improve conditions on the bottom. The bottom improves and people don't have far to fall. That's cylical.

[katsy]

31. Excellent points.

Close all private schools, no vouchers and everyone has a shot in a solid, well funded public education system.

Oh, but they don't need our kids to succeed at anything do they.

Your post needs a thread of it's own.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Basically, lets expand and protect the middle class

Although I believe that we should ALWAYS have safeguards to protect the poor.

[inthebrain]

7. Read above and tell me what you think

[Hippo_Tron]

8. We pretty much agree

The problem is that Reagan made sympathizing with the poor a bad thing. He convinced the middle class that welfare was the cause of their economic woes. Thus Democrats now say "expand middle class" instead of "help the poor". I don't know what to do about this, but I certainly would like to see the debate re-shifted.

[inthebrain]

9. Good point

It's time we got over our fears. Fears that the right wing has done such a wonderfull job creating. Creating bogeymen is their specialty.

[Erika]

10. Done a great job of job creating? You got to be kidding

Their jobs are minimum wage jobs.

[inthebrain]

15. You misread what I wrote

Slow down and read it again.

[Erika]

11. What did Christ say as how we should treat the poor?

A touch different from the Regan epistle.

[survivor999]

21. Who cares about what Christ said?

Who cares about what ANYBODY said?

[Dr Fate]

13. "Expanding the middle class" assumes that it expands b/c the poor join it.

Not a bad thing- it is a positive & politically expedient way to frame this.

[inthebrain]

18. So we should tailor policy toward the middle class

and expect them to benefit the poor?

I've already whacked on much of this and why it's ridiculous. What exactly does this middle class tailoring of policy mean?

Tax breaks on gas?

Marriage tax break?

How about a tax break to repave your driveway?

Folks keep talking about this middle class thing but it really just comes off as selfish. You do that and you will allow Republicans to have their way in poor lower middle class communities.

[Dr Fate]

20. Yes. We should.

I am for tax cuts for working people, at the expense of the top 1%.

I dont know about the paving the driveway thing- I just know that working people need a break. We need more income.

You make it easier for working people to hold on to more of their money, then you expand the middle class & you have less poor folks.

Selfish? Whatever. The middle class VOTES and they are the backbone of our political & economic system.

[inthebrain]

25. What about Home Health aids and CNAs?

How about the folks that clean your offices, schools and bus stops?

They don't count?

They don't vote?

At least you don't deny the selfish part. If it were legal on this board I'd put that post front and center to gather opinions on it.

Poor people work and they vote. Just because you work that does in no way make you middle class. Your middle class pride is divisive when it comes to doing what's best for the least among us. The poor in this nation don't have an "entitlement mentaility" and that's a shame. They are the ones that create much of the wealth in this society.

The poor and the least among us come first, the middle class comes second and the wealthy are last.

[Dr Fate]

26. I am for increasing services, healthcare & education.

Most Democrats that I know of are.

I never said anything about abandoning the poor. So no need to accuse people of being selfish- I think making the middle class the focus is the key to holding on to power- which means getting in more progressive legislation...

You have to have the voters behind you or you will get nothing done...

[inthebrain]

27. You missed the point

Home Health Aids and CNAs (the folks who take care of the elderly and ill) are paid poverty level wages. They are poor.

You just claimed they don't vote.

You just claimed they are not the backbone of our economic system.

They are not middle class. You think making people who are able to put food on the table should be the focus. That is everything that is wrong with our political and economic system.

You need change from within. Your statement was selfish.

[Dr Fate]

36. I never said that working people do not vote or are not politically active.

And I never suggested that the working poor should not get breaks- like they did under Clinton.

I did suggest that the middle class is a more reliable voting bloc and that they are much more politically active than the very poor.
I also said that I want the working poor to move up into the middle class, where they belong.

But then you had to twist what I said so that you could try to lay a guilt trip on me.

Try that BS tactic on swingvoters & moderates and see where it gets you.

[inthebrain]

41. You said it yourself

You said poor people don't vote and they contribute nothing to our economic system.

You're not going to create much of a political movement off of a bunch of angry, spoiled rotten, middle class entitlements. We just saw one built off of greed, selfishness and nationalism crumble in less than two years.

Swing voters and moderates are voters that need inspiration. They are not moderates by any stretch of the imagination. Your sterile go no where vision is exactly why this party has lost election after election. Especially in the midwest!!!!

[Dr Fate]

72. Never said that-but I know you had say I did for your guilt trip to work.

I never said that "poor people don't vote and they contribute nothing to our economic system"

What I suggest is that Middle class people DO vote MORE than poor people do and I also suggested that the middle class does contribute more to our economic system than say, poor folks who dont work.

I dont disagree with you that the working poor get some breaks and I dont disagree with you that we need to work to eliminate poverty.

If you are relying on twisting people's words and guilt trips to win this debate, you will never get anywhere- especially w/ swing voters & self-styled moderates.

I have not seen any meaningful tax cuts aimed at the working poor or middle class in the midwest or anywhere else, so your non-example of my "sterile" idea means nothing. You let those voters go home w/ more money and most will continue to vote DEM.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. I'll say it...

If poor people voted, there wouldn't be a Republican in office today. Statistically speaking, poor people (especially poor, young people) have the worst voting habits of any demographic. In poor neighborhoods, even in presidential election years, you're lucky to see a 40% turn-out. In my affluent suburuban county last week, we had nearly 75% turn-out.

Rich white folks get their way because rich white folks show up at the polls.

[Dr Fate]

73. But this is not a reality based sub-thread- it is about P.C. guilt trips.

Discussion of "framing" or daring to consider the reality of who votes in what demographic is to open yourself up to some kind of middle class guilt-trip.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

74. You're right...

suddenly I feel terrible about myself.

[Naturyl]

33. Well said

In true Orwellian fashion, the right has reframed the economic reality in America to an absurd degree. The "entitlement mentality" so often blamed on the poor actually exists among the rich and middle class. While the wealthy especially could stand to have their sense of entitlement reduced, you are quite correct in suggesting that the poor could benefit from an increased awareness of just how much they ought to be entitled to as American citizens - and how little of that they are actually getting.

Progressive economic policies made the Democratic party strong in the past. If we had paid more attention to issues of class and less to cultural activism, the Reagan backlash might never have happened.

[Irreverend IX]

40. We tailor the policy toward middle class and poor...

And frame it as "helping people achieve home ownership and financial success," or something to that effect. If we frame it as "more money for the poor" it can be attacked with Reagan welfare queen stereotypes. But if we enact the same policies to lift people out of poverty, as well as providing some middle class benefits, and call it "supporting America's middle class" or whatever, it'll go over better.

[inthebrain]

53. Stop being such a wimp

Framing is ridiculous. It doesn't work when folks can't agree on core issues. It makes it twice as confusing to other voters trying to figure out where you really stand. That requires being willing to take some lumps on some issues.

[Dr Fate]

12. This is the best route- it is good political strategy & economically sound

I agree-let's make the middle class a priority.

[qwlauren35]

19. How about the WORKING CLASS???????????

Somehow, making the "poor" a priority doesn't ring true for me. I only want to help those willing to help themselves. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

If you tell me we're going to prioritize the working class, I think you'll get a LOT of people on board. Because it makes it clear that we're not just throwing money at the people who have their hands out. Also, there are scores of people who are comfortable being identified as the working class, but don't like being called "poor", even if they are. Heck, NO ONE wants to be called poor, unless it has a payback.

I want to help those who have jobs but still can't make ends meet. I want to help the children of parents who have jobs but can't make ends meet. I wish I knew what to do to help the children of parents who sit on their butts, put holes in their arms, pipes in their mouthes or other things in other places... but I'm not sure what it is. I just know that handing them money doesn't cut it. And one of the reasons that some people avoid our party is because we're known for this. (Now, Pubs hand money to the rich and get away with it, but I won't go there.)

Please give it some thought.

[inthebrain]

28. Poor people don't try to help themselves

Read the opinions on this thread and see why you've lost so many elections. Read this thread and understand why the image of the "latte drinking, wine and cheeze, thumb your nose liberal works so well in poor communities.

Many of these people vote for right wing candidates because of these attitudes. Your on the right track in some of this stuff but your characterizations are off.

People who put holes in their arm and pipes in their mouths are a small minority of this population (You'd even be surprised to know that many of them even hold jobs. Some that even pay well). I find that characterization rather disgusting and classist.

[katsy]

32. Would it help if...

the "ownership" society started with working people having ownership in the company they work for?

I'll never understand why employee empowerment doesn't begin with issuing all employees stock options.

[bobbolink]

43. this is the damage that John Edwards is causing now!

He's promoting all this stuff about "working poor", so that's now all people can think about -- how it affects working situtations.

SOME POOR PEOPLE CAN'T WORK! Either because of illness, age, disability, etc. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve to live!!

Instead of "starting with" solutions for only those on the job, how about considering ALL of us poor folk!

Or, would you rather we just all dive off a cliff, like the RW wants????

[qwlauren35]

64. I'm very confused...

There are some amazing safety nets for those who cannot work. There is Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, housing.

I know that there is a "gap" between when you end up ill or disabled and when you qualify for certain benefits. But otherwise, I'm pretty confused.

If you absolutely cannot work at anything at all and have no money whatsoever, what basic needs is the government not taking care of?

[bobbolink]

37. *Rather* disgusting?

As a poor person myself, I'm more than disgusted with this shit, I'm DAMNED PISSED!

If this person is actually a Dem, s/he needs to be shamed. I must admit that I've actually heard Dems with this attitude, and it has become hard not to take physical action.

I so much appreciate you bringing up this topic, but.... on the other hand, I've experienced so much hurt on DU over this, that I feel like giving up.

I would give anything if one of these clowns could walk in my shoes for a while!!

thanks...

[inthebrain]

39. That seems to be what THEY want

I refuse to give it to them.

I lived in and out of groups homes as an adolescent. I held many a different jobs during and afterwards. When addressing my class interests I was always told to STFU and taught to believe that I should be ashamed of being poor.

There is no reason to be ashamed of it. The middle class was not built by the middle class. It was built by the poor people in this country. All the wonderful reforms that have taken place have been the result of poor peoples movements.

It's always stunning that when it comes to poverty they tell people not to give them aid or money because they deserve it. As if they are bears or something. Poor people drinking and doing drugs is about as vile a sin that can be committed in this country.

Yet, wealthy folk drink and do drugs all the time. I don't see anyone advocating that we take their property away. As a matter of fact, we give them property.

WTF is up with that?

[bobbolink]

42. I'm not ashamed either. I"m homeless and when I tell people I'm not ashamed of it,

that I'm ashamed of my country, and the churches for letting it happen, they are stunned.

People just assume that we should be blaming ourselves. NO WAY!

Also agree with you about blaming our "bad behavior", yet muddleclass people do the same things, but that's OK. (Which is not to say that we ALL have bad behavior!)

I've been pointing out more and more of these double standards. For instance, two weeks ago, I was supposed to be met by a pastor who was taking me to find out about a temporary housing situation. He kept me waiting for 50 minutes before I gave up. NOw can you imagine what would be say to/about me if *I* had kept him waiting???

Nope, I'm really sick of all this double standard crap!! BASTA!

Thanks for your words on this!

[qwlauren35]

70. IF...

I could take money and property from those who are WEALTHY, drink recklessly and engage in drug related crime, I would.

If I could strip the wealth and freedoms from those Americans who get rich from the distribution of illegal narcotics, I would.

I am not hypocritical in that respect. However, I have noticed that some of them do ruin themselves. The wheel turns...

Whitney Houston's drug dealer recently told the press about her buying sprees. I'm sure lots of people were disgusted at Whitney. I wasn't impressed when "Brad and Jennifer" would go to awards banquets high as kites and brag about it. And Ted Kennedy just makes me sad.

I'm very anti-drug. VERY. I abhor it when it is done by any group of people except those in chronic pain or terminally ill. For them, and them alone (especially our veterans) if it is truly what they need, I'm happy to fund it.

As for alcohol, I'm familiar with it, and its allure. But I avoid it. As I meet people who don't have the strength/courage to avoid it yet, BUT ARE TRYING, I give them my utmost respect. And in my mind, I know that there are plenty of alcoholics who, if they had money, would be on something prescribed.

However, I won't deny that I'm classist. It's how I was raised, and difficult to let go of, even though i've been working on it for years. I will try to be more attuned to how easily it can ooze out when I'm not careful.

[qwlauren35]

66. Yes, I'm a Democrat.

I know people who can't work.

But I also know people who don't want to work.

I probably have a chip on my shoulder because I have come across some people who didn't want to work lately, and they have been a personal burden. If my anger at this recent situation has left me venting inappropriately, then I am sorry if I have offended anyone who is unable to work. But i'm not ashamed at not wanting to help those who don't wish to work.

[qwlauren35]

63. Umm...

Do you, for some reason, think that I'm not a Democrat????

I'm currently registered Democrat, although frequently unaffiliated.

I've campaigned my *ss off for Democratic candidates in the last two major elections - the first time I've been motivated to do more than just vote.

However, if my views clash with others, then why assume I'm not a Democrat?

[Hippo_Tron]

69. My question is, what do we do about the single mom with young kids that can't afford daycare?

I think that the generalizations the above post made are disgusting as well. Granted I do believe that there are SOME people who take welfare that don't intend to ever get a job either because they are lazy or because their situation is too dysfunctional to do so. What percentage of welfare recipients that actually is, I have absolutely no idea. I do know that the number inevitably is overblwon by the GOP as are the stories of "welfare queens" because they seek to end welfare because that's good money that could be going into their trust funds.

Now part of the key to ending poverty is a living wage, universal healthcare, and quality education. That way anybody who works 40 hours a week will be able to provide for their family and hopefully we will break the cycle of poverty in the future.

Some people will still refuse to work and in their case I do think that if they are able to work they should have to. Here's where it gets tricky for me, though. What does a single mother with young kids that aren't school-aged yet, do? She can't go to work if nobody can watch the kids. Either we need universal daycare pre-school or we need to allow single mothers to not work until their kids are old enough to be in school. Personally I'd imagine that continuing welfare payments for mothers that have kids that aren't school aged is cheaper than universal daycare and pre-school, but that's just my guess. However, there are good reasons besides supervision to expand Head Start which unlike welfare, is a program with overwhelmingly popular support.

Another alternative might be to subsidize neighborhood run daycare programs.

However you put it I'm all for expanded opportunity along with personal responsibility. But Welfare Reform under the GOP congress screwed over a lot of people who aren't poor because they are lazy.

[qwlauren35]

76. Don't laugh....

Here's one place where I think vouchers would be helpful. If there are not enough community sponsored programs for pre-K kids, then a voucher that a legitimate day care provider could cash in might be a decent solution to help low-income families.

But again, I'm afraid you hit a hot button. An un-wed/never-wed mother is such by choice. I'm not thrilled with spending tax dollars to support her choice to bring a child into the world that she can't afford without subsidy.

And this is one issue on which I'll tolerate anyone's disgust. No one should be exempt from taking responsibility for their sexual activities.

[murdoch]

55. The working class is the priority

With all the talk about red and blue states, urban/rural and other nonsense, the real polling differentiation for voting is income. The more people make, the more Republican they vote. Which makes sense, there is the poor, then the working class, then there are managers and professionals, and then the idle class. Personally, I don't even think income is the best measure, as what they call "earnings" for rich people is not earned income at all but rentier money. The working class earns almost all of its income.

While the DP has its base in the working class, it is in the hands of the DLC and so forth, it is pretty much controlled by the DLC and Soros types. I think in and out of the party, working class people have to be the basis of the organization. Poor people and professionals have to follow the lead of the working class needs.

Usually people with faulty analysis come to the correct conclusion, however your analysis, which I think is faulty, came to the correct conclusion. I think your analysis is faulty because you're talking about the attitudes of people who want to help themselves, or don't, or whatever. The problem is this is the only economic system that ever existed where people have to worry about starving to death because they're unneeded for work - perhaps not in the US, but in some parts of the world. Different economic systems, from slavery, to feudalism to the old USSR's state socialism did not have this problem. Unemployment is something that did not exist prior to capitalism, does not exist in the parts of the world that are still feudal or semi-feudal, nor in state-socialist societies. During the Depression in the US, newspapers blamed unemployed people for their own predicament, but this sort of thing doesn't last too long when the problem persists at a large scale level. It's hard for me to see standard unemployment jump from 5% to 10% during a recession, and buy into your analysis that it is not the market or economic system at fault, but that 5% of people suddenly had some moral failings. It doesn't make sense to me, although it may to some.

You should really pick up a book on the history of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the enclosure of the commons and so forth, and see how hard industrialists worked to create unemployment where there was none. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not taught or talked about much in the US.

[qwlauren35]

71. I understand some of it.

But again, I find myself going back to the issue of "working poor".

I'm not convinced that there are no jobs at all. I just know that there are too many jobs that don't pay well.

I'm not 100% sure I can buy into the idea of unemployment vs. underemployment. To me, this is a major issue with the minimum wage, and it confuses me a great deal.

Which is better? To pay someone minimum wage? OR to pay them partly with money and partly with something else? Like room and board?

If our system of taxation creates situations in which its easier for all to work under the table, is there something wrong?

What if we were more socialist? If the US funded health care to all who need it, in exchange for paying taxes and reporting wages, would this give more people reason to work legally? Would free health care ease the poverty gap for the working poor?

My biggest concern about raising the minimum wage is that it might eliminate more jobs. Is this unlikely? Am I mistaken?

As I said, I'm confused. I know what I *want*, but what I want is probably absurd. I want people below a certain income to pay no taxes. I want it to be easier for people to exchange pay for services without paperwork and headaches. I remember when I had to hire CNA's. I had no doubt that the "overhead" was partly to ensure that the taxes got paid. But in the end, I paid more than I want to, and the CNA gets too little, especially for what he or she is worth. (My CNA's were worth gold. I wished I could have afforded more.)

There is a part of me that is not convinced that feudalism doesn't have some merits, if it provides a safety net. However, I *thought* America had decent safety nets.

Hence my confusion.

[Turn CO Blue]

14. Taking care of the working class -- It's the right thing to do!

People are hurting financially, and we now have a Congress who can try to do something about it.

The first 100 hours need to rock!

[survivor999]

22. I agree with that. Keeping in mind...

That over 95% of Americans are WORKING CLASS... Anybody who has to go to work to survive is working class.

[calimary]

16. The evangelicals should make the poor their ONLY priority.

They could actually show a lot of true and really worthwhile leadership on that issue. After all, is it not true that the Bible references poverty a few THOUSAND times? And I vaguely remember hearing of MAYBE one or two references to homosexuality. If that.

[inthebrain]

17. For many of them it is

Righties have shifted their priorities onto ridiculous wedge issues.

[inthebrain]

24. Bump

[calimary]

29. Shit. There's that error message again.

Already recommended this thread.

We SHOULD be putting the poor first. If one would call oneself a true Christian, one would HAVE TO pay heed to "the least of My brethren." Michael Moore once said "you need a permission slip from the poor to get into heaven." I think that's a pretty good quote.

[inthebrain]

30. Seems many don't like this thread

that might explain the error message.

Many people like Arriana Huffingtion, Michael Moore and Howard Zinn are responsible for driving people to this party because of their focus on the "least among us".

[Naturyl]

34. Let's not forget the non-working class...

I hear a lot about "work" as if it is qualification for citizenship. But in reality, we have a large non-working class in America as well - retirees, the disabled, and the unemployed. Many of these are among the poorest Americans, and just because they do not work, they should not be ignored.

[inthebrain]

35. Well played

and noted.

That slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder.

[kineneb]

46. thank you

Hubby can't work, he is attached to a dialysis machine three days a week, and has, at last count, 5 different doctors. I can't work (officially), because he could loose his Medicaid coverage if I earn too much (stupid system is all or nothing). Also, I am the cook, chauffeur, bookkeeper, gardener, appointment keeper and only caregiver. We live off his SSDI, all of $1199 per month, my musical odd jobs (cash), and donations from family.

Yes, please pay attention to the poor.
The French monarchy did not, and history has recorded the outcome.

[Codeblue]

45. Higher Education

I think this is a very effective way to help the poor become, well, less poor. Higher education opens so many oppotunites for advanement, yet this is something very few poor people ever get the chance to partake of.

My family is poor. Together, my parents made about $20,000 per year. We always had enough for food and such, but I fear for my stability once I graduate from college this year.

I will have thousands of dollars of student loans to pay off, and the prospects of finding a job capable of supporting my girlfriend and I as well as paying off loans is rather slim, even with a college degree. How am I or my family expected to pay this money? Does the government think a family making 20k a year has enough spare change to pay off $50,000 in student loans? I think not.

I think need based financial aid for higher education should really be need based, which it really is not at this point. Grants are in order for families who really can not afford college and can not afford to pay off loans afterwards. I think we would generate a lot more educated people this way because it would entice people who would not normally think of going to college to maybe further their education. The government really needs to help these people more.

[inthebrain]

48. Higher education has become rather worthless

Unless we are talking about going to school for multiple degrees. At least that seems to be how it works in my generation.

[AZBlue]

47. And not just the children.

OK, before you flame me, I'm certainly not saying forget the children. But often we focus only on them and forget adults: their parents, childless friends and relatives, and their aging grandparents. The elderly and poor adults need just as much help as the children. Each age group has its own special needs and circumstances. Let's not be Republican about this: worrying only about a human being as a child and not as a teenager/young adult/middle ager/senior. We have the ability to meet EVERYONE'S needs, so let's do it!

[LostinVA]

49. The poor and the middle class

We've been abused for far too long...

[FreeStateDemocrat]

50. Help the working class you will be helping the poor, first step is an

increase in minimum wage with indexing to real inflation. The next step would be to increase the standard deduction to $10,000 or $12,000, a tax cut that would help many people even beyond the working class with a resultant of stimulating the economy in a way that may even create some jobs in the USA. Both these actions would send a real message that the Democratic Party is trying to be fair in actually helping the many people that have been excluded from the puke economic polices directed at the wealthy and corporate interests.

[inthebrain]

52. You think the poor are not "working class"

That part of the problem. It appears that you see the middle class as the working class. Granted there are many poor people who can not work. Still, this sounds more like trickle down economics to me; Money trickling from the Middle class (working class) to the poor.

If the Democratic party was serious about helping these folks they've toss out the right to work laws and Taft Hartly. Tax cuts don't work!!! We can forgive people from their tax obligations if they are undergoing hardships. Yet, it's all about workers getting a fair share of the wealth they create.

Tax cuts are just sticking a finger in a leak.

[Odin2005]

59. "middle class" and "working class" have become synonyms.

"middle class" originally ment what we now would call "upper-middle class," the doctors, professors, lawyers, small business ownwers, mid-level managers, etc. In the last 50 years the definition of "middle-class" was expanded to encompass blue-collar workers because of the "everyone wants to call himself/herself middle class" syndrome created by right-wing "class warfare is a naughty term" rhetoric.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

62. The working poor are part of the working class which is why that in helping the working class

you help the poor. Moreover, part of targeting the working class is job creation which helps disadvantaged poor either access or improve their job opportunities. Another major initiative in helping the working class would be universal health care which again would help a broad segment of population. The positive impact of increasing the standard deduction as a benefit for the working class is Representative of core Democratic Party values of allowing people to address their basic economic burden through a tax reduction that is a greater benefit to people in the lowest tax bracket who have been marginalized in recent tax policy. Besides, by targeting a broad range like the working class you can more easily rally public support for an agenda that will improve the economic life of most American's that are struggling to survive financially in our current difficult economy.

[1932]

51. No American Left Behind

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. The poor don't vote...

I hate to be crass, but we've just got our majority back, and it came back through the good offices of a whole boatload of middle-class swing voters who finally got sick of the Republican Party.

As Molly always says, "You have to dance with them that brung you." Our first priority should be those issues that effect the people who put us back in power. Ending the debacle in Iraq as soon as possible, Creating decent jobs, Providing affordable healthcare, Providing affordable education, Cutting taxes on working families, and Raising the minium wage.

Good News for the poor: Better jobs, better education and access to healthcare are pretty important issues for everybody.

[inthebrain]

56. How about restoring welfare?

Democracy or Demagoguery

"Today's Sun Belt represents a confluence of Social Darwinism, entrepreneurialism, high technology, nationalism, nostalgia and fundamentalist religion, and any Sun Belt hegemony over our politics has a unique potential. . .to accommodate a drift toward apple-pie authoritarianism." So wrote conservative strategist Kevin Phillips in his 1982 book, Post-Conservative America.

The failed American Dream can give way to a new American fairness or a neo-fascist nig htmlare. It can happen in Europe. It can happen here.

As Sinclair Lewis warned in It Can't Happen Here, through the voice of newspaper editor Doremus Jessup: "The tyranny of this dictatorship isn't primarily the fault of Big Business, nor of the demagogues who do their dirty work. It's the fault of Doremus Jessup! Of all the conscientious, respectable, lazy-minded Doremus Jessups who have let the demagogues wriggle in, without fierce enough protest."

Clinton's favorite strategy is a well-tested failure: the best defense is a good sellout. Sell out labor; dump Lani Guinier, Joycelyn Elders, and numerous others deemed politically incorrect by rightwingers; scapegoat single mothers; make court appointments courting conservatives; and so on. Clinton and company behave like defense lawyers who plea bargain every case, no matter the particulars of guilt or innocence. Who wants a lawyer with a track record of pleading their clients "part guilty"?

The Democrats have reaped the scapegoating divisions they have sown with their moves to the right on welfare, immigration, and so on. They divide their electoral base of workers, Blacks, and women, and wonder why Republicans conquer. It's an impossible process of multiplication by division.

Right-wing politicians won in 1994 because their base (mostly religious conservative Republicans, but also like-minded Independents and Democrats) was mobilized to turn out in force--and there was no Perot to divert them--while the more liberal and moderate Democratic base was demoralized and turned off.

According to a report by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, the proportion of the 1994 electorate (not a representative sample of the larger population) calling themselves conservative increased 7 points nationally. Nearly one in five voters (19 percent) identified themselves as part of "the religious right political movement."

During the 1980s, Reaganites were the shock troops of global corporate capitalism, lowering wages, busting unions, scapegoating Blacks and women, rolling back communism, socialism, and social democracy abroad--and rolling back welfare and social services and democracy at home. In many ways, rightwingers continue to serve that shock troop purpose. But as shock troops and their leaders grow more powerful, they have more power to implement their more radical agenda, an agenda that is not fully shared by global corporate elites--and can ultimately threaten them.

To put it simply, corporate executives want their own oligarchy, not the Christian Coalition's theocracy.

In a 1992 New York Times Magazine article, Kevin Phillips reflected on the contemporary "politics of frustration." He noted "the radicalization of the usually nonideological midsection of the population because of cultural and economic trauma," and warned: "This can lead to dangerous politics, the most terrible example being Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s, when hard times and a collapsing center produced Adolf Hitler."

Phillips continued:

"One measure of the depth of the current frustration in America is that Duke could win the support of a majority of white Louisiana voters in two straight statewide elections, notwithstanding television advertisements showing him in Ku Klux Klan robes and swastika armbands.

" Buchanan took many of the same positions as Duke on immigration, race, welfare, trade and nationalism, albeit more moderately. And the charges of nativism, fascism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism inspired by his statements had little effect on his support. When a radicalizing middle class regards the establishment as bankrupt and the status quo as intolerable, normal standards fall quite easily."

Scapegoating fuels fear and fear fuels scapegoating. It is not far-fetched to see the seeds of "ethnic cleansing"--the widely-adopted euphemism for genocide in the former Yugoslavia--in the widespread support given California's Proposition 187. Land plundered from Mexico is called Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona--while undocumented Mexican immigrants are called "illegal aliens." The anti-"alien" scapegoating is spreading rapidly to legal immigrants. Think about how successful the Big Lie technique has been: how easy it's been to scapegoat women on welfare. How easy it's been to roll back civil liberties with the excuse of fighting the racially biased "War on Drugs." How easy it's become to spend more money on prisons and less on education. How easy it's been to relabel millions of children as illegitimate.


___________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/hs_econo.html

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

57. What do you mean?

Should we go back to the old days? No. But I think we can be smarter about welfare without abandoning people.

Here's a suggestion. Statistically speaking, the most effective indicator as to whether a person will be living in poverty is whether or not the person is a young, single parent. What does that mean for welfare?

It means we have to have comprehensive sex education for every teenager in America. Abstinence is great, but that's like a Driver's Education class that says, "don't drive a car." Young people need to know what their options are. It also means that birth control should be made universally available (free) to anybody who wants it -- with a nod to conservatives, I'll compromise to limit that to any person above the age of consent. Most unintended pregnancies are to women between the ages of 18-25 anyway, so they're the target democraphic.

The fallback is that we need to have free daycare available to every family in America, with fees based on a sliding scale based on income. Along with that, every household in America needs to have health care and a real Family Leave Act -- one that provides paid time off for family health emergencies. And then we're going to provide GED and vocational/technical training to every American who wants to move up to a better job.

I'm conservative in that I think the government has no business subsidizing slackers. You don't want to work? Starve in the street, as far as I'm concerned. But at the same time, I think that government has a vested interest in lifting up everybody who wants to take responsibility for their life and to create a better future. And we certainly have a moral obligation to those who are physically and mentally incapable of helping themselves.

[inthebrain]

60. There was never anything wrong with welfare to begin with

The average length of stay for someone in the system was 1.5 years. It was actually on e of the least expensive programs. It cost tax payers less that three dollar a week.

Thats worth the cost when you consider that it prevents depserate people from taking jobs with lousy pay. The safety net is what keeps wages up.

A lot of buisness folk didnt like for this very reason. That's why they went nutz looking to demonize it. Since when is a mother a slacker? As if raising kids is not work.

No one seems pissed about the lazy corporations who recieve tax breaks for hiring ex welfare recipients. WTF is up with that?

Plea bargaining welfare was one of the worst act that Democrats committed in their entire existence. If you think that folks should starve in the street for not working how about we do away wtih inherited wealth. The Trust fund babies in our society happen to be the most unproductive government mooches in our society. Not to mention the influence pedaling corporation.

Welfare mothers raise kids. Whats so unproductive about that?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. No one seems to be pissed at corporate welfare?

I think you haven't been paying attention to most Democrats and a lion's share of independents. We're all plenty pissed about corporate welfare and believe it should be eliminated.

Nothing wrong about welfare in the first place? Jesus, this is how we lost Congress last time. I've seen the miracle of welfare up close, and what we have today is the third (and sometimes fourth) generation of Americans with a welfare work ethic. As long as some people know they don't have to work hard, they won't work hard. And the children they raise grow up thinking the same thing.

If you're between the ages of five and sixty-five, you should be either at work or in school. The only reason the government should be subsidizing you is if you are physically or mentally incapable of holding a job -- aside from the daycare, education, et. al. that I talked about in the previous post.

[gorfle]

68. Rock on, Jeff!

You're right on, dude!

[gorfle]

67. An Ex-Republican tells you how to achieve this...

As an ex-Republican, let me tell you how to achieve your goal of helping the poor - and how not to.

You CAN NOT simply scream, "LET'S HELP THE POOR!"

To a Republican, this is the same thing as screaming, "LET'S RAISE YOUR TAXES TO GIVE MONEY TO OTHER PEOPLE!" The typical Republican reaction is, "Fuck other people, I want to keep my money!"

Instead, couch it in terms that drove many of us to the Democratic party anyway:

"Instead of spending $340,000,000 giving "democracy" to other nations, why not spend that money on Americans?"

[calimary]

75. THAT is a GREAT one! And btw, Welcome to DU!

I always like nudging people with the one-liner - "I know where we can get 100-thousand bucks a minute..." They ALWAYS perk up with interest. Then you follow with "END the war and bring everybody home." Their response shows you what they're made of.

[fuzzyball]

77. Yeeeeeeeah.....lets take the money from the rich and distribute it to

the poor. MAKE EVERYBODY EQUAL!!
Then there will be no one hungry, without heat & shelter, and without
good healthcare, and without all the comforts they deserve.

Not only that but there will be no reason to vote for the selfish
repugs anymore.