How much do YOU think this party should care about poverty?

[Ken Burch]

I thought poverty was going to be a real concern in THIS administration, but so far we've mainly seen obedience to the CEO's and craven indulgence of the more uptight hates and fears of the 'burbs.

Once, this party FOUGHT against poverty.

How do you think Dems should feel about it now?

[Sherman A1]

1. Should care about the elimination of poverty, but

the reality is of course as you stated very, very different.

[Delphinus]

2. Kicking for more exposure. n/t

[Ken Burch]

3. Thanks

Our party is so fixated on being the party of the 'burbs and the suites that it forgets its duty to champion the powerless.

[shawcomm]

4. So long as we have

distinct classes with a disparity in taxation, we're going to have poverty. Money votes, people don't, so the poor are screwed by default. Lobbying as a profession shouldn't be allowed, as it allows corporations to hold more sway and infringe on individual rights by buying the representation that is supposed to belong to the people. It's a shame the democrats don't focus on forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share. That's what the democratic party is supposed to be about.

[Tailormyst]

5. I would likt to see it way up at the top of the priority list.

[stray cat]

6. How much are each of us willing to pay to help our neighbor?

if we all put our money and time behind our rhetoric the party might may more attention as well

[Ken Burch]

12. A lot of people do that anyway.

Your post implies that most of those who speak out on poverty DON'T "walk the walk", and that's not an assumption you're qualified to make.

Besides, it's equally possible that large-scale volunteer involvement in charity(which is what you're calling for)is seen by politicians as a sign that they DON'T have to care about poverty. In fact, that's one reason the right goes on and on about "volunteerism".

[laylah]

7. K&R! nt

[treestar]

8. I think this administration cares about it

I'm sick of people indulging in this easy, lazy, blaming of the President for everything.

[Festivito]

9. Poverty of media, mind, then matter. So, yes.

That might take some concentration on the powerful and rich. Poor fellas, so deluding, so deluded.

[M155Y_A1CH]

10. Poverty does not only effect poor people!

Why would 5% of DUers vote that way. Do they think it's funny, or what?

[Ken Burch]

11. The question was phrased to be slightly absurdist.

n/t.

[M155Y_A1CH]

13. I surmised that

But why would anyone answer disingenuously on any poll?
I just don't get it. I don't fault the poll maker for a little light humor but I just can't understand respondents voting for the joke unless they believe it contains some truth.
:kick:

[Hidden Stillness]

14. This Should Be a Central Issue; It Helps All Society

The whole OP is written so snidely that it put me off several times, but I decided to answer it anyway. I don't know if you want real answers. "I thought poverty was going to be a real concern in THIS administration"--why? Based on what? The "I believe in the free market" admirer of Ronald Reagan, with many long-known ties to the"D"LC? You dupe yourself. Then, the "craven indulgence of the more uptight hates and fears of the 'burbs." Groovy...

Anyway, I think that poverty should be a central, moral concern of a kind not witnessed since the 1960s, when as a kid I remember its heavy emphasis by the Johnson Admin., Sargent Shriver, and many anti-poverty and jobs programs. Having progams to help the poor helps all of society, as surely as helping the rich, hurts society, by the kinds of laws and programs that are passed.

All evidence from the GAO, CBO, and all the rest, show that the single biggest help to those with little or no income, and best boost to the economy, comes from direct-cash payment programs, and the two best are food stamps and unemployment insurance. The worst, with no measureable benefit at are, are tax cuts and subsidies/credits. You have to face the fact, as anti-poverty programs make you do, that you have to use tax money to give to the poor, and that because they have nothing, they will never be able to pay you back. You are trying to end their problem, not "jump-start the economy," or any of this fake jargon, that doesn't even happen.

Programs for the poor also help the middle class, as they themselves are one step away from being destitute from loss of a job, illness or divorce and loss of income. These programs therefore serve a general public good; and furthermore, taxing the rich and corporations--so they don't do their usual corrupt frittering away of profits on stupid investments, lobbying or bonuses for themselves, all worthless activities--solves the myriad problems caused by their having too much extra money, and power.

The nature of anti-poverty programs--that they take from the rich and give to the poor, that their only purpose is to serve the public, that they are a safety net for those who desperately need it, that they will not be paid back except by the improved living conditions of those who benefit--means that they cut right to the heart of the current, corporate-controlled non-public system, and are a total threat, as it returns Government to the people. Government has to do it, as the poor have no resources of their own; or the problem will never be solved. This was the New Deal/Great Society Democratic Party, killed since then by the corporate "D"LC types until now. We had better get back to this, or we have no society at all anymore.

[Common Sense Party]

15. Well, we declared WAR on poverty a while back...that didn't work.

How about this? We claim that Poverty is secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, then we DON'T declare war (just get a resolution passed) and then we INVADE Poverty, set up a puppet government, occupy Poverty for at least six or seven years, get our butts kicked for a while, then SURGE more troops into Poverty, all the while allowing our friends to get sweetheart deals to profit off Poverty's oil.

[Ken Burch]

16. You might have something there.

n/t.

[Common Sense Party]

17. If not eliminated, Poverty would be pretty much decimated after all that.

I know it sounds far-fetched, but maybe it'd work.

[leftstreet]

18. K&R