Can our party PLEASE stop acting as if "the middle class" matters but the poor DON'T?

[Ken Burch]

In a few years, with the changes the Republicans have forced through, the "middle class" isn't going to exist anymore anyway. It's just going to be a tiny group of "haves" vs. a large group of "have nots".

Why won't the leaders of OUR party get real and accept that we MUST unify the "have nots"("middle class", working class, those who want to work but aren't allowed to, AND those who can't work because their bodies are so damaged by time and exploitatioun that they aren't physically capable of working) and stop acting as if the "middle class" is right to resent, hate and fear the others? Isn't it time to get THIS president, if he really is a Democrat, to use his powers of persuasion to bring all those who aren't part of the tiny, pampered ruling class to the realization that their interests are all in common? And isn't it also time for that same "Democratic" president to accept, once and for all, that the corporations are never going to grow souls and treat the rest of us as human beings?

Why won't our leaders accept the fact that, if we bring everyone who has not or is losing ground together, that we can drive away those in the tiny economic minority who have somehow managed to change our economic system from capitalism to extortionism?

Enough already with the George Wallace-inspired "forgotten middle class" rhetoric. Victory lies in uniting the majority. It's never made sense for the "middle class" to act like economic house slaves anyway.

[Drale]

1. Heres the tricky question though

What is the cutoff between middle class and the poor?

[Ken Burch]

2. That's my point...there may not BE one now.

And there WON'T be one in a few years.

Therefore, no "middle class" people have any reason to root for corporations and encourage the arrogance of CEO's and bankers.

[Drale]

3. But what was it before

if you make 50k a year are you middle class or poor? I think it depends on your view of what you need in life, and where you live.

[Ken Burch]

5. The media is determined to convince such people that they are "middle class"

And, therefore, that they should see labor and the poor as their natural enemies and "the successful" as their natural benefactors.

What OUR party needs to be doing is to work, 24-7, to get it through to the "middle class" that they have nothing to gain anymore, if they ever did, from the rich being encouraged to act like angry gods who are entitled to demand sacrifice(in the pre-monotheist sense of the term):

[bobbolink]

9. You know better than that. This isn't about your luxuries.. this is about NECESSITIES.

Do you have a place to live? NO? Then you are POOR.

Do you have adequate nutrition? NO? Then you are poor.

If you are faced with an unexpected emergency can you squeak through? NO? Then you are poor.

Can you stay warm in the winter and not have heat stroke in the summer? NO? Then you are poor.

Can you have enough rest and recreation to maintain mental health? NO? Then you are poor.

I'm sure you know this, and can fill in other things.

Really, this isn't a trick. THIS. IS. REALITY.

[arcane1]

14. Do you have money left over on the night before payday? n/t

[Drale]

17. Ok thats probably the cutoff point right there

[bobbolink]

18. Very good. Or even be able to eat the last few days of the month?

If a disaster strikes, like in NOLA, can you get out of town, or are you stuck in the SuperDome?

[Raksha]

89. You nailed it! That's the litmus test, all right.

[reggie the dog]

110. if i am lucky i break even

more often then no i carry debt

[Drale]

15. So if you have someplace to live

your automatically not poor, I mean this really is not a black and white issue. There are plenty of poor folks who have homes.

[bobbolink]

20. You didn't see the rest of the questions????

Arguing just to argue?


Bored tonight?

[loudsue]

118. I wish I could recommend your post, bobbolink

:yourock:

[Bluenorthwest]

16. 50k is right around the median household income in the US

Make of that what you will. Household, not individual.

[bobbolink]

22. And those living on disability of $674 a month are INVISIBLE in this whole conversation.

[me b zola]

123. The only time we are visible is when they need a dog to kick

:(

[stockholmer]

122. + how much more the Fed debases US dollar(50K US Aug 2010 is now 37K US vs krona)

Dollar crisis/huge inflation is probably on the way, especially if the Fed launches QE3 and doesn't raise interest rates.

But, if they do not do QE3, the economy tanks further, plus raising interest rates just several hundred basis points will add hundreds upon hundreds of $BILLIONS to the deficit.

Catch 22, man the escape pods.

[Maraya1969]

39. I use the words "middle class" because people don't want to admit they are "poor"

in my opinion. And my opinion comes from the life I have.

[Jmaxfie1]

59. Yeah, basically everyone wants to be middle class...

Whether your a millionaire or don't have two pennies to your name.

[bobbolink]

78. SPEAK. FOR. YOURSELF. There are plenty of people right here at DU who identify as POOR.

We get ignored.

This rationalization is soooo transparent.

One more blaming the victims.

SHAME.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

97. It is too bad you feel ignored here.

[Ken Burch]

100. It's too bad that you felt entitled to respond with that tone.

I support SSM and everything else that LGBT people are fighting for, but I hope you realize that, hard as life is for your community,
it's much harder and will always be much harder for the poor. You should be in solidarity with people like bobbolink(and that means being anti-gentrification when gentrification drives poor people out of their neighborhoods)if you expect them to be in solidarity with you.

The I.W.W. taught us all this truth:

"An Injury To One...Is An Injury to All!"

[uppityperson]

104. You have no clue about my life, my living situation, if or how poor I am or have been.

I tire of being told I should be ashamed of myself by those who have no clue of my life, etc. A better tactic might be to ask than to chastise.

Would you like me to share of how I was unable to take my croupy infant to the ER because I could not afford to, instead walking my child in the night air, hoping that this might help the breathing? Would it make you feel better if I were to tell you of my not having a place to live, not being able to afford rent or even find a place on section 8, instead camping in an acquaintances 4 ft by 8 ft kid's playhouse (one sheet of plywood size)? Would it help to have me tell of my years volunteering with Family Planning and other health care places for people who cannot afford a private doctor. helping women get contraception and std checks that will help them stay out of poverty? WHY should I HAVE to share my private issues? WHY?

No. What happens is "It's too bad that you felt entitled to respond with that tone." Entitled? I've been there, done that, am close to it now, have worked and lived not only in solidarity with but being so very poor, and having DUers call SHAME on me really doesn't help anything. Having DUers tell me I am no progressive because I might question someone's assumptions or tell them to ASK about someone else rather than simply insult them doesn't help.

Shame on me? No.

Will I get a reply to this from you? I doubt it as it seems few here are able to say "I was wrong".

[Ken Burch]

105. I wasn't telling you to feel ashamed of yourself.

But clearly, you had no right to dismiss bobbolink's feelings as you did.

What, exactly, did you mean with that particular response? It's not as if you were saying "I hear you and I want to know about your story"...instead, it sounded as if you were saying "oh, poor baby!" like someone would to a child that was pouting because she didn't get her way.

You could clarify what you meant by your response to bobbolink. She is entitled to respect, and it didn't sound like you were giving her any, but maybe I got it wrong. Just clarify what you meant by your post.

[uppityperson]

106. To get respect, one must earn it

Chastising someone, telling them "SHAME on YOU, YOU are NO progressive you just want us all to DIE I am putting you on ignore", how does that make me want to respect someone? Seriously? I've seen enough of it here that true, I do not have respect.

No one is "entitled to respect". Not simply because they are poor. Not simply because they go off on you. Respect must be earned and it hasn't been.


Edited to say I was wrong. Thank you for responding. I really didn't think you would and I was wrong.

[Ken Burch]

107. Sometimes, those who are insulated from things like poverty NEED to be chastised

(If you've been through it, that doesn't apply to you, ok?)

What bobbolink does, as I see it, is to challenge middle-class smugness and complacency on this board, and to challenge our party leaders' unjustified determination to pretend that the poor don't exist(which is a major reason why the constant references to "the middle class" are so right-wing and offensive. When our party's candidates use that term, it's code for "we hate the poor as much as you do and we'll be glad to validate your prejudices about them and your dismissal of their humanity") . We are SUPPOSED to be the party that represents everyone the Republicans leave out in the cold-and George Wallace/Richard Nixon-type phrases like "the middle class" can never make us into a party like that.

And, at a simple human level, everyone is entitled to some respect. Because if you don't give a person ANY respect, you deny their humanity and put yourself on the beginning of the slippery slope of writing that person out of the human race.

I really don't know what bobbolink could possibly have done to deserve your contempt. All she does is speak out for the voiceless. And that requires speaking intemperately at times and taking people out of their comfort zone.

When you responded to bobbolink you didn't "question her assumptions"-you just dismissed her. Questioning her assumptions would have actually involved making a case against whatever it was that she was saying that you objected to. She was entitled to more than just a "sorry you feel that way" response.

[uppityperson]

108. There are ways of "challenging" that are better than others. Ways that don't dismiss, don't try to

shame others. Same thing with "questioning assumptions". As I have been dismissed, as I see others dismissed, my respect for that person fades to the point that they deserve and get minimal respect.

"All she does is speak out for the voiceless. And that requires speaking intemperately at times and taking people out of their comfort zone." Insulting and chastising those who agree with you but do not use the specific language you demand are "taking people out of their comfort zone"? Seriously? Yet you chastise me for not giving the respect you think due. Incredible.

Start with not assuming that someone is "insulated from poverty". Demand that I also get that respect you demand for"everyone". Stop enabling those insults by viewing them as "taking people out of their comfort zone". If you want respect for all, demand that all give respect.

[Ken Burch]

109. check your pm's in a moment.

n/t.

[butterfly77]

61. This is just the beginning..

The full list of policy riders in HR1 includes: (from http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Poli ... ):

Policy Riders in H.R. 1

Sec. 1284 - Prohibits funding for fresh fruits and vegetables in the school lunch program. under section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

Sec. 4013 - Prohibits funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates.

Sec. 1112 - Prohibits transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
Sec. 2237 - Prohibits HUD funding for rental assistance to the elderly.
Sec. 4006 - Blocks the FCC from implementing Net Neutrality.

Sec. 1802 - Prohibits funding new Job Corp centers.
Sec. 4017 - Strips funding for any provision of the health care reform law.
Sec. 4030 - Prohibits BATF from collecting information on multiple rifle/shotgun sales to the same person.

Sec. 1590 - Prohibits DC from using its own, non-federal funds, for abortion services.
Sec. 4046 - Prohibits finding for a govt-sponsored consumer product complaints database
Sec. 1746 - Prohibits funding for EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases

Sec. 4027 - Prohibits funds to carry out medical loss ratio restrictions in the health care reform law. (These provisions require insurers to spend at least a certain percent of their premium revenues on medical care.)

Sec. 4009 - Prohibits funds to pay the salaries and expenses of the following Presidential �czarsŽ: Obama Care Czar, Climate Change Czar, Global Warming Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Car Czar, Guantanamo Bay Closure Czar, Pay Czar and Fairness Doctrine Czar.

[Ken Burch]

82. Sec, 1284 tells you everything you need to know about these "people"

Basically, they don't care if kids in public school get scurvy or pellagra.

Here's what those two diseases look like, for the record(disturbingly truthful images warning) :

Scurvy:




Pellagra:

[roguevalley]

88. having just passed down from one to the other, its about as big

a difference as the distance between your thumb and your fore finger,

[SusanaMontana41]

90. Very little difference. Two classes now: poor and rich n/t

edit for typo.

[bobbolink]

115. "Very little difference"??? THAT, in a nutshell, is why poor people are leaving the party.

[stockholmer]

124. +100,there's a hell of difference between gnawing,daily hunger & a semi-shite meal at a modest resto

[tahrir]

4. i think it is better to frame it about the middle class as that will resonate with more people

as long as the benefits we are fighting for applies to all.

basically, we need to do everything we can to put weTHEpeople's interest ahead of the monied elite and the corporations they run.

to me, helping the poor, and those in need should go without saying, however right now, we are in danger of everyone losing their voice to the elite, and if we can get the middle classes to wake up, that may bring us to the tipping point.

at least that is what i am hoping for.

[bobbolink]

10. And toss poor people off a cliff? Geeee, how very... "progressive"

Then you wonder why you are losing votes.

What shit!

[tahrir]

27. i never said that, and that certainly isn't my intent, in fact just the opposite

[bobbolink]

36. You know that "framing" has big consequences, so, yes, that is the intent.

[tahrir]

38. are you trying to say that you know my intent beter than I?

[Jmaxfie1]

40. Rhetoric is rhetoric, actions matter more.

Pols can talk all they want about the poor if they don't do anything about it than what does it matter.

[tahrir]

50. exactly, and right now most of us are under attack by the corporations - we need to band together

the right are out right attacking the poor and blaming them for most of our problems, like they ALWAYS do.

but if we can get the middle class to realize that they are under attack as well, and they decide to start paying attention and do something about it... it will help us all.

[Jmaxfie1]

56. agreed n/t

[bobbolink]

41. I'm not "trying" to say ANYTHING. I AM saying that intentionally leaving out poor people will have

the results of DEATH.

I'm sure you are aware of that.

It doesn't seem to matter.

Lives are at stake here, and silly arguments are not in the best interst of the party, even for those of you who really don't care whether we live or die.

Politics = VOTES. Really, it is very simple.


Cut out a section of your voter pool, and pay the price.

[Jmaxfie1]

44. That's the problem, a lot of poor people don't think of themselves as poor.

Call it false consciousness or whatever, but that's why its smarter to talk about the middle class.

[bobbolink]

51. I'm not here to argue rationalizations and left-brained intellectualizing.

What I am telling you plain and simple that that poor people KNOW we are poor, we are ASKING to be iincluded, and shutting us out isn't gaining friends ... OR VOTES.

YOUR CHOICE.

[tahrir]

55. well, i am not saying that we should leave them out... i am saying that we have a common enemy

and we need to band together to actually win this fight, and if the poor have any hope at all, it is for the middle class to get the message that they are under the very same attack as the poor, so they (the middle class) needs to wake up and get with the program.

that is all.

:hi:

[bobbolink]

57. That wasn't your wording, but I am glad you are now seeing this.

What I have been hearing, when this is addressed at all, is that POOR PEOPPLE need to support the middleclass!

Such utter bullshit! Like we OWE it to people more affluent than wwe are to come "join" them and fight for THEIR wants, and forget our NEEDS.

What will it take for middleclass people to recognize that they aren't all there is?

[tahrir]

65. well, i apologize for my poor wording, but that was my intent

i will never forget where i came from, and i am always doing everything in my small power to influence the people around me, but it is a struggle, considering all the propaganda everyone is subjected to on a constant basis, but i NEVER back down from the challenge of informing folks of their misconceptions and perceptions.

i take it as my personal responsibility to be an ambassador for and advocate of the poor, since that is where i came from, and a large part of who i am.

[bobbolink]

67. I'm glad to hear that, and I hope you will be saying that more here, and also speaking out to

the "progressive" media who insists on ignoring us.

It HURTS, and obviously, it is DEADLY.

:hi:

[tahrir]

77. you can certainly count on me speaking up for weTHEpeople, especially for folks who are hurting

wether it be on DU, or in the real world.

I know how hard, hurtful, and deadly it is when you are in poor financial circumstances. I also know that that doesn't make you any less of a person or a citizen, and is why i get so angry when i hear these sick fuckers in the M$M blame the poor for EVERYTHING. :argh:

when i talk to those around me, poor, middle class, and upper middle class, my message is consistent, the elite are rapping us all, and looking for ways to divide us and keep us fighting amongst ourselves, and if we have any hope of fighting back, we MUST band together.

that is my simple goal, bringing us all together, and why i always write 'we the people' without any space between the words weTHEpeople.

stay strong, as i know you are, because you have to be :toast:

[arcane1]

11. I always assumed the term was used to blow sunshine up the asses of the poor

People don't like being referred to as "poor", and many of our actual poor people believe they are in fact middle-class. The actual middle class is pretty much the rich to them. Been there! :)

That being said, I agree that focusing on people who are truly struggling is the way to go. The single parents, the chain store employees, the struggling and actually small businesses, etc.

[Jmaxfie1]

24. I saw a poll once on this.

Basically everyone from the poor to the super-rich believe they are middle class.

[bobbolink]

28. Nice rationalization.

[arcane1]

30. Hell, I'm talking about myself!!! :)

[bobbolink]

33. then state it as such. There are plenty here at DU who have said upfront that they are POOR.

But they have given up because all the rhetoric is about the vaunted middleclass.

Rationalizing won't get you the votes.

[Ken Burch]

13. But we don't have to disown the poor to GET the middle classes to vote for us.

Getting their votes doesn't have to mean indulging in their prejudices(and I say this as a middle class person who has had to fight off such prejudices in myself during my life).

It's George Wallace rhetoric to talk only about "the middle class" and not talk openly about EVERYONE who is losing ground.

The path to saving this country lies in taking to the country John Lennon's advice(from "Instant Karma"):

"Better recognize your brothers-everyone you meet".

Wisconsin is lifting the scales from the nation's eyes...we can tell the truth now AND win.

[tahrir]

29. i am not saying we should, just that stressing the middle class in the rhetoric is a good strategy

as long as the benefits that we are struggling for is for everyone e.g. poor and middle class.

[Jmaxfie1]

31. I agree, speaking of the middle class is just good rhetorical stratergy...

what you do is more important than what you say. Everyone thinks their Middle Class, so to me its just a rhetorical strategy.

[bobbolink]

46. Cool. So, we can always just talk about "straights" because gays will automatically KNOW they are

included.

We can just talk about whites, because people of color will always know they are included.

Funny, there is so much uproar on DU because of the RW directing everything towards Christians, but seem to think its oK for them to do the same to poor people.

Its like the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement were never fully learned and are now ignored. Martin Luther King died because he turned his attention to poverty, and now "progressives" can't remove themselves from poverty quickly enough.

SHAME.

[Jmaxfie1]

53. Black people don't consider themselves white and must gay people...

don't believe they are straight, even the closeted gays might pretend to be but know they are not. McGovern talked all the time about the poor, of course he lost in a landslide and Nixon got elected.

[bobbolink]

60. And we poor people KNOW we are poor. But, you want to rationalize ignoring us, have at it.

Just don't whine when the elections don't go your way.

We're sick of being ignored, and having it all just "explained" away, while we suffer and die.

We just no longer really give a shit WHAT the middleclass thinks.... and refuses to think.

[Ken Burch]

69. McGovern would have lost 49 states talking about "the middle class" and bashing "welfare" too

And he couldn't have done anything non-conservative if he'd won by campaigning like that anyway. No politician ever governs as a progressive after getting elected as a conservative.

[Jmaxfie1]

73. He probably would have lost anyway, but I don't think he would have lost as bad if he had toned...

down the rhetoric.

[Ken Burch]

85. After the China trip, ANY Democrat was doomed to a blowout defeat

He wouldn't have gained any votes distancing himself from the poor anyway. People who were fixated with drawing a line between themselves and the poor by that point were already headed unchallengably to the right anyway.

And again, he couldn't have been elected as a "moderate" and still done anything different from Nixon AFTER getting elected that way. The Scoop Jackson presidency, for example, would simply have been Nixon's second and third terms, and we'd STILL have been in Vietnam when Scoop left office.

[Jmaxfie1]

86. If I was McGovern I wouldn't change my policies just my rhetoric.

I've read some of his policies and their find, I've also read some of his speeches, he just comes off to radical.

[Ken Burch]

91. The Nixon Dirty Tricks Squad and CREEP were the cause of McGovern's blowout loss

Not his rhetoric.

For almost forty years now, our party's leaders have refused to face that reality, and their insistence on settling for working within the constraints money politics would tolerate have made even our rare presidential victories utterly meaningless.

[Jmaxfie1]

Like I said, I agree with you that McGovern would have lost anyway, ...

but to only win Mass. that's horrible. I mean its all monday morning quarterbacking but I think he could have picked up a few more if he had toned it down a bit.

[bobbolink]

116. Yes, it is "prudent" to cast off those who are "inconvenient", as was the pint I was making about

other groups of people.

Johnson KNEW he was losing the south by signing the Civil Rights bill, but he did it because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

YOU want to get rid of poor people because it is more convenient that way (as YOU see it... not necessarily reality), and to hell with the resulting suffering and deaths.

But it doesn't stop there. By casting us out, we are leaving the party, and fewer and fewer poor people are voting, so then when you LOSE because you don't get the votes you USED to get, then you blame US for the loss.

Quite the "strategy".

Politics 101... when you want the votes of people, you get the votes by GIVING them something back in return.

When you IGNORE a group of people, you lose their votes.

It really is quite simple.

You note... I'm not asking you to CARE about us... clearly, that ain't gonna happen. I'm telling you the reality of politics.

[Jmaxfie1]

128. No one said don't talk about the poor or don't enact policies for the poor.

But if we do as you say and re-frame the Democratic Party as the party of the poor it will lose. Keep it focused on the Middle Class and also talk about the poor, but don't make it the exclusive party of the poor.

[bobbolink]

153. It doesn't HAVE to be said. Nobody "said" in the 50s to ignore black voters either, right?

"Keep it focused on the Middle Class and also talk about the poor, but don't make it the exclusive party of the poor."

Oh yeah, now I demanded that it be EXCLUSIVELY about "the poor". This has become ludicrous, and I think all of you arguing this KNOW that.

If all of you are content with poor people suffering and dying, then I truly pity the lack 0f humanity. But if it isn't recognized that by ignoring a whole voting block you LOSE VOTES, then the thinking is obviously absent.

I am really appalled that in this day and age, people who call themselves "progressive" still don't understand the process of prejudice and oppression.

It is truly astounding.

[quakerboy]

92. To be fair

No politician seems to govern as a progressive after being elected as a progressive either. So...

[Ken Burch]

95. Bobby Kennedy would have. That's why they killed him.

Bobby got it. He really WOULD have fought for the poor and the workers...and won battles for justice alongside of them...and that's what the power structure in this country couldn't tolerate.

In other cases, sadly, you're right, though.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Bobby wasn't killed...

because he got it. Lots of people "got it" and they're still alive. Romanticizing assassinations doesn't solve problems.

Sirhan did it.

[Jmaxfie1]

99. Bobby's the perfect example of what I was talking about...

He cared about the poor, was liberal, but, at least to me, never came off as a radical. If he had of lived I think he would have been the best shot to unseat Nixon.

[Ken Burch]

101. Bobby NEVER came off as a radical?

Did you read the RFK quote I have at the bottom of every post?

[Jmaxfie1]

103. honestly it sounds like typical New Deal language to me.

I guess its just a personal stylistic choice on my part.

[Ken Burch]

137. Let me also say this, to respond to those who may be reading this exchange

But not to respond to a disruptive poster I've now put on ignore...

Sirhan Sirhan did NOT kill Bobby Kennedy. He probably wanted to, but, according to Dr. Thomas Noguchi, the Los Angeles County coroner, who performed the autopsy, Sirhan Sirhan was in the wrong position in the room to have fired the fatal shot. Sirhan was in front of RFK and jumped off a steam table as he fired at the senator. The shot that killed the senator was fired FROM BEHIND, FROM BELOW, at a sharply upward angle, and at point-blank range(within 3 inches of the senator's head). The other three shots that either hit the senator or passed through his clothing were ALL fired from the same angle. Thus it was impossible for Sirhan, whatever his intentions may have been, to have killed or even wounded Bobby Kennedy(though he probably did inflict the non-fatal wounds received by the other four shooting victims.

There are many online links about this, you can find them through Google. I won't post them here because I don't want this thread to be about that. But it had to be said.

[Jmaxfie1]

138. I don't know the history, but who do they think shot Bobby?

Like I said I haven't read up on events, but would like to learn. (I'm more of a book person, the internets hurt my eyes. ;))

[Ken Burch]

139. Some sort of grouping involving local right-wing crazies at the lowest-level

and, at the highest, those with too much invested in the continuation of the Vietnam War and the end of any efforts to fight poverty and racism to allow democracy to take its course. A full investigation is needed, the kind that did not occur at the time of Sirhan's trial.

I think Sirhan was involved as a patsy, and his function was to draw everyone's focus while the actual shooter finished off Bobby. I'm not sure if he knew this(from what I've read, he was very susceptible to hypnosis)but that, to me explains his presence there and also why, forty three years later, he still claims to be unable to remember the events of that evening.

[Jmaxfie1]

143. I've read an FBI interview with him, although they took it as a given that he commited...

the act they also thought his behavior odd. According to the interview he admitted what he had done, but hen flexed for the interviewers and said, "So, what do you think of Sirhan now"? I'll admit I lean more towards he did it, but like I said, I always try to keep an open mind on all things.

[Ken Burch]

144. Then again, remember how J.Edgar Hoover felt about Bobby

(The bastard actually INTERRUPTED the broadcast of RFK's funeral to announce that that the Bureau had arrested James Earl Ray, the supposed "lone gunman" killer of Dr. King).

[Jmaxfie1]

145. like I said, I'm pretty open on the subject, don't know much about it? n/t

[Ken Burch]

147. If you wish to get more resources, pm me.

I don't want to go into in this thread any more.

[Jmaxfie1]

150. Once again, asking as a noob, how do you PM on this site? n/t

[Ken Burch]

155. click on the little "open envelope" icon at the top of each post

It looks like the "inbox" icon.

[SDuderstadt]

152. LOL!

Why do people pretend to have someone on "ignore", only to try to respond to them indirectly by announcing they are not responding to them?

Too funny. Even funnier than "faux ignore", where they simply forget they supposedly have someone on ignore and accidentally respond to them directly.

[butterfly77]

6. Kicked&Recommended...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Autumn]

8. The poor? There are poor people? You would

never think that by listening to the PTB.

[bobbolink]

12. Have you paid attention to the "progressive" media lately? How much are you hearing about poverty

from the likes of Rachel, et. al.?

WE. ARE. THE. ORPHANS.

You all have forgotten us and tossed us off the friggin' cliff.

[Ken Burch]

19. That's true.

It can never work for Democrats to send the message to people who identify as "middle class" that "we'll exclude and disdain all the people YOU are uncomfortable with".

Only uniting the majority, on a level of basic human equality, can save the party and this country. Otherwise we're going straight back to the 19th Century(and without the interesting facial hair or the legal hemp).

[bobbolink]

26. Here is what is so absurd... the Dems are gearing up for another big election, and we will hear

nothing now except how important it is for EVRYONE to vote.

Yet, the party for decades now has thrown poor people under the bus, and now it has intensified to the point where we have NO ONE to actually represent us. NO ONE. Even Bernie can't utter the word POVERTY!!!!!

Then, pair that with the disdain spoken here all the time for those who "vote against their own best interest."

So, we are left with no actual choice, so we finally get the message and then don't vote. A traditionally strong constituent of the party, and we are shut out.

THEN there is UPROAR because we didn't vote. We get BLAMED for the upsets.

And whose fault is it really???

IS NOBODY thinking beyond their own noses?????

Even though it is clear that most of you don't care about us.... can't you even care about your OWN interests, and make sure we are taken care of so you can go back to counting on our votes????

:wtf:

[Little Star]

25. Well ,the poor won't be forgotten for much longer.....

Because most of us are quickly on our way there. We, the already poor & the shit load of us soon to be poor, will be the majority in the good ole USA very soon.

To bad we will have even 'less power' to change anything.

[bobbolink]

71. BUT, the causes are differentl, and therefore the fixes are different.

People keep bringing up this same argument, but it just doesn't hold. It is just another version of ignoring true poor people.

[patrice]

21. KICK!!!

[hfojvt]

23. knr

but much of the middle class needs to start caring about the poor before the politicians will.

[bobbolink]

120. You have that exactly right, and one would think it would be the "progressives" out in front of

that concern.

But, it isn't, is it? Not a word on Rachel, or Hartmann, or any of the others.

It certainly isn't an important topic on DU and one can always see the ignorance that rivals that of the RW.

So, how to make it a "sexy" issue?

[LooseWilly]

32. Nope... not while DLC strategists are still being listened to—we can't.

I don't think I can remember ever hearing the Democratic Party talk about the poor and working class, except peripherally and with the tone one uses for a family pet that shits on the floor but one still feels like nice things ought to be done for it occasionally...

That, I think, is part of the reason that there's so much outrage in the country now... the former "favorite child"—the Middle Class—increasingly feels like it's being looked at like it just shit on the floor. The "moral outrage" is kind of amusing to behold, actually... but I don't see the Middle Class seeing the light and realizing how badly the poor and working class have been treated all this time.

Looks to me that the nouveau poor are being set against the old poor... which is driving the frenzy for budget cuts for all sorts of services... and things like wage-freezes for federal workers is just another leaf of the clover...

[emilyg]

34. k/r

[Generic Brad]

35. As long as we vote for them regardless of what they do - then no

We are being taken for granted.

[leftstreet]

37. +1

[Starry Messenger]

42. +1

I don't even know what "middle class" means in this country. It has always seemed like a meaningless category.

[quakerboy]

98. It means

the guy I know who owns a growing soon to be multistate company, and my aunt who lost her home last year, after pulling all of her retirement money out to try to save it.

And the family of my college friend who's parents bought him a brand new car each year of college and my 47 y/o friend who makes 8.50 bucks an hour part time and is trying to hold on until he can get through to SS age.

[white_wolf]

43. Most people define class in terms of wealth, but to give a different

perspective on this debate, I'll give one from the Marxist view on class. Class in Marxism is based not on wealth, but your relation to the means of production. If you control the means of production you are bourgeois, if you have no control over the means of production or must sell your labor to survive you are proletariat.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Jesus...

bourgeois/proletariat.

Too funny.

[Ken Burch]

47. Haves and have-nots, then.

Face it, that's what we're being divided into now, and in a few years there won't be anything else. Dems HAVE to be the party of the have-not majority. We can't win by being a party of the moneygrubbers.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Many "haves"...

don't own the means of production.

It's not either/or, dude.

[Ken Burch]

52. They make the stupid mistake of allying themselves with those who do, though

You don't have to have your name on the deed to enable those who do. And those doing the enabling end up getting discarded by the rich in the end.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

63. My rhetoric is simply a description of the reality we've all been consigned to.

You're not going to get a "conscious capitalism" in this country anytime soon(granted that it would be an improvement)or get it at all unless we establish democratic control of the financial system and run that system on humanistic values instead of short term rate of return.

There isn't a center anymore.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ikonoklast]

54. That must have been the lost Marx brother.

[white_wolf]

70. Admit it.

Deep down you love my posts.

[SDuderstadt]

75. No...

I don't. I think they're disconnected from the real world.

[Jmaxfie1]

48. I've always thought the Marxist view is outdated IMO.

Basketball players don't own the means of production but make more than many petit-bourgeoisie.

[BOG PERSON]

62. the marxist view is that entertainers (for example professional athletes)

are in no way proletarian, since they don't create value. entertaining, at the end of the day, is non-productive labor.

[white_wolf]

68. Where I would differ from the more "orthodox" Marxist view

is that entertainers do create value. I do think that plays, movies, and all forms of art are of value. Granted, I haven't studied the Marxist view on such things in depth yet, so they might view it the same way and I'm just interpreting you wrong. Sorry if I am.

[BOG PERSON]

111. no, you're not misinterpreting me.

you just happen to have a different, squishier idea of value than marxism does.

[kestrel91316]

64. Middle class and families matter. The poor and singles don't.

I am single and formerly middle class. Democrats haven't paid much attention to the likes of me lately.

[bobbolink]

66. Then its time to speak up.

[quakerboy]

102. I don't think so

Middle class and family's get lip services.

We all get screwed. The only real difference is that some of us can afford to be financially screwed for a little bit longer than others.

Then there is the illusion that everyone who has a place to live is middle class, that as long as you have walls and a door you are worthy and should look down on/fear anyone who doesn't because they want to take whatever little bit you have.

[bobbolink]

74. Kicked and REC's for a rare post that says it like it really is! Listen up, DEMS! This is about

YOU!

:yourock: Ken!

[JoeyT]

76. While I agree with you

I have to say that I don't think the middle class matters to them either.

The middle class get a bit of lip service before they're screwed, the poor just get screwed. It's not much of an improvement.

[RedCloud]

80. And those who have suffered the most, need to be heard the most.

[bobbolink]

84. Thank you! Please keep saying that loud and clear!

:applause:

[KoKo]

81. It's seeming like "Theatrics" whenever I see both parties on the Cables.

They laugh it up with each other as they walk to the podium and then their faces turn "serious." They seem to not notice that the Cameras are Catching them before they walk to the podium.

It's all "Smoke & Mirrors" ...theatrical. It's so sad to see that. But, if you turn on C-Span I and II ...when they are in SESSION...you can see them "acting" to each other every day.

[themadstork]

87. I'm not sure they really care about either anymore.

They care about Joe Smartphone packing away 150K a year and living in an exurb two hours from his work.

I we don't want to say "poor" we can say the lower classes, or the impoverished, whatever. An uneasiness about terminology shouldn't be an excuse to exclude them.

[Jmaxfie1]

93. I'm with you on that. Its a rhetorical issue at least to me.

We shouldn't exclude the poor, drop programs for the poor, etc. Right now the Democratic party centers its rhetoric around the "Middle Class". We should talk about the poor, I just don't think shifting the rhetorical talk to center on the poor over the middle class would be a good idea. It has nothing to do with policies and all to do with politics.

[apocalypsehow]

94. What a *fantastic* tower of Straw you've erected! Looks like you've had a good deal of fun flailing

away at it, too.

Textbook.

"Isn't it time to get THIS president, if he really is a Democrat" (emphasis added).

Next you'll be asking him to provide his "real" birth certificate, I reckon. Sad.

[Melinda]

113. Defensive posturing skews the issue every time

In his OP, the author wonders if Obama is capable of using his "powers of persuasion to bring all those who aren't part of the tiny, pampered ruling class to the realization that their interests are all in common?"

In his acceptance speech, FDR said: "Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms." Emphasis mine.

FDR kept that pledge.

Can you share with me, and I am not being facetious, which of Candidate Obama's promises to the poor and disenfranchised that he has fulfilled since being elected POTUS? Can you show me how President Obama has in fact used his office and "powers of persuasion" to bring us (poor, lower, and middle class) together re our common financial interests?

President Obama's popularity is not the issue here.

[Jmaxfie1]

129. He never did say poor.

"Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government", he appealed to universalistic language instead of just using poor.

[Melinda]

131. Is there another logical inference to be drawn? Do you think FDR referred to the wealthy...

when he said:

"Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth..."

This was part of his acceptance speech when first elected; the great depression was in full swing... the destitute, unemployed, and lower socio-economic classes (all poor) were the most affected and suffering as a result of this economic collapse. Do you honestly believe he was referring to the wealthy as needing a "more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth"?

[Jmaxfie1]

132. Ofcourse he meant poor, working class, etc.

Sorry, I got confused on what I was talking to whom about. I was talking to another poster about using more universalistic rhetoric instead of just saying poor.

[Melinda]

134. lol, no worries then. It's easy to get dazed and confused on the DU... welcome aboard!!

:hi:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

112. They're acting as if the middle class matters?

News to me.

They might be "saying" but they're not "acting."

And fuggetabout the poor. They need to exist as a reminder to the MC to sit down and shut up.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikia]

117. The middle class feels more entitled than the poor

I think that it is funny when people talk about the poor feeling entitled because generally the poor feel so unentitled that I think that is the root of many of their problems, whether that is fighting for their rights politically or bettering themselves, when that is possible.
Tens of thousands of protestors in Wisconsin organized for middle class rights. The teachers and other middle class state employees feel entitled to what they have and are motivated to fight for that. Perhaps, we can get middle class people, in general, to fight the widening gap between rich and poor. Perhaps, we can get middle class people to support social programs to provide a safety net and allow many people to escape poverty. Perhaps, the middle class will realize that the rich, not the poor are their enemies.
I agree that we cannot forget the poor, but I don't know how we can get more of the the poor to feel entitled enough to even vote, let alone protest. I do think that there might be an oppurtunity for this, but I think that it will require organization from other poor people, not just the fallen middle class. Until then, politicians will probably aim their rhetoric at the middle class.

[bobbolink]

156. Please stop repeating the lie that "poor people don't vote". That is the sole reason why

the RW targets the inner cities with faulty election machines... because that is where poor people live, because they VOTE and because they vot DEMOCRATIC.

So, please give that lie a rest. It is a LIE.

[bvar22]

119. After John Edwards (warts & all) dropped out of Campaign 2008,

"The POOR" were disappeared from the Centrist New Democrat Platform.

When The Working Class & The Poor realize WE have more in common with each other
than we have in common with the RICH, Elite Leadership of BOTH Political parties,
WE can demand "CHANGE".
As long as we are divided by wedge issues, the RICH will reign supreme.
QED: The Hope & Change administration

Latin America has given us the Blue Print for REAL "change".
VIVA (real) Democracy!



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Broken Promises, and Whiny Excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[Lorien]

121. They're prepping us for when we're all poor and none of us matter

I've hated the way the poor and working class have been left out of the conversation for over a decade now. The poor weren't even brought up in the 2008 campaigns! The underlying message is "they're all lazy and on welfare; they don't deserve our attention because they want to be poor." which is, of course, complete GOP Rush Limbaugh promoted bullshit. I'm also tired of "American families" being the only ones of consequence; single Americans are numerous and deserve an occasional acknowledgment.

[tavalon]

125. Can you define "our" party?

I used to know, but since both parties now appear to think corporations are their constituents, I'm not sure there is an "our" party.

[Melinda]

135. +1,000

Excellent point. :)

[RBInMaine]

126. Hm, expanded CHIPS program, just saved headstart, saved Planned Parenthood, FOR THE POOR.

[jwirr]

127. Excellent point.

[MedleyMisty]

130. I pretty much just tune it out

It's all empty cliches for empty minds, meant to create a false consciousness.

And yeah - when people use the phrase "middle class" I hear "I only value moderately well-off people, preferably white. Everyone else can go fuck themselves."

Doesn't really make me want to join your revolution - why should I fight for you when you see me as less than human, not important, expendable? When you're an oppressor who is just now getting upset because the bigger badder oppressors are taking away your toys but you see nothing fundamentally wrong with oppression?

Language is extremely important. Language reveals attitudes. Language is how we describe reality, and the words we choose, in a way, create our reality.

One reason why our reality is so fucked up is because of our political language. Read some Orwell. He knew what was up.

When politicians repeat the same empty phrases over and over in speeches - "middle class" "American families" "freedom" "democracy" - you know it's meaningless bullshit. I don't know - maybe those words are meant to trip areas in brains well-conditioned by TV? Like a whole Pavlovian response - say "middle class" and they'll feel good and clap! Whee!

It's disgusting, is what it is. And yeah - it's how I know what I see in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Iraq, Oman, etc isn't coming here. Not for a while. I mean, occupation of state capitols is a great thing, a wonderful thing. I see hope in it. But as long as it's mainly financially comfortable white folk doing it...

My mother, who works in sweatshop conditions at Goodwill and is therefore a non-person to the "middle class", said about Egypt - "That's what it takes if you want real change, everybody working together."

Everybody. Not just white well-off college-educated people. Everybody.

[Jmaxfie1]

133. I'd agree, but from the other side.

Pols use middle class because according to polls practically everyone from millionaires to the poor think their middle class. False consciousness yes. Honestly, I really don't care what a pol says, unless they actually talk about some policy instead of vague appeals to the "middle class", "poor" or "folks", its just campaign talk.

[Ken Burch]

141. Very well put

n/t.

[Kalun D]

136. To Tell the Truth

Why the heck do you think the White House could possibly care about the poor, when they are only "acting" like they care about the middle class?

They don't give a damn about anyone but the rich.

[iris27]

140. Thank you!

When 1% of the population owns 25% of the wealth, it's absolutely ridiculous for the rest of us to let them pit us against one another for their gain!

Our economic system is set up to funnel wealth to a very few; pretending it does anything else is just deluded.

"Economic house slaves" -- yes, that is a charged but spot-on term, I think. Can't help but think of folks I know who are facing real financial problems but will still blindly vote against their own interests because "America shouldn't be a country where we punish success". You know, where "punishing success" would mean stopping companies like GE from paying ZERO taxes. :eyes:

[JVS]

142. Although I generally agree that this administration favors the (upper) middle class at the expense..

of the lower class, I think a good argument could be made that the HCR was to the benefit of the bottom at the expense of the middle.

[Jmaxfie1]

146. What does HCR mean, hate to be a noob, but not fimiliar with the term? n/t

[Ken Burch]

148. Healthcare Reform

n/t.

[Jmaxfie1]

149. oh, thanks. n/t

[JVS]

151. Health Care Reform

The truly poor will be covered with subsidies. The not so poor are forced to buy insurance and subsidize the poor as well.

[rucky]

154. I just say "98-percenters"

that about covers everyone who's getting screwed.