Bottom 20% spend $1.90 for $1.00 in wages

[Cancel7]

Maybe everyone who is middle class in this thread should leave. If you are middle class telling the poor they are happy, you are wrong. If you are middle class telling the poor you have their best interests in mind, you are wrong. If you are middle class telling the poor you feel their pain, you don't.

Why am I wrong to be middle class and say I have the interests of the poor in mind when addressing policy? Who do you think is going to speak for the poor, the rich? And if you think they can speak for themselves, guess again, because it is only the rich who speak to our politicians. Unless the middle class and the poor together can field an effective grass-roots effort, which they have done in the past.

 

[Cancel7]

I do, we have programs that help poor people in the US. Some of them are very successful.

When growing up where I did, most of the people I knew had microwave ovens yet were poor.

That you don't want to believe that we have some success with our current programs and wish to believe that all those people don't have anything you would be wrong.

Yes, we've had a lot of success Damo. I guess that is why the poverty rate has climbed every year under bush? Is that correct? Becuase our policy is helping?

At this point, I would have to ask whom is it helping?

 

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

Why am I wrong to be middle class and say I have the interests of the poor in mind when addressing policy? Who do you think is going to speak for the poor, the rich? And if you think they can speak for themselves, guess again, because it is only the rich who speak to our politicians. Unless the middle class and the poor together can field an effective grass-roots effort, which they have done in the past.

Because you know about as much about poor people and what they want as white people know what black people want, or what it is like to be black.

 

[uscitizen]

Why am I wrong to be middle class and say I have the interests of the poor in mind when addressing policy? Who do you think is going to speak for the poor, the rich? And if you think they can speak for themselves, guess again, because it is only the rich who speak to our politicians. Unless the middle class and the poor together can field an effective grass-roots effort, which they have done in the past.

Dividing the middle calls and the poor has been a fairly successful objective of the Republicans. Make the middle class wannabe rich..Well till the bills come due anyway...

And then when the bills come due, sling the plame on the poor for welfare and medicare and such.

 

[Cancel7]

I told you to go to the post linked by the quote of BAC's and to read his second quote box.

I was very clear.

LOL. You may think you were very clear, but I still don’t know what you are telling me to do here. You are not a concise writer. Just face up to it.

 

[Cancel7]

Dividing the middle calls and the poor has been a fairly successful objective of the Republicans. Make the middle class wannabe rich..Well till the bills come due anyway...

I think so too.

 

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

Make the middle class wannabe rich...

Isn't everyone wannabe rich?

 

[Damocles]

Yes, we've had a lot of success Damo. I guess that is why the poverty rate has climbed every year under bush? Is that correct? Becuase our policy is helping?

At this point, I would have to ask whom is it helping?

No, that is because we redefine "poverty" as we go. Hence my attempt to point to what abject poverty looks like and what Americans think it is. This is why most Americans start ignoring this stuff because exaggeration of the reality creates that disconnect.

 

[Cancel7]

Because you know about as much about poor people and what they want as white people know what black people want, or what it is like to be black.

And yet white people were involved in the civil rights movement, and during the Progressive era, and Theda Skopol has written a very informative book on this, women made the largest gains for female and child laborers, with a very effective coalition of middle class and in fact, leisure class women, and poor women.

So you are wrong.

 

[Damocles]

LOL. You may think you were very clear, but I still don’t know what you are telling me to do here. You are not a concise writer. Just face up to it.

Okay, so you weren't lying, you just couldn't understand what I was speaking of.

I stated that the following quote:

However, the most important problem with Census figures is that, even if a family's income falls below the official poverty thresholds, the family's actual living conditions are likely to be far higher than the image most Americans have in mind when they hear the word "poverty."

Was taken from a quote box in BAC's post.

You said it was from the article I linked to.

I therefore linked to the post where I took the line from the quote box.

 

[Cancel7]

No, that is because we redefine "poverty" as we go. Hence my attempt to point to what abject poverty looks like and what Americans think it is. This is why most Americans start ignoring this stuff because exaggeration of the reality creates that disconnect.

Bush has redefined poverty to keep the rate lower. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Damocles]

Bush has redefined poverty to keep the rate lower. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yeah, but Bush is only a small portion of the time we have spent on the "War on Poverty".

I do know what I am talking about. I grew up in it.

 

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

And yet white people were involved in the civil rights movement

Right-- white people were involved, they didn't lead it.

women made the largest gains for female and child laborers,

Men didn't do it, the women had to do it themselves.

with a very effective coalition of middle class and in fact, leisure class women, and poor women.

I'm sure there was a coalition, just as there was in the civil rights movement. However, I am equally as sure that the movement was led by the women it would actually impact.

So you are wrong.

No, you actually proved my point.

 

[Cancel7]

Right-- white people were involved, they didn't lead it.


Men didn't do it, the women had to do it themselves.


I'm sure there was a coalition, just as there was in the civil rights movement. However, I am equally as sure that the movement was led by the women it would actually impact.


No, you actually proved my point.

No, in fact it was led by the leisure class of women. It’s interesting all the things you are “sure” of. This book was written by a Harvard professor and one of the leading minds in this country on social theory. She is “sure” of the complete opposite, and she wrote a book filled with evidence on the topic, so I’ll lean towards that.

Our system has been set up to purposely disaffect and disempower the poor. What you are claiming would accomplish one thing: that is should stay that way.

Luckily, you do not have the power to ensure that happens.

 

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

No, in fact it was led by the leisure class of women.

But still led by women, even if I am wrong about the class involved. The civil rights movement involved blacks of all classes, so I would not be shocked to find that a movement for women's rights would involve many types of women.

It’s interesting all the things you are “sure” of.

I am sure that you do not share the perspective of groups you do not belong to.

This book was written by a Harvard professor and one of the leading minds in this country on social theory. She is “sure” of the complete opposite, and she wrote a book filled with evidence on the topic, so I’ll lean towards that.

I am sure she is very well-informed, and there is no need to get nasty. If you can't have a conversation without resorting to sarcasm, this might be the wrong leisure activity for you.

Our system has been set up to purposely disaffect and disempower the poor. What you are claiming would accomplish one thing: that is should stay that way.

No. What I am claiming (and what many people will agree with me on) is that you cannot tell anyone what a group of people thinks if you do not belong to that group (and sometimes even then you are wrong). I would not dictate what you want as a woman because I do not know what it is like to be a woman. You do not know what it is like to be a poor person, so let them speak for themselves. You can provide them with the means to express themselves, but you cannot speak for them.

Luckily, you do not have the power to ensure that happens.

Luckily, I'm not trying to. Believe it or not, not everyone that disagrees with you on one thing is a Republican war monger determined to kill babies.You are not the sole voice of reason in this country, you are not the only person who cares about this country, and your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. This is a fact of life.

 

[Cancel7]

But still led by women, even if I am wrong about the class involved. The civil rights movement involved blacks of all classes, so I would not be shocked to find that a movement for women's rights would involve many types of women.
I am sure that you do not share the perspective of groups you do not belong to

Um, you just changed your whole story.

You first said that the middle class could not understand the problems of the poor, and then went on to argue with me that a movement to benefit the poor could not be led by a different soci-economic class.

Now you are claiming that it is only different races or genders that matter.

So are you now admitting that a movement to benefit the poor, can be started by a different socio-economic class?

let's nail that down before we get into your other diversions.

You made one claim, and have now changed it. What is your real claim here, on class?

 

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

But still led by women, even if I am wrong about the class involved. The civil rights movement involved blacks of all classes, so I would not be shocked to find that a movement for women's rights would involve many types of women.
I am sure that you do not share the perspective of groups you do not belong to

Um, you just changed your whole story.

You first said that the middle class could not understand the problems of the poor, and then went on to argue with me that a movement to benefit the poor could not be led by a different soci-economic class.

But it wasn't just an issue of class in the example you are using-- it was also a question of gender, which brings a completely different perspective.

Now you are claiming that it is only different races or genders that matter.

No, I am claiming only a group of people knows how that group feels, regardless of how that group is defined.

So are you now admitting that a movement to benefit the poor, can be started by a different socio-economic class?

I'm admitting that a movement to benefit a group of people can be started by that same group of people of a different class. I.e. women helping women.

You made one claim, and have now changed it. What is your real claim here, on class?

My claim is that you can identify with problems that affect women, but not problems that affect the poor. Therefore you can identify with a poor woman insomuch as she is a woman, but not her poverty.

 

[Cancel7]

But it wasn't just an issue of class in the example you are using-- it was also a question of gender, which brings a completely different perspective.


No, I am claiming only a group of people knows how that group feels, regardless of how that group is defined.


I'm admitting that a movement to benefit a group of people can be started by that same group of people of a different class. I.e. women helping women.



My claim is that you can identify with problems that affect women, but not problems that affect the poor. Therefore you can identify with a poor woman insomuch as she is a woman, but not her poverty.

Not only is this laughable and sexist, but it is again, the complete opposite of your first claim.

Your first claim was that the "middle class" should stay out of this. You have now changed direction.

I'm done here. So are you, trust me.

 

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

Not only is this laughable and sexist, but it is again, the complete opposite of your first claim.

How is it sexist? It is a generalization, but it is also a claim that feminists have made. I would venture to guess that a man would quickly be told that he cannot offer a female perspective on an issue, because he is not a woman. That is all that I have said.

Your first claim was that the "middle class" should stay out of this. You have now changed direction.

You are right. My first claim was using the middle class as a group, whereas I became more specific following your posts.

I'm done here. So are you, trust me.

Again, I cannot comprehend your need for ugliness in civil conversation.

 

[Bonestorm]

This is the bs you have been posting Damo. And it really is disgusting that you would believe any of this from this highly agenda-driven source. 76% of poor people have air-conditioning do they? I personally know many people who aren't even poor who dont have it. What liars.

Some interesting statistics about poor people in the US....

# Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

# Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

# Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Let's start with the first one: Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

False, according to the very source that is cited:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdf/housunits/hc1-3a_hhincome2001.pdf

Roughly 1/3 (5.2 million our of 15 million) own their own home and roughly 20 percent of those "home owners" own mobile homes (1.1 million of the 5.2 owners). Further, 63% of those homes are 2 bedrooms or fewer. 65% of those homes have a total of 4 rooms or fewer. 81% have one or no bathrooms. Only 24% have a garage or carport.

Who is being misleading?

And really, do people need to be in total abject poverty or "dirt poor" to qualify as poverty-stricken in the United States? For Christ's sake, $10,400 per year for an individual and $20,000 for a family of four is living in poverty whether they're watching a color television or not.