Why politicians are blind to the plight of the poor...

[usregimechange]

They are likely to have never known them.

[FirstLight]

1. I thought we knew this already...

time for the 99% to take back the govt, ya think?

[usregimechange]

3. Yup but never seen a graphic that illustrated it like that

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. That's terrifying. It's an oligarchy. nt

[Odin2005]

4. And they themselves are just puppets of the economic elite.

Economic power is political power. As long as the Corporate Capitalist Class exists they can and will buy and control government, for that is the essential nature of Capitalism.

[Zalatix]

5. They're not blind to the plight of the poor. Why do we keep believing this?

Politicians are actively trying to quietly starve the poor. The neglect of the poor by the politicians is entirely by design. It is malice, not ignorance.

President Obama was trying to hint at this when he called them Social Darwinists.

That was not a phrase that he used lightly. Social Darwinism is about the quiet stifling and extermination of those who are deemed unfit by society: the "useless eaters" concept.

If the Plutocracy simply did not care about the poor, President Obama would have called them neglectful. But he called them social Darwinists for a VERY specific reason: they are trying to cull the herd.

[hfojvt]

6. you misread that when you say

"they are likely to have never known them."

The graph is not about the wealth of Congresspeople, it is about wealth distribution in the USA.

However, I would also note that the vast majority of the "bottom 80%" are not poor. I would say that the poor are "the bottom 20%" although actual economic hardship depends on more than just income. It depends on cost of living, health, debt, family size, and personal relationships (not to mention tornadoes). Still 75% of the bottom 80% are not poor.

Also, I still think income is as relevant, or more so, than financial wealth. I'd rather have a million dollars in income than a million dollars of financial wealth. Heck, I'd rather have $500,000 in income than $1,000,000 in wealth.

[freshwest]

7. The intentions due to the wealth of some members are not set in stone. There have been very rich

People, such as FDR and the Kennedy's who have been what some would call 'traitors to their class.' They believed they had an obligation to lift up all people for moral reasons, and took the heat and the grief for doing so.

There are marginally employed teabaggers who one might think would care about the poor based on their life experience or lack of means. Instead of that, they saw the Koch coffers of money offered to them to put on a show, and attacked all poor people for the bosses in order to benefit their bosses while they fought for the crumbs from the table and establish their own minor fiefdoms. Quite open about it, really.

It was once said that 'politics is a pastime for the leisure class.' The desperately poor, the very young and old, the disabled do no participate. Neither do those with other social handicaps from immigration status, lack of education, etc. have the leisure to get involved in politics. The good will of any strata of society is needed to recognize the value of the poor.

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. K&R. n/t