Amid all of the talk about bailouts, stimulus packages and mortgage relief plans, nobody is talking about the folks in need of an economic lifeline more than any of us. During the four presidential and vice-presidential debates this year--where, in all, more than 60,000 words were spoken--the word "poverty" was never mentioned. The words "low income" and "the poor" were each mentioned just once--but not in a direct question or response about poor people.
However, the "middle class"--the darling segment of America in this year's campaign--was mentioned 28 times during the debates. "Main Street"--a veiled reference to the middle class--was mentioned an additional nine times.Apparently, talking about helping the poor has become some kind of political kiss of death evidenced by the monumental policy shifts in social programs the past dozen years or so, counting everything from the reform of welfare to the demolition of public housing.
It seems that our "War on Poverty" has become a war on the poor.
It should be noted that this year's presidential campaign has focused on providing health care, tax relief and more jobs--things that would certainly help the poor. But no one dared to utter a direct call to aid America's poorest citizens the way we've heard that call for the middle class.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alden-loury/why-do-we-hate-the-poor_b_140586.htmlSo why is the media ignoring these calls?
It’s simple - corporate owned media outlets won’t call for tax hikes on corporations, and rich TV personalities won’t call for tax hikes on the rich. The topic of tax hikes just doesn’t exist in our now-consolidated media. Which is really a shame because the Republicans who seem to have already won the debate have a bad idea - a really, really bad idea.
Let’s take their road - let’s cut all the programs for poor people in America - let’s throw every middle-class family under the bus - let’s tell poor and sick Americans who rely on the government for health care assistance to, “walk it off.” Let’s do ALL these things that Republicans want to do - and you know what - we’d still have a massive budget deficit. Why? Because our government really doesn’t spend all that much money helping poor people - but we do hand off trillions to corporations and their millionaire and billionaire CEOs for buying everything from bombs to fighter jets to Chertof Porno Scanners for our airports.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/04/make-wealthy-pay-their-fair-share How much does your elected officials like to make the poor suffer more? Find out here
http://www.povertyscorecard.org/Being poor means that dumbasses who have never themselves been poor will tell you that if only you’d brushed your teeth harder, if you’d bought shitty store-brand Raisin Brand one time less, if you’d gone shopping at IKEA instead of renting furniture, then by jingo, you’d be comfortably middle-class too!
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/The poor believes greed is the root of much evil,in this country that the greedy create the needy,and them blame them for being poor when it is often the hand of the callous rich to blame.
The rich believe lazy,scheming poor people are the cause of national debt. The rich want to steal aid for the poor for themselves because they think they are entitled to rob ,cheat,financially abuse and exploit the 'little people'..
While the $3 trillion plus bailout of the financial industry can most certainly be termed as corporate welfare, it is not there I want to focus — my focus is on the hundreds of billions of dollars given away each year to these corporations with no end in sight. Ironically, it is that industry (along with many of the others) and their “political party of choice” who are always pointing to welfare programs for the poor and less fortunate —- the people who really need help — as “the problem” with the debt and deficit.
Let’s get this out of the way first. No doubt the defenders of corporate welfare will point to the only defense they have – trickle-down-economics. Or, if you so desire, supply-side-economics. The reason they always point to that is because there is no other defense!
Time tells us the Federal Government alone (not including state governments) “shelled out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare. That’s $1.25 trillion every ten years. Now what’s our debt today? It would be nearly $3 trillion less if corporate welfare had been eliminated over just the past 20 years.
http://www.cps-news.com/2010/01/27/corporate-welfare-vs-the-national-debt/n the mid-1990s Congress and the states--at the urging of the American voters--enacted major reforms in social welfare programs. There are now time limits on welfare benefits. Work, training, or education is now typically required in exchange for benefits. The result: welfare rolls are down by 40 percent over the past five years and record levels of former recipients now working and paying taxes, not collecting them.
None of this reform ethic has taken root in the realm of corporate welfare. There is no plan in Congress or the White House to attack business subsidies. In fact, the business community has come to regard subsidy payments as de facto entitlements. There is no "two years and off" time limit when it comes to corporate handouts.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/monographs/27208“Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit.”
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
