the civil rights and progressive legacy has made american life better, particularly for the lowest-income, women and minorities. granted that, the democrats have had a handle on the lower income demography for 80+ years. these groups seem to support the dem agenda's principles on the table today, but i'd imagine this history draws some benefits in these doubtful times.
they say all questions are valid, but i don't adhere to that, fox. i think some questions posed as PC has are loaded with righteous intentions - invalidating them by way of prejudice. i've never felt a need to dance around that, and the party putting this question forward has a track-record of this sort of bollucks. it's betrayed this time by subsequent commentary and convenient omissions of the facts being discussed.
LOL. You'll forgive me if I have to see a pot/kettle analogy in an opinion that is based on prejudice re an individual or ideology while accusing the same of prejudice.
From my perspective, and from decades of experience working with low income people both as vocation and avocation, it is necessary first to separate out the temporarily low income--college students, temporarily unemployed, those volunarily on sabbatical and such--before analyzing the dynamics involved.
Then you look at the more or less 'permanent' low income demographic and how or why they acquired that status. And from my perspective, it is those well intentioned but poorly thought out 'helpful' government programs that assigned large groups of people to a permanent underclass. And yet that same underclass mostly does not seem to understand that. Those who see the light, generally manage to dig themselves out.
It has nothing to do with political parties or who is in the White House. It has everything to do with the net effects of programs to 'benefit the poor'. I am speaking in strictly general terms and overall effects irregardless of the occasional exception that those who ardently defend such programs will almot certainly evoke rather than look at the whole picture. The conclusion I have reached is that too many well intentioned government programs to benerfit the 'poor' have in fact created a permanent underclass of 'poor'. And, as governments generally will do, some in government now know that it is to government's advantage to maintain that permanent underclass.
I realize that you on the Left don't agree with my perspective and I'm already braced for the inevitable incoming.
But unless somebody can demonstrate how I'm wrong, I will continue to believe I'm on pretty solid footing here.
And THAT is what the thesis of this thread as it relates to the lowest income group should be about. I am wondering if any on the left are capable of discussing it on those terms rather than continuing to focus on somebody to demonize.
Last edited: