Forum Post: If there was no poor, what would democrats support then?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 13, 2011, 11:16 p.m. EST by mynameismoe
(153)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Rich Democrats in congress claim they support the poor. In return, poor democrats vote for the rich democrats to keep them in congress. If there was no poor, there would be no need for democrats. End poor and forget about the rich.
If there were no poor, who would raise your children, unplug your toilet, wash your car, clean your house, do your laundry, cook your food ... ?
I do that and work.
At hating the solutiion.
Lets tweet:
Corporations do not have tongues!!
addressing any injustice, which is often the root of poverty, simpleton.
Or using them for their own benefit...
sure, by addressing an injustice. the fact that you can benefit, politically, by addressing an injustice is a good thing. it's usually called "having history on your side".
Huh? So regardless whether the approach is successful and it tends to perpetuate the same injustice, simply because you address it and benefit politically, that's a good thing? lol
you don't get it. i am saying that there is nothing wrong if you benefit politically by addressing an injustice. anything else was said by you.
Obviously it was said by me. I was pointing out that you appear be ignoring an important aspect of addressing an injustice - that what you do has a net-positive effect beyond your own political benefit.
i am not ignoring it because there is no universal demand that I address it of my own volition. that's the opposition's role. we don't progress by saying we are not going to think about doing good because it may lead to bad. the opposition's role is to argue the negative whatever it might be, this is how a balance is struck.
That's a bunch of politco-babble. lol
How about with respect to the topic of the thread? I thought that it was fairly clear but I'll make it more so. How about the multi-generational cycle of poverty/dependency/reward that we've created in this country in an attempt to address that injustice?
I don't agree with your opinion that a multi-generational cycle of poverty was created in this country in an attempt to address that injustice (an injustice that hasn't even been named in this exchange yet). one would have to agree with your opinion first in order to answer your question.
Poverty isn't an injustice in itself?
In any case, if you don't believe that we've created a multi-generational cycle of poverty in this country in an attempt to address poverty, whether well-intentioned or not, then you're just not being realistic.
simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am being unrealistic. the connection you make between addressing poverty and the creation of poverty is an opinion. it's one of many opinions that are hardly provable as fact.
You are correct.
The Apollo Missions, The VietNam War, The New Deal, The Hoover Dam, Monica Lewinski, Killing Osama Etc, Take the good with the bad, and stop making yourself look so one-sided. If you hate the poor so much, then stop obcessing over them like the bull to the red cape, in the end you get slaughtered to the cheers of your audience.
me thinks the poster is already toast
Look for mynameislarry or ,,,,,
Your missing, "ending poor" with "ending the poor". I dont want people to be poor and would what I could to help them,,,, get out of being poor.
In reality it is a cycle, rags to riches, and riches to rags, nothing lasts forever, and no party supports any one strata all the time, if you hate the democrats so much then you look one-sided and like the bull to the cape you get slaughtered to the glee of those who cheer you on to making only right turns. Turn that bull to the right and stick in the points.
Go grab a newspaper from 45 years ago. I bet it said, "Government reports show the poor are getting poorer." We have spent mega-trillions on poverty. We are $15 trillion in debt. Tomorrow the newspaper headline will say, "Government reports show the poor are getting poorer." The liberal agenda has failed. And yet you want to to spend more. Give me a number that would solve the problem. If asked 30 years ago, if you said a $15 trillion debt, they would have laughed at you. Your side lost a long time ago. I want to save the poor but you stand in the way.
I don't know how many times I have to post this.
1940s-1970s, the liberal consensus. The poor were NOT getting poorer. There was prosperity distributed relatively equally in society. People still got rich, but very few were falling through the cracks at the bottom, and more importantly, many more were brought into the middle class that became dominant at that time. The liberal agenda was a wild success. It was the American Dream, and it is dying. Now most families need two incomes to maintain a comparable standard of living to a single-income family in the 60s. The middle class is collapsing. You are a fool, A complete and utter fool. Fuck you. Fuck you all.
You must be proud of your success. (OKKKKkkkkkkkkk now.)
The debt was down to nuthin under Clinton. The Bush years killed that accomplishment. Now we start over at today's prices.
Geeezzzzz. 45 years ago mannnnnnnnn. Forget Bush. This is why your stuck in your own crap. I cant fix your stupid.
Look there's Shawn Hannity with your fix, Just stick your head in this guillitine and he'll give it to you.
Wonder if Nancy Polosi has stocks on wall street? How did she get so rich?
I can easily answer this question: Race
Total communism.....
This is a classic example of being careful what you ask for. Thankfully, the demands made by the left are impossible to fufill. Therefore, they don't need to worry about ever losing some sort of cause.
And the rich liberal democrats get richer. Why?