MILLIONS of well-educated and highly skilled people in their 40's and 50's, especially women, have been economically pushed out and are suffering Third World level poverty due to very long-term joblessness, lack of access to medical and dental care, and homelessness - all as a direct result of age discrimination in the job market leaving millions with NO INCOMES and NO HOPE in post-Welfare Reform America of getting hired anywhere. Unrelieved abject poverty takes a hell of a toll on your health and destroyed health makes you unemployable. Our rapidly falling life expectancy rates at age 60 (and still declining) and our burgeoning "tent cities" stand as glaring proof of this.
13
The poor are not a strong voting block. If they don't have a fixed address they probably can't even register to vote. If they have low paying jobs they may not be able to afford to take off work to vote. As a result their needs are not addressed by candidates.
5
Poor people do not vote at the rate that better off people do. This is primarily due to a lower literacy rate, and in rural areas difficulty getting to the polls. Many Americans who are poor feel that voting is of lower priority than paying rent and paying for food and other necessities, often working two jobs to do so.
1
"The poor": you know, those people who have nothing, make up 20% of the population of the United States. President Obama, for whom I voted twice, is also among those who only perfunctorily address the 'problem' of " the poor".
"Main street", not skid row, has been the ubiquitous buzz word of our national political discourse over the past decade, while 20 to 25% of our children suffer from hunger, conveniently renamed "food insecurity". So few of "the poor" vote, they have been virtually redacted out of our political script. Their identity as citizens virtually revoked, they have been redefined, at best, as the undeserving recipients of our collective munificence.
Who cares?
"Main street", not skid row, has been the ubiquitous buzz word of our national political discourse over the past decade, while 20 to 25% of our children suffer from hunger, conveniently renamed "food insecurity". So few of "the poor" vote, they have been virtually redacted out of our political script. Their identity as citizens virtually revoked, they have been redefined, at best, as the undeserving recipients of our collective munificence.
Who cares?
4
As one looks about the world it becomes apparent that wherever one finds human beings one finds greed and graft of wholesale proportions. At the same time, it seems apparent that until the top level of greed and graft wakes up to the fact that the entire society would benefit from a fairer distribution of the economic pie that would permit the bottom layers to have some kinds of useful jobs that would give them a meaning in life and in the process wipe out the drugs and crime that are now the only job areas open to the lower levels of society. It seems, too, that the only value of organized religion is as a base for killing non believers of individual sects, whereas it should be as a base for brotherhood and helping one another of all sects. Unfortunately, greed and graft seem to be the tenets of our most prevalent forms of commercial religion. And we all keep committing suicide through war after war and flood after flood even though we marvel at our digital accomplishments as we go.
1
The real problem, and neither party has an answer for this, is that our economy no longer needs many of those in the job skill category called "poor". Those who are 60 and over probably remember the local mailman, milkman, phone operator, filling station (as my grandfather called them) attendant, Pullman Car porter, shoe shine boy, telegram delivery guy, meter reader, usher at the movies, elevator operator and other dull but honest jobs which employed non-high school graduates. Who does these jobs now? Nobody, or computers, or robots or the end user (what's the last time you saw an elevator operator or spoke to a phone operator?) Forming a union or raising the minimum wage will not bring these jobs back. The Post Office for example was once the largest single employer of African Americans. But after a century of increase, the number of full time employees in the USPS has fallen by more than 300,000 in the last 15 years alone. How many Times readers are willing to give up Email, texting and SnapChat in order to bring back those jobs? Or chip in extra rent to hire an elevator operator, at union wages and with full health and vacation benefits? Or give up voice mail at work to hire receptionists to take messages all day long? That's what I thought (silence). Doing more with less is always and everywhere the goal of any market. Face it, our love of low cost and convenience is why a lot of people are out of work.
4
Yes, these are jobs that are extinct or in decline. One wonders where all the replacement jobs are, especially considering your 300,000 number as it applies to the USPS? I would guess most of that number are retired workers who just haven't been replaced through attrition and consolidation. I do know one thing, however. Every year it gets harder to find skilled and licensed carpenters, plumbers, HVAC fitters, etc. Many, as far as residential work goes, are booked solid or take forever to fit you in. I know I'm generalizing, but it does seem to me that these skilled trades are just begging for applicants.
3
Well in the U.S. much of our poverty is located in the inner cities such as Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore. It is tragic to see so little progress being made to address what might be the most important issue of our time. With that said, I just love all of the expert commentators offering their solutions.one said it is as simple as raising the minimum wage; another just wants to blame republicans as if they have been in charge since LBJ. Another states that the poverty in these inner cities is the fault of the democrats who have been the majority elected officials, in these communities, for many years. Finally one person commented that the answer is increased tax dollars for food stamps and the like. One possible solution is missing, that being leadership at every level of government starting with the next President. Obama had his chance and failed as poverty has increased over the last 7 years. Black unemployment for young men is >50% and almost every other stat is worse now than when he took office. Trump has not offered any solutions while HRC is much of the same. Leadership again is one of the missing links to attacking this problem. We can all opine and cast blame on the other party but that does nothing but incite discourse.
1
Any voter who has assisted Democrats for the last 40 years enslave a large population should be ashamed.
Put politics and personalities aside. The War On Poverty has resulted in deeper, long term poverty as a result of what you get when you let politicians buy your vote for in exchange for a four year meal ticket. Of course the poor folks who are desperate will vote for me free stuff. You middle class whities have a choice. You chose to create deeper poverty every time. Feel good?
That the Democrats have used the poor so badly for decades is shameful.
Just ask yourself before voting whether you want to continue to enslave your fellow man unto a life of poverty and low self-esteem. We should all be ashamed for aiding and abetting this plantation system the Democrats love so much. Shameful that we are so stupid while at the same time being 'so well educated'.
Put politics and personalities aside. The War On Poverty has resulted in deeper, long term poverty as a result of what you get when you let politicians buy your vote for in exchange for a four year meal ticket. Of course the poor folks who are desperate will vote for me free stuff. You middle class whities have a choice. You chose to create deeper poverty every time. Feel good?
That the Democrats have used the poor so badly for decades is shameful.
Just ask yourself before voting whether you want to continue to enslave your fellow man unto a life of poverty and low self-esteem. We should all be ashamed for aiding and abetting this plantation system the Democrats love so much. Shameful that we are so stupid while at the same time being 'so well educated'.
2
Social Security provides retirement, disability, and survivors' benefits. While Democrats used to vow to protect Social Security (in whole), Hillary Clinton carefully specifies that she will protect Social Security retirement benefits alone. This is important, because the Clinton wing of the Democratic party in Congress have been quietly been targeting the disabled. Phasing out Social Security one part at a time. While Hillary was preparing to launch her latest campaign, Dems in Congress kicked off 2015 with voting to virtually end food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled (cut from $115 per month, down to $10) and since food stamps are no longer deemed an entitlement per this same sweeping Congressional action, many states have eliminated food stamp benefits to those without ANY incomes at all (I live in one of those states).
3
Given the last eight years, we are ALL the POORER.
3
Donald Trump talks about them at every single rally. He says he will create many jobs, good paying jobs. He will reduce the taxes to the poor to zero. They already get food stamps and all other type of hand outs. Hillary and Obama has been sending their jobs overseas. They give just enough hand outs to keep the poor folks voting for them for said hand outs. Donald will provide jobs so they can get ahead in life. Thrive in a free USA. Hillary is selling America off to the highest bidder, foreign or domestic. Hillary should be in jail frankly.
2
We need Venezuelan style socialism to fix everything. Don't worry, Hillary is the first step in this direction!!
A question: Do parents and children living in poverty have access to good public schools? Or is there a strong correlation between concentrations of poverty and concentrations of poorly performing schools?
A good part of Mrs. Clinton's public history (that not tied up in accusations of corruption and criminality) has involved working to help mitigate the plight of poor people in this country. Especially women and children.
4
No matter who is elected and who fails, we must remember - the poor will always be with us. Unfortunately. Unless, of course, we end up living in a Communist-style State where evryone receives the same amount of anything. Even if the median income of Americans becomes one million dollars - there will always be a segment of America which gets by on
100 thousand. The numbers matter not. How we treat that segment is what matters.....
100 thousand. The numbers matter not. How we treat that segment is what matters.....
1
One more reason not to vote for the clintons.
May this loss be the end to their political careers
May this loss be the end to their political careers
3
Bernie Sanders spoke for the people, look what happened to him...
7
Don the Godfather absolutely is the "enemy of the little guy". I'm sure no one really doubts it and all will get it of course.
1
Would like to see an investigative report on "Levit Town" which was built somewhere in NY I believe. Heard a report that the Trump family brought in a lot of immigrants from Germany I believe, then used and abused them in the construction trade, then shipped them back out of the country.
3
Trump wants to help the 'poor' get out of their situation - understanding that for almost all, it can take multiple generations to leap up multiple rungs.
Clinton just wants their votes and for them to stay where they are.
Clinton just wants their votes and for them to stay where they are.
Are you sending this message from Opposite World? It boggles the mind that you reach these backward conclusions from all the evidence out there!
if hillary wins the TPP will make us all poor as we will lose our jobs
2
Run! Scream! Hide! Get your guns! Everybody. The POOR are coming! The POOR are coming! We will not have jobs! We will not have food or housing! What shall we do? Vote Republican, of course. They have promised us that they will have jobs for everybody! Sure They Will!
3
The candidates think the poor do not vote so why bother with them. But poverty
in America is a serious problem for the future of our country.
President Johnson ,like Roosevelt; was the only one serous about helping the poor Mrs Clinton, in the past, dd work to help those in need, but her husband as President eliminated the most important legislation to aiid those families in need. As for Trump. he is a disaster.
in America is a serious problem for the future of our country.
President Johnson ,like Roosevelt; was the only one serous about helping the poor Mrs Clinton, in the past, dd work to help those in need, but her husband as President eliminated the most important legislation to aiid those families in need. As for Trump. he is a disaster.
2
America is still living on past glory rather than living for the future. Other western countries are laughing at us but also are dismayed by our superficial thinking and lack of global understanding. Our educations, for the average Americans, are marginal but we keep bragging about it. In Europe a Bachelor degree really means a "half-way" education and far from having a Masters. This entire lack of understanding is getting worse by the day and subconsciously is recognized by the unemployed angry middle class voting for Trump or retired folks voting for Clinton after many years of hard work barely making it on their retirement savings. America is tired, poor, and insecure and just is not interested any more in the future. Many folks now are thinking "get it over with."
5
Politicians are not interested in the poor of society. Only when they become a large enough, empowered voting bloc will they care. As long as they are a containable minority, they can be ignored.
3
They don't vote.
You hit the nail on the head. Bernie Sanders was the only one that regularly stated that point and poor people, for the most part do not vote, hence, the rich politicians could care less about them.
1
What welfare net are thou referring to? The welfare Wall Street revives and not just the bailout. Or GM? Or any government paid retirement such as federal employees, teachers unions, municipal employees? The military complex and all of its advantages? Everyone deserves a home, healthcare, a grocery store nearby, uncomtaminated water, clan air. Where is the handout in that. And Richard how do you break the cycle of poverty?
1
Since when is it Page 1 "news" that national politicians are not interested in the poor? The poor don't have money to feed politicians. End of story. Try having 1000 poor people call their elected representatives. See how many get to meet with their representative in a non-election year. Politicians have the sons and daughters of rich contributors manning the constituent service functions to screen out the poor and cater to the rich. Money runs politics and i'm talking about big money. Mere millionaires are "poor" when it comes to national politics. If you doubt that, look at the entry fee to the Clinton's lobbying services. It's $500K and up. And you have to pony up a G4 or better for transportation. What surprises me is that there are not more riots. I guess we have to thank the entertainment industry for keeping the poor distracted. This week it's the Olympics. Next week it will be NFL pre-season. And Facebook keeps everyone distracted. Both major political parties cater to the ultra-rich. Not even the well-off have a voice.
8
Money makes the world go round. Ever hear that? There are more than a billion poor. Only a Moral communistic society could fix it. And only in your dreams. Imagine!
3
Neither party cares for the poor. Trump or Clinton in the White House is a dangerous move.
2
Perhaps it's time for the private sector to start an index fund that we can all contribute to on behalf of our less fortunate fellow americans. Much of our countries wealth is derived from the markets and will likely continue.
Come on Warren, Bill and the upper 1%. Here is your opportunity to leave a impacting legacy.
Come on Warren, Bill and the upper 1%. Here is your opportunity to leave a impacting legacy.
2
So why is anyone surprised?
Poor people are black and Latino, who we know are all lazy and criminal. Poverty is their own fault and they deserve their fate.
White people are all MIDDLE CLASS and obviously deserving. Isn't that how most of America, even poor white people themselves and both Democrats and Republicans, think?
Poor people are black and Latino, who we know are all lazy and criminal. Poverty is their own fault and they deserve their fate.
White people are all MIDDLE CLASS and obviously deserving. Isn't that how most of America, even poor white people themselves and both Democrats and Republicans, think?
How misinformed can you be. The largest group of poor are the dirt poor white people that are represented by no one.
There is at least 40 million.
There is at least 40 million.
6
Completely abolishing the estate tax seems to me to be the new top priority for the 1%. I think that might be because of the historically recent massive increase in *wealth* inequality, which I always appreciated Bernie Sanders consistently emphasizing along with *income* inequality. Wealth inequality is a much bigger issue than income inequality. About 40% of the country's wealth is now held by 1% of its people (roughly the same as in the 1920's Robber Baron era). What's even worse is that the bottom 80% own only 7%! of the wealth.
So even more important than income tax cuts or deregulation or any other issue to the obscenely wealthy 1% is fortifying their new position as a (hereditary) ruling class: Lord and Lady Trump. It's an important issue for the next 9% down, too, because they hold another 40% of the wealth (for a total of about 80% in the hands of the upper 10%).
I don't think a democracy is possible if these conditions persist. The upper 10% want to be a new gentry class, with the upper 1% of that as dukes and barons and so on. The estate tax is the only thing preventing that from happening, and is therefore probably the single most important issue in this election. It's the only policy the donor class really needs to get from Trump, and they have it.
So even more important than income tax cuts or deregulation or any other issue to the obscenely wealthy 1% is fortifying their new position as a (hereditary) ruling class: Lord and Lady Trump. It's an important issue for the next 9% down, too, because they hold another 40% of the wealth (for a total of about 80% in the hands of the upper 10%).
I don't think a democracy is possible if these conditions persist. The upper 10% want to be a new gentry class, with the upper 1% of that as dukes and barons and so on. The estate tax is the only thing preventing that from happening, and is therefore probably the single most important issue in this election. It's the only policy the donor class really needs to get from Trump, and they have it.
9
One of the problems with politicians mentioning the poor, is that it's always with an attitude of "helping." The poor need services, such as healthcare and good education, support such as a decent minimum wage and a fair tax system (they don't care about the estate tax!) and recognition that they are strong, trainable and capable. I dislike the pitying and disdainful tone by both parties. It takes great skill to survive as a poor person; just ask them.
4
Thank you for addressing perhaps the most vital issue impacting millions upon millions of folks just living very marginal lives throughout the country...This is, in fact, the Great Depression all over again...It must be addressed and dealt with on Serious..Serious...terms...and not just with words but ACTION...
2
It's been many years since politicians have acknowledged poverty out loud. You can't acknowledge it and say with a straight face that we're the greatest country in the world, no matter what party you belong to.
1
If we want the fact, that we are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty, to be at the very top of the agenda we should write-in Bernie in November. Or we can vote for Hillary, but pay attention voting for those Democratic candidates for Congress that endorsed or have been endorsed by Bernie. It is ridiculous to expect from Trump to be a champion of working poor. He is a good demagogue, yes. But all of what he says is just a mirage - that's his tried and proven business tactics: deceiving his creditors, contractors, and customers, ultimately only for his benefit. Hillary is trying to balance her promises to her wealthy donors and her promises to the Bern crowd whose votes she needs in November. However, I believe it is going to be easier to hold her accountable than Trump, with the right people in Congress.
1
I have no answers to our poverty, which is unusual, because I usually believe I have all the answers. One of the 5,249 character defects I lug around.
Those willing to contribute must be given their due; and I don't mean jobs. Contributions can take many forms, sometimes as simple as Time.
This has to end, and I mean right now, for everyone who is wanting to give to America.
As for those who want only to take, I have no comment.
Those willing to contribute must be given their due; and I don't mean jobs. Contributions can take many forms, sometimes as simple as Time.
This has to end, and I mean right now, for everyone who is wanting to give to America.
As for those who want only to take, I have no comment.
1
Perhaps the comment was delayed or perhaps the NYT censors me way more than they used to. Let me try again because I think it’s important.
The poor DO get aid. Food stamps, housing, grants for college, medical insurance. That’s huge, if not ideal.
The middle class? They get bills. They have slightly better housing, no food stamps, no grants if they earn past a certain point, pay for medical (thanks, Obama). But instead of the good life, it’s called living in debt, robbing Peter to pay Paul, working a lot, carrying stress 24/7.
Don’t pit these two against each other. All energies should be directed at the unjust income distribution that creates the 1%.
The poor DO get aid. Food stamps, housing, grants for college, medical insurance. That’s huge, if not ideal.
The middle class? They get bills. They have slightly better housing, no food stamps, no grants if they earn past a certain point, pay for medical (thanks, Obama). But instead of the good life, it’s called living in debt, robbing Peter to pay Paul, working a lot, carrying stress 24/7.
Don’t pit these two against each other. All energies should be directed at the unjust income distribution that creates the 1%.
3
Too many people still buy in to the divide and conquer approach of many Republicans who in order to divert their attention away from the REAL perpetrators of their problems, continually tell their mostly white middle class that it is the poor, immigrants LGBT people etc. etc. that are the ones to blame for all their issues. Meanwhile, as we have seen Republican governors in states such as Kansas, Mississippi, Michigan and others provide huge tax breaks to their rich corporate friends while bringing their states to the verge of bankruptcy at the expense of everyone else. It is time for all of those whom wish to blame others for your issues, look at the REAL cause of your issues, the greed of the politicians themselves looking after their corporate donors, NOT YOU.
1
Statistically, poor people don't vote. This, despite presumably robust efforts by major parties to get out the vote.
Candidates, whether they care about the plight of the poor or not (I think Clinton does, Trump, not so much) focus more on issues that effect voters directly since voters, not the poor, determine who will become elected.
Candidates, whether they care about the plight of the poor or not (I think Clinton does, Trump, not so much) focus more on issues that effect voters directly since voters, not the poor, determine who will become elected.
2
FIX IT NOW. It should have read. But as I wrote my opinion I have in my mind the tens of thousands of residents in Flnt, Michigan who have NOTHING. AND I MEAN NOTHING. And we have contaminated water drawn until recently a river heavily contaminated by General Motors. Why as a country with all of its potential and abilities mired in such poverty, crime, failing infrastructure, failing education system top to bottom i.e. kindregarten through college level, and think that in anyway shape or form it's ok? I don't mind hard work and I work hard every single workday, but to accept a system that doesn't make that same opportunity a realty for ALL of its citizens is wrong. There are no excuses for that. None. Get to work Trump, Clnton, Obama, congress and THE PRESS. do your job.
Well, start with Rick Snyder, your governor. In order to meet the needs of his corporate donors and rich friends, he chose to cut taxes and costs, i.e. infrastructure, meanwhile Flint could not even get decent water to drink. He still has not figured out yet that trickle down economics does not and never has worked and it was not until people got sick and died that, when he was placed under a rather large international microscope, that he started to talk and attempted at accepting some responsibility for his actions.
It is time for the American voter to do a little due diligence on their candidates since I believe it is pretty safe to say that the tired old Republican mantra that taxes and government are evil will eventually kill you.
It is time for the American voter to do a little due diligence on their candidates since I believe it is pretty safe to say that the tired old Republican mantra that taxes and government are evil will eventually kill you.
The Government does NOT owe us a job!
The electoral process makes voting difficult for the poor. For those who work, the time it takes is prohibitive. If you are homeless, unemployed, or have never paid taxes, it's difficult to register. Why would the candidates campaign for the percentage of the population least likely to cast a ballot at all?
2
There is no reason to talk about the poor because they are not in crisis. They have their Second 8 housing, their Medicaid, their food stamps, their cash assistance, free breakfast and lunch for their kids, etc. If they would stop having kids they can't afford they wouldn't be poor. It is the middle class that is in crisis. The middle class is shrinking due to the outsourcing of jobs, stagnant wages, and underemployment. It is the folks who get up at 5am every day, go to work, pay the taxes, and get nowhere that need to get some attention for a change. It is the people struggling with skyrocketing health care costs, taxes, and college costs that need relief.
4
Then I would suggest you look to the REAL perpetrators of the shrinking middle class and it is NOT taking care of the poor. In the 1950s, corporations paid roughly 35 percent of overall total taxes towards the amount paid in to the government coffers to run the country and the economy worked just fine. Corporate tax levels are now down to less than 11 percent of that total so guess who has to pick up the difference? It has been discussed many times, but, despite the vast increase in productivity, the bulk of those productivity gains have gone to the corporations and the top one percent, with the actual workers and middle class seeing little of those gains.
Look to the corporations and the bribed politicians who make legislation in favor of the rich and themselves at your expense and make THEM accountable, not the poor.
Look to the corporations and the bribed politicians who make legislation in favor of the rich and themselves at your expense and make THEM accountable, not the poor.
3
We take care of the poor. The percentage of people on public assistance has grown significantly. What else is there to talk about?
1
Yes, yes, yes!!!! In a country where 1 in 5 families are having to choose between rent or food, where o where do I ever hear anything about the poor? Is it because no one wants to admit it "in the greatest country in the world" (ha ha)
Horrible.......
Horrible.......
2
The solution is jobs, not helping people while they are not working. We already have welfare, SNAP, CHIP, Aid to mothers, medicaid, housing subsidies, etc. etc. etc.
What we don't have is reform - where able bodied people find jobs. Although, if one doesn't even finish high school and cannot add numbers together, it is a bit tougher to find a job. Regardless, I see many hard working people with little education supporting themselves. And their families. Maybe they work more than one job, but they are working nonetheless. If you don't put in the effort, I do not want a new giveaway program to enable you to hang out and have more babies. Responsibility seems to be a lost word - that is the main problem we face today.
Both candidates are talking about creating jobs - that is as it should be.
What we don't have is reform - where able bodied people find jobs. Although, if one doesn't even finish high school and cannot add numbers together, it is a bit tougher to find a job. Regardless, I see many hard working people with little education supporting themselves. And their families. Maybe they work more than one job, but they are working nonetheless. If you don't put in the effort, I do not want a new giveaway program to enable you to hang out and have more babies. Responsibility seems to be a lost word - that is the main problem we face today.
Both candidates are talking about creating jobs - that is as it should be.
1
For most Americans, those who don't expect to become wealthy unless the lottery lightning bolt strikes, we look forward to what generally might be called a decent life.
Hard to define that for a third of a billion folks, but in our hearts we know it when we see it. Good schools, a good job, which mean good benefits, the chance for our children and each succeeding generation after to attain at the minimum our equal if not surpass it. And of course those of us who manage to survive all that, a comfortable, secure senior existence free from the worry of going bankrupt from exorbitant medical expense, seniors chief worry.
We are not looking to become rich beyond all comprehension. We are looking for a richness in life that a good education, a good job, a comfortable life the middle class used to bring. That's the reality of American life, a life a Reality TV buffoon can't begin to understand.
Hillary does. She lived it in the suburbs of Chicago. She knows that with what her parents provided her was enough to attain the highest goals of her American Dream, the chance to become this nation's first female president. She, not the Buffoon, is the ideal example of what all Americans want to believe is possible for us and our children.
DD
Manhattan
Hard to define that for a third of a billion folks, but in our hearts we know it when we see it. Good schools, a good job, which mean good benefits, the chance for our children and each succeeding generation after to attain at the minimum our equal if not surpass it. And of course those of us who manage to survive all that, a comfortable, secure senior existence free from the worry of going bankrupt from exorbitant medical expense, seniors chief worry.
We are not looking to become rich beyond all comprehension. We are looking for a richness in life that a good education, a good job, a comfortable life the middle class used to bring. That's the reality of American life, a life a Reality TV buffoon can't begin to understand.
Hillary does. She lived it in the suburbs of Chicago. She knows that with what her parents provided her was enough to attain the highest goals of her American Dream, the chance to become this nation's first female president. She, not the Buffoon, is the ideal example of what all Americans want to believe is possible for us and our children.
DD
Manhattan
5
Neither party cares for the poor other than to pay lip service in order to get votes. I doubt either party can really help the plight of our bottom tier of society until the cycle of unplanned births and single parent families is reduced. There are too many children being born without a support structure in place and the government is not responsible for their welfare. While technology has allowed us to change nearly every method of work and life for the better of all, the educational requirements to keep pace will insure the poor never succeed unless they climb out of their plight through better education. No political party can provide this as it comes from within the individual.
When someone says "Donald Trump doesn't talk about the poor", you know they just aren't paying attention. He's the poor's only hope this election.
Excuse my laughter! Do you mean, with a straight face, that Republican Donald Trump, cares about the POOR????
1
What good is a tax credit if you don't have a job.?
3
"But Ms. Edin said the 1996 deal between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans to curtail cash benefits for needy families had left those without jobs behind"
Bill Clinton somehow managed to win over poor white and black supporters while also winning over the angry white voters who had been posed to vote against Reagan's "welfare queens" (which Reagan mplied to be blacks). Hillary Clinton only has to stay quiet about poor people, because Trump is willing to take the racist voters far enough to make Hilary appear to be non-racist while still appearing to be anti-welfare (getting to have it both ways). If Bill Clinton is going to handle her economic programs, then it seems unlikely she will help the poor if elected. She can take their votes for granted though, given the undeniable and justifiable fear of Trump.
Bill Clinton somehow managed to win over poor white and black supporters while also winning over the angry white voters who had been posed to vote against Reagan's "welfare queens" (which Reagan mplied to be blacks). Hillary Clinton only has to stay quiet about poor people, because Trump is willing to take the racist voters far enough to make Hilary appear to be non-racist while still appearing to be anti-welfare (getting to have it both ways). If Bill Clinton is going to handle her economic programs, then it seems unlikely she will help the poor if elected. She can take their votes for granted though, given the undeniable and justifiable fear of Trump.
1
Yes. Blaming the President - of either party - for any lack of jobs has always been the thing to do..... Remember - funding to provide anything for anybody must originate in the CONGRESS, not in the Oval Office, or in state capitals or county commissions. CONGRESS !!!!
Enough with the false equivalences! There's a world of difference between the parties when it comes to the poor. Stop pretending otherwise.
"The silence is particularly striking because the problem is growing. There is not a single state where a full-time worker earning the minimum wage can rent a market-rate one-bedroom apartment for 30 percent or less of their income, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. And more than 11 million households spend more than half of their income on rent."
Here in Vermont a single-bedroom apartment, in general, costs roughly $1000.00. Living as I do on Social Security that would leave me with about $70. And there are millions more like me, either living on Social Security or working in low paying jobs who simply cannot afford any kind of housing. This is one of greatest crises in our country and it must be addressed.
Here in Vermont a single-bedroom apartment, in general, costs roughly $1000.00. Living as I do on Social Security that would leave me with about $70. And there are millions more like me, either living on Social Security or working in low paying jobs who simply cannot afford any kind of housing. This is one of greatest crises in our country and it must be addressed.
10
Too busy selling the American exceptionalism myth as a cover for America's failure to address issues like poverty.
http://www.slideshare.net/onesyrup23/exceptionaldeceit
http://www.slideshare.net/onesyrup23/exceptionaldeceit
4
Brazilians were deceived by almost 16 years of corrupt and liars politicians . Therefore , great care is this time to decide what will be the responsaavel by the US destination
2
I've never understood why this is the case. It is beyond my comprehension. Both of these candidates believe in Christianity. Well the practice your faith and stop the excuses. The economic polices and practices of our government and Wall Stret have destroyed our economy and the lives of so many of it citizens and in les than a generation. It only took that long. They replacement our now lost economy with the incarceration of its citizens building a horrible industry that has destroyed countless lives and perverted law enforcement. Well I say I DO NOT want my tax dollars used that way. I am sick of the excuses, The rationales, the laziness, the arrogance and callousness of the people who we not only elect to do the their jobs in keeping America safe, but healthy, employed and included. Get to work Hilary, Donald, President Obamaand every single serving member of congress. So many Americans should have it as good as you have. FIT IT NOW!
6
We have two classes the rich and the poor plus those who think they can get rich but don't. I believe that the movement Bernie started that issue will take more and more of Hillary's time than the nut Trump.
3
Hillary supports $12 bucks an hour, while Trump says $10 bucks is sufficient; didn't we push for $15 per hour, or am I missing something? Ignorance is bliss on both sides of the aisle, and I'd like to see both of them try to sustain themselves on their proposed minimum wage; they wouldn't last a day, let alone a lifetime of poverty that millions of Americans are forced to endure. And then there's the homeless, but we can't broach that subject either; it's far too sensitive to go there. Out of sight, out of mind.
4
These jobs are meant for high school or college students working part time. The idea of raising hourly wages of lowest skilled jobs, to allow the workers to raise families is ludicruous. The impetus should be on bringing back or creating real family supporting jobs, not on raising salaries of retail drones or fast food workers. This misguided minimum wage push while ignoring the true job loss, will accelerate automation for low wage jobs, and make the problem worse.
The problem is that Trump thinks the middle class are actually the poor. He doesn't even know there are millions of people considerably less fortunate than the middle. Hillary on the other hand loves to help, and discuss the plight of the poor, and she will continue to do so all the way up until election day only to resume during the next election but nothing in between.
Think about the day to day life of Trump and Clinton. 24-7 security...limos...4 to 5 thousand dollar suits for both...thousand dollar hair cuts, and millions in the bank to support their children, and grandchildren.
Trump has been rich all his life, and Clinton has spent the last 30 years in the governors mansion, white house, and giving $250,000 speeches. How could either of them have any idea what it is like to be poor, or for that matter middle class?
Think about the day to day life of Trump and Clinton. 24-7 security...limos...4 to 5 thousand dollar suits for both...thousand dollar hair cuts, and millions in the bank to support their children, and grandchildren.
Trump has been rich all his life, and Clinton has spent the last 30 years in the governors mansion, white house, and giving $250,000 speeches. How could either of them have any idea what it is like to be poor, or for that matter middle class?
5
The way to eliminate poverty is to create incentives to work. Perhaps we should reduce the subsidies to people who are not working to perhaps encourage them to take the jobs "americans will not do". Since the 1960's we have spent $trillions with no appreciable decrease in poverty. The last time I checked, we have a huge deficit and a huge national debt. We cannot afford more federal programs.
4
You are obviously one of the privileged, that think you got there all on your own
2
I guess you did not get the memo. When a country particularly in the last 15 plus years or so is spending trillions annually fighting perpetual wars, while at the same time since the 1950s reducing the corporate tax rate obligation from 35 percent to less than 11 percent, you wonder why there is such a huge national deficit and debt?
You are right, corporate welfare and wars are the chief cause of the issues you deem so vital, not the poor.
You are right, corporate welfare and wars are the chief cause of the issues you deem so vital, not the poor.
1
We won't fix the poverty problem until the Federal government takes over all public education. Where I live some children in Bloomfield Hills receive almost $8000 a year for their public educations, while twelve miles down the road some students in Detroit receive as little as $3500 for their educations. I teach at three different community colleges in three different economic areas and see three different levels of academic competence from my students. I have a hard time believing the poorer academic achievement in the poorer area is due to poor people being less intelligent than upper middle class people. Income inequality begins with education inequality. As long as the tax base of a neighborhood determines the quality of education of that neighborhood, all the federal programs and studies in the world will result in naught.
8
Education begins at home, as long as you rely on government to provide it to you, no amount of money will be enough. Already Detroit spends way more than Indian and Chinese spent on their public schools, results are obvious. It is not the money but a culture of appreciating educaton, that matters.
Other countries in the western industrialized democracies would contradict much of what you state. It can be done, you just to have the right politicians and their surrogates in place that care and have the commitment to do the proper thing.
Let it also be known that MSM doesn't mention DNC corruption, and Hillary's perjury before congress. We would really like to know more about that before discussing what Hillary has to say about the poor. After all, if she is a liar, what sense is there to listen to anything she has to say about the poor? Get my drift? What happened to this paper?
4
They don't talk about poverty because "poor people aren't the swing voters they're looking for."
That the poor don't vote makes the powers that be happiest of all. And most secure, as well.
And that's a tragedy. When it comes to who is most deeply involved in the election process, it seems the civil aren't participating, and the participants aren't civil, to quote an ole PolySci professor.
That the poor don't vote makes the powers that be happiest of all. And most secure, as well.
And that's a tragedy. When it comes to who is most deeply involved in the election process, it seems the civil aren't participating, and the participants aren't civil, to quote an ole PolySci professor.
3
Face it the middle class and up benefit from the country having a low wage servant class. What I'd like to ask is what every elected official pays their servants, gardeners, housekeepers, nannies, etc. and how they provide for their health care. An example must be set. The servant class must prosper because they are the majority.
4
Do that, and the middle class will stop employing the servent class and do things with automation. What will you encourage the servent class to do then? Rob and eat the rich, I suppose.
The NYT once again is twisting the truth. The poor people in America consist largely of poor blacks and Hispanics with some white folks added to the mix. Trump talks about poor Blacks and Hispanics at each of his rallies by providing statistics of unemployment numbers, and economic conditions in the black and Hispanic communities. When have you heard Hillary addressed these issues of no jobs being in these communities?
If you want to see how Hillary Clinton has helped the poor I challenge you to google "Hillary Clinton and Haiti." The NYT is desperately trying to slant the news. Perhaps Hillary is the only one not talking about the poor conditions of Blacks while she support BlackLivesMatter protesting the police.
Trump does talk about these communities needing jobs instead of welfare and entitlement handouts. The disconnect with Hillary is that all she has to offer these minority communities are entitlement programs. There is no discussion of a revitalization program in these communities that include jobs.
If you want to see how Hillary Clinton has helped the poor I challenge you to google "Hillary Clinton and Haiti." The NYT is desperately trying to slant the news. Perhaps Hillary is the only one not talking about the poor conditions of Blacks while she support BlackLivesMatter protesting the police.
Trump does talk about these communities needing jobs instead of welfare and entitlement handouts. The disconnect with Hillary is that all she has to offer these minority communities are entitlement programs. There is no discussion of a revitalization program in these communities that include jobs.
3
There is an interesting dichotomy in the way we ignore the poor (most of whom are citizens) while we worry about the plight of illegal aliens and refugees (none of whom are citizens to state the obvious). We do not seem to see that many of the illegal aliens and refugees compete directly with our poor citizens for jobs and resources, which, in too many cases, are scarce or nonexistent. The poor will always be with us, because, by definition, a person who has less than the rest is poor. However, that should not stop us from trying to alleviate the ills of poverty by raising living standards for those of our citizens who have less than most of us. As we cannot take care of everyone who needs help, we must take care of your own first.
3
It's very important to find a candidate who cares about the poor, and it's very important to the long-term benefit of the poor that the middle class continue to voluntarily go to work, pay their bills and consume.
2
Clinton is a neo liberal who cares two hoots about the poor. Donald is a billionaire who cares two hoots about the poor. Never the twain shall meet? They are made for each other in that aspect. It is Bill Clinton who reformed welfare, remember, and Reagan set off all that acrimony against "welfare queens". This country hasn't had too many presidents, because they are mostly of the plutocracy, have any mercy for the poor. But welfare money is not hoarded, like the rich hoard money. It is put right back into circulation because the poor spend that money on necessities. More and more people are falling into poverty. I know so many students who are coming off their parent's insurance who can't afford ObamaCare and Obama doesn't care and Hillary doesn't care. Hillary just gave her economic speech with numerous promises. I say:
Hillary promises the moon and the stars
but she'll give us wars
and since the money to take on poverty
won't come from Mars
To the poor she should be a farce.
Hillary promises the moon and the stars
but she'll give us wars
and since the money to take on poverty
won't come from Mars
To the poor she should be a farce.
13
Great comment! You hit the nail on the head.
We have two candidates running against each other yet for no one or anything. Neither party or candidate is in touch with the poor and both are in denial on the root causes of poverty in America. Trump's only experience is in creating poor people in the wake of his many bankruptcies and for the neo-liberal HRC, poverty is mainly a temporal inconvenience, a topic to be talked around in speeches. The one candidate that understood poverty, identified with the poor, and had a programmatic plan was kept from the nomination. I honestly don't expect any changes under a Clinton administration, things would be a lot worse under Trump but I never thought he was a contender until Clinton was given the nomination. The Democrats could have run a lovable Labrador against Trump and easily won, now I'm not so sure.
6
A legitimate observation, but beside the point. Poverty will not diminish without jobs for those who could work. Infrastructure renewal will create jobs, and those jobs are not welfare. Rather than 'trickle down' economics, infrastructure renewal puts money into the economy that percolates in all directions.
Trump treats poverty as a talking point and as a scarecrow, both as a condition to be avoided at all costs, and as a compelling reason for those in fear of falling into poverty to vote for Trump.
Trump treats poverty as a talking point and as a scarecrow, both as a condition to be avoided at all costs, and as a compelling reason for those in fear of falling into poverty to vote for Trump.
2
Neither Party wants to discuss the poor in America because they do not want to agitate nor further alienate those previously Middle Class voters who are treading water to not become members of the ever burgeoning ranks of the working poor in the USA.
Sorry for the run-on sentence.
Sorry for the run-on sentence.
4
This article is unduly harsh on the Serious Efforts being made by the Clinton Campaign to address Income Inequality. The poor form the solid base of this Issue. Secretary Clinton specifically talked about Plans for the poorest Americans with Skills Training for the millions of future jobs which do not require a College education - Plumbers, Carpenters, Welders etc. Manufacturing Jobs are emphasized because American Workers Lost good-paying Jobs in Manufacturing under NAFTA & other Trade Deals. Surely Americans losing good-paying jobs deserve priority attention over Increasing wages for Americans in low-paying Service jobs ?
2
It is interesting that many of the commenters here consider "the poor" as some distant "other," unrelated to them or their circumstances. I have noticed that most people, whatever their circumstances, prefer to see themselves as part of the "middle class" than the poor. Although I would not want to offend struggling more than I am, I consider myself (and many people that I see on a day to day basis) on the cusp of poverty, whether or not we wish to recognize it. It is simply extremely difficult to survive in today's United States, despite all of our superficial consumption benefits. The wealth is concentrated at the top with a facade of a middle class that threatens to disappear immediately if another financial crisis occur. I really wish that our political candidates would realize this and institute real, immediate policies to at least attempt to put the economy in functional order. If that does not happen, we are all in for a rocky ride, I believe, in the near future.
15
Help the ones the ones that want to work or have a legitimate reason not to reason not to work. We need more investment into vocational training for jobs. We need an EPA that isn't killing jobs, and we need penalties for corporations that move jobs out of the US. We need to bring certain illegals into the work force by making them citizens, and we need to expel the rest.
1
First we need voters who read enough to know what they are voting on or talking about. I always remind my libertarian friend who is constantly complaining about regulation holding back business that the regulations have come AFTER the businesses have adulterated their products, or poisoned their customers, or created a dangerous product -- not the other way round. What will we do over the next decade(s) as automation replaces more and more jobs that have been done by people and we have too many people for the economy? Jobs are lost today not simply by going overseas but also through automation -- and they aren't just blue collar jobs. Job loss and poverty are far more complex than Paul Ayn Rand Ryan and his fellow Republicans comprehend. And DT has no clue at all about work if his advice to his daughter if harassed on the job is "get another job." To say his head is in a dark tunnel about economic reality is being kind.
7
A real libertarian, remove ALL regulation and turn America in to the cesspool of the planet. Brilliant.
As everyone knows, minimum wage is not intended to enable one person to afford an apartment on their own. If they shared with one other minimum wage person, they could easily afford an apartment together in most small cities or towns. $800 per month is 30 percent. Problem solved!
5
If the MW kept up with inflation, it would be over $20/hour. It was clearly intended to provide a livable wage.
8
The highest inflation adjusted minimum wage was $10.10 in 1968. Your fact is wrong.
Yes, and perhaps get rid of the expensive cell phone and cable service and use the money to buy food. Plenty of free entertainment at the library and two people can share a landline inexpensively.
2
Drumpf is not the first candidate who has fooled great numbers of voters into wrongly believing that he has their backs when actually all he cares about is his own self-interest. Poor whites are, in fact, the most loyal of Drumpf's supporters. Though he has been dead for most of a century, one can readily picture George Bernard Shaw imagining these Drumpf supporters when he famously said, "Democracy is a system of government that ensures we are governed no better than we deserve." It is very sad that those who deserve Drumpf as their president may possibly inflict him on the rest of us.
5
Is this part of Hillary Clinton's trust problem? If we are to take her at her word, we can assume that her policies for addressing poverty will receive a priority proportional to the weight she has given the issue in her campaign - that is, almost none.
4
Corporations only care about money. They do not care about human beings, and they rule the USA. They own every level of government, and they own mass media. Mass media drum the primacy of money all day every day into the minds of people who consume it, even if one's only exposure to corporate propaganda is its billboards, which model what normal people, normal social relations, and normal societies look like and what people are supposed to do. Corporations' only interest in poor people is to squeeze what little money they have access to out of them. They also hold poor people up as an example of what will happen to American workers if they do not run around like crazy people doing what corporations want them to do to get money. And corporations scapegoat poor people, blaming them for the results of crimes that corporations commit. American society needs to be thoroughly reorganized from top to bottom to serve the needs of human beings, and of course corporations do everything in their power to prevent Americans from even thinking about it.
17
Pity would be no more
if we did not make somebody Poor
And Mercy no longer would be
If all were as happy as we.
By which staves from Blake. i mean to say don't blame Clinton, let alone a gutless wonder like Donald Trump.
Blame yourselves, blame me, blame all of us who won't look honestly in any mirror, and whose refrain goes something like, "Millions for me, but not one cent for decency."
if we did not make somebody Poor
And Mercy no longer would be
If all were as happy as we.
By which staves from Blake. i mean to say don't blame Clinton, let alone a gutless wonder like Donald Trump.
Blame yourselves, blame me, blame all of us who won't look honestly in any mirror, and whose refrain goes something like, "Millions for me, but not one cent for decency."
6
I was watching Ethics & Religion the other day which featured a piece on Mother Teresa. Someone once asked her what would happen to her order of nuns if there were no poor anymore. Mother Teresa answered with a beaming smile, "well I guess we'd be unemployed." That kind of unemployment would be rejoiced.
4
I think Trump is broke, no wonder he doesn't address poverty. This is why he won't show his tax returns. My guess is, is that he is way over his head in debt. He made money from the primaries by paying his own businesses for his rallies.
He is a poor man, desperate for attention. Listening to him to speak today, reminds me of a 7 year old who is being reprimanded for poor behavior. Like he has been placed in the corner. He is such a whiner!!
He needs to disappear, his rhetoric is abysmal. His manner is childess. He is a bad dream for us all!!
He is a poor man, desperate for attention. Listening to him to speak today, reminds me of a 7 year old who is being reprimanded for poor behavior. Like he has been placed in the corner. He is such a whiner!!
He needs to disappear, his rhetoric is abysmal. His manner is childess. He is a bad dream for us all!!
8
Here is the craziest fact. Things have gotten worse for the poor over the past 8 years and more people have moved into this situation. These two candidates can give this problem the smallest part of their attention and it will instantantly be better for these people than it is today.
2
So you at the NYT finally woke up?
U-6 stands at 9.7%, about twice what your trained bloviators say it is.
A year ago it was 10.7%, 2014, 12.2%, 2010, 16.4%.
Yes, things have improved during Obama's time but...almost 10% of this country's capable work force is out of work.
And you wonder why Trump and Sanders have gained traction?
U-6 stands at 9.7%, about twice what your trained bloviators say it is.
A year ago it was 10.7%, 2014, 12.2%, 2010, 16.4%.
Yes, things have improved during Obama's time but...almost 10% of this country's capable work force is out of work.
And you wonder why Trump and Sanders have gained traction?
6
Growing, since entitlements and the VA pay people for no work. Enormous fraud in the system. In many instances like in my own extended family, people don't work because government gives them more income & benefits than they can get from working. Different from the 1920's immigrants who came here and had to work. Sink or swim. Many of them became financially successful simply because they had to.
4
As an economist, I offer the simple observation "if you subsidize something, you get more of it", giving people money for free is not the answer. The only exception is for people who have a REAL disability and need to be taken care of. To all the others, get a job.....
2
You attempt to make life sound simple, unfortunately , it is not. A good percentage of the poor are single seniors and many with health problems and what about single divorced moms with children or whom suffered wife abuse and had to leave home? Many of these were stay at home moms who never worked and in order to support their children had to find a place to live and for the first time, get a job. There are many in this category.
The fact that people like you automatically assume that all the poor are those that since in front of the television while collecting food stamps and do not want to work, shows an ignorance that is beyond the pale.
The fact that people like you automatically assume that all the poor are those that since in front of the television while collecting food stamps and do not want to work, shows an ignorance that is beyond the pale.
1
We need not only jobs but also government services that offer job training and job matching, without which the jobs won't help many people.
7
Give me a break!! Did Trump begin his illustrious career working for The Children's Defense Fund?!?!
With Hillary's innate intelligence and educational background--which she earned rather than inherited--she could easily have been out making money hand over fist for decades. That is what Trump has been doing his whole life and what Hillary voluntarily and willingly gave up more than 40 years ago.
Ghastly and transparent example by the NYT of false equivalence and bending over backward to appear "objective".
With Hillary's innate intelligence and educational background--which she earned rather than inherited--she could easily have been out making money hand over fist for decades. That is what Trump has been doing his whole life and what Hillary voluntarily and willingly gave up more than 40 years ago.
Ghastly and transparent example by the NYT of false equivalence and bending over backward to appear "objective".
8
ah, she was a lawyer from 1978 to roughly 1992. And has written several books for profit and how much for speeches?
2
I don't like to share much often, but, this article about the poor is rocking me to my core. My dad deserted my mom and his kids (me being one of them) because he was addicted to alcohol. My mother never graduated from high school and worked mostly as a house cleaner/maid for most of her life. Through the grace of very charitable people and my desire to succeed, the combination has helped me be somewhat successful and help me have a very comfortable life. But, what I most learned in my journey is we truly do need each other. And there are lots of good people who are willing to give a leg up to those who need it. It is all about humanity...kindness from one individual to another.
13
Amazing how many naive or cynical Clinton acolytes argue how wonderful she is for struggling people, based mainly on what the Clinton campaign puts in Hillary's bio or selected items in DNC platform that her allies fought tooth and nail against, and then said didn't matter anyway.
As if Hillary Clinton's word has always been her bond and whatever she and her latest campaign choose to emphasize at certain points is definitely what she'll do.
I guess her brief early 70s activism is also what fueled her rise to the board of Walmart. You'd think that might have given her some early insight into the plight of low-wage service workers! And no doubt she took that activism to heart when lobbying aggressively in the Senate to pass an egregious bankruptcy bill, etc.
It is beyond ludicrous to try and cite a year or two in the life an early-20-something in the early 70s, when we have the entirety of her career in power since then to evaluate.
Would Hillary Clinton even be acknowledging the profound struggles of the working class, which she now claims is her priority, if Bernie Sanders hadn't pushed her so hard and mobilized so many to speak up? If she were facing Jeb! or similar this fall, would we instead be hearing about the dire need to "reform entitlements"?
What were the Clintons' real economic priorities in the 90s? What, in the end, were the results for struggling people of their two terms in office?
She's a cold, emptily greedy, pro-corporate, pro-war opportunist.
As if Hillary Clinton's word has always been her bond and whatever she and her latest campaign choose to emphasize at certain points is definitely what she'll do.
I guess her brief early 70s activism is also what fueled her rise to the board of Walmart. You'd think that might have given her some early insight into the plight of low-wage service workers! And no doubt she took that activism to heart when lobbying aggressively in the Senate to pass an egregious bankruptcy bill, etc.
It is beyond ludicrous to try and cite a year or two in the life an early-20-something in the early 70s, when we have the entirety of her career in power since then to evaluate.
Would Hillary Clinton even be acknowledging the profound struggles of the working class, which she now claims is her priority, if Bernie Sanders hadn't pushed her so hard and mobilized so many to speak up? If she were facing Jeb! or similar this fall, would we instead be hearing about the dire need to "reform entitlements"?
What were the Clintons' real economic priorities in the 90s? What, in the end, were the results for struggling people of their two terms in office?
She's a cold, emptily greedy, pro-corporate, pro-war opportunist.
8
We we are all poor when we fail to help others we are rich when we give and ask no reward
7
If the NYTimes would actually acknowledge and analyze the neo-liberal policies that define both parties, it would be no wonder that income inequality has soared and that neither party is likely to affect much change.
Unfortunately, we lost Bernie Sanders, the candidate who actually cared about about the poor.
Unfortunately, we lost Bernie Sanders, the candidate who actually cared about about the poor.
15
We didn't lose Bernie. He is and will be a beacon with a large following who is one of one hundred (1% ironically ) powerful Senate law makers who can keep important issues in the forefront. If the Democrats retake the Senate he will be even more influential as a Chairman. Don't boo, vote!
1
When we talk about the poor in the abstract, we get an outpouring of sympathy and compassion. When we bring race into it, when we talk about the Black poor, the Republicans denounce them as lazy and declare they get what they deserve. When we talk about the white poor, especially those unemployed factory workers and coal miners who support Trump, Democrats denounce them as racists and declare they get what they deserve. Funny how that works.
12
Month after month after month on and on - he says this, she says that. Let's see - 1% of the world's population owns more wealth than the remaining 99%. To Hades with Trumpy and Dumpy and their niggling, pitiable responses. They won't do anything to change the current status. They don't care. Change has a chance when we create our own democratic workplaces and make our own decisions about how we work and share profits will anything change. Stop looking to these useless, venal people. Cut out the middle man.
7
How about a graphic/matrix showing every policy proposal that each candidate has outlined in detail showing the relative direct effect on various socio-economic cohort? First, there would be nothing to show for Trump since he is long on platitudes, promises and hot air but invisible on details. Second, Hillary Clinton's proposals would show a preponderance of positive impacts for the poor, as well as middle income Americams.
5
I don't think Clinton's trade deals have done the poor or middle class people any good. And her husband's welfare reform and prison reform, which she supported, did not do poor families any good -- on the contrary.
4
In the last election I wrote a comment perhaps a bit hastily and sounding harsh as to why middle class is given so much importance and why not either of the two candidates or our news media talk about the poor? I even naively inquired if US had no poor people? My comment of course did not appear and I wasn't surprised. NYTimes staff is so unaware of the ethos of the common people that it is bewildering! But I am happy that this article has come out now after so many people have suffered and are suffering! I sincerely hope Hillary takes notice of this glaring gap in her manifesto. I am sure she has the passion and will to help the poor and our support.
4
We can waste tons of words about why politicians don't talk about the poor. The simple answer is the poor don't vote.
13
Or donate money to campaigns.
6
I believe LBJ was the last President who actually cared about poverty enough to try to do something about it.
18
This morning I took a little ride through Watts in Los Angeles and many of the people I saw reminded me of of bad South American poverty, skinny, gap toothed people wandering around, guys squatting in front of little markets passing bottles, trash strewn everywhere, graffiti, windows barred, housing projects, scary looking young dudes standing around, a prostitute blowing a kiss to two cops in an unmarked car. Maybe Hillary can hire some of them when she gets elected and elevate them to the middle class.
7
The idea is to prevent people from falling into poverty -- and those ranks are growing, as the middle class continues to shrink. Gee. I wonder why.
2
Apart from the plight American women with children, I imagine many foreigners would gladly trade places with America's poor, and the opportunities that abound.
1
@cyclone,
Maybe take a trip up to South Bronx from "beautiful nyc" to see some really poor people who might need your help.
We do not need to recruit more poor people from other nations; let's just help the citizens in our own country who keep being pushed down.
Maybe take a trip up to South Bronx from "beautiful nyc" to see some really poor people who might need your help.
We do not need to recruit more poor people from other nations; let's just help the citizens in our own country who keep being pushed down.
5
The USA has more of its population in poverty than any other industrialized nation. But hey, let's compare citizens of the US (the richest nation the world has ever known) with citizens of the Third World.
1
The poor are like ghosts passing under the radar of social consciousness. They have little resources. Some are homeless. Most live challenging existences in the world's top economies. It isn't just an American experience. Few G8 nations have a solution to poverty other than place poor folk in slum tenements and providing cash so they can barely get by until the next month's cycle. It pays for an uneasy silence. A 'screaming silence' that hides destitute children, elderly and disabled. In a perfect world all people would have good health and a job that pays above the poverty line for life - exemplified in iconic "Four Freedoms" paintings by Norman Rockwell.
Pity the children that will not have a fair and equal start with a healthy breakfast and guidance at good schools. Is their fault they were born into a family of poor parents? Was the parent's fault for not being able to provide?
The same can be said for those disabled and elderly that live alone in silent reflection of past kindness of a bygone era.
Someone once said that to know a people one only need look at how they treat the poor among them. Can we say that enough was done to help people who need help, a friendly hand-up or companionship?
In the end we will all face the final court that our faith prescribes. In the meantime, we may consider challenging politicians to provide practical policies to reduce child poverty. The kids deserve better than we have so far delivered: spin like "no child left behind".
Pity the children that will not have a fair and equal start with a healthy breakfast and guidance at good schools. Is their fault they were born into a family of poor parents? Was the parent's fault for not being able to provide?
The same can be said for those disabled and elderly that live alone in silent reflection of past kindness of a bygone era.
Someone once said that to know a people one only need look at how they treat the poor among them. Can we say that enough was done to help people who need help, a friendly hand-up or companionship?
In the end we will all face the final court that our faith prescribes. In the meantime, we may consider challenging politicians to provide practical policies to reduce child poverty. The kids deserve better than we have so far delivered: spin like "no child left behind".
12
Mrs. Clinton wants to raise the minimum wage. Mr. Trump thinks it's to high.
Enough said.
Enough said.
7
As a country we have "lost the plot" on community, compassion and the poor, in real ways that matter. We love the occasional feel good story of someone helping a poor person. But as a rich country, we have been seduced by promised that anyone can be rich, therefore we believe everyone should be able to find their way even when the game is rigged. Not true and folks are finally voicing how truly mad they are. Maybe one day...
13
empathy is sorely lacking in all levels of our society, it's a dog eat dog world.
7
How will helping millions of low income people from other places drop housing costs ?
8
How will importing millions of low income people to this country help our own poor?
11
The U.S. is possessed by the presupposition that necessity is the mother of invention. Make people needy, the logic goes, and you make a superior nation. Jungles, not zoos, make lions. Everyone needs to be rude to substitute teachers and bus drivers. More guns and more killings of innocent people will make more people realize that the NRA has only your best interests at heart. Guns are silly and frivolously wasteful unless they are put to good use, such as shooting unarmed children at play, young adults at a dance, or adults planning families.
The same goes for economic and educational opportunity. If the way out of poverty is through education, impoverish those with tricky and sticky student loans. Ruin neighborhoods and break up communities by impoverishing some areas and then, when those rundown areas can be profitable, run the survivors out of town with economic policies that favor the new gentry.
It was fashionable, once upon a time, in America, to find ways to apologize to the poor by making it up to them with opportunity. That spirit caught on in places like Norway and Finland. But in America, picking on and using the poor as scapegoats is to the American as watching gladiators fight lions and each other in Ancient Rome. It's what gives America is special form of aliveness- the killing of opportunity in a rigged system and a stacked deck. No one seeking office would dare mention it. Undisguise our naked villany? Is the Congress or ISIS the real enemy?
The same goes for economic and educational opportunity. If the way out of poverty is through education, impoverish those with tricky and sticky student loans. Ruin neighborhoods and break up communities by impoverishing some areas and then, when those rundown areas can be profitable, run the survivors out of town with economic policies that favor the new gentry.
It was fashionable, once upon a time, in America, to find ways to apologize to the poor by making it up to them with opportunity. That spirit caught on in places like Norway and Finland. But in America, picking on and using the poor as scapegoats is to the American as watching gladiators fight lions and each other in Ancient Rome. It's what gives America is special form of aliveness- the killing of opportunity in a rigged system and a stacked deck. No one seeking office would dare mention it. Undisguise our naked villany? Is the Congress or ISIS the real enemy?
8
The reason they don't talk about it is because neither of them has a clue what it is to be poor. Clinton has talked about her family struggling but were they poor ? I don't think so. Poor people don't go to Yale or Harvard. Mr. Trump could care less. I have not seen him once visit a poor country, much less a poor neighborhood for that matter. Poor is not in his vocabulary. I hope who ever wins has fun slicing up the world pie, but I don't expect much from either one of them.
5
If you don't think Hillary's parents struggled, you haven't been paying attention. And it certainly is NOT the case that a poor person couldn't go to Yale or Harvard, particularly several decades ago. Clinton has worked on behalf of the poor; Trump never has and never would. You may not care for either candidate but equating them is simply baseless and patently false.
5
America will understand what to do about the persistence of poverty in our land (something I have been watching for over 75 of my 81 years), when it recognizes that human dignity has nothing to do with levels of affluence. It's in the eyes of all American babies until we decide to let it go unaddressed for millions whom we exclude from any reasonable definition of "us" because they were born poor. As a retired educator, I shudder when I think of all the harm we have inflicted on little children because we have regarded them as OTHER. It is our great national shame.
17
For god's sake NY Times, enough with false equivalencies. You seem to bend over backwards to write your headlines in misleading ways that imply that these two candidates are in any way alike in their approach to the poor. So many of Clinton's policies directly help the poor, such as increasing minimum wage, expanding access to education, parental leave. Whereas it's hard to say what Trump's policies are and whatever we've seen of him so far doesn't indicate any great empathy on his part for the plight of the poor. Please, I am literally begging you, stop with the false equivalencies. The fate of this nation is in the balance, and you are trying to be "objective" instead of truthful. Say it like it is.
13
Breaking news: it doesn't profit candidates to discuss policies to help actual poor people. Why? Because poor people don't vote as much as working people. And Republicans have trained working people to resent income transfers. Why does that work? Because working people know that they are paying for it, despite the fact that they are struggling themselves, because rich people have paid off Republicans to drastically lower their tax rates. Yes, Hillary has the policies for poor people. Shhhhh!
1
This is an important story but how much Trump coverage are we going to get from the NYTimes? I see article after article on the front page, day after day, on every possible aspect of the personality of this odious person, while at the same time I see NOT ONE story about e.g. the siege in Aleppo, where 300,000 people are trapped by the latest bombardment. They have little electricity, water and food is running out, schools and hospitals are being bombed, civilians are being targeted with cluster bombs etc.
What are the priorities here?
What are the priorities here?
3
Hillary is not planning to cut the foodstamp program or Medicaid - isn't that enough? Does she need to shout that out for this reporter so he will notice?
Trump on the other hand is going to cut Medicaid (by going along with Ryan's budget and also by getting rid of Obamacare). Trump may also go along in cuts/freezes in the foodstamp program advocated by Ryan.
So why is this misleading headline saying that both candidates will do the same for the poor?
Trump will basically make them poorer, sicker and hungrier.
Trump on the other hand is going to cut Medicaid (by going along with Ryan's budget and also by getting rid of Obamacare). Trump may also go along in cuts/freezes in the foodstamp program advocated by Ryan.
So why is this misleading headline saying that both candidates will do the same for the poor?
Trump will basically make them poorer, sicker and hungrier.
11
Oh please, enough of the both sides-ism. The Republicans haven't done anything for the poor in a hundred years. Any progress that has been made is a result of Democrats occasionally holding enough power to do something.
12
Bill Clinton spoke quite a bit about immigration and values today. Something of a Hillary stump speech. Not much mention of poverty though. That was in Park City, Summit County, Utah... off record... for a $1000 "donation" fee. Hmm... I'm picking up mixed messages. Aren't you?
7
So, there's a program that works on poverty that either one should be touting? We've spent decades and decades since the War on Poverty and see nothing happening with the intractable poor. Unless and until they embrace education and family planning, it is hopeless.
2
You will hear poverty discussed nearly every Sunday in churches across the nation, and a lot of good that's done us. I have deeply religious friends who have caring souls who, every year, go on missions to fight poverty in . . . Africa, Mexico or Central America. Mississippi or New Jersey, not so much.
Why is that, I often wonder. Why do people want to reach out to those in need
--- the further away, the better. I believe it's because we know, deep down, that Americans don't want to be reminded of the crushing poverty in their midst.
For candidates, other than Bobby Kennedy and LBJ, poverty has always been a political non-starter, because they realize not much will ever really be done. Better to say nothing.
Why is that, I often wonder. Why do people want to reach out to those in need
--- the further away, the better. I believe it's because we know, deep down, that Americans don't want to be reminded of the crushing poverty in their midst.
For candidates, other than Bobby Kennedy and LBJ, poverty has always been a political non-starter, because they realize not much will ever really be done. Better to say nothing.
7
Because voluntourism is hip and yields "cool" stories you can use to brag about how great you are Back Home.
3
...AND it reinforces the colonial myth that We are better (and better off) than They are, so They need Our intervention...
(Regarding my previous: Because voluntourism is hip and yields "cool" stories you can use to brag about how great you are Back Home.)
(Regarding my previous: Because voluntourism is hip and yields "cool" stories you can use to brag about how great you are Back Home.)
2
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
letter from thomas jefferson to james madison, 1785
letter from thomas jefferson to james madison, 1785
6
So... one might also ask where was the leading edge socialist on this issue and why did he or his cohorts include this in their talking points or push for it in the party platform? Well, folks could it be that poor folks just don't vote? A better criticism is, where has the New York times been on this burning issue? Solidly behind the middle class of course. This country is blind to poverty not merely in it's politics but in it's social fabric, of which the media sources are a major part. Yht Times needs to take a long look at poverty in america and the working poor not just it's crocodile tears over the plight of the imagined middle class.
1
The poor you will always have with you. Matthew 26:11
2
#clinton&trumpfortherich
2
The mantra of the Socialistic Democratic Party is "income inequality" constantly. If that is not discussing the poor what is?
2
Sucking up the long, slow, sad work, and doing more than sloganeering and self-cingratulation.
In a meritocratic, free capitalist society there will always be income disparity for the simple fact that some people work hard and some do not, some become educated, and some do not, some people make good life choices, and some do not.
The inequality is unbearable in many places around the globe, but the inequality in America is a shame for a nation that brags about exceptionalism. Reality is , nothing is exceptional when a society is full of oligarchs, buying politicians, dictated why they should do , and the rest of the populace get nothing. We consciously created this big gap. Because we a selfish, individualists, and hypocritical. We love to criticize other nations about everything, but we don't see how big the bubble we created. The bad new is, with a very poor public education , and a big working class citizens almost reaching the bottom because of terrible policies to favor the elite, the abusers of deregulation.
3
The fact is, even with globalization and every country has its problems, however, when it comes to real quality of life issues, compared to the rest of the western industrialized democracies, America is well down that list AND falling. It is just a matter of priorities and political will.
The Democrats have been painted as the party of the poor and minorities, which is false, but they need to repair that image. They will help the poor nonetheless. The Republicans are in fact the party of the rich though they're falsely trying to rebrand themselves as populists. They will not help the poor or middle class - never have.
3
Meanwhile, Medicare and Medicaid have just gone silently private, forcing seniors and the poor to choose among networks of doctors as if they were HMO's!
This makes many more people poor or poorer.
I am poor AND I VOTE.
Jill Stein is looking good. Look what Obama has just done.
This makes many more people poor or poorer.
I am poor AND I VOTE.
Jill Stein is looking good. Look what Obama has just done.
5
Indeed, and also about secularism.
Which is ironic, because if we had a more secular state, implementing policies based on rational, empirical data driven studies, we could likely resolve the problem of poverty once and for all.
Which is ironic, because if we had a more secular state, implementing policies based on rational, empirical data driven studies, we could likely resolve the problem of poverty once and for all.
3
One of the most diabolically clever pieces of propaganda sold to the middle class, has been the concept that poverty is a shameful state of personal affairs. The reason that so many of the poor have no involvement in political organizing is because they have been convinced that it is "shameful" to have joined the ranks of the "poor" while living in "the richest nation on earth." Many who are desperately in need, lack the confidence to stand up and demand help from the people who have no trouble asking for support at election time.
The other reason the poor are so badly underserved politically, is because the means that many of them use to escape the hell of their lives (i.e. "Illegal" drug use) labels them as weak-willed, immoral, and felonious criminals, who are only one I'll-fated traffic stop away from a jail cell. The fear of discovery and prosecution for drug possession, has been extensively used by our society to keep the impoverished feeling isolated and fearful. In much the same way, immigration status has been used to control the potential political power of the immigrant population of America.
If the poor in America are ever to obtain the full measure of assistance to which they should be entitled as citizens of an advanced and wealthy nation, they will need to step out of the shadows and renounce the undeserved blame for their economic circumstances.
The other reason the poor are so badly underserved politically, is because the means that many of them use to escape the hell of their lives (i.e. "Illegal" drug use) labels them as weak-willed, immoral, and felonious criminals, who are only one I'll-fated traffic stop away from a jail cell. The fear of discovery and prosecution for drug possession, has been extensively used by our society to keep the impoverished feeling isolated and fearful. In much the same way, immigration status has been used to control the potential political power of the immigrant population of America.
If the poor in America are ever to obtain the full measure of assistance to which they should be entitled as citizens of an advanced and wealthy nation, they will need to step out of the shadows and renounce the undeserved blame for their economic circumstances.
8
The poor are not represented because generally they do not vote, they certainly do not contribute to political campaigns. Most Americans believe the poor are in their current condition because of their own fault. While it is true that some make poor decisions, and take advantage of programs that assist those in poverty, the notion that people somehow live the high life off government benefits is a myth. People also forget than many poor people are working their tails off - but there are many structural problems that make climbing out of poverty difficult. Take the issue of housing - if a very low income person can even find a rental they can afford, they must often come up with first and last month's rent, a damage deposit, a deposit to a utility company and so on. For people who are cash poor, this in itself is a barrier. Making small mistakes for the poor have over-sized consequences. If they cannot afford a checking account, the end up paying check cashing fees. If they bounce a check, they end up paying ridiculously high bank fees. Most poor people cannot afford a car, so they are a captive of public transportation. If they live in a rural area - there usually is not public transportation. The bottom line though, is the American voter is not considering policies to reduce poverty when they vote -they vote their own self interest. Politicians are unwilling to convince people that having fewer poor people really is in their best interest.
11
No one has the one and only answer about poverty, but I suggest that an equalization of education would go a long way (although a slow way) to move families out of poverty. There are so many causes of poverty, but for generational poverty, where every member of the family is unemployed or working four part-time jobs - to make those children's schools equal to the schools found in richer neighborhoods - that allows the kids to see the bigger world, to have options other than welfare, McDonald's/Walmart, or the military. Every single child in this beautiful country should receive the best education available, with the ancillary support services to give the child security and space for learning.
4
I grew up in India, where no politician can hope to get elected without talking about how she/he is going to help the poor. Pandering to the "middle class" was seen to be just as distasteful as pandering to the rich.
When I first came to US, I used to wonder how come no politician talks about poverty (face it, Lyndon Johnson's "war against poverty" was the last time poverty was in mainstream politics). Why is "middle-class" as sacred as motherhood and apple pie?
Of course, I know now that it is just electoral democracy at work. In India, the majority of voters are in poverty; in USA, the majority of voters consider themselves middle class (that apparently stretches to levels considered ultra-rich in other parts of the world). A politician cannot spend time talking poor--which is a minority constituency.. (of course, it doesn't help that everyone in US is a lot more worried about keeping the status of the economic class above them intact--lest they enter that class soon; how else does one make sense of all the angst at "death taxes" when the estate taxes only affect couples with 10 million in assets to pass on to their descendants ;)
I also think it is somewhat disingenuous to lump Hillary and Donald in the same bracket. Hillary Clinton has a track record of working to help the poor (especially the poor children), while it is silly to even talk about a "track record" for Drumpf.
When I first came to US, I used to wonder how come no politician talks about poverty (face it, Lyndon Johnson's "war against poverty" was the last time poverty was in mainstream politics). Why is "middle-class" as sacred as motherhood and apple pie?
Of course, I know now that it is just electoral democracy at work. In India, the majority of voters are in poverty; in USA, the majority of voters consider themselves middle class (that apparently stretches to levels considered ultra-rich in other parts of the world). A politician cannot spend time talking poor--which is a minority constituency.. (of course, it doesn't help that everyone in US is a lot more worried about keeping the status of the economic class above them intact--lest they enter that class soon; how else does one make sense of all the angst at "death taxes" when the estate taxes only affect couples with 10 million in assets to pass on to their descendants ;)
I also think it is somewhat disingenuous to lump Hillary and Donald in the same bracket. Hillary Clinton has a track record of working to help the poor (especially the poor children), while it is silly to even talk about a "track record" for Drumpf.
4
Clinton - "fighting for you" as long as you have lots of money. Fighting "for you" in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (she's just starting, don't bee too hard on her). Fighting "for you" on Wall Street but it helps if your name is Lloyd Blankfein).
Trump - unmentionable
Don't waste your vote on another idiot or warmonger - vote Jill Ellen Stein, Harvard graduate, Harvard Medical School, compassionate and intelligent and beholden to nobody.
Trump - unmentionable
Don't waste your vote on another idiot or warmonger - vote Jill Ellen Stein, Harvard graduate, Harvard Medical School, compassionate and intelligent and beholden to nobody.
7
A society that brags about "individualism ", obviously will not recognize poverty in the real meaning. Actually the majority of republican's hate poor people or vulnerable working class. Since Regan, the Middle Class, Worling class went down fast, and the poor citizens were totally ignored .Bernie Sanders for 30 years ,worked to change that. but the selfish politicians in Congress did never vote for his commonsense policies to help Americans. Now, the time came for him to be our president, corruption between the DNC elite, businesses, corporation, and Wall Street , did everything to end jus candidacy.They call Bernie a crazy socialist. Even the NYT bashed him everyday, just like TV pundits andignorant citizens. Here In this country , bad people become famous fast. Also when a person with a honest political career wants to make a difference, will be destroyed very fast. Capitalism priority is NOT to help classes of citizens. Their priority is PROFITbegore anything. Jillary have to really change that.Thanks to people that wants to see others succeed. I can not understand why so many people will vote for Trump. Trump means disaster ahead.
1
Poor, schmoor, As long as H can fog a mirror, she'll win.
Sanders talked about the poor and look what the Hillary machine and the DNC did to him and how it silenced him. The poor are served by volunteers and the good hearted Americans who do not want to see a single person go hungry or not have clothes or shelter. Politicians are most interested in promising the world to the their vote banks who are likely to line up to vote. It is sad that we don't have safeguards to protect the poor from living in a miserable state.
2
We are facing an utter catastrophe in America:
Everybody who lives here -- plus the hundreds of millions of people abroad who aren't here yet but want to live here too -- wants to live a First World life. However, due to numerous factors, the means of achieving that First World life here in America have been disappearing for years. Many if not most of those factors seem to be getting worse, not better.
OK, now how we have an equal or better life for lots more people here when automation is continuing to kill millions of jobs? How do we provide for more people at a time that it would seem wise for our population to stabilize, not increase, so we have fewer people for fewer jobs?
These are the kinds of questions that none of our leaders will face or even ask.
Nevertheless they need to be asked and answered -- and soon.
Everybody who lives here -- plus the hundreds of millions of people abroad who aren't here yet but want to live here too -- wants to live a First World life. However, due to numerous factors, the means of achieving that First World life here in America have been disappearing for years. Many if not most of those factors seem to be getting worse, not better.
OK, now how we have an equal or better life for lots more people here when automation is continuing to kill millions of jobs? How do we provide for more people at a time that it would seem wise for our population to stabilize, not increase, so we have fewer people for fewer jobs?
These are the kinds of questions that none of our leaders will face or even ask.
Nevertheless they need to be asked and answered -- and soon.
4
Stop importing more poverty, to the tune of one million more people every single year, would be a good start.
4
How about throttle back on allowing in another 100,000 immigrants every month, most of them low skilled and needing the extensive use of our taxpayer funded social services, to compete with our own low skilled workers are under or unemployed?
Nah, that would never work.
Nah, that would never work.
8
Ninety percent of Obama's immigrants from the Arab world are on welfare once they land here. Thank goodness we have twenty trillion dollars in the bank just sitting there. oops
2
All refugees qualify immediately for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free job training. Religious institutions, with their $80 billion in tax exempt status, will assist all refugees to apply for these programs, while ignoring our own poor citizens, as they do not make for good photo ops.
3
"most of them....needing the extensive use of our taxpayer funded social services"
False. Check your facts.
False. Check your facts.
2
Even Sanders did not really talk about the poor. Issues for the poor have never been popular in America. The two exceptions were the Depression when many feared becoming poor and the War On Poverty when LBJ saw himself completing the work of the New Deal.
2
All Americans are sinking, not just the poor. Segregating the population into poor and everyone else has been standard for generations. Way too many non-wealthy Americans are financially insecure, no matter how much their income is. There are not enough good paying jobs to raise all boats. Neither Trump or Clinton have any idea of how to get us out of this sinking ship.
Clinton has not given a formal press conference since December 4, 2015. This is unheard of in a presidential election. The only candidate who understood how to put money and purchasing power into the pockets of all Americans is Bernie Sanders.
The only viable option to the Clinton/Trump oligarchy at this point is Jill Stein.
Clinton has not given a formal press conference since December 4, 2015. This is unheard of in a presidential election. The only candidate who understood how to put money and purchasing power into the pockets of all Americans is Bernie Sanders.
The only viable option to the Clinton/Trump oligarchy at this point is Jill Stein.
5
I just realist ended to Clinton's speech and she addressed high need communities, working poor, support for child care, there was a fair amount...not sure what you have reviewed. There is a disconnect between -policies that the feds can have to address poor families, homeless, drug and alcohol problems and a whole hots of issues left to states and out communities. Of course tax breaks require a job and income.
5
Your friend Barack Obama swore that jobs would be his top priority - then ignored workers while 95 million people are now out of the labor market.
This is easily the worst EVER.
Socialist True Believers like Barack and Hillary are inherently opposed to the por finding jobs - that would lead to their becoming independent.
Go try to scare independent people into following you around, no questions asked or answered.
This is easily the worst EVER.
Socialist True Believers like Barack and Hillary are inherently opposed to the por finding jobs - that would lead to their becoming independent.
Go try to scare independent people into following you around, no questions asked or answered.
2
Yep, and giving more money to the rich and corporations would be the answer? Oh no, corporate welfare has already been tried and did not work.
1
Bernie Sanders talked fervently and frequently about the problems of poor Americans and the shameful wealth inequality in our country all the time during his campaign. But you and your Op-Ed writers iced him out, shouted him down, arrogantly dismissed him as the head "Bernie-Bro," or smeared him with neo-racist terms like "Bernie-splaining" -- all for having the heartfelt temerity to voice the truth you now find to be so self-evident. Shame on you.
18
what wealth inequality ?
so what if th 0.1 % richest people own more wealth than th bottom 90 %
or that th 20 richest people in america are richer than th poorest 150, 000,000
or so what that th top 10 % of wage earners now earn more than th bottom 50 % for th first time in americas history
thats not so bad
is it ?
well, maybe it is
3
"it is not unusual for presidential candidates to not talk about poverty. " And it is not unusual for these same people to not talk about poverty after they are elected. Our last last four Democratic presidents did nothing for poverty. Did nothing for children in poverty. And H Clinton will do nothing too unless she is shamed into it which I doubt will happen. Obama is the most business friendly president in all our history. Bill Clinton cut off funds to all women with small children so they had nothing. I don't have the numbers on how many died and you won't get this information from the Democratic Party which is now in race to the right of the Republicans. So 50% of Americans have no one in our government at their backs. There are no representatives, no help and nothing to look forward to help. Most of these people will still vote for Hillary because they think of her as a liberal which she is most definitely not. The Democrats are now neoliberals. And the code for neoliberalism is "nothing for anyone" privatize everything possible and put the rest in prison. Doesn't this sound like the last Clinton presidency? Because Hillary will be the same.
2
Why the surprise? Both candidates are into self aggrandizement not public service let alone helping the poor.
1
From today's speech in Warren, MI
Clinton's economic plan: A reality check
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/11/clintons-economic-plan-re...
Clinton's economic plan: A reality check
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/11/clintons-economic-plan-re...
1
Bernie Sanders obviously should get all the credit for this. Obviously the NYT's crowd forget that. I hope Hillary consider this a priority, and convince Berni's voters like me.
2
#WriteInBernie
1
Still time for you kids to run Nader as the VP, and lock in Trump.
1
Silence is best. If either of them utter a sentence about what they will do for the poor, it will be a lie.
4
7 million truck drivers will lose their jobs to driverless technology. What will we do about the rising joblessness?
2
they can all become personal injury lawyers to handle th massive new load of truck crash cases
4
1420 - sorry, but no. Even the Tesla system which killed a guy last month is already safer than human drivers, in crashes per mile, and it's still in beta. Driverless vehicles aren't really 'here' yet, but in ten years they will be everywhere.
It's time, right now, to work out how to manage the transition. How do we help truckies, taxi drivers, couriers? Because sooner or later it is definitely going to happen, those jobs will be gone. Time to learn the lessons of NAFTA and automation - better help the people who lose out or you'll have a big social problem in the future.
It's time, right now, to work out how to manage the transition. How do we help truckies, taxi drivers, couriers? Because sooner or later it is definitely going to happen, those jobs will be gone. Time to learn the lessons of NAFTA and automation - better help the people who lose out or you'll have a big social problem in the future.
1
Hmm, the poor are being ignored by the two major presidential nominees. It couldn't be that these people don't donate big bucks to the campaigns, could it?
Had he lived, RFK would be 90, and no doubt recoiling in horror at how shamelessly money-grubbing our political system has become. No room at the inn -- or in the Oval Office -- for our better angels.
Had he lived, RFK would be 90, and no doubt recoiling in horror at how shamelessly money-grubbing our political system has become. No room at the inn -- or in the Oval Office -- for our better angels.
1
One other thought. It makes me sick when I hear or read many blaming the poor for the plight they are facing. I personally know many successful people who became the unfortunate, collateral damage of the Great Recession of 2008. Savings, 401ks/IRAs, homes lost, wiped out because those unfortunate souls tried to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Many found jobs paying a fraction of what they used to make and are now living at or below the poverty line. Many never found jobs and potentially never will because prospective employers think they are too OLD. So for those of you whom hard times have never knocked at your door -- there but for the grace of God go I. Don't judge anyone until you have walked a mile in their moccasins.
12
Do my eyes deceive me, or is NYT actually admitting that Hillary Clinton is not necessarily the answer to *all* of our prayers, after weeks of pumping out article after article aiming to terrify people into voting for her?
8
Nobody wants to open a topic with infinite questions and not a single honest answer or proposed solution.
2
Don't wait around for Republicans to ever bring up the subject.
3
Frankly I do not even imagine a candidate like Mr. Trump talking about his plan for the poor. For this character it's all about the survival of the fittest.
Mrs. Clinton, equally, barely mentioned the poor but at least there is some evidence that in her career she helped disadvantaged groups.
About Mrs. Clinton we are in the field of positive probabilities while about Mr. Trump we are in the field of the impossibilities.
Mrs. Clinton, equally, barely mentioned the poor but at least there is some evidence that in her career she helped disadvantaged groups.
About Mrs. Clinton we are in the field of positive probabilities while about Mr. Trump we are in the field of the impossibilities.
4
I like Hillary however none of the Washington people have any idea about what's going on with working people, if they did it would make them very nervous.The nomination of Trump instead of being seen for the omen , the disaster for the country that it is- they seem to think it's a gift from the gods. The Imperial Presidency- Bush1, Bush 2, now Clinton 2- says to me they are clueless. I like Hillary I believe she's more qualified than Bill ever was. Bill was Republican Lite, a Democrat in name only, an opportunist who continued Reagan's policy of sending jobs out of the country. Hillary is more of the same but the 90's are long gone.
2
7 million truck drivers will lose their jobs to driverless technology. We need to come up with a solution to meet the growing problem of joblessness.
1
Is the failure to address the poor the product of politicians thinking the poor don't vote? Very sad. Seeing a little bit of Pope Francis in our politicians wouldn't hurt.
Mike Kretzmer
Mike Kretzmer
3
Memo to poor people: Rich people and marginally well off people do not care about poor people.
4
Both parties love the poor! They make more of them every day. Just in the US though. We're really busy making the middle class in China.
7
With Donald Trump saying outrageous things daily to distract from his complete lack of policy, how about two daily "presidential" columns?
One would include the outrageous thing Mr Trump said supporting violence, proposing that foreign powers hack a presidential candidate's email, or the like. The other would be the policy initiative that Mrs Clinton wants to talk about.
Sounds fair and balanced to me.
One would include the outrageous thing Mr Trump said supporting violence, proposing that foreign powers hack a presidential candidate's email, or the like. The other would be the policy initiative that Mrs Clinton wants to talk about.
Sounds fair and balanced to me.
2
Oh, please. Both of these campaigns have a dozen people in the back room telling them that poor people don't vote. Excuse my cynicism.
2
Clinton makes promises just to become the next president. Some of her actions, past and present, contradict her statements. Trump has not yet served as an elected official, so it remains to be seen.
1
There are many things we can do do address poverty in this nation but importing more of it is not one of them and never will be.
1
Well, it's hard to see all the tent cities when zooming by in a cavalcade of limos.
6
The candidates don't speak about the poor because they want to create the illusion of a distinction between the middle class and poor. As long as the middle class think that they're better than the poor or somehow different than the poor than the system keeps functioning just fine. The middle class is akin to able bodied slaves, but just like the poor, they get to keep very little of the value of the labor that they put in.
1
Why would either campaign care about the poor? They don't make campaign donations.
1
They will all start talking about the poor after a revolution starts. Democrats,Republicans and the 1%,please save this country before it is to late.
1
Your lede -- "Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump each promise to create jobs, but neither has said much about helping people while they are not working." -- displays a breathtaking lack of understanding about the countless people who work but nonetheless live in poverty.
3
A great article, with excellent choices for 'expert' opinion, at least in the case of Edin and Desmond, whose books are reminiscent of Michelle Alexander's 'The New Jim Crow'; they force us to see the deep flaws in our system and deny the comfort of excuses. We must stop ignoring the poor, stop blaming people for being unable to draw a royal flush from a stacked deck.
1
What a bunch of hooey! Donald Trump has a clear cut policy that is guaranteed to succeed in greatly helping, if not entirely eliminating, the poor.
First, we stop importing poor people.
Second, we stop importing people who compete for jobs and drive down wages.
Let's try that obviously sensible policy for a while then take stock.
First, we stop importing poor people.
Second, we stop importing people who compete for jobs and drive down wages.
Let's try that obviously sensible policy for a while then take stock.
2
Don't forget tax cuts for the ultra rich. That's sure to help the poor.
why does trump not practice what you think he preaches then ?
Since 2010, nearly 300 United States residents have applied or been referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers there. But according to federal records, only 17 have been hired. In all but a handful of cases, Mar-a-Lago sought to fill the jobs with hundreds of foreign guest workers from Romania and other countries. In his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Trump has stoked his crowds by promising to bring back jobs that have been snatched by illegal immigrants or outsourced by corporations, and voters worried about immigration have been his strongest backers. But he has also pursued more than 500 visas for foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago since 2010, according to the United States Department of Labor, while hundreds of domestic applicants failed to get the same jobs.
---
Trump also said this: If I am President, I will not issue any H-1B visas to companies that replace American workers and my Department of Justice will pursue action against them. And he offered this critique of expanding the “H” program: It would allow any company in America to replace any worker with cheaper foreign labor. It legalizes job theft. It gives companies the legal right to pass over Americans, displace Americans, or directly replace Americans for good-paying middle class jobs.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431908/donald-trump-immigration-hyp...
Since 2010, nearly 300 United States residents have applied or been referred for jobs as waiters, waitresses, cooks and housekeepers there. But according to federal records, only 17 have been hired. In all but a handful of cases, Mar-a-Lago sought to fill the jobs with hundreds of foreign guest workers from Romania and other countries. In his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Trump has stoked his crowds by promising to bring back jobs that have been snatched by illegal immigrants or outsourced by corporations, and voters worried about immigration have been his strongest backers. But he has also pursued more than 500 visas for foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago since 2010, according to the United States Department of Labor, while hundreds of domestic applicants failed to get the same jobs.
---
Trump also said this: If I am President, I will not issue any H-1B visas to companies that replace American workers and my Department of Justice will pursue action against them. And he offered this critique of expanding the “H” program: It would allow any company in America to replace any worker with cheaper foreign labor. It legalizes job theft. It gives companies the legal right to pass over Americans, displace Americans, or directly replace Americans for good-paying middle class jobs.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431908/donald-trump-immigration-hyp...
1
there are 2 trumps
th one you imagine in your head
and th one in th real world
there is no overlap of those two
1
If Trump talks about helping the poor, he will betray those of his supporters who think of antipoverty programs as rackets (as some of them in fact are), and they will feel disappointed that he is trolling for votes like a regular politician, and a Democrat to boot.
If Hillary talks about helping the poor, Republicans and Trump will accuse her of socialism and of pandering for votes.
Trump could probably get away with it. Hillary cant. She has to hint and imply and save explicit help for the middle class (which these days includes just about everyone, since few want to be categorized as working class). So the poor will be left to whatever until they make trouble, and in that case we will probably see that things get even worse for them.
If Hillary talks about helping the poor, Republicans and Trump will accuse her of socialism and of pandering for votes.
Trump could probably get away with it. Hillary cant. She has to hint and imply and save explicit help for the middle class (which these days includes just about everyone, since few want to be categorized as working class). So the poor will be left to whatever until they make trouble, and in that case we will probably see that things get even worse for them.
2
trump talks about a lot of things
1
In the 1960's we talked about ending poverty, and about a war on poverty. That language disappeared in the Reagan years, and it became unacceptable to talk about poverty. After the 1980s we could only talk about the middle class, and poverty was left out of the conversation. Thanks for reminding us, that we need to address poverty.
8
This report's author apparently did not hear Clinton's speech in Michigan today, where she cited many of the issues that this piece says that Clinton ignores. It's also true Clinton has been addressing economic issues affecting the working class and middle class in virtually every speech since Philly, which this report implies is not the case. Her editors should check the transcripts.
5
Helping the poor ought to be a top priority. As Jared Bernstein said, Mrs Clinton's plan would definitely make a huge improvement in the welfare of the poor.
But even if the minimum wage is hiked, it won't reach the poor in time to find affordable housing. Affordable housing is a major issue that ought to be dealt with. One method is building new & refurbishing abandoned & dilapidated residences in cities like Detroit, Philadelphia & St Louis and many other cities and some rural areas would provide jobs and then renting them at 1/3 of monthly income of any household with federal subsidy to the needy.
I have worked at a place where homeless & poor without health insurance come for treatment. Their constant complaint is the pathetic condition of shelters. Many of them prefer to sleep on the sidewalk or other places to going to a shelter. These people's situation is pathetic. Many of those have such issues temporarily. But others have such problems perennially. Some of them are tired of complaining. Then the high crime rates, which haunt them.
Substance abuse compounds their problems, either theirs or their roommates'. Too many of them have mental illness issues, which make everything far, far worse. Chronically mentally ill people could go to State Mental Hospitals where they used to get good care without worrying about anything. Mental hospitals have been emptied out. Now US prisons hold the largest percentage of chronic mental patients!
But even if the minimum wage is hiked, it won't reach the poor in time to find affordable housing. Affordable housing is a major issue that ought to be dealt with. One method is building new & refurbishing abandoned & dilapidated residences in cities like Detroit, Philadelphia & St Louis and many other cities and some rural areas would provide jobs and then renting them at 1/3 of monthly income of any household with federal subsidy to the needy.
I have worked at a place where homeless & poor without health insurance come for treatment. Their constant complaint is the pathetic condition of shelters. Many of them prefer to sleep on the sidewalk or other places to going to a shelter. These people's situation is pathetic. Many of those have such issues temporarily. But others have such problems perennially. Some of them are tired of complaining. Then the high crime rates, which haunt them.
Substance abuse compounds their problems, either theirs or their roommates'. Too many of them have mental illness issues, which make everything far, far worse. Chronically mentally ill people could go to State Mental Hospitals where they used to get good care without worrying about anything. Mental hospitals have been emptied out. Now US prisons hold the largest percentage of chronic mental patients!
10
Yes! I must say, as an outsider, the spectacle of foreclosed houses in the USA boarded up and left to decay just boggles the mind. People need places to live, why are they being destroyed? If the market won't support the sale or rental price the banks want to make, why aren't they lowering their price to what the market can support? How can it be worth their while to
let houses fall apart when Americans need shelter? Sonething in the incentives badly needs fixing there. Whole suburbs dying, schools and local shops shut down - it's incredible. Where did all those people go?
let houses fall apart when Americans need shelter? Sonething in the incentives badly needs fixing there. Whole suburbs dying, schools and local shops shut down - it's incredible. Where did all those people go?
1
Poverty is a product of wealth. To address widespread poverty, you must address extreme wealth. The point of the progressive tax system was to encourage the wealthy to do something with their money instead of hoarding. Ironically, the very same reason was used as justification to destroy that system: The wealthy will have more money to invest and it will trickle down.
We need to get back to a system that makes acquiring and investing in people, the most valuable commodity of any society, the priority. Imagine if Forbes started printing a list of the top 100 independent employers by number of people employed and payroll (instead of the ridiculous opinion poll they currently use) and the wealthy started competing on that metric.
We need to get back to a system that makes acquiring and investing in people, the most valuable commodity of any society, the priority. Imagine if Forbes started printing a list of the top 100 independent employers by number of people employed and payroll (instead of the ridiculous opinion poll they currently use) and the wealthy started competing on that metric.
4
In addition, there is an expanding market for luxury goods, and it has distorted the value of things like art, making fashion more important than true excellence. It makes housing in good places ever less affordable. It means entrepreneurs mouthwater over profiting from wealth instead of thinking of solutions to real problems. It's so fake!
2
California's the classic case. The studio I grandfathered for 15 years, an hour north of LA, now rents at $1400. HUD wait lists have been years long forever. Lots of houses were built in the '90s -- in the desert, where there's little work; what we got on the coast were more shopping malls. So much blame to go around, from public unions that bankrupt cities, to environmental regs that make building anywhere untenable, to the NIMBY attitude pretending we still have 1970s population levels, and the traffic jams are someone else's problem. I understand Gov. Brown is actually trying to address this with Obama, but if local leaders refuse to accept reality, only go for the retail/upper-class tax income, and local voters keep them in officer, 'not much you can do.
3
I feel confident that helping the poor and disenfranchised is at least on Clinton's radar. I do not feel it is with Trump. It seems to be only occasional lip service when he mentions it. In the context of his 'greatness' which he likes to inform us of daily, he will bring back the jobs by making 'deals'. Clearly that thought is more about him than the poor, especially if he thinks working people make too much money.
I believe that Clinton will have a plan, among the many plans currently available or in play, that will address issues systematically.
A cure for working poor and unemployed is to create jobs. This is something mentioned during campaigns but Obama tried and congress played dead. There would be a lot of opportunity if congress would spend money on retraining workers for the 21st century demands. We can start with infrastructure and green technology. But again, Trump doesn't seem to grasp the connection between saving the planet and creating green jobs.
So, I'll happily wait for Clinton's plans and won't hold my breath for Trump's.
I believe that Clinton will have a plan, among the many plans currently available or in play, that will address issues systematically.
A cure for working poor and unemployed is to create jobs. This is something mentioned during campaigns but Obama tried and congress played dead. There would be a lot of opportunity if congress would spend money on retraining workers for the 21st century demands. We can start with infrastructure and green technology. But again, Trump doesn't seem to grasp the connection between saving the planet and creating green jobs.
So, I'll happily wait for Clinton's plans and won't hold my breath for Trump's.
7
I'm surprised main media has so little coverage about the hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders' latest purchase of his third homes (for vacationing, what else), giving him a pass. It flies in the face of someone who argues so emphatically for the down-and-outs.
And if even Sanders the saint can be so hypocritical, what can we expect from Trump and Clinton, both of whose wealth far exceeds Sander's? It thus comes as no surprise that they both said next to nothing about addressing the plight of the poor, never mind any policy in this regard.
It's hugely disappointing. I'm seriously considering writing in my own candidate (it could well be that Mikey Mouse will do just fine), come November.
And if even Sanders the saint can be so hypocritical, what can we expect from Trump and Clinton, both of whose wealth far exceeds Sander's? It thus comes as no surprise that they both said next to nothing about addressing the plight of the poor, never mind any policy in this regard.
It's hugely disappointing. I'm seriously considering writing in my own candidate (it could well be that Mikey Mouse will do just fine), come November.
4
Hope that he did not use YOUR $27 contribution to amass his down payment on the lake-front home on Lake Champlain,
Democrats are hypocrites, notwithstanding that Bernie is just a DINO.
Democrats are hypocrites, notwithstanding that Bernie is just a DINO.
I don't understand your point. It is possible to be wealthy and battle poverty at the same time.
1
What has Mickey Mouse ever done for you ?
Lets not forget about the middle class either, given the past 2-3 decades of massive tax cuts for the rich, the middle class of America is shrinking at an alarming rate. Both parties only give this issue lip service and go right on rigging the game so to speak for the 1%. The can be fixed by creating tax deductions on interest income; dividends; capital games and doing away with the phase outs of certain type of deductions if your income is too high. The real problem is that middle class has been brainwashed by the Republicans with hot button issues like immigration; gays; abortion and guy control which is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover the fleecing of the U.S. Treasury by the 1%. It utterly amazes me how the middle class continually proffers their mind and soul to the Republican Party.
To acknowledge the poor among us, in a time when the majority of American wage earners make under $30,000 per year, is considered running down "the greatest nation in the history of the world," so the pandering politician ignores the poor until it serves another purpose to recognize them.
My concern is when Mrs. Clinton mentions the poor in terms of Social Security. When she declares, as she did at the debate on October 13, 2015: "I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security," I think: And just how do we determine who that is? There is only one way: means testing. And that will make Social Security over as welfare. And history shows us what Clintons do with welfare. Social Security recipients, people getting back their own money, will be portrayed as moochers. Then see how fast we hear about the need for "fixing" Social Security, followed by: "ending Social Security as we know it".
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
My concern is when Mrs. Clinton mentions the poor in terms of Social Security. When she declares, as she did at the debate on October 13, 2015: "I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security," I think: And just how do we determine who that is? There is only one way: means testing. And that will make Social Security over as welfare. And history shows us what Clintons do with welfare. Social Security recipients, people getting back their own money, will be portrayed as moochers. Then see how fast we hear about the need for "fixing" Social Security, followed by: "ending Social Security as we know it".
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
It should be noted that Congress is against helping the unemployed as they rejected insurance extensions, destroyed Welfare, and cut food stamps. As long as the Republicans control Congress the poor will remain poor, the hungry unfed, and the homeless homeless.
It is more important to change Congress than expect a candidate to make promises that can't be kept otherwise.
It is more important to change Congress than expect a candidate to make promises that can't be kept otherwise.
3
Agreed. People HAVE to come out for the midterms, but only the Republicans do.
The headline for this article is an example of "false equivalency," which journalists naturally fall into when conveying that both candidates have shortcomings in relation to a given subject. Yet Trump's shortcomings (whether one likes him or not) are the product of a mentality which significantly differs from Hillary's. Hillary often refers to problems of public health, for example, in relation to the water in Flint, Michigan, or congressional delinquency in relation to the Zika virus...which surely relate to the vulnerabilities of poor people, and what we might do about them. She seems ready to defend her views and sometimes to adjust them, on the basis of her practical experience of political life.
Trump, however, seems to imagine realities which need not be backed up by facts, which he uses to create a paranoid alternative universe, which helps to explain the anger felt by those who share his beliefs.
This basic difference in approach cannot be adequately described by the assumption of equivalency.
Trump, however, seems to imagine realities which need not be backed up by facts, which he uses to create a paranoid alternative universe, which helps to explain the anger felt by those who share his beliefs.
This basic difference in approach cannot be adequately described by the assumption of equivalency.
8
Just responding to the ongoing Trump weirdness, and attacks, is taking much of Clinton's time and effort. This is just one of the many negatives that comes with the Trump campaign in 2016: the entire election cycle is in crisis, with Trump hogging all the time, instead of People (and candidates) talking about serious issues.
However, Clinton has a lifetime of working on and demonstrating a focus and sensitivity to the Poor and Minorities. It's not really fair to say she has shown "no focus." Meanwhile, Trump is good for... stiffing even small businessmen and service providers. His record is beyond vile, if it's anything. Heck, he stiffs even Rich people - anyone - as long as "Trump wins" in the end.
There is no comparison!
However, Clinton has a lifetime of working on and demonstrating a focus and sensitivity to the Poor and Minorities. It's not really fair to say she has shown "no focus." Meanwhile, Trump is good for... stiffing even small businessmen and service providers. His record is beyond vile, if it's anything. Heck, he stiffs even Rich people - anyone - as long as "Trump wins" in the end.
There is no comparison!
7
And while he's at it, he garners totally free publicity. He has spent hardly any money on ads. He wins all the time.
2
Here is the essence of the poverty problem; while the backwards thinking "Smaller Government" mental midget Republicans have ignored the population growth, we now have more poor with less government whose responsibility is to assure the welfare of the public. Think about how ignorant the Republicans really are. The American population has doubled in the last fifty years and tripled since WWII.
If you believe the responsibility of the government is to assure the well being of the nation, then vote out the anti-government Trojan Horse Republicans who are destroying it from within.
If you believe the responsibility of the government is to assure the well being of the nation, then vote out the anti-government Trojan Horse Republicans who are destroying it from within.
6
The poor throughout history have always been unfortunately, forgotten by most politicians. Conservative and Liberals. The programs that both parties support/create either are basically token gestures to perhaps alleviate what sense of decency or conscience they may have. Or programs created are behemoths wasting millions of dollars by corruption, bureaucratic nightmares, Sisyphean red tape or just plain ineptitude by those administering the plans to make any difference in the lives of those who need it.
Jonathan Swift, where are you? I would suggest politicians read "A Modest Proposal" but I won't. I am afraid a certain someone might take it seriously and turn Mr. Swift's scathing satire into policy.
Jonathan Swift, where are you? I would suggest politicians read "A Modest Proposal" but I won't. I am afraid a certain someone might take it seriously and turn Mr. Swift's scathing satire into policy.
1
I am 62, healthy but unemployed from teaching ( MA, not a prof) college English after leaving my last job 5 years ago to try to tend to first one homebound family member (aged parent) then another ( cancer). Before that, because I am not interested in material/luxury things ( big screen TVs, dining out, etc.) and expert in thrifty living and because I could pay back immediately I had no real credit debt. Over the past decade, though, I have not been able to live ever more cheaply as I was already doing that. I wisely never bought a house because I feared I wouldn't have the income to keep it. If I could find a place I could afford to rent without cutting back on my eating ( I weigh 97 pounds as natural weight, already "lean" as the doc says). I do not have in-home internet, can't afford it (thank goodness for public libraries) I'd make it. If it weren't for public health ins., I could not afford even a sliding scale clinic now. At 62 and 5 year hiatus, my chances of returning to teaching full time have apparently disappeared. What is left are minimum jobs that require schedules that are changed continuously leaving small chance of shoehorning in another job. I do not mind living in tiny one-bedroom or studio apts -- I even prefer it -- but the prices for the studioshave gotten unaffordable but for ever more remote, isolated places. Add this to other rising costs. Affordable rent is key to my survival.
8
NYT: Politicians seldom work for people without a voice, and without power. But you, New York Times, please keep this issue in the forefront. That is your job. Thank you for this piece.
7
We currently spend nearly $1 trillion a year helping the poor. It doesn't seem to help much. There are more and more people who are completely lacking in the skills needed to make money and prosper.
Evidently, the candidates don't have any suggestions about what to do.
Evidently, the candidates don't have any suggestions about what to do.
11
In 2011, Obama introduced the American Jobs Act, which included spending on infrastructure that would have created many jobs and would have invested in the USA.
The Republican Congress blocked it's passage, the wellbeing of Country & citizen being less important to it than denying Obama any political uptick.
The Republican Congress blocked it's passage, the wellbeing of Country & citizen being less important to it than denying Obama any political uptick.
5
No one can solve this problem. Spending a trillion dollars a year only to have poverty increase with each passing year, apparently it's human nature making it unsolvable.
1
Republicans have been moving the goalposts to the right since Reagan. Now we're blaming Democrats?
Vote Democrat to get a Congress that will act to help people who are not rich and powerful, vote for Senate, House, State House, Municipal, Schoolboard, and stop blaming victims and shooting at your allies.
Throw the bums out. Even in Obama's first term, he had 5 short months between the seating of Franken and Kennedy's illness and death, and the wholesale uncompromising obstruction never stopped.
And the Clintons - they had obstruction in midterms too.
If you care about people, you MUST vote in every election, not just presidential years. Stop blaming victims - Democrats - for what perps - Republicans do.
For example, Clinton is the blame for Citizens United? Give me a break: it was about an attack movie on her. Get Democrats in, overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, and get some human beings back in our government!
Vote Democrat to get a Congress that will act to help people who are not rich and powerful, vote for Senate, House, State House, Municipal, Schoolboard, and stop blaming victims and shooting at your allies.
Throw the bums out. Even in Obama's first term, he had 5 short months between the seating of Franken and Kennedy's illness and death, and the wholesale uncompromising obstruction never stopped.
And the Clintons - they had obstruction in midterms too.
If you care about people, you MUST vote in every election, not just presidential years. Stop blaming victims - Democrats - for what perps - Republicans do.
For example, Clinton is the blame for Citizens United? Give me a break: it was about an attack movie on her. Get Democrats in, overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, and get some human beings back in our government!
16
Republicans have been chipping away forever at "drowning government in a bathtub". Grover Norquist with his no new tax pledge, budget cutting (except for the military - even when they say they don't want stuff, Republicans will fund that), sequestration, government shutdowns, all target programs that help the poor first.
Then there is regressive taxation: social security, only on the part of income that is needed, not on the wealth part, though for a true flat tax you could reduce the rate and charge it on all income; sales taxes, which fall heavily on the poor. School cuts result in a cost burden on parents, shifting money from the public school system to charter schools (and no, that doesn't result in more money for public schools, advertising today notwithstanding). And local entities tend to favor wealthy school districts for funding.
It's all about the looting with Republicans. What's a poor Democratic governmental schlub to do? They have to go along to get along, but they don't have to like it.
So vote, people, vote; overcome suppression and gerrymandering, local, state, congress: throw the bums out and get some kindness back in government!
Then there is regressive taxation: social security, only on the part of income that is needed, not on the wealth part, though for a true flat tax you could reduce the rate and charge it on all income; sales taxes, which fall heavily on the poor. School cuts result in a cost burden on parents, shifting money from the public school system to charter schools (and no, that doesn't result in more money for public schools, advertising today notwithstanding). And local entities tend to favor wealthy school districts for funding.
It's all about the looting with Republicans. What's a poor Democratic governmental schlub to do? They have to go along to get along, but they don't have to like it.
So vote, people, vote; overcome suppression and gerrymandering, local, state, congress: throw the bums out and get some kindness back in government!
4
There seem to be many more poor than there used to be. And yet our technology would seem to make all kinds of information easier to access.
5
you said the key word: TECHNOLOGY. A job killer.
2
Both candidates, and every candidate down each ticket, could use a brush-up on Matthew 25, which isn't just the essence of being truly Christian, but of being truly human.
6
I think it's clear what the Democrats are saying about poverty. I think it's clear what the Republicans don't say about poverty.
13
I just want to say thank you for bringing up the subject. I hope this article has an impact.
6
Really? Can you honestly say there is any oxygen left for anything topic but Trump in this stretch of the presidential election?
1
We all know the bleeding heart liberal Democrats are the champions of the poor.....................God bless their souls.
This election day coming up, I'm going to vote many times................
For every Democrat listed on the ballot, and there are lots of them from President, through the Congress, state, and local elections. Yeah, that's right folks. I'm gonna vote lots of times, for many Democrats.
This election day coming up, I'm going to vote many times................
For every Democrat listed on the ballot, and there are lots of them from President, through the Congress, state, and local elections. Yeah, that's right folks. I'm gonna vote lots of times, for many Democrats.
7
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Bleeding heart liberal, Jesus Christ, Matthew 25:34-41
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Bleeding heart liberal, Jesus Christ, Matthew 25:34-41
5
Like, duh? I mean, I read the headline and guffawed (not my usual laugh). Then just skimmed, which I don't do before commenting, b/c, I mean, like--well, you could've endorsed BERNIE if you wanted a candidate for the poor!
But, of course, The NY Times doesn't. Armchair liberals par excellence. Honestly. You've hoist upon your own petard. More Americans can not and will not subscribe to the NYT!
But, of course, The NY Times doesn't. Armchair liberals par excellence. Honestly. You've hoist upon your own petard. More Americans can not and will not subscribe to the NYT!
24
You quote the Harvard Professor: "We are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty. "
You can also see a graph in a marvelous new book that shows the United States as having the highest per capita incomes and also the a country with one of the highest indices of social problems. Those social problems are: The index of social problems includes life expectancy, literacy, child mortality, murder rate, inmate population, teenage pregnancy, depression, social trust, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, and social mobility vs. immobility.
Source: Wilkinson and Pickett from a new, fascinating book by Rutger Bregman called "Utopia for Realists." I highly recommend it. Hillary Clinton and what's his name should read it.
You can also see a graph in a marvelous new book that shows the United States as having the highest per capita incomes and also the a country with one of the highest indices of social problems. Those social problems are: The index of social problems includes life expectancy, literacy, child mortality, murder rate, inmate population, teenage pregnancy, depression, social trust, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, and social mobility vs. immobility.
Source: Wilkinson and Pickett from a new, fascinating book by Rutger Bregman called "Utopia for Realists." I highly recommend it. Hillary Clinton and what's his name should read it.
10
That's why we're so rich: people who work hard are richly rewarded. If you had even distribution of wealth, you'd have a lot less of it.
As it is, most of the people in the top 10% in income pay 40-50% in tax.
As it is, most of the people in the top 10% in income pay 40-50% in tax.
3
Plenty of hard working Americans are paid slave wages. Slavery is an American founding principle.
3
Oh really, I am sick and tired to see selfish people to say that. Paul Ryan and the 2% of the elite say the same,Actually he was poor too. Where is this money come from? hard work? It's a joke
2
Without Bernie in her rear view Hillary can once again drive down the center. Trump and Poor just don't reside on the same planet. After the destruction of the Republican party in November due to its creation of The Donald. Maybe they will decide helping the poor should be a good idea to help them rebuild.My hope is Bernie and his supporters stay in President Clinton's review in 2017 for I truly think Trump has run out off feet to put in his mouth.The 16 guys Trump beat to get the nomination should look for another line of work. If I was any of them I would be ashamed to show my face knowing people knew I got beat by Trump!
7
“Sitting idly by and allowing a government and its allies to systematically and deliberately bomb, torture and starve hundreds of thousands of people to death, that is not the solution,” Dr. Samer Attar, a surgeon from Chicago, told me. “Silence, apathy, indifference and inaction aren’t going to make it go away.”
That is a quote from the Kristof opinion regarding Obama's inaction on the war in Syria.
We can also apply that quote of inaction to both candidates when it comes to poverty. We sentence people to lives of despair and poverty because of Republican intransigence and Democratic blundering. However I must admit that Hillary's speech in Michigan today and how she addressed the exporting of American jobs, research and industry has destroyed the middle class and those aspiring to that class is giving me at least a little bit of pause. At least she now acknowledges that jobs and industry have indeed been ravaged by treaties, dissolution of unions, stealing of intellectual property and inversions by American corporations. Checking those wrongs would greatly improve the chances that the poor have to rise to the middle class.
Neither candidate is a dream candidate. its really closer to a nightmare. Both have been indifferent to the middle class for the last 30 years.
And I while I'm writing, the New York Times editorial staff is equally cowardly and indifferent.
Also, I must add, that the tragedy in Syria is a large result of a cowardly Obama Administration.
That is a quote from the Kristof opinion regarding Obama's inaction on the war in Syria.
We can also apply that quote of inaction to both candidates when it comes to poverty. We sentence people to lives of despair and poverty because of Republican intransigence and Democratic blundering. However I must admit that Hillary's speech in Michigan today and how she addressed the exporting of American jobs, research and industry has destroyed the middle class and those aspiring to that class is giving me at least a little bit of pause. At least she now acknowledges that jobs and industry have indeed been ravaged by treaties, dissolution of unions, stealing of intellectual property and inversions by American corporations. Checking those wrongs would greatly improve the chances that the poor have to rise to the middle class.
Neither candidate is a dream candidate. its really closer to a nightmare. Both have been indifferent to the middle class for the last 30 years.
And I while I'm writing, the New York Times editorial staff is equally cowardly and indifferent.
Also, I must add, that the tragedy in Syria is a large result of a cowardly Obama Administration.
3
Blaming Obama may be partly correct, but there wouldn't be the situation or the hesitation were it not for GWB's invasion of Iraq.
1
The real issue in addressing increased poverty is that it takes money to correct this problem and with a $20 trillion deficit no one wants to talk about spending money on a poverty program. It appears that the Republicans would rather spend trillions on a war that only caused more problems then spending a fraction of that cost on breaking the cycle of poverty. The Democrats are afraid to publicly address this issue because they are afraid of being labeled fiscally irresponsible liberals in a very important election year. We can only hope to elect Hillary Clinton and she will address this increasingly unacceptable problem when she is President. The richest country in the world should not accept any form of poverty for it citizens.
7
The word "poverty" was absent from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns as well, except in the context of middle class people "slipping into poverty." I don't think most people are really concerned about deep poverty in the 1960's-Lyndon Johnson-way, and candidates have to be careful not to raise fears about deficit spending, etc. Hillary is dedicated to improving the lives of poor children - perhaps that will be the basis for her new "war on poverty." Stay tuned.
1
What would you like the candidate to say - that a magic wand will be waved to change the political composition of Congress, returning the federal budget to post-WWII levels?
Today's Magazine article going into depth about the recent history of the MIddle East was fine journalism. Why don't you commission a similar article detailing how this nation's ability to deliver human services was permanently gutted by representatives of "the people?"
Today's Magazine article going into depth about the recent history of the MIddle East was fine journalism. Why don't you commission a similar article detailing how this nation's ability to deliver human services was permanently gutted by representatives of "the people?"
10
Poverty has been forgotten in America. It was a big issue in the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson made it a central focus, but since then it has been brushed aside as an important national cause. One reason is that poverty, which includes near poverty and on-the-edge-poverty of the barely middle class, needs to be redefined.
While working on a longer manuscript about poverty in America, I came to realize that the traditional issue of people living in deep poverty in some mountain locked cabin or urban ghetto was too narrow. Poverty no longer revolves around those who don't have food and shelter (though there are many), it should be seen as people who are unable to partake in the benefits of a comfortable existence in the current times. This applies especially to the near poor, those who make enough to get by but who are nonetheless under constant threat of losing what they have to foreclosure, repossession, eviction and other forceful measures imposed by those who have on those who don't.
This larger definition probably includes one half or more of Americans. Surveys have shown that a near majority of citizens would have trouble meeting an unexpected $500. expense. This reflects an economic class who can hardly afford anything beyond necessities without careful planning, saving or going on credit.
We need to update our thinking. Poverty is not an accident. It is made by many forces, including, by Wash Post reporting, hundreds in DC being evicted for $25. unpaid bills.
While working on a longer manuscript about poverty in America, I came to realize that the traditional issue of people living in deep poverty in some mountain locked cabin or urban ghetto was too narrow. Poverty no longer revolves around those who don't have food and shelter (though there are many), it should be seen as people who are unable to partake in the benefits of a comfortable existence in the current times. This applies especially to the near poor, those who make enough to get by but who are nonetheless under constant threat of losing what they have to foreclosure, repossession, eviction and other forceful measures imposed by those who have on those who don't.
This larger definition probably includes one half or more of Americans. Surveys have shown that a near majority of citizens would have trouble meeting an unexpected $500. expense. This reflects an economic class who can hardly afford anything beyond necessities without careful planning, saving or going on credit.
We need to update our thinking. Poverty is not an accident. It is made by many forces, including, by Wash Post reporting, hundreds in DC being evicted for $25. unpaid bills.
12
If hilarious Hillary has such good ideas why has she not proposed any of then the past 40 years??
9
I'm not sure "Hilarious Hilary " is quite the insult you intend it to be. Just sayin.
2
Politicians respond to votes. The Republican Party has taken aggressive steps to limit access to the ballot with only a few measures recently removed. Lest the Democrats think that they are without flaw, why don't we make presidential election days a paid national holiday to give everyone the opportunity to vote without economic loss? If poor people were empowered and enabled in voting, we would see a shift in what politicians talk about and act upon. Our republic would then be more representative of its people.
3
This is baloney and salami both on the same bread. From support of the ACA to their positions on medicaid and taxes, the Democratic candidate supports a whole range of policy that provides enormous benefits to the poor, while Republican policy has been shown to have no correlation whatsoever to the interests of ordinary people let alone the poor. Doing an article on specific word's they have mentioned is not substantive, its like complaining that Obama chooses the wrong words concerning terrorism, and of course perpetuates the ongoing media hoax that the election should be about candidates rather than the party platforms they run under.
9
More and better welfare is not a solution to poverty.
2
Better welfare programs may not solve poverty, but they certainly would provide some relief to those who are desperate. In looking for the perfect solution (hint: there is none), we ignore ideas that could be implemented that might help somewhat. Why should we do nothing at all, and help no one, when we could do some things and help some people? Because there is no final solution to a problem, we should throw up our hands and give up trying?
Yesterday, I heard an NPR report about a symphony musician who succeeded in getting his dream job -- but only after his application had been turned down multiple times, year after year.
If he had given up after his first or even second rejection, he would not now be doing the job he has always wanted to do.
Have we become a nation of quitters? It can't be done, so we won't even bother to try?
If that's the attitude people take, no wonder we have trouble solving problems in this country.
Yesterday, I heard an NPR report about a symphony musician who succeeded in getting his dream job -- but only after his application had been turned down multiple times, year after year.
If he had given up after his first or even second rejection, he would not now be doing the job he has always wanted to do.
Have we become a nation of quitters? It can't be done, so we won't even bother to try?
If that's the attitude people take, no wonder we have trouble solving problems in this country.
Thank you for this article. A longer article/examination of the rising levels of poverty in the U.S., the demographics of same, the likely policy response - if any.
This trend emerged most markedly about the time the government said the recession was over; what really happened was that food stamp programs were curtailed, unemployment benefits were slashed by states and people continued to lose their homes, their families and sometimes their lives.
The unemployment rate falling to less than 5% is a myth; those no longer receiving unemployment benefits are not counted as unemployed! This charade, ignoring the facts of unemployment statistics, letting states set unemployment insurance levels and duration, cutting food stamps, not allowing those unemployed the benefit of reduced prices on healthcare shames our country. It should shame the Obama Administration and more mightily, the republican obstructionism that has frozen out a larger and larger portion of the American public - but it does not. Instead, it's never mentioned. It's as if the poor are no longer considered citizens of this country.
Hillary needs to see this issue and address it; we can only hope that when she's in office, she reveals a compassionate and activist heart for the poor.
This trend emerged most markedly about the time the government said the recession was over; what really happened was that food stamp programs were curtailed, unemployment benefits were slashed by states and people continued to lose their homes, their families and sometimes their lives.
The unemployment rate falling to less than 5% is a myth; those no longer receiving unemployment benefits are not counted as unemployed! This charade, ignoring the facts of unemployment statistics, letting states set unemployment insurance levels and duration, cutting food stamps, not allowing those unemployed the benefit of reduced prices on healthcare shames our country. It should shame the Obama Administration and more mightily, the republican obstructionism that has frozen out a larger and larger portion of the American public - but it does not. Instead, it's never mentioned. It's as if the poor are no longer considered citizens of this country.
Hillary needs to see this issue and address it; we can only hope that when she's in office, she reveals a compassionate and activist heart for the poor.
4
Itv may be both honest & judicious to note that poverty & despair destabilizes a democratic society, makes civilized life insecure, and degrades a robust economy.
Rather than appeal to humanitarian generosity or Communitas as a spirit of neighborly concern- politicians should admit that it's in the self-interest of all classes to minimize an underclass. This is more than worries about the budgetary undertow of entitlements- it involves the necessary civility, consumption and morale of most Americans. Being poor can provide grit & resilience if trade schools, food stamps and temporary supports give access to solvency. Institutionalized disability & unemployability makes everyone resentful and prone to internecine hostilities.
This leads to violent unrest, domestic sabotage, looney gun-toting anti-government 'Individualists' and thug entrpreneurs. The finance sector becomes dedicated to short term exploitations & ruthless gain that destroys pensions, infrastructure and working people's morale. Excellence in teaching, medicine, municipal & state governance, public services, standards of craft & public safety are undermined by a bitter resentment that doing a good job is for suckers- that getting rich quick is the ideal, not 40 years of developing expertise & competence.
Rather than appeal to humanitarian generosity or Communitas as a spirit of neighborly concern- politicians should admit that it's in the self-interest of all classes to minimize an underclass. This is more than worries about the budgetary undertow of entitlements- it involves the necessary civility, consumption and morale of most Americans. Being poor can provide grit & resilience if trade schools, food stamps and temporary supports give access to solvency. Institutionalized disability & unemployability makes everyone resentful and prone to internecine hostilities.
This leads to violent unrest, domestic sabotage, looney gun-toting anti-government 'Individualists' and thug entrpreneurs. The finance sector becomes dedicated to short term exploitations & ruthless gain that destroys pensions, infrastructure and working people's morale. Excellence in teaching, medicine, municipal & state governance, public services, standards of craft & public safety are undermined by a bitter resentment that doing a good job is for suckers- that getting rich quick is the ideal, not 40 years of developing expertise & competence.
5
It's one thing for Trump to live the life of a King, but don't forget, Clinton is living the life of a Queen, and she's doing it with taxpayers dollars. If she really was concerned about "the poor", why did she choose to live in wealthy all white Chappaqua instead of a community with people of mixed income and many minorities?
15
Mrs. Clinton chose to speak on Thursday at Futuramic Tool and Engineering, a company in Warren, Mich., just north of Detroit, which makes parts for cars and airplanes including the F-35 fighter jet.
excellent article outlining a most important topic. Walk down streets in many areas around the country, the amount of beggars, disabled, drug addicted, traumatized war veterans, mentally ill, the insane are increasing. It's depressing walking around town these days. I get depressed-big deal. these human beings are living in horrendous conditions all day, every day. It is horrible that we have this amidst so much wealth. Can't we solve this with a program the same cost as the flawed, 1.5 trillion dollar F-35 jet? I think we can. This country has to get out of war making implements and manufacturing and move into Americans manufacturing fast trains, solar fields and ocean reclamation projects.
excellent article outlining a most important topic. Walk down streets in many areas around the country, the amount of beggars, disabled, drug addicted, traumatized war veterans, mentally ill, the insane are increasing. It's depressing walking around town these days. I get depressed-big deal. these human beings are living in horrendous conditions all day, every day. It is horrible that we have this amidst so much wealth. Can't we solve this with a program the same cost as the flawed, 1.5 trillion dollar F-35 jet? I think we can. This country has to get out of war making implements and manufacturing and move into Americans manufacturing fast trains, solar fields and ocean reclamation projects.
11
There is nothing to "solve". Opportunity equality equals income inequality. Some work harder, some are smarter, some are luckier. The only thing you can do is offer equal opportunity for all. And true freedom means respecting others' freedom to succeed and freedom to fail.
But we haven't got equal opportunity for everyone. The kid who goes to a wealthy school with great facilities and teachers, who has access to private tutoring when they're in academic trouble, who is well-fed and well-cared for at every stage of life has already got a vast head start on the kid whose school is falling apart and staffed by underpaid and overworked teachers, who has to go without healthy meals, receives no tutoring when he needs it, and can't participate in enriching extra-curricular activities due to their exorbitant costs.
There is no equal opportunity in the USA.
There is no equal opportunity in the USA.
1
The war on the poor continues...
Today, on the front page of the NYT, I saw an article about how the DEA was set to reschedule marijuana, which is currently classed with drugs like heroin in order to justify the draconian war against the poor. Had that been done, one might hope for a brighter future, one in which the government was not filling prisons with people whose crimes basically involve smoking.
Too bad Obama caved, again.
What a coward.
What a liar.
Thus, the war on the poor continues...
Your hero is a fraud...
Today, on the front page of the NYT, I saw an article about how the DEA was set to reschedule marijuana, which is currently classed with drugs like heroin in order to justify the draconian war against the poor. Had that been done, one might hope for a brighter future, one in which the government was not filling prisons with people whose crimes basically involve smoking.
Too bad Obama caved, again.
What a coward.
What a liar.
Thus, the war on the poor continues...
Your hero is a fraud...
9
Bernie Sanders spoke often about the poor, but the elites at the NYT and HRC supporters didn't care about the poor at that point.
30
If only we had had a candidate who focused on economic and poverty issues...
5
Or any other point.
At the risk of sounding cold, I would argue that what most of us think of as poverty can't be addressed solely or primarily through politics, but the policies that have threatened the existence of a broad middle class and that leave median-income households extremely precarious and vulnerable have resulted from unjust politics, and thus can be addressed through political means. Democracies cannot exist without a strong middle class.
It's possible for a democratic society to end poverty for all except those who are self-destructive wrecks and can only be given humane harbor. But very few societies—I can't name them—have succeeded in eliminating poverty. It can't be done without measures to prevent greedy sociopaths from hoarding wealth instead of contributing to a dynamic economy, which by definition moves money around, aka redistributing wealth. I'm 59, and it isn't going to happen in the US in my lifetime.
People who have jobs, send their kids to school, volunteer at school and in their community, and participate in civic or communal religious life, do not count themselves among the poor even if statistically they are— they define poverty as helpless despair, but they are functioning. People may feel poor or even call themselves poor, but whether or not they really are, when they hear a politician talk about "poverty", they don't think of it as applying to themselves. That's why poverty rhetoric doesn't move elections. It's a luxury balm for the conscience of the well-off.
It's possible for a democratic society to end poverty for all except those who are self-destructive wrecks and can only be given humane harbor. But very few societies—I can't name them—have succeeded in eliminating poverty. It can't be done without measures to prevent greedy sociopaths from hoarding wealth instead of contributing to a dynamic economy, which by definition moves money around, aka redistributing wealth. I'm 59, and it isn't going to happen in the US in my lifetime.
People who have jobs, send their kids to school, volunteer at school and in their community, and participate in civic or communal religious life, do not count themselves among the poor even if statistically they are— they define poverty as helpless despair, but they are functioning. People may feel poor or even call themselves poor, but whether or not they really are, when they hear a politician talk about "poverty", they don't think of it as applying to themselves. That's why poverty rhetoric doesn't move elections. It's a luxury balm for the conscience of the well-off.
6
The homeless and the elderly might enjoy a mention, as maybe would the one in five Americans on food stamps...
17
Considering the paragraph that begins with "Mrs. Clinton’s policies, although rhetorically geared toward the middle class, would most likely have a broader impact" (as well as HRC's record) the headline is false equivalence. These two are so far apart that it's a public disservice to be so misleading.
6
I think the fundamental problem is that many people, including politicians, do not trust “the poor,” so that any assistance that is provided is only program-based. You can’t find any liberals or conservatives who would support some form of basic income.
4
Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but a country with a perceived economic malaise will not be moved by candidates who campaign on the premise of helping the poor. Having said that, which candidate, if elected, will do more for the underprivileged in our country? Clinton or Trump? Normally I'd give you two guesses, but these are not normal times, so only one guess allowed.
1
Trump has gone from one community to the next pointing out all the factories that have been closed in those communities, and the jobs moved overseas. He says he will bring those jobs back. That is what is needed. Clinton has not only not talked about the poor, she has also not talked about bringing back the jobs.
5
"He says he will bring those jobs back." Really?
Back in 2012 Trump was on Letterman hawking his Trump-brand shirts and ties. Letterman asks where the shirts are made, and Trump says he doesn't know, "somewhere". Letterman reads on the label that they're made in Bangladesh. Trump says, "That's good. We employ people in Bangladesh. They have to work too." If this little anecdote alone doesn't thoroughly expose Trump for the lying hypocrite he is, I don't know what would. I challenge any Trump supporter to watch this 1.5 minute video and then tell me they still believe he represents their interests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYoOPgeTMQc
Back in 2012 Trump was on Letterman hawking his Trump-brand shirts and ties. Letterman asks where the shirts are made, and Trump says he doesn't know, "somewhere". Letterman reads on the label that they're made in Bangladesh. Trump says, "That's good. We employ people in Bangladesh. They have to work too." If this little anecdote alone doesn't thoroughly expose Trump for the lying hypocrite he is, I don't know what would. I challenge any Trump supporter to watch this 1.5 minute video and then tell me they still believe he represents their interests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYoOPgeTMQc
1
In addition to the "poor" are the financially stressed, those who live paycheck to paycheck or work piecemeal, and are one serious illness away from financial ruin. Bernie talks about these additional millions of people because he can relate; he grew up in a financially stressed household. That's why he knows the value of single payer healthcare; it would keep people from falling into the abyss.
Trump and Hillary, both of whom grew up never wanting, won't ever understand. Hillary's dismissal of the single payer option for all is a lack of recognition of those living on the edge.
Trump and Hillary, both of whom grew up never wanting, won't ever understand. Hillary's dismissal of the single payer option for all is a lack of recognition of those living on the edge.
13
Hillary's family struggled. Her parents were both Depression-era people who scrimped. Her mother was an orphan who worked as a domestic. Her father lost his business and struggled to make ends meet. Her background was in no way as privileged as her opponent's.
The United States wants to preserve the Middle Class. The United States does not want to acknowledge the existence of the poor because the existence of poverty challenges the triumphalist American dream of liberty, justice and equal opportunity for all.
Many other countries have far more effective and humane policies for dealing with poverty than we do. We haven't eliminated poverty because the wealthy understand that it is to their advantage to have an impoverished underclass.
Many other countries have far more effective and humane policies for dealing with poverty than we do. We haven't eliminated poverty because the wealthy understand that it is to their advantage to have an impoverished underclass.
11
America has difficulty these days talking about meaningful training programs, government investment in infrastructure, or even extended unemployment payments, because everyone seems to have bought the line that lower taxes & smaller governments means more income for all.
Look folks, it isn't working, as both the Brexit vote & Trump candidacy attest. We are so clever that no one will really get "into" global warming until Times' Square is under water at high tide. But we'll be reluctant to spend the money, so perhaps the then economically dominant Chinese will build a new Great Wall of China around Manhattan, lending us the dough at a nominal interest rate while their crews, equipment & supplies do the job.
Look folks, it isn't working, as both the Brexit vote & Trump candidacy attest. We are so clever that no one will really get "into" global warming until Times' Square is under water at high tide. But we'll be reluctant to spend the money, so perhaps the then economically dominant Chinese will build a new Great Wall of China around Manhattan, lending us the dough at a nominal interest rate while their crews, equipment & supplies do the job.
3
So delightful for Bernie Sanders-hit-piece-generator The NY Times to finally devote a few generous column inches to the plight of the poor. I guess you can't fill an entire paper with Clinton boot-licking, Trump hysteria, and articles on what kind of mini-Versailles 5.2 million dollars will buy your average reader in X enclave of obscene wealth.
Remember, after the West Virginia primary - which Sanders won, and where he gave a very powerful speech on poverty - the utter confusion of the media when exit polls showed that if Sanders did not win the primary, most of his supporters there would vote for Trump? Look at these sexist, politically confused idiots, you all said. No wonder they can't succeed in today's glorious meritocratic economy, being so dumb.
"...the poor are not necessarily the kind of swing state voters you are trying to pick off." -- these are EXACTLY the kind of voters Clinton is trying to pick off, quite literally. By imprisoning them, by telling them to "keep shopping", by promising them through a smirk she would stop the TPP, by crossing her heart that she had told Wall Street to "cut it out", by asking them to describe their debt in three emojis or less.
If it doesn't wind up rescinding its endorsement of Clinton and taking the suddenly high-minded position that it might be a good idea for her to step down and allow Sanders his rightful victory, or perhaps, after the debates, endorsing Jill Stein, this publication deserves to fail.
Remember, after the West Virginia primary - which Sanders won, and where he gave a very powerful speech on poverty - the utter confusion of the media when exit polls showed that if Sanders did not win the primary, most of his supporters there would vote for Trump? Look at these sexist, politically confused idiots, you all said. No wonder they can't succeed in today's glorious meritocratic economy, being so dumb.
"...the poor are not necessarily the kind of swing state voters you are trying to pick off." -- these are EXACTLY the kind of voters Clinton is trying to pick off, quite literally. By imprisoning them, by telling them to "keep shopping", by promising them through a smirk she would stop the TPP, by crossing her heart that she had told Wall Street to "cut it out", by asking them to describe their debt in three emojis or less.
If it doesn't wind up rescinding its endorsement of Clinton and taking the suddenly high-minded position that it might be a good idea for her to step down and allow Sanders his rightful victory, or perhaps, after the debates, endorsing Jill Stein, this publication deserves to fail.
24
I'm a Sanders supporter but please join us here on earth. There are many people who would never support him.
2
Oh, please, Saint Bernie, could not have gotten any of his soaring ideas through. He talked a good game but it was rhetoric. Candidates can only make changes with a "willing Congress " and Bernie does not have the reputation for working across the aisle.
When you have many many years of a senate and congress on their knees to the 1% - let her get in office first, have people to work with in both houses and have the rich pay the same percentages in taxes as everyone else, raise the minimum wage and then ask what she will do. The promise of prosperity for everyone is so so hollow (yes that last sentence is to mimic trump the imbecile).
3
If middle-class and poor people are unhappy with their wage and wealth circumstances, they are unhappy with the promise of more of the same which Hillary Clinton represents. Donald Trump represents the lottery ticket chance approach of a populist demagogue.
If Hillary Clinton's speeches do not address their worries with sincere concern and practical policies that directly address their plight, she will not win their votes (if they even bother to vote).
Her economic speech today was lacking in empathy, overwhelming in detail, and just filled with more mudslinging that wears and distracts; but, of course, plays well to the faithful.
Unfortunately, she still comes across as the wonk worker-bee and not the leader that a President needs to be in order to inspire hope and generate national aspiration. She is who she is and you're mistaken to hope she can or will change (i.e. false belief that Bernie Sanders pulled her to the left or become the natural politician that Bill Clinton is).
Vote for Hillary Clinton and the full Democratic ballot to win SCOTUS and to push toward some progressive policies.
If Hillary Clinton's speeches do not address their worries with sincere concern and practical policies that directly address their plight, she will not win their votes (if they even bother to vote).
Her economic speech today was lacking in empathy, overwhelming in detail, and just filled with more mudslinging that wears and distracts; but, of course, plays well to the faithful.
Unfortunately, she still comes across as the wonk worker-bee and not the leader that a President needs to be in order to inspire hope and generate national aspiration. She is who she is and you're mistaken to hope she can or will change (i.e. false belief that Bernie Sanders pulled her to the left or become the natural politician that Bill Clinton is).
Vote for Hillary Clinton and the full Democratic ballot to win SCOTUS and to push toward some progressive policies.
6
Blessed are the poor, but they don't vote and have no lobbying firms representing their interests in Washington or the statehouses. End of story!
Politicians realize they are borderline unelectable if you advocate for the poor.
The Republican base, their politicians and Fox News have turned middle-class voters totally against any and all programs that benefit the poor.
They did this by characterizing poverty programs as "hand-outs" and "free-stuff" and by continuously glorifying individual self-sufficiency and practically criminalizing poor people ("welfare queens") by shaming them because they are poor.
As Americans we should feel embarrassed by the lack of quality health-care for poor children and adults, child-care, early childhood educational opportunities, third-rate schools, dearth of affordable housing and lack of funding adequate food stamp programs.
This absolutely is the shame of America and it is ignored.
Politicians realize they are borderline unelectable if you advocate for the poor.
The Republican base, their politicians and Fox News have turned middle-class voters totally against any and all programs that benefit the poor.
They did this by characterizing poverty programs as "hand-outs" and "free-stuff" and by continuously glorifying individual self-sufficiency and practically criminalizing poor people ("welfare queens") by shaming them because they are poor.
As Americans we should feel embarrassed by the lack of quality health-care for poor children and adults, child-care, early childhood educational opportunities, third-rate schools, dearth of affordable housing and lack of funding adequate food stamp programs.
This absolutely is the shame of America and it is ignored.
15
As discussed in "Why Presidents Fail and How They Can Succeed Again" (Kamarck; 2016) this article, and the candidates themselves, is (are) long on presidential communication and short on clarity of implementation.
Where are the details of *exactly how* they plan to accomplish their rhetoric? Ability to implement is more important than rhetoric. That is, the details matter a great deal.
Where are the details of *exactly how* they plan to accomplish their rhetoric? Ability to implement is more important than rhetoric. That is, the details matter a great deal.
1
Silly, silly man. Details are only necessary when it involves Bernie. Everyone else gets a pass.
1
Wow NYTimes, of all things with which to equate HRC and Trump.
6
Both Donald and Hillary are underachieving strivers, long on avarice, short on empathy. "Poor" is not in either's sight.
Donald's gilded focus is relatively benign. He earns his lucre.
Hillary's is pernicious. She robs the American taxpayer to give kickbacks to her donors who give billions to her fake charity that in turn exploits catastrophes throughout the world by giving her family and cronies lucrative contracts that cheat the poor and the devastated.
The Clintons' latest scam makes their 90s WH quid pro quo look like—if you’ll pardon the oxymoron—penny ante treason.
While she was SoS, the couple pocketed billions in pay to play. The multifarious vectors of transaction & the massive, disproportionate Clinton gains are prima facie evidence of the crime. Why else would so many pay so much for so little?
Their appetite for money and power is insatiable. Like laboratory rats, put enough of the goodies in front of these two and they will gorge themselves to death.
She and her husband have a long history of selling out this country to the enemy, often in plain sight. For 8 yrs, they methodically, seditiously and with impunity auctioned off America’s security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.
And they are selling out the country in plain sight today with the biggest cover and slush fund of all time: The Clinton Foundation… which brings us full circle & explains why she chose to scrub the server & risk being charged with obstruction of justice.
13
I adore it when shills for the wealthy blather about how a born-rich, lazy real-estate semi-tycoon "earned," their loot and their right to be a world-class twit.
1
th problem is theres no money in poverty
8
The so-called poor people in the U.S. are the richest poor people in the world. They have everything they need - housing (many are now enjoying luxury housing), utilities, health care, education, chauffeured transportation, etc etc etc. I have little to no sympathy for the so-called poor.
3
incredible
4
I have a PhD and was a hard working engineer in Silicon Valley for two decades, and also invented well known gadgets for which the company took the credit and the money. I also lost all my savings in the 2008 financial debacle by the likes of people like you. I was forced to go on unemployment, and medicaid when my Huntington's (HD) kicked in. Huntington's is a genetic illness, it has nothing to do with bad choices or reckless lifestyle. I worked in spite of my illness, and even limped to work, Sometimes I would go out of my way to cover up my falls, and the blood and bruises all over my body because of HD. I worked seven days a week sometimes just to make $ 50,000 with my PhD. Stress, insults, humiliations and indignities can complicate health issues. I was eligible for many disability services years ago, but never took it because I wanted to contribute to the system as long as I could, and had dignity and was stubborn. Now I am poor, struggling to pay my rent, get decent food and do whatever little I can to help my wife who stood by me and helped me get the services I deserve. I wonder who will be there for her. Jerks like you can only see the vulnerabilities and needs now, but not what we have contributed. For that I wish you my illness and all the misery so one day someone will spit on you as you beg, or throw you out with insults when your old age, your illness or your bad luck kicks in.
And never call yourself an activist. My wife is an ACTIVIST...not you!
And never call yourself an activist. My wife is an ACTIVIST...not you!
9
Taking a stroll down the 34th street subway across from Macys. You'll encounter legions of homeless no doubt waiting for their "chauffeured transportation".
5
Well, has the Times -asked- the cadidates about poverty?
12
The poor are not in the constituency of either neo-liberals or neophyte demagogues...
4
Did any editors check this headline before it was published? Who will benefit from raising the minimum wage to $15? Who will take advantage of free community college and new infrastructure jobs? Who will benefit from her continued support for the Affordable Care Act and Planned Parenthood?
Is the New York Times becoming desperate for click-bait?
Is the New York Times becoming desperate for click-bait?
3
Hillary Clinton is a dilemma to me. On one hand you can trace her determination and commitment to the disenfranchised and powerless to a young age. On the other hand is a clear history of using power to the Clintons political and financial benefit, perhaps legally perhaps not, but worthy of conflict of interest allegations of which her judgement is called into question regardless. Is she competent YES. Is she honest NO. Have she and Bill apparently abused their offices vis a vie Clinton Foundation YES. Is she the only credible presidential candidate currently running YES. Its like she's a great lady drawn to the darkside or something and the battle for the Force is still raging.
3
Jobs are flying out the window. Macy's is closing 100 stores. They can't compete with Amazon.com, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, that great Democrat and Hillary supporter. So Hillary really does care about the poor because she promises to increase their number everyday.
8
Hmmm, so are you suggesting that the jobs at Amazon should be sacrificed? Maybe we should tax Amazon goods more so the regular people who work in 1000s of other industries have to pay more every time they want to get some new light bulbs? Or should we pay Macy's to stay open? What about the stores that Macy's competed away over the last 50 years, should we bring them back too? The last 200 years have pretty clearly shown that technological change makes everyone much better off. Some people are negatively affected along the way, and we should help those people. But standing in the way of progress is not going to help any one. We could also go back to farming by hand if you liked. That would create a lot of jobs. Do you think we would be better off?
1
Actually I would. I am not a friend of monopolistic capitalism and being ruled by an oligarchy of immense wealth, priviledge and entitlement. I believe in free enterprise and a level playing field for all...rich and poor.
The workers at Amazon need to organize a union. In a big way. That would help level the playing field for other retailers like Macy's, which has union employees who make decent wages and benefits -- unlike the thousands working for substandard wages under terrible conditions for the billionaire Bezos.
well, your reps arent poor
th total net worth of congress is $4,946,090,771
a complete breakdown of congress wealth
https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Represen...
5
th poor need only learn three phrases for guanteed success
can i supersize that for you, sir ?
should they fail, try th ever popular
stick 'em up !
spare change , mr ?
4
"Bet I can get a lower approval rating than Hillary."
"Bet you can't."
"Bet I can."
"Okay, you win."
"I always win."
"Yes you do Mr. Trump."
"Bet you can't."
"Bet I can."
"Okay, you win."
"I always win."
"Yes you do Mr. Trump."
1
The author of this article fails to give any data - how many poor, income level, etc. It is hard to absorb the logic without any supporting data. NYTimes editors sleeping on the job. First define the problem with raw data - what is the poverty line income and what percentage fall below.
5
All this info is easily available. Just Google it. The author doesn't have to hold your hand for everything. The only information needed to support the article's argument is the fact that some people are indeed poor, not a complete demographoc breakdown of the issue.
1
She doesn't connect the dots? What? She doesn't even know about the dots. Hillary like her husband and Obama is a neoliberal. Haven't any of you NYT genies noticed none of them helped those in poverty. They want them to just die off. No help allowed if you are a neoliberal and all of them are neoliberals. Why do people keep calling Hillary, Bill and Obama liberals. They are more to the right than Donald Trump. Way more right. Get used to it. They will never tell you. The Democratic has been pretending to be liberal since Jimmy Carter but don't keep up with politics or every one would know the truth. There is no workers' party, there is no union party. In fact there is no support for those in bottom half of this country. What me you give you sample of Obama's out come. $7milllion Americans fell into poverty under charming Obama. Expect the same form Hillary. She wants billions for herself and she can get it from low income Americans.
5
His "Two Americas" talk was the only reason I overcame my revulsion to his slickness to vote for John Edwards. Whether or not it was a schtick is probably debatable but he did talk about the poor, and in a way that felt like he cared to make things better.
5
Donald Trump told some CNBC interviewer that "all I do is tell the Truth" and then he blabs about Obama starting ISIS apparently before he was even in office. So The Trumpster is not playing with a full deck even for fantasy projects, much less dealing with an intractable problem like poverty with a mind that processes like a gnat.
3
T-rump really thinks he's telling the truth. He's said these things so often, he can't tell the difference. And he lies, even when he doesn't have to. Pathological.
3
The truth is that ISIS is the direct result of Obama's refusal to re-negotiate the Status of Forces agreement in Iraq in 2011 (and I don't care if Trump got the date wrong). George Bush left Obama the gift of a democratic, peaceful, U.S.-allied Iraq all tied up in a neat little package. But no, Obama had to pander to his left-wing cheering section and "end the war" by evacuating U.S. troops from Iraq. And, then ISIS came along to fill the vacuum. That's the proximate cause of ISIS's rise to power, which was completely preventable. (I know, I know, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with, but having done that, you don't make things worse by creating the kind of vacuum that unleashes the powers of hell upon the world.)
NYT needs to do some additional research. Hillary was the first candidate to go to and meet with the low income housing authority as well as go to and meet with residents at their homes during the New York primary. As you know the New York system is the largest one in the country. This was reported on MSNBC at the time. Hillary promised at that time to do more and work hard to provide housing for all. Sanders went afterwards. None of the Republican candidates ever spoke with or talked to anyone in authority or those who live in low income housing.
4
Trump is a lost cause, and Hillary doesn't support 15$/hr so how surprised are we?
5
Yes, she does support $15/hour.
4
This is why Bernie called for a political revolution. But the Americans voted for a blowhard because he fed their racism and a liar because she will "make history". There is no room for poor people (regardless of how they became poor) in a capitalist society with it's bourgeoisie decadence. Americans are too busy watching inane TV, sports, entertainment & military bravado about our "exceptionalism" to care about the less fortunate among us. Enjoy your first woman President as you are turned down for the food stamps you need to feed your fatherless children. After all, you will have seen "history being made".
9
In defense of ordinary Americans, Hillary's victory was not all their own fault - a biased media working with a biased DNC swayed things in her favor, a bit.
Poverty can be ignored by politicians because the US is a fake democracy in which the vast majority - the working class - have not 1 representative at state/national levels of gov't. The US political system consists (if you only read the capitalist press) of 2 parties, both of which are owned & operated by the US capitalist class. Without a working class political party to actively fight the pro-capitalist agenda pushed 24/7/365 by the pro-capitalist mass media, the plight of millions of US workers is able to be ignored by the politicians. All workers get is periodic crocodile-tear-shedding like this article.
The pro-capitalist AFL-CIO leadership sponsors the #Fightfor15 campaign, which seeks to raise the minwage to $15/hr - a wage that will keep workers in poverty, not raise them out of it. As the NLIC report you cited states, for a worker to afford a 2-BR apt in Nassau-Suffolk County, NY, she must earn $33/hr; in NJ, $25; in DC, $28! To call HRC's proposal of a $12 minwage "the most progressive platform any party has put together” is a farce. Clinton is the candidate of corporate America & they don't give a damn about working class or "poor" people.
If we want to end poverty we must put an end to the capitalist system that creates & perpetuates it. To do that we must organize a revolutionary socialist workers party that unites the workers in the US to overthrow capitalism & replace it with an egalitarian socialist workers republic.
Independent Workers Party of Chicago
The pro-capitalist AFL-CIO leadership sponsors the #Fightfor15 campaign, which seeks to raise the minwage to $15/hr - a wage that will keep workers in poverty, not raise them out of it. As the NLIC report you cited states, for a worker to afford a 2-BR apt in Nassau-Suffolk County, NY, she must earn $33/hr; in NJ, $25; in DC, $28! To call HRC's proposal of a $12 minwage "the most progressive platform any party has put together” is a farce. Clinton is the candidate of corporate America & they don't give a damn about working class or "poor" people.
If we want to end poverty we must put an end to the capitalist system that creates & perpetuates it. To do that we must organize a revolutionary socialist workers party that unites the workers in the US to overthrow capitalism & replace it with an egalitarian socialist workers republic.
Independent Workers Party of Chicago
5
To paraphrase Plato, only the dead have seen the end of poverty.
2
We should have a MAXIMUM wage of 12 million/a year, with any personal salary in excess of that redistributed to fix the mangled infrastructure, improve the dreadful school system, and lift those in dire need out of poverty.
Unfortunately, we've adopted all the negative characteristics of democracy while jettisoning any semblance of community and shared social responsibility for our society.
Unfortunately, we've adopted all the negative characteristics of democracy while jettisoning any semblance of community and shared social responsibility for our society.
8
Could it be because the poor don't contribute to their campaigns?
5
Hint: Creating jobs WILL help those "people while they are not working." That is, it will provide them with JOBS.
2
Hillary can TALK all she likes about helping the disadvantaged. Her vote for the Iraq war destroyed the lives of millions of people, destroyed female equality in Iraq, left millions destitute, slaughtered and crippled vast numbers of children and jump-started ISIS in the process.
She went on to repeat this abomination in Libya.
She has no meaningful say on anything. In a just nation, she'd be behind bars.
She went on to repeat this abomination in Libya.
She has no meaningful say on anything. In a just nation, she'd be behind bars.
7
So you think all the senators who voted to support the Iraq war should be behind bars? Or just Mrs. Clinton.
And I expect you hoped the parents of some of the 400 or so enlisted men who were killed in their Beirut barracks should have sued President Reagan or his Secretary of State for gross negligence or even murder? Or just Mrs. Clinton for the four in Bengazi.
My Republican mother suspected that George Bush was lying in order to go to war. But senators are for the most part expected to consent to go to war when the president says it's necessary. Mrs. Clinto was in good company when she trusted President Bush's arguments.
But you think only she should be behind bars.
Have fun with with fascist leader Trump. But never disagree with him: he doesn't like being disagreed with. Someday someone will suggest you should be behind bars.
And I expect you hoped the parents of some of the 400 or so enlisted men who were killed in their Beirut barracks should have sued President Reagan or his Secretary of State for gross negligence or even murder? Or just Mrs. Clinton for the four in Bengazi.
My Republican mother suspected that George Bush was lying in order to go to war. But senators are for the most part expected to consent to go to war when the president says it's necessary. Mrs. Clinto was in good company when she trusted President Bush's arguments.
But you think only she should be behind bars.
Have fun with with fascist leader Trump. But never disagree with him: he doesn't like being disagreed with. Someday someone will suggest you should be behind bars.
2
Article headline:
"From Clinton and Trump, a Striking Silence About Poverty"
And RIGHT BELOW it is this headline:
"Clinton Attacks Trump’s Policies as Favoring the Rich"
Holy non-sequitur, Batman!
Maybe the editors and headline writers should be "on the same page," especially about articles on the same (home) page?
"From Clinton and Trump, a Striking Silence About Poverty"
And RIGHT BELOW it is this headline:
"Clinton Attacks Trump’s Policies as Favoring the Rich"
Holy non-sequitur, Batman!
Maybe the editors and headline writers should be "on the same page," especially about articles on the same (home) page?
10
>>>>
Before we can push money downward we have to stop the upward flow of it.
"Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven, but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind".
Thomas Paine
Before we can push money downward we have to stop the upward flow of it.
"Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven, but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind".
Thomas Paine
8
NYT cares about poverty only to find a link between the candidates. Thanks. Now, how about announcing a significant contribution to to worthy causes that lift the poor?
3
The same folks who say we need a government solution to poverty are the ones who favor the new global economy and figure retraining/new skill set is the ticket. Well, that's not going to happen or work, and if it did there would not be enough jobs in the US anyway. Focus on labor intensive work that has to be completed locally. Trades are still a good bet. Vocational school should be emphasized as a good option for many. Massive infrastructure investment sounds good but from what I have seen on local projects there is huge waste and inefficiency and little to no accountability.
2
Poor dear, she forgot how poor she was when she left the White House. To make amends for all the money she "earned" since then, she wants to return.
Poor Donald, he has never had the privilege of being poor, other than as a poor loser. Loser!
Poor Donald, he has never had the privilege of being poor, other than as a poor loser. Loser!
1
Obama's presidency has produced record high numbers of people dependent on public assistance and food stamps. Democrats want open borders and let in anybody and everybody. Democrats do not want school choice, they need to keep the poor in substandard, no-expectation ghetto schools. Coincidence?
The obvious result: flood the minimum wage job market, create tidal waves of dependent democrat voters and create even more bloated corrupt social programs under the guise of "caring". No wonder Hillary doesn't touch this subject. Besides, poor people cannot appreciate all her $10,000+ wardrobe choices.
Trump says secure the borders. Create incentives for companies to stay here or move here in order to create demand for jobs. Trump is pro school choice. His critics say this is all racist. Trump critics say school choice is terrible. Why? Because kids aren't beholden to failing schools where unionized teachers pay tons of money to the Democrat machine. Some even complained that charter schools are for profit. So? That means inept teachers do not get tenure. If it means that a kid can actually read and do math by the time he graduates isn't that better than being forced to stay in an unsafe, no expectation school?
We've seen Democrat policies substantially increase the number of people on public assistance programs by design. Democrats have no intention of creating an environment where these people can re-experience the dignity of earning a living wage.
The obvious result: flood the minimum wage job market, create tidal waves of dependent democrat voters and create even more bloated corrupt social programs under the guise of "caring". No wonder Hillary doesn't touch this subject. Besides, poor people cannot appreciate all her $10,000+ wardrobe choices.
Trump says secure the borders. Create incentives for companies to stay here or move here in order to create demand for jobs. Trump is pro school choice. His critics say this is all racist. Trump critics say school choice is terrible. Why? Because kids aren't beholden to failing schools where unionized teachers pay tons of money to the Democrat machine. Some even complained that charter schools are for profit. So? That means inept teachers do not get tenure. If it means that a kid can actually read and do math by the time he graduates isn't that better than being forced to stay in an unsafe, no expectation school?
We've seen Democrat policies substantially increase the number of people on public assistance programs by design. Democrats have no intention of creating an environment where these people can re-experience the dignity of earning a living wage.
2
The poor don't vote. And sometimes even when they do they vote against their interests, like the ones who voted for that governor who ran on destroying Obamacare.
Sad but true.
Sad but true.
2
I have always thought that a Guaranteed Income approach would be the easiest to implement. Government could offset the cost of this by hopefully eliminating welfare costs, a reduction of prison costs, reduction of drug and alcohol abuse. Imagine that everyone would be guaranteed say $30,000.00 per year and it would be indexed for inflation.
1
How in the world is a Democrat supposed to talk about poverty in a world so polluted and poisoned by the Republican party that any honest mention of the plight of poverty results in accusations of being some kind of communist? Seriously, there is no honest discussion because one of the parties to that discussion has turned its back on common sense and on citizens in need. Sadly, the Republicans did their terrible harm long before the advent of Trump. Go back to the 1950's and 1960's if you want to understand this disgusting destruction of American democracy and values.
2
The wealthiest nation on earth has a $20 Trillion mortgage on its future, a $500 Billion trade deficit, a $1.26 Trillion student loan anchor, massive structural under employment, and other indicators of wealth.
How is the wealthiest nation on earth, a notoriously reckless and irresponsible fiscal steward, going to solve economic problems that it is largely responsible for creating in the first place?
If Dick and Jane couldn't fix it previously, why would you think Jane and Dick will conger up any better fixes this time around?
The Times' resident Nobel Keynesian advocates spend, spend, spend our way out of debt into prosperity. If $20 Trillion couldn't house and feed the poor, how much will it cost? Let's shoot for $20 Zillion. Surely some of that will trickle down through the cracks to the bottom of the food chain. Surely.
How is the wealthiest nation on earth, a notoriously reckless and irresponsible fiscal steward, going to solve economic problems that it is largely responsible for creating in the first place?
If Dick and Jane couldn't fix it previously, why would you think Jane and Dick will conger up any better fixes this time around?
The Times' resident Nobel Keynesian advocates spend, spend, spend our way out of debt into prosperity. If $20 Trillion couldn't house and feed the poor, how much will it cost? Let's shoot for $20 Zillion. Surely some of that will trickle down through the cracks to the bottom of the food chain. Surely.
1
You can't equate the two on this issue. Hillary talks about lifting people out of poverty all the time. Raising the minimum wage, criminal justice reform, universal preschool, debt-free college. Your false equivalency is just outrageous and, did I mention, false!
5
There is no "solution" to poverty. It is found all over the world since the beginning of civilization and will never end. Well thought out public policies can alleviate the stress of poverty, but not eradicate it. I don't think the political parties particularly care about it.
3
Hillary has also promised that in addition to amnestying illegal aliens already here (or using EOs to make it easier for them to live here) she will deport no one who comes here in the future unless and until they commit a violent crime. This is essentially open borders--if you get here, you get to stay here. Now, how does providing employers with an essentially unlimited supply of labor benefit American workers? Who will get the jobs she's says she'll create? And why raise the minimum wage when the expanding supply of labor keeps downward pressure on future wage increases? Moreover, illegal aliens who benefit from DACA, created by an EO, get not only work permits and SS numbers, but access to state and federal benefits such as driver's licenses, in-state tuition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, and SS. The Democratic Platform also calls for illegal aliens to receive subsidized Obamacare. Then there's the issue of national security...
In short, this one policy, of open borders, works at odds with many of the programs that Hillary and Democrats say they want to implement.
In short, this one policy, of open borders, works at odds with many of the programs that Hillary and Democrats say they want to implement.
4
The question is: how many people would change their vote based on policies to address poverty? I suspect the answer is very low. Expecting a politician to campaign on issues that don't change voting behaviors is illogical. This is a statement of our national moral situation. It is a shame. But how many of us worry about poverty one minute and then go right back to living lives far more privileged? How many conversations tonight will people have about the fate of their job, or the price of their house, or the holiday they are going to take? And how many will, instead, talk about the poverty they saw on the way home from work? Be honest. I will be the first to admit guilt.
1
Somewhere along the way, liberals stopped talking about the poor and the lower class and instead focused on the middle class. This is ok if it reminds us that we are all in this together and economic struggles should always be part of the national discussion. But it is bad when it ignores the plight of people who have fallen below the safety net of the middle class.
1
The middle class is not a safety net and the middle class does not have a safety net.
4
Professor Matthew Desmond says,. “We aren’t having in our presidential debate right now a serious conversation about the fact that we are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty. It should be at the very top of the agenda.”
We're not having that "serious conversation" right now. But we did have it. Bernie Sanders put poverty front and center in his campaign, and offered numerous proposals to solve it.
Incredible that Times reporter Binyamin Applebaum would leave out any mention of Bernie Sanders. But the Times ignored Senator Sanders throughout his campaign. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
We're not having that "serious conversation" right now. But we did have it. Bernie Sanders put poverty front and center in his campaign, and offered numerous proposals to solve it.
Incredible that Times reporter Binyamin Applebaum would leave out any mention of Bernie Sanders. But the Times ignored Senator Sanders throughout his campaign. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
11
They don't mention the poor???
This is just political marketing 101. Everyone in America thinks they are middle class, even if they are too rich or too poor to actually be middle class.
This is just political marketing 101. Everyone in America thinks they are middle class, even if they are too rich or too poor to actually be middle class.
13
Very true. Most people have no idea how rich the top 10 percent in America really are. No idea. None.
Poverty was invented and controlled by the GOP and until there is a one party system for eight years can the possibility of change actually happen.
If the issue of national poverty came up, who wouldn't pay a thousand bucks to hear Trump blithely work themes from Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" into his rhetoric?
Who would be surprised if he did?
Who would be surprised if he did?
1
She's a perfect example of rags to riches. The clintons left the White House flat broke (except for the little old two million dollar house in Chappaqua NY and within no time had accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars through pandering to Wall Street, taking money from dubious middle eastern countries and making speeches for millions of dollars. Yes you have to hand it to the clintons they really know how to drag themselves up from poverty.
2
So why is the Gates Foundation spending 75% of "our" money outside the U.S.A.? I say "our" because the money was made here using American resources and tax sheltered here in the U.S.A. And this is being done at a time of great need to fix America before the rest of the world.
3
Based on Hillary's economic "plan" she loves the poor so much she wants to create millions more.
2
I read the comments and laugh at defenders of both and think about how dumbed down we have become.
1
Thank Ronald Reagan as his "welfare queen" rhetoric for demonizing the poorest and least advantaged among us.
2
There were welfare queens, and it is good that they are gone. Courtesy of Hillary's husband in 1996.
2
Even Hillary realizes people who work for a living are sick and tired of the government stealing their income and giving it to lazy slobs who don't want to work.
2
It's true that no one talks about the poor anymore. They talk about the middle class. But the middle class is the poor. They're a little better off than the poorest but not by much.
Hillary Clinton will try to help the poor, though. Trump won't. Comparing Trump to Clinton is like comparing a giant, steaming turd to a daisy.
Hillary Clinton will try to help the poor, though. Trump won't. Comparing Trump to Clinton is like comparing a giant, steaming turd to a daisy.
3
I am afraid that the platform is just symbolic and meaningless, a device to lure progressive voters. Obama also ran on a progressive platform and look what happened. He secretly strengthened mass govt surveillance and pushed for renewals of the Patriot Act. He's also ramped up the bombing and destabilization of the mideast. He also defended the banks and let unemployed workers fall victim to criminal banks, even hiring from Wall St to fill cabinet and economic departments.
So I don't put much faith in the platforms because they are quickly forgotten and easily reneged on once the candidate achieves his or her goal and getting what they want--the presidency.
But why isn't the Times point this out instead of me, an ordinary American who has to deal with these problems?
So I don't put much faith in the platforms because they are quickly forgotten and easily reneged on once the candidate achieves his or her goal and getting what they want--the presidency.
But why isn't the Times point this out instead of me, an ordinary American who has to deal with these problems?
6
Hillary Clinton promises to create jobs? That is very rich, somewhat comical but not original. Those of us who are a little older can remember another Clinton promising to create good, secure jobs for all.
That was president Clinton the first on the new NAFTA agreement. He said that day that NAFTA: "will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace."
By now we might have expected prosperity and good jobs coming out of our ears. Can any one see any growth? Apart from CEO compensation.
The lies about 'more equality' and 'preservation of the environment' seem like cruel jokes played by multi-millionaire like Clinton who did everything within their power to keep the middle class and the poor even poorer and less secured, ushered the great recession and made themselves extremely wealthy on the way.
It is hard to believe that anyone buys into those faulty empty promises coming from the people who extended Reaganomics, sent jobs away and savagely dismantled FDR and LBJ minimal safety nets, as part of the war on the poor.
No doubt, whomever wins the next election we are guaranteed to get a wealthy, corporate Conservative Republican in the White House. Both concentrated at creating more wealth - and jobs - for their dynasties.
And about creating jobs for the rest of us, see you in the next election cycle.
That was president Clinton the first on the new NAFTA agreement. He said that day that NAFTA: "will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace."
By now we might have expected prosperity and good jobs coming out of our ears. Can any one see any growth? Apart from CEO compensation.
The lies about 'more equality' and 'preservation of the environment' seem like cruel jokes played by multi-millionaire like Clinton who did everything within their power to keep the middle class and the poor even poorer and less secured, ushered the great recession and made themselves extremely wealthy on the way.
It is hard to believe that anyone buys into those faulty empty promises coming from the people who extended Reaganomics, sent jobs away and savagely dismantled FDR and LBJ minimal safety nets, as part of the war on the poor.
No doubt, whomever wins the next election we are guaranteed to get a wealthy, corporate Conservative Republican in the White House. Both concentrated at creating more wealth - and jobs - for their dynasties.
And about creating jobs for the rest of us, see you in the next election cycle.
8
This is an age old problem of disgusting cynicism by politicians: poor people don't vote as much. Poor people often are children who have no vote at all. And poor people don't contribute to campaigns.
Trump is a sociopath and we can't allow him near the White House. But the neglect of poverty has been the result of both parties opportunism
Say what you want about LBJ. He cared about poverty.
Trump is a sociopath and we can't allow him near the White House. But the neglect of poverty has been the result of both parties opportunism
Say what you want about LBJ. He cared about poverty.
3
Leave aside that presidents can only do so much with respect to the economy and leave aside that neither knows how to "create jobs" or what is "good" for poorer people. Do you really trust that either will keep their promises? If Trump says "believe me," you actually believe him? If Clinton says she will do something, we should believe her any more than we should believe her about her emails? You can believe this - if they actually did know what was best for the poor, you could trust either to do what was best for themselves, anyway.
I feel like I went to buy a plum at the farm stand and when I get there, the two left are long past ripe. The owner says, take the one on the left. It is not so rotten as the other. Great.
I feel like I went to buy a plum at the farm stand and when I get there, the two left are long past ripe. The owner says, take the one on the left. It is not so rotten as the other. Great.
2
We have one party of the rich in this country. It has two branches :The Trumpsters and the Hillary-ites
They might talk about poverty but the oligarchy won't let them do anything about it.
They might talk about poverty but the oligarchy won't let them do anything about it.
3
The author did not hear her speech today or look carefully at her website. She has real proposals for rising together and ending poverty by providing real help.
2
Really?
1
After taking two semesters of Constitutional Law in law school, I don't recall the document mentioning that any of the three branches were vested with the authority or duty to alleviate "poverty"? When did that become an enumerated power?
Did you miss the provision that says "to provide for the general welfare"?
1
Yet, like the Clinton, the executive branch sure can CREATE poverty, the way they did by removing welfare to families with dependent children. Now, and for the last twenty years, thanks to both Clintons, parents with small children have to work two and three jobs, take public transportation long distances to fill in the gaps in their spare time, and worry every minute how their children are who have been left alone at home or with inadequate relatives. Hillary Clinton pushed that. No wonder she doesn't want to bring the subject up.
And what do you suppose it means to provide for the "general welfare?"
We Americans speak of "the poor" as an abstraction. Something that exists, somewhere, but elsewhere.
American poverty is insidious. Many people we encounter daily on subways and buses may qualify as "poor", though they have jobs. Their struggles are therefore sadly invisible, as the cliche markers of poverty are less apparent.
Likewise, the struggles of the poor, and nearly so, in suburban areas may be less noticeable. I see it, however, when I go to visit my hometown in Colorado, which once had a vibrant manufacturing and small business base during my childhood, but has been overtaken by big-box retailers, pawn shops, and payday loan stores. Everything feels very tenuous, and close to the edge. A friend of mine put it succinctly, "We're all similar here, we're all working poor."
This is tragic and infuriating. We are the wealthiest nation on the planet, yet we have allowed the quality of life for most citizens to deteriorate for decades. Instead of viewing our poor citizens with compassion, and seeing their potential, our Republican leadership excoriates them, kicking them while they are down, and laughing about it. The amount of sadism present in the GOP is revolting.
We must invest in our nation again- physical legitimate investments like infrastructure, not financial shell games and paper chasing. We must expand access to healthcare, and work toward universal care. We must raise wages.
Vote Democratic, straight down the ticket.
American poverty is insidious. Many people we encounter daily on subways and buses may qualify as "poor", though they have jobs. Their struggles are therefore sadly invisible, as the cliche markers of poverty are less apparent.
Likewise, the struggles of the poor, and nearly so, in suburban areas may be less noticeable. I see it, however, when I go to visit my hometown in Colorado, which once had a vibrant manufacturing and small business base during my childhood, but has been overtaken by big-box retailers, pawn shops, and payday loan stores. Everything feels very tenuous, and close to the edge. A friend of mine put it succinctly, "We're all similar here, we're all working poor."
This is tragic and infuriating. We are the wealthiest nation on the planet, yet we have allowed the quality of life for most citizens to deteriorate for decades. Instead of viewing our poor citizens with compassion, and seeing their potential, our Republican leadership excoriates them, kicking them while they are down, and laughing about it. The amount of sadism present in the GOP is revolting.
We must invest in our nation again- physical legitimate investments like infrastructure, not financial shell games and paper chasing. We must expand access to healthcare, and work toward universal care. We must raise wages.
Vote Democratic, straight down the ticket.
2
Proportionally speaking, poor folks or those who are not working (except Seniors) vote less often than those who do work. Hillary has often discussed her plans to improve the various poverty programs so it's not like she is neglecting this population. Her time is very thin and she must spend it on those who will actually vote.
3
Clinton and Trump are in an amoral competition for votes. The election is not a contest to see who has the noblest, most equitable, policy platform. It would be that if highly educated liberal policy wonks were the only ones who could vote. In reality, very low-income people are less likely to vote than working class and middle class people, thus the agenda is about appeasing the latter groups. Once Clinton is elected, she can choose to address the needs of the very poor - or not. But, it wouldn't make sense for her to make promises about it now, since that won't win the election. I doubt Trump would do anything for the very poor, but he seems to be losing votes every time he opens his mouth, he won't reach office to set policy.
3
Thanks for taking a break from the business section, Mr. Applebaum, to actually cover the human side of poverty and unemployment -- once every four years, during a presidential election.
Now try covering it every month of of every year, since these are pressing issues all the time, not just once every four years.
Now try covering it every month of of every year, since these are pressing issues all the time, not just once every four years.
5
An excellent start will be to reverse the trend towards gifts to the rich. This is one of the worst things we can do to our economy, and I believe Clinton will do her level best to raise taxes on the rich and stop this nonsense. Trickle down was proven to be a failed policy after Reagan. The rich don't need any help! They aren't job creators. The middle class drives our economy, and we should do everything to boost the spending power of the middle class. Raise the minimum wage!
Getting the poor out of jail would be another excellent start. Stop jailing people for drug offenses. Stop targeting people of color and throwing them in jail for nothing. Every little training program we can open for the poor should be free. Making community college free is another good step. And certainly covering health care for the poor, and, well, everyone, is desperately needed.
Getting the poor out of jail would be another excellent start. Stop jailing people for drug offenses. Stop targeting people of color and throwing them in jail for nothing. Every little training program we can open for the poor should be free. Making community college free is another good step. And certainly covering health care for the poor, and, well, everyone, is desperately needed.
6
The poor doesn't count. They don't vote. They are freeloaders. They are uneducated. They are misfits in the modern cultural, political and religious values of USA. The only thing going for them is they are human beings if anybody cares.
2
But aren't they also Republicans?
there are highly educated poor
believe it or not, not everyone in america lusts after cash
This election is focused on the well-being of the middle class. The poor are not being abandoned -- tax credits, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and Medicaid (many Republican states have rejected Medicaid for the working class, but Medicaid for the poor is universal) -- are intact. And the minimum wage is under active debate.
The standard of living for the poor is a major agenda item for Democrats. And so the poor consistently vote Democrat. It has been awhile since the middle class was front and center. Their present dissatisfaction is a legitimate concern and the fact that it is the priority does not mean that everything else has been forgotten. America is not a zero sum country. The attention to the middle class does not cause us to ignore the poor.
The principal issues for the poor are racism and violence and drug addiction, all of which are front and center in the national debate. But the middle class has pressing needs and concerns, related particularly to their decreasing numbers. To give priority to them, in light of their declining status, is not against the rules.
The standard of living for the poor is a major agenda item for Democrats. And so the poor consistently vote Democrat. It has been awhile since the middle class was front and center. Their present dissatisfaction is a legitimate concern and the fact that it is the priority does not mean that everything else has been forgotten. America is not a zero sum country. The attention to the middle class does not cause us to ignore the poor.
The principal issues for the poor are racism and violence and drug addiction, all of which are front and center in the national debate. But the middle class has pressing needs and concerns, related particularly to their decreasing numbers. To give priority to them, in light of their declining status, is not against the rules.
4
Discontinuity — the Left's immiscible new alignment is the problem. Clinton Foundation corruption embodies the discontinuity — ultra-wealthy exploiting the ultra-poor — casting an ominous shadow over the party, the country, the world — and the Clintons themselves.
The phony fix of earthquake-devastated Haiti is emblematic. The Clintons enriched themselves & cronies with lucrative contracts — Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, received a gold exploitation permit — the first issued by Haiti in 50 yrs. A sweetheart deal for her brother, a hosing for the poor people of Haiti.
The odds of a Hillary win are increasingly independent of Trump and vary inversely with the production of her emails.
And then there is the matter of her health…Where are all the reporters?
The phony fix of earthquake-devastated Haiti is emblematic. The Clintons enriched themselves & cronies with lucrative contracts — Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, received a gold exploitation permit — the first issued by Haiti in 50 yrs. A sweetheart deal for her brother, a hosing for the poor people of Haiti.
The odds of a Hillary win are increasingly independent of Trump and vary inversely with the production of her emails.
And then there is the matter of her health…Where are all the reporters?
5
Oh give me a break!
The Republicans have done no better with the demonization of the poor as lazy layabouts living off the rest of us while giving lucrative tax breaks and corporate welfare to the wealthy, who's nominee has taken every greedy tax advantage, while giving virtually nothing to charity.
I work with the poor, the mentally ill, and the disabled. They want a job, "any job" they tell me again and again.
They want work dispite barriers that would have my able body under the covers in despair. Some try over and over again to return despite decompensating repeatedly because of mental illness.
Many are constantly or grossly underemployed despite working for years or because of the "quirks" of their disability, like persons with autism, deafness, cognitive impairment, and mental illness.
The poor we're told over and over by the Republicans are lazying around on welfare, collecting food stamps while driving fancy cars and living it up. What they don't tell you is most of the poor are underaged children, the severely disabled, and the mentally ill. They also fail to mention welfare is limited. After a certain length of time you are cut off. No more generations on welfare.
How has Regan's trickle down worked out? Now Trump presents (and he was supposed to be so very different) more of the same old same old, proven it doesn't work plan from 16 fatcat economic abusers, ah, advisors, to tell working people how to live.
The Republicans have done no better with the demonization of the poor as lazy layabouts living off the rest of us while giving lucrative tax breaks and corporate welfare to the wealthy, who's nominee has taken every greedy tax advantage, while giving virtually nothing to charity.
I work with the poor, the mentally ill, and the disabled. They want a job, "any job" they tell me again and again.
They want work dispite barriers that would have my able body under the covers in despair. Some try over and over again to return despite decompensating repeatedly because of mental illness.
Many are constantly or grossly underemployed despite working for years or because of the "quirks" of their disability, like persons with autism, deafness, cognitive impairment, and mental illness.
The poor we're told over and over by the Republicans are lazying around on welfare, collecting food stamps while driving fancy cars and living it up. What they don't tell you is most of the poor are underaged children, the severely disabled, and the mentally ill. They also fail to mention welfare is limited. After a certain length of time you are cut off. No more generations on welfare.
How has Regan's trickle down worked out? Now Trump presents (and he was supposed to be so very different) more of the same old same old, proven it doesn't work plan from 16 fatcat economic abusers, ah, advisors, to tell working people how to live.
2
Meh,
A couple of points:
You are conflating policy differences and corruption.
You are confusing helping the helpless with disincentivizing the able.
If we examine our immigrant history, it becomes clear ghettos and concentrated poverty are not the root cause of the crime and violence. The disintergration of the black family is.
And why did that happen?
LBJ's "War on Poverty" in 1964 ushered in the era of the Liberal Welfare State that incentivized work/marriage avoidance. As both declined, the rates of poverty, illegitimacy, crime, violence, drug addiction, etc. rose dramatically, especially in the black population.
When will liberals realize they are making matters worse?
A couple of points:
You are conflating policy differences and corruption.
You are confusing helping the helpless with disincentivizing the able.
If we examine our immigrant history, it becomes clear ghettos and concentrated poverty are not the root cause of the crime and violence. The disintergration of the black family is.
And why did that happen?
LBJ's "War on Poverty" in 1964 ushered in the era of the Liberal Welfare State that incentivized work/marriage avoidance. As both declined, the rates of poverty, illegitimacy, crime, violence, drug addiction, etc. rose dramatically, especially in the black population.
When will liberals realize they are making matters worse?
Thank you very much for your article. It is disheartening that neither candidate ever talks about the poor. Although I condemn Trump, at least in one speech once he mentioned inner city kids. Hillary has not. I think the democrats take the poor for granted and the Republicans don't care cause they rarely get their votes anyway. Perhaps poor turnout during election day also contributes to them being ignored. When there is no hope there is also disenfranchisement.
1
For a long time, Hillary Clinton's initiatives and advocacy have helped the poor. Is it a severe disservice and false equivalency to compare her record to Trump's.
While she may not mention it as often as she should let's remember where Trump's allegiances lie: himself and other wealthy people. He may pay lip service to the middle class but he's got nothing to show for it. Nothing.
While she may not mention it as often as she should let's remember where Trump's allegiances lie: himself and other wealthy people. He may pay lip service to the middle class but he's got nothing to show for it. Nothing.
7
The same criticism can be levied against all presidential campaigns over the last past few decades. The poor always get short shrift, at least on the hustings. Not even Independent, Socialist and Opportunist, Bernie Sanders spent too much time wagging his dismissive populist finger at the issue of poverty. I suppose the argument can be made for highlighting the problems of those who are most likely to vote and who can afford to donate.
2
The blight of the poor has not been overlooked by ultra right-wingers in Congress. They have "turned loose their dogs" to chew up the poor and do most anything to make them poorer. I'm a lawyer who handles a lot of disability claim denials for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income. The ultra right-wingers have ordered GAO to do "investigations" on a "have you stopped beating your wife" assumption, i.e., "why are those spineless wonders at Social Security giving away taxpayer dollars to folks too lazy to work?" As a result, those who adjudicate such claims have increased their already outrageous denial rates of 65% of initial claims to well below 50% of claims that are appealed. It is not that may of those denied are able to work; it is that absurd levels of proof of disability are being required for those seeking benefits, whereas a 15 minute exam by a doctor paid by Social Security who has no past medical records and does little more than a "hello and goodbye" visit are taken as the word of the Almighty and used to deny claims. Poverty in America is both real and disgraceful. Action is needed to make life less miserable for these folks. I expect President Clinton to have reduction of poverty as a top priority. I doubt The Donald gives a damn.
5
Just minutes ago I heard her summary of her plans for the economy. I feel confident that if Congress cooperates with her when she is elected, the poor, including women and children, will be uplifted by the economic plans she presented. Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to helping the poor, and I'm certain that if more needs to be done to help the neediest among us, she will do it! Hopefully the voters will give her the opportunity to do so!
4
Since the 50s those who are lowest on our economic spectrum saw an increase in the money they made under only one President. I'll give you a hint. His wife is now running for President.
1
Many of the comments here have noted that it's only the Democrats who have offered any help to the poor, unlike Ryan's get-out-of-your-hammock rhetoric. But what I'd like to comment on is the striking imbalance in this article. Altho the headline criticizes both candidates, the first two paragraphs go after only Mrs. Clinton. The third mentions Mr.Trump in passing only. The rest of the article outlines the ways in which Mrs. Clinton's policies would help the poor except for one paragraph on Mr. Trump's overall economic agenda.
So HRC has a plan, which this article describes in brief, and Mr. Trump does not; cutting taxes doesn't help the poor, who don't pay income taxes, and they wouldn't benefit from his childcare deduction, since they are unlikely to itemize deducation (he carefully avoided proposing a credit, which would in fact benefit people who don't itemize).
So please tell me again why Clinton and Trump are the same? This article is a disgrace.
Shame on the Times.
So HRC has a plan, which this article describes in brief, and Mr. Trump does not; cutting taxes doesn't help the poor, who don't pay income taxes, and they wouldn't benefit from his childcare deduction, since they are unlikely to itemize deducation (he carefully avoided proposing a credit, which would in fact benefit people who don't itemize).
So please tell me again why Clinton and Trump are the same? This article is a disgrace.
Shame on the Times.
4
Perhaps the reason, as is always the case in an election year, is capturing voters. Programs for the poor are not popular and are inevitably cast by politicians seeking office as programs to help working and middle class Americans. To quote Jonathan Gruber, "otherwise the law doesn't pass."
That's why the Affordable Care Act remains so unpopular. As it went into effect Americans in the individual market realized the law was designed to provide low cost or free insurance to the poor and very low income people through Medicaid expansion and subsidies. Middle income Americans and families saw their premiums and deductibles soar and dissatisfaction grew. Union members were enraged by the Cadillac Tax provision and Democrats joined Republicans in postponing passage.
This is a year when it has become evident that the working class voters, once so reliably in the Democratic camp, are feeling invisible and, as a result, many turning to Donald Trump. A saner Republican candidate might well have won.
That's why the Affordable Care Act remains so unpopular. As it went into effect Americans in the individual market realized the law was designed to provide low cost or free insurance to the poor and very low income people through Medicaid expansion and subsidies. Middle income Americans and families saw their premiums and deductibles soar and dissatisfaction grew. Union members were enraged by the Cadillac Tax provision and Democrats joined Republicans in postponing passage.
This is a year when it has become evident that the working class voters, once so reliably in the Democratic camp, are feeling invisible and, as a result, many turning to Donald Trump. A saner Republican candidate might well have won.
1
Let's see, for the poor in the Appalachian coal mining regions, Clinton has promised to destroy coal mining. So, she has had a lot to say about some impoverished regions of the nation.
2
Coal mining is a dead profession. Germany has closed its coal mines -- which were once the backbone of its entire economy -- and is investing money into reutilizing and repurposing the old coal processing facilities. A large amount of money is going to artists, architects, and landscape architects who are re-imagining and redesigning entire regions so that they will once again become attractive locales for other types of business. The Germans also invest in education for all types of people and have reasonably healthy apprenticeship programs in all kinds of technical fields. But we do none of this, because it would require big government, which is anathema to the obstructionist Republican party and it's ridiculous claim that investing in its citizens will cause the country to go bankrupt. Other countries manage to invest in their people without falling off the face of the planet.
2
this article talks about the poor, but that is too general a group. We need to break it out further into low-income workers and non-workers. A lot of Clinton's policies (such as increasing the minimum wage) will help the low-income workers. So while she may be concentrating on the middle class in her speeches, her policies don't leave the poor out.
The non-workers, on the other hand, are a different issue. If you are an able-bodied person, then you should be working; there is no reason not to. Yes, you may have lost a "middle class wage" job during the recession, but there are plenty of retail and other service sector positions available (I pass by several "Help Wanted" signs each day). The pay will be lower, but you will no longer be in the non-worker category; you will be in the low-income worker category. If you are disabled, then you are probably already on social security disability.
I believe in giving a hand to individuals who are working or families where at least one parent is working (and therefore contributing to society). However, I don't want my tax dollars going to people who don't work. If Clinton starts emphasizing the latter, she will lose my vote since she is talking about giving out my hard-earned tax dollars to welfare queens.
The non-workers, on the other hand, are a different issue. If you are an able-bodied person, then you should be working; there is no reason not to. Yes, you may have lost a "middle class wage" job during the recession, but there are plenty of retail and other service sector positions available (I pass by several "Help Wanted" signs each day). The pay will be lower, but you will no longer be in the non-worker category; you will be in the low-income worker category. If you are disabled, then you are probably already on social security disability.
I believe in giving a hand to individuals who are working or families where at least one parent is working (and therefore contributing to society). However, I don't want my tax dollars going to people who don't work. If Clinton starts emphasizing the latter, she will lose my vote since she is talking about giving out my hard-earned tax dollars to welfare queens.
If you want Clinton to work to eliminate welfare queens, I am sure you will be proud to join her in reforming the tax code to make the wealthy pay their share. Someone who is sitting around the swimming pool all summer downing white wine spritzers is just as much of a drag on society as the more modest non-working folk. Stop the corporate welfare queens who demand that local government entities bond the cost of constructing luxury sports facilities that will create only low paying, occasional jobs serving beer and parking cars. Then we'll talk about who is or isn't contributing.
1
Thank you, Susan, for clearly stating an excellent point. The idle rich and their entitlements are a worse problem for this country than all of the homeless put together.
1
The manufacturing jobs that are so praised now were once derided as boring, dangerous, monotonous work. What gave them their higher status was higher pay. What gave them higher pay was unions. What we need now is a similar union movement in the service sector that will turn today's entry level jobs -- now derided as manufacturing jobs once were -- into that ladder to the middle class for the poor that manufacturing jobs once were. Unions can provide that. But they are detested by Republicans -- who want Washington to solve the problem with tariffs, etc. -- and get only boilerplate lip service support from Democrats. A $!5 minimum wage isn't the answer because, absent a union contract, that would also become the maximum wage. Unions should be the centerpiece of an economic platform that aims to attack income inequality and give all Americans, especially those at the bottom of the heap today, a fair shot at advancement.
4
Spot on!
2
I totally agree. This country needs to bring back strong trade and craft unions. The only guarantee of a true path to the middle class!!
2
Yes, poverty in America should be an oxymoron, and we should be looking at ways to lift those who fall into the abyss - not cracks - of our society, because most Americans are one paycheck from that fate. But most of these Americans at risk are in denial, they don't want to think about the possibility, as if to even think it, might make it come true. And of course politicians like Hillary and Trump won't spend time on it because poor people don't vote. So, as urgent as this problem is, don't expect anything of substance to be done to address it at this point.
But we must certainly keep the pressure on to end "trickle down" economic policies, and restore the working and middle class to their pre-Reagan days. Only then will America begin growing again. And only then will there be a path out of poverty through employment, which is the only real answer to poverty. Trump will do nothing in this regard, and I'm very skeptical of "late to the party" Hillary, but she's our only slim hope that we can reverse almost forty years of wealth drain from the bottom to the top. If this isn't reversed soon, we may be seeing our own "American Spring" in the not too distant future.
But we must certainly keep the pressure on to end "trickle down" economic policies, and restore the working and middle class to their pre-Reagan days. Only then will America begin growing again. And only then will there be a path out of poverty through employment, which is the only real answer to poverty. Trump will do nothing in this regard, and I'm very skeptical of "late to the party" Hillary, but she's our only slim hope that we can reverse almost forty years of wealth drain from the bottom to the top. If this isn't reversed soon, we may be seeing our own "American Spring" in the not too distant future.
The poor are created by the liberals worship of immigration and obsession with diversity and remaking America. We really don't need much immigration now. They import cheap workers both legally and illegally and leave the lower echelon American workers without jobs. Exporting job with free trade agreements, of which both parties are guilty , also eliminates many jobs the poorest Americans could do. Intellectuals, sitting in their ivory towers and drawing 6 figure salaries, expound on the benefits of free trade and open borders, but ignore the people devastated by their policies and demeaned as trash.
2
So you're saying all those business owners who benefit the most from cheap immigrant labor are all Democrats and liberal?????
Braahhhhaaa!
Braahhhhaaa!
When Hitler was warned not to offend Catholics by occupying Rome during World War II, Hitler replied "how many divisions does the Pope have?" So too with the poor among us. They are disregarded because they rarely vote or make themselves heard and this is a shame not only on the candidates for president or the political parties but ALL AMERICANS. We see the poor pretty much every day unless you're the 1% who live in gated communities and then you SURELY see them everyday because they're your illegal gardener or housekeeper that you pay $5 an hour. The way to help the poor is for the MORE FORTUNATE to demand EQUITY for all Americans but for this to happen change has to first occur in the HEARTS of the American people, who alas have become accustomed to seeing poor people and rather than being upset and trying to address the problem have instead developed a sort of immunity towards them. Next time you see a homeless person on the street as you enter your Starbucks for your $6 frappuccino....no, forget the thought, you're not going to give the $6 to the homeless person instead. After all, that would be the "Christian" thing to do, wouldn't it?
3
It's painfully noticeable that since Sanders dropped out, the issues that are important to so many are being ignored in favor of the usual mudslinging.
1
Hillary cares about the poor. She's been there. As a partner at Rose Law firm, she was forced to drive a CLA class Mercedes—not even CLOSE to their top of the line. For most meals, she drank Veuve Clicquot, NOT Kristal, which was reserved for special occasions. She took several flights on commercial airlines--talk about desperate.
1
You do know she's running against a guy whose dad staked him a million bucks to make his way in real estate, right? The guy with the private plane? The one whose daughter gives speeches about fairness in the workplace and supporting families but doesn't give paid maternity leave to the mothers who design her dress line? That guy?
Hillary worked hard, graduated from Wellesley and Yale Law School, and has built a very successful career as an attorney and politician. If she were a man with that kind of a resume, her wife would already be measuring the Oval Office to order the curtains. Please.
Hillary worked hard, graduated from Wellesley and Yale Law School, and has built a very successful career as an attorney and politician. If she were a man with that kind of a resume, her wife would already be measuring the Oval Office to order the curtains. Please.
2
Poor people are seriously affected by the high costs of energy and food which are two variables unaccounted for in the federal Consumer Price index which is used to determine cost of living increases in Social Security and other assistance for the poor. That lack of observation has resulted in less growth in benefits over many years, and, Barack Obama seriously considered using the lesser Chained consumer price index that would have made the poor poorer over the next years. This Chained index is a Republican idea that the limp livered Democrats are only too happy to agree to. That's why you haven't heard from Hillary on the subject but it should be front and center. The wealthy are never seriously impacted by the cost of living increases because they can afford them, thus we haven't heard from Trump on this matter either.
The best way to help the poor is to modify the way we calculate inflation, because the majority of poor people are receiving some form of government payments, which I might add, they paid into during their working careers. Those that didn't must still be cared for if you really believe in compassion.
The old saying, "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" is very true and is the fact today after years of benefit cutting.
The best way to help the poor is to modify the way we calculate inflation, because the majority of poor people are receiving some form of government payments, which I might add, they paid into during their working careers. Those that didn't must still be cared for if you really believe in compassion.
The old saying, "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" is very true and is the fact today after years of benefit cutting.
3
Trump takes too much for granted. He probably assumes that people understand that if his tax and regulation policies are implemented by Congress, then the economy will begin generating corporate investment, which in turn will cause demand for solid middle-class jobs (as opposed to millions of burger-flipping and part-time jobs) to rise, which will increase demand for skills, which will raise wages organically instead of by legislative fiat ... drawing millions into the labor pool and thereby alleviating the poverty that grips so many.
Mrs. Clinton, of course, having embraced the policies of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren after abandoning her own more moderate ones of just a few months ago, actually speaks of poverty far more than Trump does. She needs to try to convince voters that the market systems that built America have failed utterly and that government needs to transform us into … Denmark or Finland.
Trump should be more explicit in the implications of his announced economic policies, and tie those implications to what has worked for all of our history. Mrs. Clinton should denounce Bernie and Liz and go back to her earlier policy framework – in the end, she’d be a lot more persuasive.
Mrs. Clinton, of course, having embraced the policies of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren after abandoning her own more moderate ones of just a few months ago, actually speaks of poverty far more than Trump does. She needs to try to convince voters that the market systems that built America have failed utterly and that government needs to transform us into … Denmark or Finland.
Trump should be more explicit in the implications of his announced economic policies, and tie those implications to what has worked for all of our history. Mrs. Clinton should denounce Bernie and Liz and go back to her earlier policy framework – in the end, she’d be a lot more persuasive.
1
What we understand, Mr. LUettgen, is that Ronald Reagan abandoned supply-side economics because they didn't work, his budget director David Stockman abandoned them because they don't work, Bush Sr. Called this stuff "voodoo economics," because this stuff don't work, Sam Brownback hangs onto them because they don't work, and Trump plumps for them because his point is to hand hisself and his cronies even more advantages, so he doesn't care whether they work or not.
What I don't understand is why some Americans cheerlead for their own, ah, shafting.
What I don't understand is why some Americans cheerlead for their own, ah, shafting.
3
Trump's economic policies? Hardly!
His original crazy plan was predicted to blow up the budget by over ten trillion dollars. Please don't suggest that after meeting with slimy Paul Ryan one of the outcomes of their "treaty" was for Trump to adopt the "rich get very much richer" policy of Ryan.
His original crazy plan was predicted to blow up the budget by over ten trillion dollars. Please don't suggest that after meeting with slimy Paul Ryan one of the outcomes of their "treaty" was for Trump to adopt the "rich get very much richer" policy of Ryan.
1
re your firsts para
dt could not follow a thought that complicated in his entire life
I suspect it may at least in part be due to the fact that Trump supporters -- despite the fact that many of them have been unemployed and/or lost decent-paying "middle class" jobs -- look down on many of the poor, some of whom are people of color or immigrants. And Hillary Clinton doesn't want to offend them or give Donald Trump something else to rant about ("Crooked HIllary supports more money for welfare moms!")
7
For Christ's sake, give Mrs. Clinton a break.,She's trying to win! If you think she doesn't care about or want to help those who live in poverty, you obviously know nothing about her. I think she's a pragmatist whose approach to change is measured, but no less committed. Honestly, how can you even put her in the same article as Trump on this issue?! There's no correlation whatsoever in their so-called silence on this issue. Her approach merits another article altogether.
29
If pragmatism over principle causes someone to green light Bush's massacre in Iraq and further victimize Palestinians struggling for freedom, those of character will turn away in disgust.
If you don't vote, no politician will advocate policy that benefits you. It is that simple.
3
Hillary won't speak with the poor because they can't afford a lobby and Trump just doesn't care...
2
I am extremely disheartened by the tone of so many comments – if only poor people would vote, they could help change the system and themselves. In order to vote, one must be a registered voter with an address verifying proof of residency. Many poor people live in their cars, in cardboard boxes under viaducts, in public parks or homeless shelters. They live like that because they have no money for a house or apartment, or what little they do have, is used for the meager amount of food they can afford. Many of the poor go hungry every single day. They can’t find work and therefore, cannot eat, live or function like so many Americans do and take for granted. VOTE? That’s probably the last thing they think about, if even at all. Eating and surviving are what’s probably on their list. PERIOD. And that’s what should be on the top of BOTH candidates vying for the POTUS position. When was the last time either candidate campaigned in the poor sections of West Virginia or Kentucky or any other poor section of the US? The NYT is right - both candidates are silent like church mice on this deplorable topic.
12
The poor get plenty of handouts and Obama phones. What about taxes for the middle to upper middle class?
1
aside from th bush phones ( yes, he started that too ) what do those lucky poor get ?
can you list a few things
I have observed myself that politicians at the top are really very similar whether they are republican or democrat. They are both pretty out of touch with the plight of the average person, never mind the impoverished. I can remember Romney when he was campaigning basically saying that he was worried about the middle class vote, because the poor are taken care of by programs. And I think he let the cat out of the bag for how most of them feel. And the gap only gets bigger. There would have to be real change to help those in poverty. And the middle class is having a hard enough time as it is. Plus, I never know what the politicians are thinking and what they are told to say and how much those are connected. Hilary once talking about her grand-daughter having every opportunity. And I thought "Really?" as if Charlotte was some under-privileged child who would have to work hard for everything. These guys are already the 1%! I think they just assume that the programs in place will stay in place and leave it at that. It will be interesting to see what happens.
7
Getting poor kids health care through SCHIP, and getting around 20 million people health care who never had it before, doesn't scream politicians who don't give a darn to me.
2
Where is that candidate running for "The Rent Is Too D---- High" Party?! We need him in the conversation!
9
Editors: I am really sick of the two choices you journalists write about
ad NAUSEUM
How about two former Governors : Johnson and Weld who were VERY successful
as governors....carry no horrendous baggage and really could satisfy both
the Republican Party....ergo balance the budget...ergo have no hang ups regarding social issues...like...Conservatives ban on everything....
So How About It....It really would be refreshing to REALLY have some HOPE...
and your news on Clinton and her adversaries: and Trump who is certifiable
is STALE.....talk about what really WOULD be a choice...not the best of the
worst....or the most worse yet...to come....your news is apocalyptic at best.
ad NAUSEUM
How about two former Governors : Johnson and Weld who were VERY successful
as governors....carry no horrendous baggage and really could satisfy both
the Republican Party....ergo balance the budget...ergo have no hang ups regarding social issues...like...Conservatives ban on everything....
So How About It....It really would be refreshing to REALLY have some HOPE...
and your news on Clinton and her adversaries: and Trump who is certifiable
is STALE.....talk about what really WOULD be a choice...not the best of the
worst....or the most worse yet...to come....your news is apocalyptic at best.
1
Every Black, White, etc., experiencing poverty or has survived on sardines, powered eggs, crackers, leftovers, perch, wild rabbit and wild berries knows why Clinton and Trump cannot relate to US or the poor . . . Both eat well, live well and give us the sell . . . Hillbillies, poor Black-folks and Immigrants cannot live off of hate and hope ---- after the speeches end the bills are still there as before. Maybe we need to camp outside their houses to show why both are despised --- we need another party "The Hunger Party" ---- We the people got the right to eat good healthy affordable food ---- first . . . then fix the other problems in America.
3
Neither candidate is interested in the poor..
Neither party is interested in the poor..
The poor are on the back burner..
You need a candidate who's heart bleeds for the poor
It's not a platform or political strategy, the heart must bleed for them..
Think FDR, MLK, LBJ and Mother Teresa..
But for political dividends, the poor are, well..unimportant..sad to say..
Neither party is interested in the poor..
The poor are on the back burner..
You need a candidate who's heart bleeds for the poor
It's not a platform or political strategy, the heart must bleed for them..
Think FDR, MLK, LBJ and Mother Teresa..
But for political dividends, the poor are, well..unimportant..sad to say..
10
I've observed the political scene in the US for more than five decades, and if there is anything that is absolutely true in 2016 it is the fact that the closest politician to a traditional, which is to say Cold War era, Republican in this Presidential contest is the Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Trump has more in common with the late Governor George Wallace of Alabama than Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/15/donald-trump-is-the-gop...
Trump has more in common with the late Governor George Wallace of Alabama than Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/15/donald-trump-is-the-gop...
1
Mark Twain once observed that people in groups can be far more cruel and base than they are most of the individuals in those groups apart from the group. It's true and it's why once the herd accepts something as common knowledge, like the poor being responsible for their own conditions, leaders who try to act contrary to the popular opinions will be rejected. We naturally have a preference to affiliate with some group and once that we have we tend to look at people not as individuals much like ourselves but as us verses them. In the U.S. this ends with most people seeing the poor as them rather than us. Once in a great while some national crisis causes us to empathize with those in need, and then the group with which we identify includes those in need and we can be quite generous, but it happens infrequently. Most of the opposition to the ACA was not because Obama was President nor because a Democrat was behind it but because a very large proportion of people see their health as a scarce commodity for which some can benefit only if many others can have very little if any of it -- there was only enough affordable health care for themselves, not everybody.
1
The article says that neither Clinton nor Trump mention the poor. Neither has President Barak Obama truly mentioned the poor. They are Invisible People (comparisons to Ralph Ellison's novel are not accidental).
4
From Clinton's speech in Warren, MI. The difference between the two candidates:
“This is one of the big differences that I have with Donald Trump,” she said while visiting a T-shirt shop in Des Moines on Wednesday, mentioning his Trump ties, suits and furniture. “He doesn’t make any of them in the United States.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-economy-sp...
“This is one of the big differences that I have with Donald Trump,” she said while visiting a T-shirt shop in Des Moines on Wednesday, mentioning his Trump ties, suits and furniture. “He doesn’t make any of them in the United States.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-economy-sp...
3
But she does.
Bill Clinton loved to tell people that he could feel their pain as he intensified the pain more people were feeling. No reason to believe Hillary Clinton is any different. As for Trump he is one of the few people than can make either Clinton seem like they have something like a heart.
4
Historical legacy left a large group of people in poverty without many means to get out. The government cannot solve this problem alone. But the government can create better opportunities for those with aspiration to crawl out of poverty, through better education programs (especially pre-school programs - not Trump's tax deduction plan that pretends to help the poor but instead subsidizes the rich), public transportation, higher minimum wage, cheap training programs for jobs, and, hopefully universal healthcare.
6
Our dysfunctional government created this problem; a functional government can solve this problem.
We need Congress to extend unemployment compensation. Congress is partially responsible for the popularity of Trump and his angry "white male" supporters.
2
Two 1% millionaires only care about poverty to get them to vote for them; that's it. Once elected it is all for the 1% oligarchy and "trickle down" economics for the masses.
I mean, Bill Clinton signed into law "welfare reform" which helped to increase the poverty rate. he also repealed Glagg-Steagall and had NAFTA pass, to also add to the poverty rate. And, Ms. Clinton backed him up on all of this. Then while Senator, Ms. Clinton help pass "bankruptcy reform". Which, no olnly made it hard to clear debt, it pushed more people into poverty. Then, came teh Great Recession, which both political parties did for the 1% and not the rest.
Trump, does not even know there are people living in poverty. At least Clinton does, this paper yesterday claimed she was a pathetic figure living in a 6 digit priced home, trying to make ends meet. Of course, poverty to The New York Times, is different than what one sees in the inner city.
So, no surprise here about dealing with poverty. It is all lip service. It will be "status quo'. The minimum wage won;'t go up, the safety net will get more holes in it, Social Security recipients will get lower cost of living increases to "save" Social Security, and, more income to go from people's pockets to insurance companies due to Obamacare.
In other words, Clinton or Trump will work on increasing poverty from 1 in 6 to 1 in 5, or worse.
"But, what of it, are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?". - Dickens - A Christmas Carol".
I mean, Bill Clinton signed into law "welfare reform" which helped to increase the poverty rate. he also repealed Glagg-Steagall and had NAFTA pass, to also add to the poverty rate. And, Ms. Clinton backed him up on all of this. Then while Senator, Ms. Clinton help pass "bankruptcy reform". Which, no olnly made it hard to clear debt, it pushed more people into poverty. Then, came teh Great Recession, which both political parties did for the 1% and not the rest.
Trump, does not even know there are people living in poverty. At least Clinton does, this paper yesterday claimed she was a pathetic figure living in a 6 digit priced home, trying to make ends meet. Of course, poverty to The New York Times, is different than what one sees in the inner city.
So, no surprise here about dealing with poverty. It is all lip service. It will be "status quo'. The minimum wage won;'t go up, the safety net will get more holes in it, Social Security recipients will get lower cost of living increases to "save" Social Security, and, more income to go from people's pockets to insurance companies due to Obamacare.
In other words, Clinton or Trump will work on increasing poverty from 1 in 6 to 1 in 5, or worse.
"But, what of it, are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?". - Dickens - A Christmas Carol".
5
A depressing—and accurate—summation.
In what sense is the US the richest country in the world? It's completely unclear what this is supposed to mean. By repeating it you help sustain a very distorted picture in which the US, or US citizens, are better off financially than in other countries, on average or in the main. This is just not the case and if Americans were better informed of how the US compares on such measures they might be more sympathetic to non-American approaches to public policy, etc.
2
I dare say that if Americans really knew ALL the facts about the world around them, it would boil down to TWO choices:
If you are in the top few percentage of wealthy people, America is the place for you. If you are everyone else, then when it comes to quality of life issues and somewhere that has a more affluent middle class, better access to healthcare and education, less poverty, hence, less crime, statistics done by organizations and various entities that regularly measure these important parts of a countries well being, will show pretty well every other country in any of the Western Industrialized nations is a better choice for you and like it or not, that gap is widening.
If you are in the top few percentage of wealthy people, America is the place for you. If you are everyone else, then when it comes to quality of life issues and somewhere that has a more affluent middle class, better access to healthcare and education, less poverty, hence, less crime, statistics done by organizations and various entities that regularly measure these important parts of a countries well being, will show pretty well every other country in any of the Western Industrialized nations is a better choice for you and like it or not, that gap is widening.
Nick, I couldn't agree with you more. The NYT needs to be more specific about the term such as our GDP is the largest or our per capita spending rate is such and such etc.
Neither candidate gets the point. There are many people incapable of working full time. My sister, who is schizophrenic for example. She wants to work, she could work, but she can't work full time. There is a subset of people who are too stupid to take care of their affairs, it's only the luck of the draw that makes us more or less intelligent. But these people want to work and can work. I went into Russia in 1980 and saw that they had much better systems for dealing with the casual work force. In most commercial buildings there were coat checks. There were people taking a box of books and setting up card tables to sell them at the subway entrances. All the vicious employment scams we have in the US didn't exist. Propaganda aside, this country can be a pretty ugly place to live for a lot of people.
3
Don't forget that the Soviets had their Gulag. That provided a lot of much needed employment, also.
I suppose Donald Trump keeps showing so much his amazing and repulsive lack of concern for anyone other than himself, and certainly the poor, that the NYT felt obliged to formulate some criticism of Hillary Clinton. This is the only explanation I can think of for such a vacuous, and ultimately misleading asrticle.
4
I was trying to formulate the words to make that same point, but you hit the nail on the head! You are absolutely correct!!!
EM I could not Agee with you more. Well said.
Huh? Every time Trump talks about illegals, he is also talking about poor Americans.
This is simple supply and demand. There is demand for the regular American works who works with his hands.
The problem is there is a massive, illegal oversupply in the labor pool. There are MILLIONS of illegals, who directly and illegally compete lower-skill American workers. The illegals take away jobs, often working below the minimum wage for cash, and depress wages for legitimate American workers.
Increasing the minimum wage is an artificial band-aid. Solve the supply and demand problem, and you'll have a living wage for all legitimate American workers.
This is simple supply and demand. There is demand for the regular American works who works with his hands.
The problem is there is a massive, illegal oversupply in the labor pool. There are MILLIONS of illegals, who directly and illegally compete lower-skill American workers. The illegals take away jobs, often working below the minimum wage for cash, and depress wages for legitimate American workers.
Increasing the minimum wage is an artificial band-aid. Solve the supply and demand problem, and you'll have a living wage for all legitimate American workers.
6
Well apparently some work at Trumps hotels and have for ages.
2
Jay, get off your high horse. I live in a state with a lot of immigrants both legal and not and believe me they are not taking jobs that Americans want. They are hard workers and working in dangerous construction and field labor jobs. If you like all the produce that you receive in NYC perhaps you should get out of your golden throne and travel to any state that grows your food and see what hard working people actually do!
3
@SR - There are 2.4 MILLION illegals in California alone.
If it were not for this HUGE, illegal oversupply in the labor pool, those construction and field labor jobs would naturally offer higher, living wages. And Americans would definitely do those jobs.
It's economics 101. Supply and demand. It would result in higher fruit/veggie prices in NYC, sure. But no one really cares if an orange costs 40cents versus 80cents, especially if it means a living wage for legitimate American workers.
You seem to care more about illegals than living wages for fellow Americans. Shame on you.
If it were not for this HUGE, illegal oversupply in the labor pool, those construction and field labor jobs would naturally offer higher, living wages. And Americans would definitely do those jobs.
It's economics 101. Supply and demand. It would result in higher fruit/veggie prices in NYC, sure. But no one really cares if an orange costs 40cents versus 80cents, especially if it means a living wage for legitimate American workers.
You seem to care more about illegals than living wages for fellow Americans. Shame on you.
1
Everyone but Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew this would happen. And to her it was apparently not sufficiently important to just let the process happen. So know we have Center -right and Far - right campaigning and the entire left is left out in the cold.
Thanks Debbie -
Thanks Debbie -
6
Henry Wallace common man approach doesn't win elections.
2
As Jonathan Swift wrote, the solution to poverty is to slaughter the poor and eat them.
3
The truth is, to the Republicans, the poor are a nuisance.
3
I can't wait to see the moment HRC's neocon policies (alongside with her new scout, Tim Kaine) wipe the smiles off the faces of the Sandernistas and dash their hopes of "change from within". They'll be known as the fools who thought begging on their knees would suffice to transform a country.
So obviously the poor cannot contribute to the political coffers, so they matter not.
1
Because they are each so far removed from even seeing poverty in the USA! It is not in their vocabulary or life experience!
1
Does capitalism require unemployment as my Economics professor taught me in the 50's? If so, stop bellyaching about welfare if you've got a good job and pay taxes in our wealthy country.
1
We are not hearing much about the poor because Bernie Sanders is not running for President. But cant we still hear him in the background? Isnt that indomitable spirit still booing the status quo in politics and in life? What I hear when I hear Clinton and Trump is Bernie arguing in the background making mincemeat out of both in fact and in integrity.
2
FYI: HRC is making a speech right now in Michigan, and she mentioned affordable housing, income inequality, creating jobs, water quality improvement, all issues of which us po' folks have concerns. Sure, she could be doing better, but Trump mentions the poor only as a device with which to scold our current POTUS, and barely as an aside. It's is and remains, an unfair and irresponsible comparison to regard these two candidates as similar in any substantial way.
2
Reality check with 400000 jobs month where people retire from gone unfilled most which paid living wage . Real concern is why is government buying imports use to be made in usa with tax dallors of unemplyed poor
1
When you're doing $33,400 per person fundraiser dinners with Clooney or $225,000 speeches at Goldman Sachs, I'm not sure how much that candidate is really concerned about the poor. The same Goldman Sachs which helped crush the poor even more. Hillary Clinton criticizes the top 1 percent yet has no problem making a living off of them.
7
Tell of "man of the people" Trump who cheats the guys who are gullible enough to believe his Trump U mess and wind up in debt. That is way worse than making a living off the top 1 percent as you accuse Clinton of.
Cheating your contractors like Trump does is a crime.
Cheating your contractors like Trump does is a crime.
2
This article completely misses what Hillary Clinton has said which is to make sure all wages are above the poverty rate. That is the most effective way to avoid poverty in the first place.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/middle-class-needs-raise-heres-how-h...
It is both a policy and political mistake to concentrate on helping the poor. No one should be poor in the first place and Hillary Clinton has spoken over and over in support of wages above poverty. Beyond that Hillary Clinton has pushed for paid Medical and Family Leave and the list goes on for programs that will help keep people from being pushed into poverty.
This is a case of missing the real issue around poverty: helping poor people which is costly and always inadequate as opposed to outlawing impoverishment.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/middle-class-needs-raise-heres-how-h...
It is both a policy and political mistake to concentrate on helping the poor. No one should be poor in the first place and Hillary Clinton has spoken over and over in support of wages above poverty. Beyond that Hillary Clinton has pushed for paid Medical and Family Leave and the list goes on for programs that will help keep people from being pushed into poverty.
This is a case of missing the real issue around poverty: helping poor people which is costly and always inadequate as opposed to outlawing impoverishment.
2
The angry Americans - those who show steadfast support for Trump - we will continue to demonstrate unrest until their are federal plans to train and educate Americans so that better work opportunities are established.
1
Give me a break with the false equivalency. One candidate is discussing issues in a substantive way and perhaps has not devoted the amount of time that is warranted to this one particular issue and could definitely be stronger in this area. The other candidate is an idiot who has failed to address any issues and instead goes around making self-aggrandizing statements and slurring anyone who is not him or perhaps one of his offspring. Are you really going to pretend that these are two sides of the same coin?
3
The topic is poverty and BOTH candidates have shown they could care less about Americans affected by it.
1
There is someone who can go on and on about taking care of the poor and building a robust safety net.
But the DNC did not want him. Nor did democratic voter apparently. Guess we don't care that much in the end.
I miss him.
But the DNC did not want him. Nor did democratic voter apparently. Guess we don't care that much in the end.
I miss him.
9
The DNC rigged and stole the election from Bernie.
2
Simple-minded narratives sell better than complicated policy positions. Talking about how evil trade agreements are is a lot simpler than tackling the very complicated problem of poverty.
2
The time has come- a new Party of Lincoln. Poverty in many cases is the byproduct of age old Slavery. Neither candidate is adequately addressing this catastrophe and the numbers are mind numbing. I was hoping Hillary would continue Bobby Kennedy's compassionate understanding but I think not. NO we need a new party-left of Hillary
1
Maybe it is because there is no true poverty in America.
Americans living below the poverty line live in bigger/newer better housing, have more cars, TVs, computers, A/C, etc than many middle class Europeans, and of course are in the top 25% of income/wealth by worldwide standards.
Americans living below the poverty line live in bigger/newer better housing, have more cars, TVs, computers, A/C, etc than many middle class Europeans, and of course are in the top 25% of income/wealth by worldwide standards.
2
@Baron95: I see that you live in Connecticut, one of the wealthier states in the union. Try driving through west Texas or Mississippi or Alabama or West Virginia and then come back and try to claim that people living under the poverty line have nice, air-conditioned homes. Or go to SF, LA, or Austin, where the homeless flood the streets, living under bridges and begging at highway intersections in 100-degree heat.
Talk about out of touch. Open your eyes and leave your gated community. Go see the real world.
Talk about out of touch. Open your eyes and leave your gated community. Go see the real world.
1
Another false equivalency. One party supports labor unions and raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work, the other party wants to pee on your leg and tell you it's trickle down prosperity.
8
You mean the woman who flew around on WalMart's corporate jets to help them terrorize working families and stamp the life out of poor people trying to earn a subsistence living?
..sounds a bit far-fetched.
..sounds a bit far-fetched.
3
Why aren't "the poor" being mentioned in the presidential campaign? Answer from Bernie Sanders: the poor don't vote. It's sad but true.
Bernie claimed that 80 percent of poor people didn't vote in the 2014 election. His math was off a bit, but his argument was essentially true:
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475613276/fact-check-bernie-sanders-and-wh...
Bernie claimed that 80 percent of poor people didn't vote in the 2014 election. His math was off a bit, but his argument was essentially true:
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/25/475613276/fact-check-bernie-sanders-and-wh...
1
First of all, Hillary Clinton must win this election. Campaigning on a policy of helping the poor will hurt her chances for two reasons: 1. Conservatives hate the idea of giving money to the poor (better to let them all starve than support a welfare Queen in a Cadie), and 2. Poor people don't tend to vote. So from a campaign standpoint, talking about the poor is a losing cause.
This said, it is important to point out the Hillary Clinton's policies will in fact help the poor a lot. Raising the minimum wage to $12 will be very good for the working poor (this article doesn't mention that a large percentage of people below the poverty level actually have full- or part-time jobs and still don't earn enough to support themselves). Medicaid helps the poor, as do unemployment insurance, food stamps, job training opportunities and affordable childcare. Not to mention free higher education for those in need. Then look at Donald Trump's policies. Against raising the minimum wage. Tax breaks when the poor pay little or no income tax in the first place. A credit of childcare, when the poor can't afford any childcare.
This article implies that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are sort of the same in that they are not talking specifically about the poor. They are not the same at all. Clinton offers programs that will help the poor. Trump offers nothing.
This said, it is important to point out the Hillary Clinton's policies will in fact help the poor a lot. Raising the minimum wage to $12 will be very good for the working poor (this article doesn't mention that a large percentage of people below the poverty level actually have full- or part-time jobs and still don't earn enough to support themselves). Medicaid helps the poor, as do unemployment insurance, food stamps, job training opportunities and affordable childcare. Not to mention free higher education for those in need. Then look at Donald Trump's policies. Against raising the minimum wage. Tax breaks when the poor pay little or no income tax in the first place. A credit of childcare, when the poor can't afford any childcare.
This article implies that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are sort of the same in that they are not talking specifically about the poor. They are not the same at all. Clinton offers programs that will help the poor. Trump offers nothing.
5
And how will Hillarys puppetmasters at Walmart, Wall Street and all the other corporate predators react to her raising minimum wage or doing ANYTHING to dampen their profits? She can't and won't risk alienating the very garbage that are paving her way to the White House. It isn't worth the political hassle for her.
1
Thank you!! You are absolutely right!
Jeff, I totally agree with you. Well said!
1
We've spent the last century focusing on the poor, and most of the progress that was made happened before the 1960s. Aside from the failed experiment of public housing - which came and went - we seem to be spinning our wheels. We have yet to find a game-changing, workable program that promises to alleviate poverty in a big way, the way the New Deal did. Add to that the fact that many refuse to acknowledge that they are poor. Their pride in the meager earnings they bring home from jobs just barely over the minimum wage; the run down houses they managed not to lose to foreclosure; the forlorn town they call home prevents them from asking for assistance much less supporting a candidate who promises to help them. It's no wonder that the candidates rhetoric focuses on the middle and working classes and not so much the poor.
1
It's public policy choices that have made extreme poverty, homelessness, food insecurity the new American nightmare that is supplanting the American dream.
The rise of ISIS doesn't threaten our way of life in the US even an iota as much as the rise of the 1% and extreme inequality does.
As a community and a culture, we used to have a commitment to at least decent housing for all. There were SROs and public housing and subsidies and coherent plans for how to house workers. There was no such thing as "homeless families" before the Reagan era. I know -- I worked in Boston's first family shelter, which opened in the early 1980s. Then we called it an "emergency" shelter. Now homeless families and the scores of family shelters in every city are something we accept as part of the landscape of American life. It was lucky that I was young and didn't have children of my own, so I didn't fully understand the dislocation, panic, and horror these families were experiencing. I wouldn't have been able to help if I'd realized how much I was asking of them to get up and out and look for an apartment with me every morning and not give in to despair. That was 30 years ago and I often think of the little kids I met and loved in that shelter and what their adult lives must be like now. I hope for the best but fear the worst.
The rise of ISIS doesn't threaten our way of life in the US even an iota as much as the rise of the 1% and extreme inequality does.
As a community and a culture, we used to have a commitment to at least decent housing for all. There were SROs and public housing and subsidies and coherent plans for how to house workers. There was no such thing as "homeless families" before the Reagan era. I know -- I worked in Boston's first family shelter, which opened in the early 1980s. Then we called it an "emergency" shelter. Now homeless families and the scores of family shelters in every city are something we accept as part of the landscape of American life. It was lucky that I was young and didn't have children of my own, so I didn't fully understand the dislocation, panic, and horror these families were experiencing. I wouldn't have been able to help if I'd realized how much I was asking of them to get up and out and look for an apartment with me every morning and not give in to despair. That was 30 years ago and I often think of the little kids I met and loved in that shelter and what their adult lives must be like now. I hope for the best but fear the worst.
2
The unemployed are "insured" in all advanced Industrial democracies, including the U.S. Since the Great Recession and earlier not-so-great ones, the Democrats have been fighting to extend the insurance coverage and the GOP has tries hard to deny it. GOP's usual trick is to ask, "How are you going to pay for this" --- a question they never asked when the billionaires were 'bailed out' after the "Great Crash" of 2008! Ditto, for Health Insurance, Child Care, College Tuition, Retirement, etc.
The collective wisdom of the "Electorate" nevertheless handed over to the GOP the "House" and, with it, the 'purse' of the U.S. government. The voters should ask the candidates for the 'House of Reps" and "Senate" if they support the 'short list' of Bernie Sanders' Platform (now Hillary's) before they vote. Or, be silent for 2 years!
The collective wisdom of the "Electorate" nevertheless handed over to the GOP the "House" and, with it, the 'purse' of the U.S. government. The voters should ask the candidates for the 'House of Reps" and "Senate" if they support the 'short list' of Bernie Sanders' Platform (now Hillary's) before they vote. Or, be silent for 2 years!
But jobs are the answer. We need a job guarantee program like the one proposed by good old Tom Paine in 1797 would be the way to go. The federal gov would become the employer of last resort. It would guarantee a decent job or paid training for such a job to everyone able to work.
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
How would we pay for it?
A) It would to a certain extent pay for itself.
1. When people are working, producing, & spending, they pay more taxes than when they are out of work. The money they spend provides jobs for others who also spend & pay taxes.
2. We could reduce much of what we currently spend on welfare.
3. It would raise private sector wages and thus taxes.
B) We could raise income tax rates on the Rich as we did during the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973. This would not only raise revenue, it would reduce inequality and financial speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.
C) We could sell Treasury bonds both to the public locking in low interest and to the FED which returns the interest.Since we would be producing more, there would be little inflation.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
There are plenty of things that need to be done--fixing roads & bridges, education, research etc. BTW there are plenty of support jobs in education and research that do not require a degree. As with unemployment benefits today, you could require each worker to show that he had applied for a comparable private sector job periodically.
How would we pay for it?
A) It would to a certain extent pay for itself.
1. When people are working, producing, & spending, they pay more taxes than when they are out of work. The money they spend provides jobs for others who also spend & pay taxes.
2. We could reduce much of what we currently spend on welfare.
3. It would raise private sector wages and thus taxes.
B) We could raise income tax rates on the Rich as we did during the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973. This would not only raise revenue, it would reduce inequality and financial speculation, both of which are bad for the economy.
C) We could sell Treasury bonds both to the public locking in low interest and to the FED which returns the interest.Since we would be producing more, there would be little inflation.
See http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
3
The level of "helping" people while they are out of work is a contributing factor in having many tens of millions of working-age adults idle.
Once one has adjusted to life on the dole, with a bridge card, Obamaphone, medicaid, housing assistance, et cetera, it becomes sooo tedious to consider supporting oneself.
Once one has adjusted to life on the dole, with a bridge card, Obamaphone, medicaid, housing assistance, et cetera, it becomes sooo tedious to consider supporting oneself.
2
I've often thought that the poor are locked into renting due to the high down payments required. They may have been paying rent on time for years - but banks still want unattainably high down payments or a ridiculously high interest rate of the loan instead.
We might consider on-time rent and other service payments (electricity, water) when calculating credit scores.
If more "poor" people could be home owners, maybe they would have a chance to accumulate a bit of wealth - rather than their landlords.
We might consider on-time rent and other service payments (electricity, water) when calculating credit scores.
If more "poor" people could be home owners, maybe they would have a chance to accumulate a bit of wealth - rather than their landlords.
1
She doesn't talk about poverty because it serves the Democratsto keep poverty going. It's institutionalized modern day slavery that gets her votes based on empty promises. Poverty in America is a disgrace. Crime, drug use, broken families and many other social ills are direct results of the poverty industry that we continue to grow. Replacing the plethora of governments welfare programs including food stamps, housing allowances and unlimited dependent care with a flat tax might be a good start. Enforcing our borders and regulating immigration would help to stem the growth in poverty. School choice - a voucher system - would allow parents to find the education that their children need. Incentives to place supermarkets in ghetto areas so that the poor can have nutritious food - in fact I might argue that we should ban fast food joints for a few years.
If we don't address poverty with real solutions we will face revolution in America. The war on poverty was launched over 50 yrs ago at a cost in the trillions and we have nothing to show for it. Hillary Clinton has been involved for most of those years without results. The elite and establishment will never fix these problems. We need to teach the poor how to fish and cook not hand them a Big Meal. We need to care more about the poor than about stray pets.
More government is not the answer. Real care and concern coupled with reestablishment of families and responsibility are the first steps.
We can't look the other way.
If we don't address poverty with real solutions we will face revolution in America. The war on poverty was launched over 50 yrs ago at a cost in the trillions and we have nothing to show for it. Hillary Clinton has been involved for most of those years without results. The elite and establishment will never fix these problems. We need to teach the poor how to fish and cook not hand them a Big Meal. We need to care more about the poor than about stray pets.
More government is not the answer. Real care and concern coupled with reestablishment of families and responsibility are the first steps.
We can't look the other way.
The basic thesis implied in the headline is asinine. As the Democratic candidate, Clinton supports the basic social safety net which assists poor people. That is a safety net that is continuously under attack from the Republican party. This is just one more example of the false equivalencies so valued by lazy journalists or their editors.
2
"The United States, the wealthiest nation on earth, also abides the deepest poverty of any developed nation"
Some years ago, a study found that the top 10% owned 65% of the nation's wealth and the top 1% owned 35%. The top ten percent has since increased their share to 70%, and though I haven't seen any statistics for the top one percent, my bet is that they have increased their share to at least 40%.
For the top to have more, others have to end up having less. A nation's wealth is not infinite.
The current terrible situation for the poor and the decline of the middle class is the result of almost 34 years of trickle down economics. This voodoo economics, as the first president Bush so aptly called it, did nothing but create more monopolies or quasi-monopolies causing lower salaries and wages and higher prices while creating a moneyed aristocracy that has literally bought our government.
We need to go back to the policies of Franklin Roosevelt. They helped elevate the poor into the middle class and ensured a thriving and growing middle class.
Now, those in favor of supply side economics often claim that the country got rich because of the devastation in Europe due to World War II, not because of FDR's New Deal policies. However, this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that FDR's policies ensured that everyone got a piece of the pie, not just those at the top, like today.
Some years ago, a study found that the top 10% owned 65% of the nation's wealth and the top 1% owned 35%. The top ten percent has since increased their share to 70%, and though I haven't seen any statistics for the top one percent, my bet is that they have increased their share to at least 40%.
For the top to have more, others have to end up having less. A nation's wealth is not infinite.
The current terrible situation for the poor and the decline of the middle class is the result of almost 34 years of trickle down economics. This voodoo economics, as the first president Bush so aptly called it, did nothing but create more monopolies or quasi-monopolies causing lower salaries and wages and higher prices while creating a moneyed aristocracy that has literally bought our government.
We need to go back to the policies of Franklin Roosevelt. They helped elevate the poor into the middle class and ensured a thriving and growing middle class.
Now, those in favor of supply side economics often claim that the country got rich because of the devastation in Europe due to World War II, not because of FDR's New Deal policies. However, this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that FDR's policies ensured that everyone got a piece of the pie, not just those at the top, like today.
3
As a Brit living in your wonderful country it seems to me that you don't speak much about the poor because you define them mostly with the middle class. All I ever here is about the mythical single mother working 2 or 3 jobs and barely getting by. Sorry folks but she is poor. She has no choices but to fight to stay afloat. The fact that others are worse off doesn't make her any richer.
Perhaps getting over this idea that we are all middle class would help the country see itself as it really is:
1. The 0.1%
2. Inherited and working wealthy
3. The working class
4. The under class
Clearly we have an imbalance between the groups (show me a country that doesn't) that has got too great. Economically we need class 3 (working people) to succeed to support the social programs to help class 4. In addition a fairer contribution from the top 2 classes too.
Perhaps getting over this idea that we are all middle class would help the country see itself as it really is:
1. The 0.1%
2. Inherited and working wealthy
3. The working class
4. The under class
Clearly we have an imbalance between the groups (show me a country that doesn't) that has got too great. Economically we need class 3 (working people) to succeed to support the social programs to help class 4. In addition a fairer contribution from the top 2 classes too.
2
This reflects a problem with society at large, and candidates don't want to turn off voters. People don't want to hear about poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness because they are subjects of shame, guilt, moral judgment and revulsion. Our hearts go out to cancer victims, molested children, wounded vets, and abandoned dogs, but the young homeless addict and the single mom on welfare seem somehow immoral, and the old guy pushing a rusty shopping cart talking to himself is regularly shunned. Talking about funding welfare, drug rehab, and homeless shelters is not going to get many votes.
2
People love the middle class but hate the poor class or want to forget about our existence. Neither presidential candidate is the party of Jesus who looked after the poor. How can they call themselves Christian in the first place, I don't know. I hope the politicians realize basically everyone is poor once the rent or mortgage is unaffordable for everyone except the rich. I'm not even living in the metro or the city but because of many people moving to the sprawling suburban areas (to get away from high cost of living everywhere) with limited housing supply, rent is increasing nonstop. Increasing min wage may help, if it increases faster than rent. $20 min wage wouldn't even solve the problem if the average rent goes up to $2,000 or more. If the price of rent was the only thing that increased and not utilities or food or clothing, then we may be able to live on that. Having different wages wouldn't matter if things cost differently according to the consumer's wage levels. But as we can see with unaffordable housing everywhere, market sets the price to whatever that works "best" and poor people are priced out all the time. The government can try to build more densely and provide more housing to lower the rent with more supply, but they can't keep up with the increasing demand. So places with high rent are basically keeping poor people out by building a wall with our wallets. Trump's wall is already built in our country's open your eyes, people.
1
Trump talks about the high unemployment rate and low workforce participation problem created by Obama all the time. The liberal media just doesn't report it.
Trumps solution is to create a prosperous economy and new jobs. Hillary's solution is a continuation of what Obama has done. Her solution is more welfare, government subsidies and increased taxes.
Don't bother responding about the unemployment rate. Obama changed who was included in the calculations in order to claim a fictitiously low rate.
Trumps solution is to create a prosperous economy and new jobs. Hillary's solution is a continuation of what Obama has done. Her solution is more welfare, government subsidies and increased taxes.
Don't bother responding about the unemployment rate. Obama changed who was included in the calculations in order to claim a fictitiously low rate.
2
I am sure all the people in Atlantic City just love donnie, including all the contractors he stiffed.
1
Until every child in America does not go hungry, do not fund war. Until every homeless person has a place to rest his or her head, do not send billions of dollars to other nations. Until every American family can have health care, do not build another golf course. Until every teacher's pension is not gutted by our politicians, do not pay pensions to our multi-millionaire Congress. Until every voter has fair access to voting, do not give another tax break to corporations who already pay no taxes. Straighten out our priorities as a nation!
3
"I am here to run for president of the United States and I need your help. I need your help because I believe all Americans can work together. Together, we can destroy the slums, together we can harness rivers and preserve forests. Together we can make ourselves a nation that spends more on books than on bombs, more on hospitals than the terrible tools of war, more on decent houses than military aircraft. Together we can do all of this.United we are a nation. Divided we are nothing."
RFK - March 24, 1968.
RFK - March 24, 1968.
6
For all of their concerns about poverty and protecting the environment I find it quite disconcerting that so many Democrats countenance mass immigration (authentic or otherwise) by unskilled indigents. Is the irony completely lost on them?
3
Candidates do not want to mention the poor because, first, the poor’s electoral participation punch is limited and, second, the condition of existence of poor is inherent in the system as the industrial reserve army without which capital’s casting down on levels of wages hence boosting its bottom lines would have failed.
Similarly, globalization is needed to dismiss the unwanted workers in manufacturing with no chance for them to vindicate themselves. Once those jobs are gone, they cannot be restored. The only sector that may provide them subpar jobs for bare subsistence is the services. But the prognostication is not good as capital, in ceaselessly pursuing productivity improvements, is launching with maximum efficiency artificial-intelligence-driven automation of the service sector, causing a tsunami of unemployment rarely seen before.
Poverty in advanced capitalist countries has nothing to do with material scarcity due to lacking productive force or wealth, but has everything to do with their belatedly superstructures – for-private-profit socio-economic-politics, ideology, culture and traditions.
Over-production in a period of over one century accompanied with uninterrupted surfeit of capital has laid bare the tendency of its own downturn. A democratic revolution is desperately needed to rescue it before all up.
Should the democratic revolution prevail and a state-run economy become a reality, every household in these countries could afford to own three houses.
Similarly, globalization is needed to dismiss the unwanted workers in manufacturing with no chance for them to vindicate themselves. Once those jobs are gone, they cannot be restored. The only sector that may provide them subpar jobs for bare subsistence is the services. But the prognostication is not good as capital, in ceaselessly pursuing productivity improvements, is launching with maximum efficiency artificial-intelligence-driven automation of the service sector, causing a tsunami of unemployment rarely seen before.
Poverty in advanced capitalist countries has nothing to do with material scarcity due to lacking productive force or wealth, but has everything to do with their belatedly superstructures – for-private-profit socio-economic-politics, ideology, culture and traditions.
Over-production in a period of over one century accompanied with uninterrupted surfeit of capital has laid bare the tendency of its own downturn. A democratic revolution is desperately needed to rescue it before all up.
Should the democratic revolution prevail and a state-run economy become a reality, every household in these countries could afford to own three houses.
1
To those defending Clinton.
Yes, during and immediately after law school, Clinton "helped the poor," like many open minded young people who go to law school. And yes, certain of her political achievements--advocacy for children as FLOTUS, for example--evince a degree of concern for the poor.
Yes, Clinton is obviously a more compassionate person than Trump, and would be a better president for the poor.
What this article observes, though, is a pervasive and long-lasting disregard for the poor in both parties' dialogue and their overall legislative agendas.
The term "middle class" is used endlessly in American political dialogue to the exclusion of the underclass, whose exposure to grinding poverty was consistently overlooked in national politics for the last generation until Sanders this last primary. And "middle class," by this popularly espoused definition, includes households making up to a quarter of a million dollars a year! http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/hillary-clinton-middle-class
Class consciousness in this country has always been confused. Politicians know this an use it to their advantage: When they talk about the middle class, the poor can be tricked into thinking the politicians are talking about them. As the mis-attributed Steinbeck quote goes, "the reason socialism never took root in America is because the poor don't see themselves as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Yes, during and immediately after law school, Clinton "helped the poor," like many open minded young people who go to law school. And yes, certain of her political achievements--advocacy for children as FLOTUS, for example--evince a degree of concern for the poor.
Yes, Clinton is obviously a more compassionate person than Trump, and would be a better president for the poor.
What this article observes, though, is a pervasive and long-lasting disregard for the poor in both parties' dialogue and their overall legislative agendas.
The term "middle class" is used endlessly in American political dialogue to the exclusion of the underclass, whose exposure to grinding poverty was consistently overlooked in national politics for the last generation until Sanders this last primary. And "middle class," by this popularly espoused definition, includes households making up to a quarter of a million dollars a year! http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/hillary-clinton-middle-class
Class consciousness in this country has always been confused. Politicians know this an use it to their advantage: When they talk about the middle class, the poor can be tricked into thinking the politicians are talking about them. As the mis-attributed Steinbeck quote goes, "the reason socialism never took root in America is because the poor don't see themselves as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
3
You somehow seem to've missed the minor technical detail that whatever her flaws, her work for the Children's Defense Fund and SCHIP alone beat anything Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein rolled together ever managed to do.
5
There was a candidate who talked extensively about poverty. You would not know it if you got your news from the New York Times, though, because their coverage of that candidate and his proposed policies was laughable at best, and unethical at worst.
That candidate was, of course, Bernie Sanders. And once he was out of the picture, both Clinton and the Republicans decided that poverty wasn't worth talking about, so instead everyone is kind of pretending it doesn't exist.
That candidate was, of course, Bernie Sanders. And once he was out of the picture, both Clinton and the Republicans decided that poverty wasn't worth talking about, so instead everyone is kind of pretending it doesn't exist.
24
It is not true. Both are talking about a large section of the poor in American -- large sections of legal and illegal immigrants. For example, a United Way study says that 80% of all Latino households in California not headed by a U.S. citizen live in poverty and need government assistance. I am pro legal immigration but the facts are that immigrants as a group, especially illegal immigrants, make up a significantly larger fraction of the poor than the native born. I myself am an immigrant but I don't see why the native-born should be creating a comfortable safety net for immigrants. Nobody invited me to come and live to this country, and I have to be accountable to myself.
15
Sorry, incorrect. Blacks are the largest group in poverty, Hispanics second:
"According to 2014 US Census Data, the highest poverty rate by race is found among Blacks (26%), with Hispanics (of any race) having the second highest poverty rate (24%). Whites had a poverty rate of 10%, while Asians had a poverty rate at 12%."
I don't disagree with some of your perspective, but our taxes provide minimum subsistence - certainly not a "comfortable" safety net.
"According to 2014 US Census Data, the highest poverty rate by race is found among Blacks (26%), with Hispanics (of any race) having the second highest poverty rate (24%). Whites had a poverty rate of 10%, while Asians had a poverty rate at 12%."
I don't disagree with some of your perspective, but our taxes provide minimum subsistence - certainly not a "comfortable" safety net.
2
The answer to the question of why the candidates have mentioned little or nothing about the poor is a question that up until now, the NYT and other mainstream media chose to ignore yet, the answer was one Bernie Sanders espoused several times during the primaries:
For the most part, the poor do not vote.
For the most part, the poor do not vote.
13
The writer treats it as a known fact that raising the minimum wage will help the poor. Yet many economists would argue the opposite: increasing the minimum wage puts workers currently earning minimum wage out of their jobs, and induces employers to replace their lower-paid workers with automation. The bottom line is that if you want to help people get jobs, make it easier for employers to offer them. Increasing the minimum wage is going in the wrong direction.
3
Please name these reputable economists who want the min wage cut.
5
By your logic, if employers paid nothing, then there would be millions of available jobs. Too bad slavery was outlawed, right?
5
Oh, Tom. Nice reductio ad absurdum.
Looked at from the other side, why stop at $15 an hour? If we just made the minimum wage $250 an hour, the poor's problems would be solved!
Temporarily, that is.
Looked at from the other side, why stop at $15 an hour? If we just made the minimum wage $250 an hour, the poor's problems would be solved!
Temporarily, that is.
Clinton's so-called "most progressive platform any party has put together" is due solely to Bernie Sanders. But, can we who still "Feel the Bern" trust her to embrace them? Already you note her support for a $12/hour minimum wage, and not the $15/hour one that Bernie proposed (and I thought Hillary accepted). Of course, the poor first need a job to collect that wage and joblessness is very high in inner-city America as well as in rural coal country Appalachia. There needs to be a new War on Poverty that bring jobs to those who desperately need them. How about new green energy jobs in a New Deal-like T.V.A.--an Appalachian Energy Authority--where out of job coal miners would be trained to build and install solar panels and wind turbines? How about a major infrastructure program that brings modern rail transit facilities to the inner city using their unemployed workers to build it that would provide easy access to jobs? And , of course, how about rebuilding the inner cities with new affordable housing again using the labor of those who live there? This shouldn't be "rocket science," just commonsense rather than the simplistic Trump nonsense of re-opening unhealthy, unsafe, and uncompetitive coal mines. We need to stop the "trickle down" pandering and get back to basic Democratic programs of the Roosevelt and Johnson eras.
15
You do realize that both solar panels and wind turbines use both rare earth and other metals, right? That renewable energy isn't cheap for the people who invest in it? Because of its investment in wind power, the cost of electricity in Ontario is sky high. Wind power generates only 4% of the power consumed in Ontario, yet accounts for 20% of people's bills.
The fact that Trump is talking about making America great again by bring jobs back to the nation is speaking to the poor, who will benefit by finally having employment opportunities offered them. Clinton, like most liberals, has a smug attitude to the poor, to whom she does not want to get too close. After all she does not want to get too soiled.
6
"Talk" is the operative concept about Trump. He does lots of that.
In practice he pays Chinese workers to makes his clothes. He has had plenty of time to build a manufacturing plant in the South- where is it.
1
So Trumps idea of cutting taxes to the rich is going to provide more jobs for the poor? I guess you missed the memo OR have been living on some other planet. For 35 years Reagans theory of trickle down economics or as H. W. Bush described as Voodoo Economics, has created the largest inequality gap and highest child poverty rate in the western industrialized world. If it is at all possible for you, try again.
1
He made a mess of Atlantic City, no reason to think the country would fare any better.
3
Both candidates live in their respective bubbles: Trump in that of inherited wealth and Hillary Clinton in that of the elite professional class. And while it is true that the conversation about poverty in the U.S. is in particularly bad shape these days, painting these two candidates with the same brush on that issue is pretty cheap and shallow commentary.
Back in 2000, the supposedly sophisticated take on the election was that Bush and Gore were the same. That turned out to be a bit of tragically misplaced cynicism. Hillary Clinton seems to be no one’s ideal candidate. But compared to Donald Trump she is the best friend that the poor ever had.
Back in 2000, the supposedly sophisticated take on the election was that Bush and Gore were the same. That turned out to be a bit of tragically misplaced cynicism. Hillary Clinton seems to be no one’s ideal candidate. But compared to Donald Trump she is the best friend that the poor ever had.
9
Hillary's father was CPO in the Navy before going into the drapery business, and her mother was born as poor as can be. She is not a scion of old money. She got where she did on her own talents.
The other Democratic candidate for President was talking about this a year ago.
21
Actually , Bernie has been talking about this for his entire 30 plus year career in government. Up until now, the mainstream media and sadly, far too many politicians and the citizenry, either wished to ignore it or continually were told to believe that a country as allegedly wealthy as America should not allow this to happen. Well, think again and as the column stated it is getting progressively worse, yet, once again, even after all these years of reports and discussion, the leaders still wish to pretend it is not happening.
1
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."
-Stephen Colbert
-Stephen Colbert
10
If Colbert and Company showed any inclination to understand Jesus' message of salvation and his own divinity, rather than treat Him as a second team liberal social worker, I'd be inclined to cut him more slack.
As he is, though, he's just one more self-absorbed, glib liberal.
As he is, though, he's just one more self-absorbed, glib liberal.
Information about what Jesus thought probably isn't any more reliable than what is claimed God thinks.
Just because neither explicitly talks much about the poor, does that make them equal in the impact/help their policies would provide to the poor? And isn't what each would DO for the poor the more important story? This feels like just another episode of false equivalence perpetrated by the press.
7
Who’s the NYT kidding – everyone knows NO politician cares about the poor, other them as a statistic or a talking point in rhetoric. They don’t have a lobby or any money to contribute and few of them vote.
And the middle class has been neglected by politicians for so long that now they’re in need of serious help too, and so they don’t have much patience even for rhetoric about helping the poor.
Only silver lining I see is that at least now a sizable portion of the middle class is becoming aware that their problems are coming from the undue influence money has on politics.
And these problems could not persist if the establishment owned and controlled media was not complicit in maintaining the status quo – and I mean all of it - from the NYT to Fox News. : p
And the middle class has been neglected by politicians for so long that now they’re in need of serious help too, and so they don’t have much patience even for rhetoric about helping the poor.
Only silver lining I see is that at least now a sizable portion of the middle class is becoming aware that their problems are coming from the undue influence money has on politics.
And these problems could not persist if the establishment owned and controlled media was not complicit in maintaining the status quo – and I mean all of it - from the NYT to Fox News. : p
8
Let us be honest here, those in the Washington and New York bubbles relate as much to poor people as the average Joe does to a cockroach.
1
The most effective way to help the poor out of poverty is to help them delay childbirth. That is the opposite of the Republican Party's policies.
Our system of capitalism has always offered wealth to a few, while however well hidden, foisting poverty on the many. It should come as no surprise that neither Mr Trump and Ms Clinton nor anyone else who benefits from this system remain "unaware".
The only way our nation can justify this way of life is by taxing wealth at rates which allow programs for the poor who, by design, are the chaff of our harvest.
As a nation we have allowed the very wealthiest among us to dictate the course of our government, but it also appears with the emergence of Mr Sander's popular message many are waking up to the fact things must change and incremental is an overused word used to support the status quo.
While some may feel the choice is between the less egregious of two ignorant candidates, there is no question that Mrs Clinton fills those shoes far better than Mr Trump.
Positive change is coming, but we all have to participate in order to bring it about.
We musn't forget Mr Sander's message and we must vote.
The only way our nation can justify this way of life is by taxing wealth at rates which allow programs for the poor who, by design, are the chaff of our harvest.
As a nation we have allowed the very wealthiest among us to dictate the course of our government, but it also appears with the emergence of Mr Sander's popular message many are waking up to the fact things must change and incremental is an overused word used to support the status quo.
While some may feel the choice is between the less egregious of two ignorant candidates, there is no question that Mrs Clinton fills those shoes far better than Mr Trump.
Positive change is coming, but we all have to participate in order to bring it about.
We musn't forget Mr Sander's message and we must vote.
8
Has the Times considered covering presidential campaigns that do address this issue? Maybe covering the Green Party's campaign would bring the issue of poverty to the central position it deserves.
8
We can just vote Republican if we think vaccination is a communist plot.
Clinton is a fraud just as great as Trump. The guy who spoke the truth was cheated out of the nomination. Good Luck.
25
Mr Trump is not a fraud. He is what he is but a fraud he not. You can go inside his actual accomplishments at many places around the world. Secondly, your very justified anger against the democrat party should be specifically leveled at Mrs. Clinton. I mean, it's impossible she was not involved in the dishonest back room arrangements that prevented the American people from expressing their desire for Mr. Sanders. Is this really any different than the IRS scandal which prevented (still does!) conservative groups from attaining tax exempt status? Is this any different than the biased questions that Mr. Trump will be bombarded with at the first debate, and the relatively puff ball treatment Mrs Clinton will undoubtedly receive?
Is this any different than the so obvious Pravda style reporting this paper engages in every single day now? It is horrible, and we as Americans need to somehow vote out all this corruption.
Is this any different than the so obvious Pravda style reporting this paper engages in every single day now? It is horrible, and we as Americans need to somehow vote out all this corruption.
2
It's astonishing, seeing somebody actually able to argue that a guy who not only went bankrupt six times, not only has been sued north of 2000 times for reneging on contracts, not only ran Trump U, not only proposes to solve the national debt by announcing tough luck, buddy, we ain't gonna pay you what we said we would on them T-bills, but actually stiffed the hotel he stayed at during his own convention, is an honest guy.
You people have GOT to start sharing your drugs.
You people have GOT to start sharing your drugs.
3
I guess Secretary Clinton's wanting to raise the minimum wage to 15 per hour and Trump's saying we don't need a minimumu wage, that it's "too high," are the same thing. Or that Clinton's lifetime of work for working women and poor children are the same as Trump's years of running beauty pageants, serial philandering, and ripping off contractors and blue collar workers. FALSE EQUIVALENCE, with the emphasis on FALSE. What is the problem here that completely unequivalent histories and plans are altered so blatantly by mass media?
10
Of course poverty is increasing. We allow too many poorly skilled immigrants into the country who then bring in their extended families many of whom have no skills or cannot work as they are too young or old. These immigrants also often supplant American workers who then lose their jobs and become poorer.
10
one hellfire missile costs $ 110, 000
and they seldom hit what they aim at anyway
each time one is fired, there goes a college education for some poor kid
th cost to fly th drone to th launch point is a harvard education down th drain
9
While you make a superficially appealing point, you ignore the fact, that there are multiple college graduates employed to make that hell fire missile.
Missile interceptors are hugely more expensive than missiles. An Israeli Iron Dome missile costs about 10,000 times as much as the pipes filled with a mix of fertilizer and powdered metal incoming from Gaza.
What I wish for are enlightened employers. I've been laid off twice and believe me, employers aren't interested in hiring older workers (those over 45) or long-term unemployed or underemployed. We didn't cause the recession but we sure as hell are shouldering the blsme for it. Small wonder we're voting to legalize marijuana and killing oursekves with stronger drugs, alcohol, and suicide.
16
Many employers seem to prefer indulging depravity to discouraging it.
Legalizing cannabis will dry up demand for the harder stuff. It comes in a variety of strains with differing psychoactive effects, a little something for everyone. If your sense of humor is ailing from living in a psychopathological ratrace, give it a try. You cannot kill yourself by overdosing on it either.
Legalizing cannabis will dry up demand for the harder stuff. It comes in a variety of strains with differing psychoactive effects, a little something for everyone. If your sense of humor is ailing from living in a psychopathological ratrace, give it a try. You cannot kill yourself by overdosing on it either.
Can't stop thinking about the statistic quoted in this article: only 65,000 manufacturing jobs, but 820,000 low-wage health care workers. Most of these are non-unionized. We need to start dealing with reality, and not wishful thinking. It's easy to pretend that DJT is going to "bring back" manufacturing. But it's hard work to unionize the low-wage jobs that most of the poor and many of the middle-class are stuck in. Convincing people who are already on the edge, one paycheck away from economic failure, to stick their necks out and strike for the right to organize, to bargain collectively with the billionaires is going to be harder than anything else. But if we don't start, there will be no future for anyone; as robotics and AI become more prevalent, even the upper middle-class management folks will lose their jobs in increasing numbers. It's way past time to unionize all sectors of the economy. Other countries do it; the Scandinavian and German models so frequently praised for their robust economies and high standards of living definitely involve large numbers of unionized workers in all job sectors. When are American workers of every ilk, from laborers to upper management, going to get it into their heads that nobody from the monied class is going to look out for them until we join forces and unionize? The only resource we have to fight back against the greedy few is solidarity with each other. One way to start is for the rest of us to refuse to be pitted against each other.
3
If there are increased employment opportunities upcoming, there should be no reason to believe that poverty won't decrease.
However, we should increase help to those who are physically or mentally disabled and unable to work.
However, we should increase help to those who are physically or mentally disabled and unable to work.
2
The poor, the working class. No, we don't hear about them. We hear about the middle class and upper middle class as if they are the majority. Sorry folks, our presidential candidates are addressing the wrong groups of people. I pine for the day that the lower classes rise up and find their voice collectively. Our politicians will have no choice but to listen...and act.
6
Trump talks about the poor every time he insists on having a real border and without illegals in our country taking jobs. Every time he mentions bad trade deals that steal American jobs. When he insists on the rule of law equally applied to everyone he talks to the poor who are effected by criminal activity.
3
I am no longer certain what ‘poor’ in the country is. Is poor now considered not being able to purchase the latest gadget or your kids not wearing designer clothes? This country has what I consider an incredible safety net already and there are social programs out the ying yang.
Now, if you are speaking of those that have remained ‘poor’ because they are not willing to get a free education, at least high school, and prefer to ‘hang out’ and decide that crime is easier than work – well I wish there was a candidate that could figure that one out since no one since George Washington seems to be have been able.
Now, if you are speaking of those that have remained ‘poor’ because they are not willing to get a free education, at least high school, and prefer to ‘hang out’ and decide that crime is easier than work – well I wish there was a candidate that could figure that one out since no one since George Washington seems to be have been able.
4
Education and birth control are key.
Yes, we can tax the rich more, but if our poorer brethren won't avail themselves of our free schools and libraries, then it's for nothing. Because they won't want to do manual labor either, which would be all they'll be good for.
Yes, we can tax the rich more, but if our poorer brethren won't avail themselves of our free schools and libraries, then it's for nothing. Because they won't want to do manual labor either, which would be all they'll be good for.
Without a vibrant middle class, there is no potential upward mobility for the poor. Keeping the poor dependent upon a central government for sustenance has doomed them to "staying put". Jobs at minimum wage (even with raising it to $15) will never help grow the poor out of poverty. Minimum wage jobs are the first to be replaced by technology, and they never return. And all those jobs created by new infrastructure will have little to no effect on the poor. Road, bridges, and building construction doesn't consist of digging with a shovel anymore. They don't have the necessary skills, and will be left by the wayside.
9
This is an old story. The poor don't vote in large numbers. Not much is done to encourage them to vote. Why can't we have Election Day on Sunday, as they do in most European & developed countries? Why can't poor people be picked up by party members & taken to the polls? Why is there so much discrimination against poor AND minority voters?
Most tellingly, the poor don't have the money to contribute to campaigns. That's the biggest issue. Money is the biggest evil in our election system. Sadly, it will continue, no matter who wins. Bernie Sanders was my greatest hope for a big overhaul in how our elections are conducted. Well, we all know what happened to him.
Most tellingly, the poor don't have the money to contribute to campaigns. That's the biggest issue. Money is the biggest evil in our election system. Sadly, it will continue, no matter who wins. Bernie Sanders was my greatest hope for a big overhaul in how our elections are conducted. Well, we all know what happened to him.
15
I really wonder when it comes to these important day to day issues, many of which have existed for decades, one can only come to the sad conclusion that when it comes right down to it, neither the government nor the American people really want to make the commitment to solve these problems. If they did, Bernie Sanders would be the nominee and ultimately, elected President.
1
Surely a viable "revolution" can regroup and last more than an election cycle.
3
Not everything is a jobs/wages problem. You can be earning $75,000 a year and still be dirt poor, because you have a crazy high rent, mortgage, student loans, health insurance, etc. We often talk about "jobs" like it's a substance -- some mercurial nectar that if we just have enough of it, the economy will be fine. It's just not true. You can have near-universal employment with everyone making scads of money, but everyone's still poor as hell and barely has enough income to scrape by and obtain the things they need to survive.
7
Everything you listed came to you as a choice. My brother went to work the day he was 16. He worked after school, weekends, holidays through high school, college. He studied when he wasn't working. He didn't go hang with the others, he didn't date. Work, School, Study. He went to BU, got a degree in accounting. Cum Laude. Had a job before graduation, worked there until he retired. Oh, he graduated with more money in the bank, than he had when he started college and he paid all his own bills. It was tough, but, that is the old fashioned work ethic. You want it, you work yourself to the bone to get it. Or you don't get it. All he had was 2 $500 scholarships his senior year in high school, which he went after himself.
I should hope that Obama and Ryan are actually discussing expanding the earned income tax credit for both childless men and WOMEN!
5
I’d be willing to be that the oh so sensitive to the needs of the poor Harvard sociology professor Desmond, and the equally delicate Professor Edin from John Hopkins University both make over $200k a year.
I wonder if they actually contribute anything beyond the usual blather that has been going on for a half century at least. Like how much of their salary do they donate to charity or to individuals for whom they have so much compassion.
Professor Edin’s has a comment about how the poor ‘can’t buy socks and underwear for their kids’. Really? I understand how someone that poor might on an exceptional basis be put in that position, but to speak of an entire class of people in that situation having kid(s), raises a whole different set of issues. Like why are they having so many kids? Note the plural. 40% of children under the age of 5 are on some form of welfare.
And to claim there is not enough talk about home ownership seems to indicate they completely missed the housing financial crisis that led to the great recession.
But it would be too much to expect them to know economics. Let them take up noble causes, pooh pooing everyone else and preen their gorgeous feathers in their soft ivory towers because they haven’t a clue about ordinary working stiffs.
I wonder if they actually contribute anything beyond the usual blather that has been going on for a half century at least. Like how much of their salary do they donate to charity or to individuals for whom they have so much compassion.
Professor Edin’s has a comment about how the poor ‘can’t buy socks and underwear for their kids’. Really? I understand how someone that poor might on an exceptional basis be put in that position, but to speak of an entire class of people in that situation having kid(s), raises a whole different set of issues. Like why are they having so many kids? Note the plural. 40% of children under the age of 5 are on some form of welfare.
And to claim there is not enough talk about home ownership seems to indicate they completely missed the housing financial crisis that led to the great recession.
But it would be too much to expect them to know economics. Let them take up noble causes, pooh pooing everyone else and preen their gorgeous feathers in their soft ivory towers because they haven’t a clue about ordinary working stiffs.
5
Trump brags about the yuuuuge fortune he made from the 2008 Florida housing crash where many thousands of hard working people lost their homes through foreclosure. Does anyone really expect that he would do something for the poor?
What is the point of this "on one and and then on the other" nonsense?
What is the point of this "on one and and then on the other" nonsense?
3
Well, apparently your point is to keep expanding your accusations, in the hope that somthing might eventually stick.
Congrats on the brand-new claim that the President's been a Wall Street wheeler all along. That the big thing on Rush today?
Congrats on the brand-new claim that the President's been a Wall Street wheeler all along. That the big thing on Rush today?
3
Hey DC Barrister: So, does that mean Donald Trump gave away all his fortune- to the poor?
1
He'll do something. Go back and get the ones he missed.
1
Billary sure worked hard to not be one! Too bad the law did not get her and him sooner.
2
Because neither of them care. It is simple. They are both super rich one more than the other and they are both egotistical and manipulative.
2
Bill Clinton passed the 1994 "Welfare To Work" bill which made poverty worse. Electing HRC is surely better than Trump, but is the lesser of two evils really the best we can do?
5
This election? Yup.
1
I going to hazard a guess that the poor don't constitute a large voting bloc.
The term compassionate conservative is not a real thing just an oxymoron. When there are children going to bed hungry every night in this country, how is transgenders using a bathroom or same sex marriage some of GOP’s top priorities. Fresh fruits and vegetables should not be a luxury for poverty level families. What state you live in shouldn’t dictate what healthcare your child can have access to or education they can receive. Income inequality in a major issue not only in this country but around the world, but it should be front and center in this presidential election.
3
Donald Trumph wants to renegotiate NAFTA. Complex subject but he or Hillary and Congress needs to do a lot of things in this regard. The following article explains how subsidized cheap US and Canadian corn flooded Mexico. Corn is a stable of the Mexican diet. The result was forcing Mexican subsistence farmers out of work and seeking jobs elsewhere. Illegally immigrating to the US and forcing down wages here or working in Mexican factories at low wages bringing mfg jobs from the US to Mexico.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-n...
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-n...
7
The poor don't vote.
reply to Jim: Yes; WE DO VOTE.
1
This isn't a recent phenomenon. We haven't had substantial public policy aimed directly at the Poor since Richard Nixon started talking about "the silent majority." It's not electorally advantageous because the Poor are easily marginalized.
2
If past is prologue, then what matters here is what each of them has ALREADY done for the poor. Trump? Zero. Clinton? She has spent her entire professional life - not just beginning as First Lady of Arkansas, but since law school - advocating and fighting for women and children, particularly those in poverty. In this regard, her record speaks for itself (loudly!). Trump's record is a laundry list of stiffed contractors, and a billionaire's privilege.
How on God's great earth can you suggest that there is ANY similarity between the two?!
How on God's great earth can you suggest that there is ANY similarity between the two?!
19
Hillary abolished FDR's Aid to Families with Dependent Children throwing millions of children into extreme poverty. Poor American children are so expendable that the U.S. allows 2.5 million to be homeless. Other advanced democracies treat housing as a human right, not a speculative commodity. Other advanced democracies see direct redistribution as a legitmate and necessary function of government so that children and the elderly and the jobless are guaranteed an income of dignity: the U.S. only gives "free stuff" to the one per cent each of whom receives more government benefits than hundreds of the poor.
The poor have become so subhuman that not even Bernie Sanders dared suggest a new basic income security program. But that's just as well because Bernie's social democratic policies, tepid as they were, could not be covered in the NYTimes.
The obscenity of American poverty will only compound because the American ruling classes really don't care how young the poor die; they are indifferent to the death their society prescribes for the poor.
Things won't change until American cities burn once more.
The poor have become so subhuman that not even Bernie Sanders dared suggest a new basic income security program. But that's just as well because Bernie's social democratic policies, tepid as they were, could not be covered in the NYTimes.
The obscenity of American poverty will only compound because the American ruling classes really don't care how young the poor die; they are indifferent to the death their society prescribes for the poor.
Things won't change until American cities burn once more.
2
You won't like this, but, the poor's children are expendable and have been since way before FDR. He tried, but, as the working world changed, they became more expendable not less. They can't work, we (non poor) say they need someone to care for them, either a parent who doesn't work, or by spending money they don't have, they must be fed without adding to the household. Unlike any generation before the Great Depression we demand that the poor's children be catered to as the rich's children are. Only they can't afford it. Now, does anyone mention birth control? Don't bother saying, just stop having sex. That hasn't worked since Cain and Able were born. Put 2 people in the same room and they will end up having sex. If they are heterosexual, chances are one of those times they will start a baby. Over and over. Jesus said the poor will always be with you. Fact, that's no help. Starting inner city schools that run 365 days a year/feed their children/teach them more so they graduate with a trade. Doesn't have to be a trade they like, just one that is needed. Also teach about family economy and birth control. If any religious organization cries foul, tell them that each baby born will expect a fund be set up, by the church to feed, clothe, educate, and house, until they grow up and find a sustainable job. Then tax the religious organizations to fund these funds.
It needs repeating - as many of "the poor don't vote", let's move voting days to Sundays and see what happens.
Also, don't make them have to take time off work to take two or three buses to outlying DMV's with limited hours to get the only IDs sanctioned for voting. Let them use IDs they already have to vote which are good enough for everything else.
Also, don't make them have to take time off work to take two or three buses to outlying DMV's with limited hours to get the only IDs sanctioned for voting. Let them use IDs they already have to vote which are good enough for everything else.
4
The Radical Christians will dump on that idea. Look how many years it took to get gas stations open on Sunday, or grocery stores, any store.
If we do an after-tax equivalence of the full suite of public assistance, including full free medical care (NOT top tier)
we can come up with a pre-tax value if $40,000
so go be poor in America. ency of the world
as for the theft-advocacy called 'inequality' the ONLY solution to inequality is to prohibit wealth, which we are well on the way to doing except for the crony class, like all third world countries
WHO is the candidate of Goldman and WHO is the candidate of the dispossessed?
the poor will always be poo.r only the rich can be impacted by policies and those policies will make the rich poor
be careful what you ask for
ME? I am Walll street 1%er by some accouning, with working class origins and values
and I support Mr Trump
we can come up with a pre-tax value if $40,000
so go be poor in America. ency of the world
as for the theft-advocacy called 'inequality' the ONLY solution to inequality is to prohibit wealth, which we are well on the way to doing except for the crony class, like all third world countries
WHO is the candidate of Goldman and WHO is the candidate of the dispossessed?
the poor will always be poo.r only the rich can be impacted by policies and those policies will make the rich poor
be careful what you ask for
ME? I am Walll street 1%er by some accouning, with working class origins and values
and I support Mr Trump
4
What does that $40000 mean? Slum housing in a bad school , high crime neighborhood without a supermarket and a family without a car or carfare. Do the social math and multiply it by thousands.
1
If Trump wins, you will be poor within a year. He wants it all. Hates anyone else with money (to him it's his), and someone like you who worked up? Forget it you are worse to him than a communist. So, start saving 75% of your take home every week. Buy only generic in anything. No car (in NYC you don't need one), no outside entertainment, no cable. Get a library card, read every evening. Then after your job is gone to someone willing to kick back 90% (in total) to the boss, Trump, whoever got them your job, you might be able to live for another couple off ill fed years, won't make it until next election which Trump will work very hard to keep from happening. Jr. You are outclassed. You are not a good enough their to live in Trump's world.
1
Considering the nature of Trumpy's economic team, believe me when I say that I have no doubt whatsover that you think you belong to the wealthy 1%.
My only surprise is that you seem largely illiterate; generally, the Jamie Diamonds of the world are very much the opposite.
My only surprise is that you seem largely illiterate; generally, the Jamie Diamonds of the world are very much the opposite.
1
Hillary cannot both advocate for illegal immigration (as well as high numbers of guest worker visas) as well as pretend to be a champion of America's poor. A few years ago there was a big immigration bust at a local car wash. Guess who replaced the illegals that had been working there? It was suddenly fully staffed with African Americans. So please stop with this notion that illegals aren't taking any jobs. Or that they take jobs Americans won't do. At the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, there's plenty of competition for jobs and the dishwashing job that goes to an illegal immigrant is a job that is now unavailable for an American. And once Hillary pushes through an executive order to grant amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants, do you think businesses will instantly create 10 million additional jobs to place those folks in? I'm thinking no.
10
You care so much, give them your's. No? Why not? It's the American thing to do.
Your story of the car wash, I want to know, how much per hour did the illegals make, how much do the new employees make, what about days off, benefits, prices at the car wash, how is it doing financially? Then check back in about 2 years. See who works there now (if it is still open), how much it costs, the number of employees, wages. Then, and only then, we can see how well the bust went.
Your story of the car wash, I want to know, how much per hour did the illegals make, how much do the new employees make, what about days off, benefits, prices at the car wash, how is it doing financially? Then check back in about 2 years. See who works there now (if it is still open), how much it costs, the number of employees, wages. Then, and only then, we can see how well the bust went.
1
Last night I got a fortune cookie at a Chinese restaurant which said "If one has to make a choice between two evils then choose the evil you haven't chosen before." Since I have had pretty good luck adhering to fortune cookie advice and I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries I will have to vote for Trumph.
5
You have made the decision to die for Trump, huh? If he wins, the INDEPENDENT ARMY will fight and many die to rid this country of him and his ilk. By the way that includes you. Now, all in the IA are volunteers. Trump will demand that all 'his' voters shield him, physically, with their bodies. He won't let you have guns. Guns anywhere near him scare him. He just wants you to die protecting him.
If Clinton wins, and Trump's Chumps riot, we will protect members' property while waiting for the police & military to come to the rescue. If they don't we will clean house.
You have read that many times the usual number have been getting gun permits and buying weapons, right? Who are they? Democrats (don't make me laugh), Republicans? They have theirs and trust the police. So who are they? The group you all dismiss every election cycle. The group that saves your bacon over and over. The INDEPENDENTS. Time to get rid of all political parties. They all consider themselves Democrat-Americans, Republican-Americans, Libertarian-Americans, Green-Americans, etc. We belong to no party, we are Americans. First, last, always. You can't work together as in the past. So you can take the poors' place and they can have yours. How's that sound?
If Clinton wins, and Trump's Chumps riot, we will protect members' property while waiting for the police & military to come to the rescue. If they don't we will clean house.
You have read that many times the usual number have been getting gun permits and buying weapons, right? Who are they? Democrats (don't make me laugh), Republicans? They have theirs and trust the police. So who are they? The group you all dismiss every election cycle. The group that saves your bacon over and over. The INDEPENDENTS. Time to get rid of all political parties. They all consider themselves Democrat-Americans, Republican-Americans, Libertarian-Americans, Green-Americans, etc. We belong to no party, we are Americans. First, last, always. You can't work together as in the past. So you can take the poors' place and they can have yours. How's that sound?
Economics is a peripheral issue because America is a multicultural democracy, and not very intelligent one at that. Issues of race, gender, etc will always take precedence when it comes to voting. There's no reason to believe that will change anytime soon.
2
Candidates like Clinton telling us "America is already great!" are part of the problem.
If you keep telling people they're already the best, then they're not going to listen when you suggest they adopt policies of other countries such as universal healthcare, a living wage, gun safety etc.
You've got to look at the world and have just a little bit of humility, or nothing will change.
If you keep telling people they're already the best, then they're not going to listen when you suggest they adopt policies of other countries such as universal healthcare, a living wage, gun safety etc.
You've got to look at the world and have just a little bit of humility, or nothing will change.
5
In fairness, her saying that was a response to Trump's completely whacked out crime numbers, recession misinformation and general lies about where we are right now.
4
There ARE answers to solving the monumental problems of the poor (poverty, violence, unemployment, etc.). We have a program proven to be adaptable to ANY "environment", locally, nationally, and internationally, that gets on-the-ground RESULTS to PROVE it, but, as Harry Markopolos so aptly titled his book on Bernie Madoff and the SEC - NO ONE WOULD LISTEN.
2
You have the perfect way to feel vindicated. You tell us nothing, absolutely nothing about this miracle program of yours. So, I will think of it as just the same as Trump's running mouth. Useless.
Brenda, there is not enough space, nor time, to attempt to explain to you the reasons for not explaining any details of our program to you in reply to your comment. That we get proven, documented results should be enough. Money and politics that favor the select few is always a barrier to progress, especially social progress.
1
Just a few column inches below this story about the undiscussed "poor" of our country is the story of Macy's' closing of another 100 stores, laying off hundreds of already barely hanging-on workers of the lower "middle class," who may find work, if they're lucky, at a Dollar General.
Why is Macy's closing stores? Because fewer and fewer people can afford to shop there.
Does no one appreciate the vicious cycle of income inequality. No great philosopher he, even Henry Ford understood it a hundred years ago. Accumulation of wealth in the few is a race to the bottom. And while it's true the elite, the 1%, will be the last to reach the bottom, we will, in the meantime, see our country become more and more like oligarchic states, with the very rich increasingly insulated from the many very poor, who are left to make do with crumbling roads, leaking schools, filthy parks, corroded water delivery, black markets, derelict civic buildings, food shortages . . .
Ironically, perhaps, Russia today is, by another name and another avenue, the perfect reflection of unregulated capitalism. That's where we're headed.
Why is Macy's closing stores? Because fewer and fewer people can afford to shop there.
Does no one appreciate the vicious cycle of income inequality. No great philosopher he, even Henry Ford understood it a hundred years ago. Accumulation of wealth in the few is a race to the bottom. And while it's true the elite, the 1%, will be the last to reach the bottom, we will, in the meantime, see our country become more and more like oligarchic states, with the very rich increasingly insulated from the many very poor, who are left to make do with crumbling roads, leaking schools, filthy parks, corroded water delivery, black markets, derelict civic buildings, food shortages . . .
Ironically, perhaps, Russia today is, by another name and another avenue, the perfect reflection of unregulated capitalism. That's where we're headed.
10
as it is right now, 0.1 % of th richest own more wealth than 90 % of th poorest
20 individuals are richer than th poorest 150, 000, 000
how much worse do americans want it to get
4
Why would either candidate talk about millions of people who are essentially invisible to them, and sadly visible to the general populous, who see them only as a burden? Can most of the truly poor even vote if they don't have the ability to have a steady, confirmable address? The poor are not seen as having any potential use in our society, though they could, if given the chance, be a formidable workforce and voting bloc. But as things currently stand, they seem to have as much value as tumbleweeds.
3
To quote the sociologist Matthew Desmond:
"We aren’t having in our presidential debate right now a serious conversation about the fact that we are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty. It should be at the very top of the agenda."
This quote is right on target, but the solutions mentioned fall far short.
The reason is that we have not even been discussing the real reason for poverty.
Liberals hold up conservatives for ridicule because they deny global warming. But liberals engage in an even more serious form of denial. They deny the impact of population growth.
The US population grew by 36% during the period 1980-2010, or by 82 million, according to the census.
And population growth continues. But we live in a country with finite resources. What this means is that those resources get spread among more people, meaning some get left out.
Both Republicans and Democrats seem to deny that there are limits to growth. Yet open your eyes and you will see that population growth is destroying the environment.
The poor will never VOTE for the policies that end poverty. That is because such policies go against ingrained instincts which helped hunters and gatherers survive, in particular the instinct to reproduce.
We need to stop illegal immigration. We need to encourage smaller families.
But liberal welfare policies encourage poor women to have children and then put the men in jail for not earning money.
Liberals HATE the poor!
"We aren’t having in our presidential debate right now a serious conversation about the fact that we are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty. It should be at the very top of the agenda."
This quote is right on target, but the solutions mentioned fall far short.
The reason is that we have not even been discussing the real reason for poverty.
Liberals hold up conservatives for ridicule because they deny global warming. But liberals engage in an even more serious form of denial. They deny the impact of population growth.
The US population grew by 36% during the period 1980-2010, or by 82 million, according to the census.
And population growth continues. But we live in a country with finite resources. What this means is that those resources get spread among more people, meaning some get left out.
Both Republicans and Democrats seem to deny that there are limits to growth. Yet open your eyes and you will see that population growth is destroying the environment.
The poor will never VOTE for the policies that end poverty. That is because such policies go against ingrained instincts which helped hunters and gatherers survive, in particular the instinct to reproduce.
We need to stop illegal immigration. We need to encourage smaller families.
But liberal welfare policies encourage poor women to have children and then put the men in jail for not earning money.
Liberals HATE the poor!
3
Only thing that will work is MANDATORY BIRTH CONTROL FOR ALL. No matter your wealth or lack of it. The poor won't stand for it if it's just them, and it isn't. It's middle class Catholics who follow the church's teachings to go forth and multiply, God will provide. He seems to have forgotten, and we can't do it alone.
There are so many illegals because their home countries have the same problem. So when I say FOR ALL. I do mean ALL. OVER. THE. WORLD. We no longer have high enough infant mortality, we have too many ways of 'fixing' infertility. We have 'fixed' our way into an apocalypse. Too many people, not enough earth. It will take some time (I probably won't see it, I'm 65), it will be painful for a long time. We (population of earth) will at last try to fix it. (Unfix it?). Won't work. It's why Republicans wet their pants when Climate change is mentioned. It's just one change in a whole chain of things that will finish us here.
What will be next? I vote for cockroaches.
There are so many illegals because their home countries have the same problem. So when I say FOR ALL. I do mean ALL. OVER. THE. WORLD. We no longer have high enough infant mortality, we have too many ways of 'fixing' infertility. We have 'fixed' our way into an apocalypse. Too many people, not enough earth. It will take some time (I probably won't see it, I'm 65), it will be painful for a long time. We (population of earth) will at last try to fix it. (Unfix it?). Won't work. It's why Republicans wet their pants when Climate change is mentioned. It's just one change in a whole chain of things that will finish us here.
What will be next? I vote for cockroaches.
Allegedly, one of the wisest and wealthiest men in the world- King Solomon had this to say of the poor: " The poor is hated [even] by his own neighbor".
Poor people are an afterthought in every society; why should we expect anything different in America? "The Poor" have no influence; no lobbyists; no work-related collective power like Teacher Unions or Police Unions. Even the mythical swath of humanity we call "The Middle Class" is used as political talking- points, and little more. The only individual in this political *season* with an understanding, passion and acknowledgment of poverty- and its recipients was Bernie Sanders.
The common-man tends to embrace people unlike themselves- placing their hopes on those with abundance- falsely believing they know best; it isn't a leap of logic to recognize that neither Hillary or Trump would spend any time on the plight of The Poor; there's no need.
Poor people are an afterthought in every society; why should we expect anything different in America? "The Poor" have no influence; no lobbyists; no work-related collective power like Teacher Unions or Police Unions. Even the mythical swath of humanity we call "The Middle Class" is used as political talking- points, and little more. The only individual in this political *season* with an understanding, passion and acknowledgment of poverty- and its recipients was Bernie Sanders.
The common-man tends to embrace people unlike themselves- placing their hopes on those with abundance- falsely believing they know best; it isn't a leap of logic to recognize that neither Hillary or Trump would spend any time on the plight of The Poor; there's no need.
2
It just will not do to say that Hillary and the Dems want badly to help the poor but the mean old Republicans just won't let them. That's infantile, meaningless and withdraws moral agency from both her and her predecessor. It reminds me of nothing less than the childhood attempt at exculpation: "But he (she) made me do it!"
The latest attempt to deflect responsibility is that criticizing HRC and Trump simultaneously is false equivalency. If they want so bad to help them, it doesn't show in their actions.
The latest attempt to deflect responsibility is that criticizing HRC and Trump simultaneously is false equivalency. If they want so bad to help them, it doesn't show in their actions.
3
The Democrats will help the poor.
Republicans will help themselves.
It's really that simple.
Republicans will help themselves.
It's really that simple.
7
Not sure about that. How did Bill Clinton's welfare reform help the poor?
2
50 years ago, I would agree with your statement. Today, both parties are 2 factions of one party..the corporate party.
4
Speaking about the poor doesn't win elections.
5
Fine and sobering writing by Binyamin Appelbaum. I'll agree with posters who mention Johnson, RFK and Sanders. Poverty is an endemic part of the capitalism that we so proudly espouse. No one would overturn the system that makes some of us incredibly wealthy.
But as the middle class declines, there are fewer slots for any of the poor to ascend, and the numbers of the poor increase. The capitalism that we know stagnates.
Our system is based on the accumulation of wealth. Some of that wealth is going to have to be redirected to keep the system going. Currently only Sandwrs and Warren have taken a stand on this issue. Trump and Clinton don't have those convictions. It appears that the poor will continue to navigate the rough economic waters to which they are accustomed.
But as the middle class declines, there are fewer slots for any of the poor to ascend, and the numbers of the poor increase. The capitalism that we know stagnates.
Our system is based on the accumulation of wealth. Some of that wealth is going to have to be redirected to keep the system going. Currently only Sandwrs and Warren have taken a stand on this issue. Trump and Clinton don't have those convictions. It appears that the poor will continue to navigate the rough economic waters to which they are accustomed.
7
I have trouble thinking about someone who won't release his tax forms (...indicating fraud to me); declared bankruptcy 4 times (...but yet claims he is a millionaire several times over); evaded the draft (...by heel "problems" that suddenly disappeared); was married 3 times (...not that that's bad but indicates he's probably impossible to live with(!); makes statements that he says is misunderstood - he was only kidding (....were he president, one of those misunderstood statements could cause WWIII); his bullying gives cause for others to bully (...follow the leader); ...... hard to think of that person as President of my country.
3
A lot of this is people in the business of providing assistance/representation/PR for the poor, who are attached to specific programs, to which they have become wed. So one 'expert' proclaims 'but what about housing. You can't rent an apartment for 30% of your salary if you are making the minimum wage. The candidates are't even mentioning my pet issue here." But... if you increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $12 and hour, then suddenly, without any change to housing policy, that minimum wage worker can now afford an apartment on 30% of the minimum wage, but that doesn't satisfy this 'expert' who loves and wants more subsidized rents and housing.
Or the 'gee it's great for the earned income tax to rise, but that doesn't help the jobless and the candidates refuse to discuss this problem." But... both candidates talk about creating jobs. The way to have fewer jobless people is to have more jobs. Some of those jobs will be low wage, so an increased EITC allows the low-wage worker to have a better life. But that isn't good enough, because this advocate is chained to support of welfare payments to non-workers. Government decided that paying people not to work hasn't worked, perpetuates the cycle of poverty and provides the poor with no new work skills and no work experience.
Then there is the "why do they talk about manufacturing, rather than service jobs." Because the manufacturing jobs are primary jobs, which cause the spending that creates secondary service jobs.
Or the 'gee it's great for the earned income tax to rise, but that doesn't help the jobless and the candidates refuse to discuss this problem." But... both candidates talk about creating jobs. The way to have fewer jobless people is to have more jobs. Some of those jobs will be low wage, so an increased EITC allows the low-wage worker to have a better life. But that isn't good enough, because this advocate is chained to support of welfare payments to non-workers. Government decided that paying people not to work hasn't worked, perpetuates the cycle of poverty and provides the poor with no new work skills and no work experience.
Then there is the "why do they talk about manufacturing, rather than service jobs." Because the manufacturing jobs are primary jobs, which cause the spending that creates secondary service jobs.
1
The poor do not give money to politicians nor do they vote. They do riot but that infrequently. To claim the attention of politicians one has to give money, vote, or riot.
1
A high percentage of Black people have only (or less than) a high school diploma. Illegal immigrants compete with them for jobs. Harvard economist George Borjas has found that the number of Black people in the work force decreases as the the number of illegal immigrants increases.
The federal government supplements pay checks for the working poor with the Earned Income Tax Credit. A person who is not working is not eligible for this credit. An illegal immigrant, who is being paid “on the books” is eligible for this supplement. An American citizen, who cannot find work because all of the jobs are being filled by illegal immigrants, is not eligible.
The result is that a lot of Blacks remain poor (while our government supplements the wages of illegal immigrants).
The federal government supplements pay checks for the working poor with the Earned Income Tax Credit. A person who is not working is not eligible for this credit. An illegal immigrant, who is being paid “on the books” is eligible for this supplement. An American citizen, who cannot find work because all of the jobs are being filled by illegal immigrants, is not eligible.
The result is that a lot of Blacks remain poor (while our government supplements the wages of illegal immigrants).
4
So, you can go to a black family and promise them 2/3 of your take home pay, for the rest of your working life. It's only fair. Don't talk the talk, child, walk the walk.
HRC is a system candidate, she is definitionally part of the neo-llberal mind set, the US is about regressive taxes, a military industrial/national security state complex, incarceration of men of color, massive use of energy, (25% of the world's energy resources) and imperial expansion, how in heaven's name do poor people have a place at this table?! To be clear, resistance is futile, we will all be assimilated. And the massive disparities in wealth will continue apace. No one cares about the poor
I believe the last presidential candidate to talk about the poor was Lyndon Johnson.
Nowadays it's simply impolitic to mention those living in poverty - in part because it rouses resentment in some who feel the poor do little or nothing to help themselves.
Nowadays it's simply impolitic to mention those living in poverty - in part because it rouses resentment in some who feel the poor do little or nothing to help themselves.
2
If America is finding it so difficult to take care of it's native-born poor, why is the left so keen on taking more unskilled immigrants and refugees?
3
Neither candidate has ever served food at a soup kitchen. Shame! This is what they both ignore as they both continue to press for more offshoring of manufacturing jobs, tax breaks for the plutocrats and their false Christianity..
4
Does everyone who serves at a soup kitchen donate enough money so 25 people can eat there today? Or do they come, serve, smile, & feel righteous. But, leave nothing, and often eat some of the food that is there for the hungry?
1
every day I keep a twenty dollar bill in my pocket.
every day I meet a person who needs that twenty dollar bill
more than I. I give it to them. Simple.
every day I meet a person who needs that twenty dollar bill
more than I. I give it to them. Simple.
2
Tell me, will you give that $20 away if it is all you have to feed your family? Or buy gas for your taxi, so you can make tomorrow's $20? Or is it just a feel good thing for you? Does giving it away pinch at all?
Trump dominates all coverage, and that's nothing new. For years (decades) the Republicans have defined themselves as "not the Democrats" - they've come up with inconsequential wedge issues to make their point. The Democratic response has primarily been "we need to beat the Republicans". So we have lots of message about how dangerous Trump is, but almost nothing about how the Democrats have a fundamentally different approach. Its not so much that they don't have the latter message, its just that all the sound bites, headlines, etc. are "Democrats say Trump is a looney". They are most easily identified as the anti-Republican/Trump party by the messages that are in the media, both by themselves and their supporters. While Trump is "self-destructing", get your message about how you're going to make things better refined into sound bites, and get it out there, throwing gas on his fire does not help you in the long run.
We live in the country that cut Head Start and free school lunches. It's inhumane to cut even the basics for poor children. Petty criminals become repeat offenders because meals and living conditions are a little better in prison. Politicians avoid addressing poverty because taxpayers fear having to pay more to help the poor. recent presidents have pushed the burden of poverty onto volunteer and church groups. Poverty is a local, state and federal problem which cries out for solution based funding and programs like affordable safe housing and job training.
10
You would think that those Americans who have just enough money to keep the wolf from the door might be sympathetic to the plight of those who no longer have a door, but instead the thought of helping them seems to breed resentment and anger. People who don't have a lot are worried about losing what they have. It's all about perception. As J.D. Vance explains in "Hillbilly Elegy," it was hard to watch those who cheated the system chatting on their cellphones when he was working and couldn't afford one. We've all seen similar examples, which doesn't mean we get to pass judgment on those people either. Those who have never had to think twice about buying a book rather than being 75th on a waiting list at the library, or have had to choose between buying groceries or paying a utility bill don't get to judge. But for people living paycheck to paycheck who do have to make those choices, it probably doesn't take much for them to grasp at any anecdotal evidence that the poor are undeserving.
10
Everything rests on closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest and "investments" such as real estate and putting the money back into the social infrastructure including education and community-level anti-poverty programs.
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that is what she will do and she is a lifelong strong advocate for the poorest and will continue to be. The most vocal critics of OUR governments are in the middle class so she is addressing them as any smart politician would. I'll trust in her lifelong actions, not today's press. We can trust her to help ALL Americans.
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that is what she will do and she is a lifelong strong advocate for the poorest and will continue to be. The most vocal critics of OUR governments are in the middle class so she is addressing them as any smart politician would. I'll trust in her lifelong actions, not today's press. We can trust her to help ALL Americans.
9
its not so much you can trust hrc to help all Americans
but its certain th only american trump will help is trump
1
Teenagers, young adults who had just graduated and were entering the work force, and less-educted adults of any age used to be able to find entry-level jobs such as yard work, babysitting, house cleaning, restaurant, or hotel work. Now many of these jobs are being filled by immigrants who are living here illegally. There are so many illegal immigrants that they keep down the wages. No one would have to be talking about raising the minimum wage, if our own citizens had fewer people to compete with for these jobs.
Trump says he will deport the illegals. Clinton wants to let them stay. The last time we legalized the undocumented, it communicated to the world that we would do so again, and more came here in the expectation that this would happen. If we follow through by legalizing the current ones, even more will come.
What really hurts the poor is illegal immigration.
Trump says he will deport the illegals. Clinton wants to let them stay. The last time we legalized the undocumented, it communicated to the world that we would do so again, and more came here in the expectation that this would happen. If we follow through by legalizing the current ones, even more will come.
What really hurts the poor is illegal immigration.
12
Locally landscapers didn't hire illegals until they couldn't find anyone else to work as hard as they do, 6, 7 days a week. No holiday pay, no overtime pay, just straight time. None of the land owners want to pay minimum wage for the guys who mow, cut, trim. After all they could do it themselves, but, won't. More landscaping companies go out of business every year. But, theirs always someone to buy the equipment, hire a bunch of guys and try for the big time.
It's the same with the other jobs you mentioned. Waitstaff is exempt, by law, from the minimum wage everyone else gets and restaurant owners are always trying to get their tips so they can pay them with the tips they already earned. No person with any self worth would stand for it. Except the desperate. The poor often don't consider themselves desperate. Just broke. So, most of the places we frequent are young people, from the US, speak good English (listen to the poor sometime. Who taught them English? I often can understand Spanish better and I don't speak Spanish). Specialty restaurants often have specialty waitstaff. Like Chinese. Now most of them are 2nd or 3rd generation and speak English as we do. But, feel more comfortable around others of their own ethnicity. We the buying public like to have waitstaff that let us think we are in a foreign country. If you are shopping, eating, buying services where there are a lot of illegals, you are the problem. They come to work. You provide the work.
It's the same with the other jobs you mentioned. Waitstaff is exempt, by law, from the minimum wage everyone else gets and restaurant owners are always trying to get their tips so they can pay them with the tips they already earned. No person with any self worth would stand for it. Except the desperate. The poor often don't consider themselves desperate. Just broke. So, most of the places we frequent are young people, from the US, speak good English (listen to the poor sometime. Who taught them English? I often can understand Spanish better and I don't speak Spanish). Specialty restaurants often have specialty waitstaff. Like Chinese. Now most of them are 2nd or 3rd generation and speak English as we do. But, feel more comfortable around others of their own ethnicity. We the buying public like to have waitstaff that let us think we are in a foreign country. If you are shopping, eating, buying services where there are a lot of illegals, you are the problem. They come to work. You provide the work.
They both cover this issue in their policy positions. From direct observation of the light construction industry in New Jersey, illegal immigrant labor (interesting, pleasant, hardworking, otherwise law abiding guys) are making some inner city US citizens poorer. Usually, the owner or supervisor is a citizen or legal resident with a crew of illegal friends and relatives. These well paying jobs are not advertised and you will not hear about them unless you speak Spanish and are connected to the group via various text based applications. Typically they send much of what they earn each week to family in their country of origin which does not help our economy at all.
Neither of them were my choice for the primary, but Hillary supports this de facto system and Trump does not. A stark difference for the poor citizen.
Neither of them were my choice for the primary, but Hillary supports this de facto system and Trump does not. A stark difference for the poor citizen.
10
Sorry little one. The poor have always turned down jobs that involve hard work. Not all of them, but, enough. Go look at 'Manpower' offices. Each morning many sometimes hundreds of men stand there praying for jobs. No need for an app, or speaking Spanish, or knowing anyone. All that's needed is getting out of bed very early, getting dressed appropriately, and being one of the first there when the doors open. So, who are first? The immigrants. Legal & illegal. They come to get a days work for a days pay. They come expecting to work hard, long hours. There isn't a 'but' in any. They work hard, do good jobs, are willing to say they will be there tomorrow & they are. If our indigenous poor had work ethics like that, they'd be working. But, someone is filling their heads with words like, get a CAREER. Careers are nice, but most people have jobs. Jobs feed you, clothe you, give you a roof over your head. YOU DESERVE BETTER. You deserve what you can grab, and work hard for. Nothing else. So, my suggestion is, stop looking for a career, unless you have at least 1 useful degree (not liberal arts), better to have 2. Get a job, any job, then while doing an exemplary job, you can look for a career. You may find one, might not. Maybe managing a burger place is a career for you. You don't know until you try. So, out of bed, dress properly for the jobs available (don't wear a suit if you know they are looking for snow shovelers), eat breakfast, & get there a minimum of an hour early.
1
I believe that the rise of automation and the eventual loss of meaningful work for most of us means that the long run solution for everyone, not just the current poor, is the universal basic income -- as advocated by Andy Stern "Raising the Floor," and others. It's a good well-researched book, but you have to read through many long chapters to get to the meat at the end: Right now, we could pay for most of a universal basic income of $1,000 per month to every adult by simply eliminating all of the programs we currently have in place. Soon, as automation takes over more and more jobs, the surplus produced will rise and at the same time we will have to provide for more and more permanently unemployed and underemployed. Best to get ahead of the curve and start to transition to provide a floor support for people to find other meaningful ways to spend their lives than to live on welfare.
A basic support is NOT welfare, it will merely provide a basic minimum floor to do anything you want to do whatever you want to do with your life - education, arts, whatever. If you look at what people do today with retirement, you can see that it is NOT to just sit around and molder - at least not for all of us!
A basic support is NOT welfare, it will merely provide a basic minimum floor to do anything you want to do whatever you want to do with your life - education, arts, whatever. If you look at what people do today with retirement, you can see that it is NOT to just sit around and molder - at least not for all of us!
3
Great idea David. One thing though. What are we going to do with those people who think the only reason they have here on earth is to procreate? They will need more and more money with every child. More later in life for college expenses. The last thing a country moving toward an automated economy needs is more people. So, maybe they should lose some of their basic income with each child over 2 children. With each step away from needing a job for each person, you move 2 steps away from needing more people. Doesn't matter if they are white or black, rich or poor, intelligent or not. People take up resources and space. It's not bigoted to say so. I read this morning that the birthdate here in the US is the smallest it has ever been. But, our population is still rising. So it hasn't fallen far enough. We don't have a population problem YET. We do have a people problem. It's not PC to say that mandatory birth control must come before we sink. That is for everyone. Rich or poor, all people. There are children literally dying for a forever home, and people go out and get a puppy and give it a forever home instead. Or a kitten. But, not a child. I would like to see a minimum of 10 years of no births. Just adoptions of the kids currently wanting and needing a home. Don't use the word 'right' about this. No one has a 'right' to have children they cannot or will not take care of. Rich just plop the kid on a nanny's lap and go away for weeks or months. No right to procreate. Period.
1
The universal basic income is a smart idea ... but we' ve got to be really careful listening to the ways it is advocated.
Many conservative think tanks consider it could justify cancelling any other traditional welfare... in that case, getting 1,000 dollars a month and strictly nothing else could be socially worse than earning less with state or federal assistance.
Many conservative think tanks consider it could justify cancelling any other traditional welfare... in that case, getting 1,000 dollars a month and strictly nothing else could be socially worse than earning less with state or federal assistance.
I'm interested in the universal basic income. It sounds like a good idea. But I agree that it can't be in lieu of traditional welfare.
some here have parroted trumps pledge to help th poor as being sincere
tell me though, in his 70 years, what has trump done to help anyone but himself
then whence th faith that he will make this u-turn into magnanimity in his old age ?
8
Read Paul Theroux's new book "Deep South." The travel writer in this book travels the Deep South not the cities, but the rural areas, the towns stripped of their businesses, the towns with a history of racism, segregation, being ignored by the state and federal government, being by-passed by the interstates. It will make you ashamed that in the deep south of the US we have third world conditions that have plagued and will continue to plague it for generations.
Every member of Congess should have to read the book and then explain why these conditons are allowed to exist while we annually dump millions of dollars into other countries and into the military budget.
Every member of Congess should have to read the book and then explain why these conditons are allowed to exist while we annually dump millions of dollars into other countries and into the military budget.
22
Because those states are racist and want only the white and wealthiest to enjoy the benefits of government, Sherr29. The only thing that will change it is for citizens to elect the right people - and for the right people to step up and run for election.
2
As someone who has seen exactly what you are talking about in the Deep South, allow me to thank you.
1
I couldn't agree more with Matthew Desmond. But I would like to remind him, the author and everybody else that it was Bernie Sanders who spoke of and included the poor and the poverty that is abound in this country...the "richest" country on the face of the planet...in all of his speeches and campaign events. It was and still is on the top of his agenda. Let's not forget that fact or the fact that the D Party did everything they could to undermine his candidacy....you know, the party that says they represent the poor and working class.
25
Let's not forget the fact that Vermont is a very poor state and Sanders has had 28 years in Congress to fix that, yet not only has not, but even more families are on food stamps now than during the recession.
Your sentiments reflect only those of right wing think tanks including ALEC that would love nothing more than to defeat Senator Sanders. Their mission, bankrolled by moneyed interests, is to turn Vermont red. Why would the majority of people keep re-electing Bernie if you say he has done nothing for Vermont in his 28 years in Congress...?
In response to Esteban from Los Angeles:
If the poor really are not voting as you state, perhaps it is due to their priorities and energy are on how to feed their families and keep them safe from harm and the outside elements, not to mention trying to find some kind of employment. But I do agree with your statement that they and EVERYONE should vote. As my parents used to say, if one does not vote, one does not have the right to complain.
If the poor really are not voting as you state, perhaps it is due to their priorities and energy are on how to feed their families and keep them safe from harm and the outside elements, not to mention trying to find some kind of employment. But I do agree with your statement that they and EVERYONE should vote. As my parents used to say, if one does not vote, one does not have the right to complain.
5
This article raises an important issue on the minds of many progressives, like me, that are still not on board with the Hillary campaign. I honestly do not believe that Hillary Clinton is a true progressive. I think that at one time in her life, she probably was more progressive than she is now, but she has been co opted by the fame, fortune and the Washington establishment. I worry that she will end up supporting trade agreements like the TPP and that is a non started for every true progressive that I know. I don't want her to work with the Republicans. That is what President Obama tried to do and look how that worked out. He squander his golden moment, aka the First One Hundred Days, by trying to suck up to the Republicans in Congress. He could have accomplished so much more if he would have been bolder and took the fight to the Republicans rather than trying to compromise with them. I look at all the Republicans saying they are going to vote for Hillary and all the outreach Hillary is making to woo disheartened Republicans and I am once again unwilling to commit to her election. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. God, I miss Bernie...
9
You are living in a dream world.
The Founding Fathers designed our Constitutional system to allow for checks and balances between the three branches of government, and any one of them can only do so much without the cooperation and participation of the other.
Clinton may luck out and gain back a majority in the Senate, but if recent trends continue, it will be short lived, and she still needs to work with the House in order to pass actual legislation that she can sign in order to achieve many of her stated policy goals.
The Founding Fathers designed our Constitutional system to allow for checks and balances between the three branches of government, and any one of them can only do so much without the cooperation and participation of the other.
Clinton may luck out and gain back a majority in the Senate, but if recent trends continue, it will be short lived, and she still needs to work with the House in order to pass actual legislation that she can sign in order to achieve many of her stated policy goals.
2
You want things better, but for God's Sake, DON'T DO ANYTHING! DON'T TRY ANYTHING! Just order everyone to do it your way. How's that working for you? Not really, huh? Maybe your attitude is the problem. In the last 8 years the Republicans have acted like young children. (WE won't do our jobs, so you can't either, nananananh!) You stood there saying look how horrible they are, we can NEVER, EVER, work with them. So, if this election, new are elected and you stick your nose in the air and huff, just more Republicans (or Democrats you don't approve of) nothing will get done, again. And you will be totally to blame. If you don't stick your hand out, it will never get shaken. I prefer to keep both the Radical Republicans and the Radical Progressives in their own separate cells, feed once a week and ignore.
1
Well when Clinton got slammed back in the 90s she managed to get a low income insurance program for kids wrangled out of the GOP that even they were ashamed not to support. It is still going. I am sure a lot of moms and dads appreciated the practical approach and doggedness it took.
Progressives gave up on Obama when his going got rough but he got a lot done without them.
Progressives gave up on Obama when his going got rough but he got a lot done without them.
1
Wasn't Bill Clinton the last President to 'reform' welfare and criminal justice and aren't the new 'Clinton' policies just an extension of that?
What folks don't realize is that automation has shifted all the power to capital and until politicians who actually serve people, poor and systemically unemployed, the old 'up by your bootstraps' approaches won't work because today's producers function on chips and not boots.
What folks don't realize is that automation has shifted all the power to capital and until politicians who actually serve people, poor and systemically unemployed, the old 'up by your bootstraps' approaches won't work because today's producers function on chips and not boots.
1
German industry is heavily robotic, yet there are few poor there
explain
The net cost to our government of employing most of the poor people would be nothing more than a rounding error. Even though there may be plenty of bad reasons, many of them ideological, there is no good reason not to do so.
3
take away moneyn from th military and your glorious wars and give to th poor ?
are you daft, man
this is america were talking about
Good idea, just like the CCC and the other alphabet soup in the Great Depression. Take unemployed young men, truck them into the wilderness to build roads, trails, way stations. All by hand, no mechanical tools. No going home on weekends, standing on street corners, pay sent home. They are fed, clothed, and moved by the program. Worked then. Young men were happy to be helping their families survive. Every summer they were sent all over the country. Most of the trails built in the mountains of NH are still there and still useable. Same with the way stations (where hikers spend the night and get a meal). Tell me honestly, do you think American young men would be even remotely interested in a program like that? My guess is no, unless there was a military draft to worry about.
1
@Brenda
Times have changed. Today, those are not the particular jobs that need to be done. Our government has a shortage of people responding to phone calls and other requests at the IRS and VA - and, that's only one example, there are many other useful jobs to be done. In addition, there are probably many somewhat less useful potential jobs, if Americans were not so irrationally obsessed over the budget deficit, national debt, and other nations who pay lower taxes. It's all about priorities, but fear and greed prevent the adoption of solutions.
Times have changed. Today, those are not the particular jobs that need to be done. Our government has a shortage of people responding to phone calls and other requests at the IRS and VA - and, that's only one example, there are many other useful jobs to be done. In addition, there are probably many somewhat less useful potential jobs, if Americans were not so irrationally obsessed over the budget deficit, national debt, and other nations who pay lower taxes. It's all about priorities, but fear and greed prevent the adoption of solutions.
One reason Hitler (ack!) and Mussolini had such big followings is that after WW1 the middle class became poor.
When the middle class starts losing some of the things they take for granted (such as good, affordable education), they go nuts. The poor never had these things so they just continue to be poor.
That's why the focus is on the middle class and the lower middle class, but not on the poor.
When the middle class starts losing some of the things they take for granted (such as good, affordable education), they go nuts. The poor never had these things so they just continue to be poor.
That's why the focus is on the middle class and the lower middle class, but not on the poor.
6
During the last presidential election in 2012, I read "The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy and 82 Days That Inspired America" by Thurston Clarke. For me, among the most memorable aspects of this book, was how often RFK mentioned the poor and his desire to end poverty in his campaign speeches. In recent years, candidates have emphasized what they'll do for the middle class with nary a mention of the poor, as if they no longer exist. Amidst the craziness of this election season, do yourself a favor and check out this great book about a special moment in US history.
7
I also remember, even though I was quite young, the photographs of RFK visiting the poor Those images left a mark and they are missing from this election.
1
In many ways the Democrats have been addressing the roots of poverty by asking for more education opportunities and job creation. Breaking the cycle of poverty is not by creating a larger welfare safety net!
48
If you have no home, it is hard to study, to stay on schedules, to eat properly, to keep appointments or to get, let alone keep, a job.
You should consider replacing the "more education opportunities" with "more employable skills."
For the longest time, we tell younger generations that they need more education, so they borrow to the hilt to go to college, even if it's for just a useless piece of paper we call diploma, as if it provides any guarantee for jobs. As it has become abundantly clear that this does not work and should never have worked. For once, I applaud the mention in the HRC speech on the emphasis for skills acquisition (even if it's community college or vocation school), rather than a useless liberal arts degree that no employer needs. You'll be better served to tell your kids to consider the same.
For the longest time, we tell younger generations that they need more education, so they borrow to the hilt to go to college, even if it's for just a useless piece of paper we call diploma, as if it provides any guarantee for jobs. As it has become abundantly clear that this does not work and should never have worked. For once, I applaud the mention in the HRC speech on the emphasis for skills acquisition (even if it's community college or vocation school), rather than a useless liberal arts degree that no employer needs. You'll be better served to tell your kids to consider the same.
1
"Poor Americans are urged to hate themselves."-Kurt Vonnegut
16
Raising the minimum wage too high will stifle the development of new jobs.
For anyone who bothered to listen to Trump's economic speech, he does want to raise the federal minimum wage to $10. Because the cost of living differs state to state, it would be up to individual states to raise it above that.
As far as a 15% corporate tax rate, that would bring many companies back to the US, allow for corporate growth and hence new jobs.
For anyone who bothered to listen to Trump's economic speech, he does want to raise the federal minimum wage to $10. Because the cost of living differs state to state, it would be up to individual states to raise it above that.
As far as a 15% corporate tax rate, that would bring many companies back to the US, allow for corporate growth and hence new jobs.
3
That's what he said THIS time, aure.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/28/donald-tr...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/28/donald-tr...
Nope, the 15% corporate tax will not bring corporations back, because there would be rioting if they got that and did not HAVE to bring all the jobs back. 15% won't pay for bringing those jobs back. Corporations pay more here for what they are getting for less over there? No way.
The plight of the poor is a significant issue that plagues America and this was an important part of the issues that Bernie Sanders was addressing.
Bernie’s proposals included tax breaks for the poor, job training, cheap or free access to colleges and universities, improved and affordable housing programs, improved outcomes (both in health and education) for the young poor, tax increases to the wealthy to finance these programs, and the list goes on.
Given that the Democratic organization had been loading the dice against Bernie and as a consequence he was forced to retire from the Presidential race, we will never know what would have happened should Bernie have won.
Now America must choose between the two candidates Hillary and Trump who have the least liabilities … and NOT the greatest assets or strengths in November. This will be a sad indictment of America’s two leading political parties given the severity of economic, social and political problems that the US is facing currently and going forward. And the list is very, very long.
Bernie’s proposals included tax breaks for the poor, job training, cheap or free access to colleges and universities, improved and affordable housing programs, improved outcomes (both in health and education) for the young poor, tax increases to the wealthy to finance these programs, and the list goes on.
Given that the Democratic organization had been loading the dice against Bernie and as a consequence he was forced to retire from the Presidential race, we will never know what would have happened should Bernie have won.
Now America must choose between the two candidates Hillary and Trump who have the least liabilities … and NOT the greatest assets or strengths in November. This will be a sad indictment of America’s two leading political parties given the severity of economic, social and political problems that the US is facing currently and going forward. And the list is very, very long.
4
It cannot all hinge on one person, i.e., Bernie Sanders. The movement of leaders like him has to be sustained. As long as things are as bad as they are, it will be.
So happy to see this very important article in the NYT and "above the fold." Can't wait for that day when DT is not the lead in, especially when it's yesterday's news.
3
Republicans do not talk about the `poor` during Presidential elections because they do enough of that in between elections. Faux News is incessant in hammering home its point: `.....trying to convince what is left of the middle class that poor people are the problem....` Hannity will tell you that. Coulter will tell you that. O'Reilly will tell you that. BUT NOW, they want poor and the working poor to vote REPUBLICAN, against their own economic interests.
The word "welfare" will need to be redefined. We are headed for perilous times due to the relentless advance of technology. In the near future, we should expect our economy to hemorrhage several thousands of jobs - example cab drivers, package delivery, trucking as technology such as self-driving cars and drones replaces these workers. This is a continuation of the long term trend. We should seriously think of implementing common minimum income combined with mandatory re-training programs funded by some sort of corporate tax or GST.
4
The word "middle-class" has become a sort of totem for both parties. Whatever's in the interest of this vague middle-class is good for America, good for stump speech. The poor - working or otherwise - are an afterthought, perhaps not a thought at all since LBJ actually tried to address the endemic poverty that still surrounds us, still grows and grows like an unseen tumor.
1
Save for Lyndon Johnson, the Presidents of this country for the last
50 years have largely ignored the Poor.
Why is that ?
50 years have largely ignored the Poor.
Why is that ?
6
Depends on how you look at it.
Are you forgetting that American presidents have proven incredibly adept at sending poor people's kids off to go die in meaningless wars (thus reducing poverty rates?)
Are you forgetting that American presidents have proven incredibly adept at sending poor people's kids off to go die in meaningless wars (thus reducing poverty rates?)
1
VH,
Sadly, it is the case.
Why those who happened to be in the Armed Forces were sent
back for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even a 5th tour of duty in the Mideast
while most Americans their age worked on their tans and hitting
the bars - with no outcry about how unfair it was - where are all the protestors of the Vietnam Draft/War when you need them -
just tells you the status of the poor in America.
Sadly, it is the case.
Why those who happened to be in the Armed Forces were sent
back for 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even a 5th tour of duty in the Mideast
while most Americans their age worked on their tans and hitting
the bars - with no outcry about how unfair it was - where are all the protestors of the Vietnam Draft/War when you need them -
just tells you the status of the poor in America.
1
For one thing, the poor are being called the middle class because the middle class has gotten so much poorer in the past few generations.
I am struggling with what could be striking about this.
Trump is a multi-billionaire.
Clinton's household reported 27 Million in taxable income last year.
They, their families and friends are not only universes apart from the poor, they have no concept of the "middle class" that has emerged since 2008.
Add to that the fact that the poor and unemployed do not appear to vote, ot if they do, for candidates that do not talk about them. Sanders did talk about the issue, but he did not get the votes that it takes.
It seems to me the rich are in overdrive to make themselves richer - Trump and his tax proposals are a prime example - the middle class is trying to slow its downhill slide in numbers and standard of living, and the poor are fending for themselves, which does not work if you don't vote your self interest (which is what the much smaller rich and middle class groups do.
Trump is a multi-billionaire.
Clinton's household reported 27 Million in taxable income last year.
They, their families and friends are not only universes apart from the poor, they have no concept of the "middle class" that has emerged since 2008.
Add to that the fact that the poor and unemployed do not appear to vote, ot if they do, for candidates that do not talk about them. Sanders did talk about the issue, but he did not get the votes that it takes.
It seems to me the rich are in overdrive to make themselves richer - Trump and his tax proposals are a prime example - the middle class is trying to slow its downhill slide in numbers and standard of living, and the poor are fending for themselves, which does not work if you don't vote your self interest (which is what the much smaller rich and middle class groups do.
2
Hillary Clinton grew up middle-class. Her hubby grew up poor.
How's Trump grow up--well, assuming that one thinks he grew up at all.
How's Trump grow up--well, assuming that one thinks he grew up at all.
2
Not sure how they grew up matters. What kind of wealth do they seek to amass today? Both candidates seem fully engaged in their own pursuit of wealth.
Old Angry Women. Old Bees in Bonnett. I was just speaking to a group Hillary could certainly tap into. I train for a Community College and in every class almost fifty percent of the class will be women over fifty "deleted" from the work force. They are angry and frustrated. They are scared. They are holding together meager resources, often left over from a broken marriage or a drained 401k, disillusioned they haven't sourced another job.
These women, in general, are exceptionally bright, with an excellent skill-set still useful but not on the emerging edge of technology. They come in looking to catch that emerging edge. Yet the common story leads to the conclusion that these women are being dumped out of their jobs rather than trained and invested into.
No longer shy and retiring, if they ever were, these women have experience and have a voice. Regardless of whether their administrators are men or women when the opportunity arises to trim the workforce these "Old Bees" are the first out the door.
One could say that a lack of trim fit beauty plays into this characterization only they are some of the most beautiful people I've ever met. They are the first to help younger people in team groups. They are the first to organize outside student study groups. And they can always find a potato to throw in the pot when another person starts "sinking" in the job market quicksand.
Hillary are you listening? This is the rural America that is still available and waiting.
These women, in general, are exceptionally bright, with an excellent skill-set still useful but not on the emerging edge of technology. They come in looking to catch that emerging edge. Yet the common story leads to the conclusion that these women are being dumped out of their jobs rather than trained and invested into.
No longer shy and retiring, if they ever were, these women have experience and have a voice. Regardless of whether their administrators are men or women when the opportunity arises to trim the workforce these "Old Bees" are the first out the door.
One could say that a lack of trim fit beauty plays into this characterization only they are some of the most beautiful people I've ever met. They are the first to help younger people in team groups. They are the first to organize outside student study groups. And they can always find a potato to throw in the pot when another person starts "sinking" in the job market quicksand.
Hillary are you listening? This is the rural America that is still available and waiting.
27
Welcome POV!
2
Agreed. As I understand it, women over age 50 have incredible difficulty finding new employment.
1
A massive, seemingly unstoppable, influx of workers for too few jobs.
If only there was a Law Of Economics named after this phenomenon.
If only there was a Law Of Economics named after this phenomenon.
(Do-over)
I don't understand why Ms. Clinton can't/ won't make an argument, supported by data, that allowing the rate of poverty that we have is not only immoral but doesn't make economic sense either. The current rates of homelessness, drug use, crime, incarceration, lack of mental health care, etc. affect us all. Do we think this will all go away by creating manufacturing jobs? (Not that's anything wrong with that.)
I don't understand why Ms. Clinton can't/ won't make an argument, supported by data, that allowing the rate of poverty that we have is not only immoral but doesn't make economic sense either. The current rates of homelessness, drug use, crime, incarceration, lack of mental health care, etc. affect us all. Do we think this will all go away by creating manufacturing jobs? (Not that's anything wrong with that.)
5
Thats a joke, right? She & WJC very likely have more money then Trump. Just make them feel a thrill while you raise their cost of living
That's because your country is still not on the brink. The election is still decided by the middle class and the middle class does not like free meals.
5
Nothing personal, but I believe that "most Americans" are thoroughly sick of hearing from either one of them. Spare us, please!!!
6
Why would HRC be interested in the poor? Throughout her career, she has sought to enrich herself, and felt no shame in peddling her connections and influence to line her pockets (who pays $200,000 for a short speech!). One would also wonder why Chelsea commands $75,000 per speech! Her platform was short on specifics for the working and middle class, until Bernie Sanders pushed her to "pivot" accordingly. Why would the NYT even assume that the poor are her concern? She cares about one thing - keeping her Corporate donors and Wall Street buddies happy.
31
They all get speaking fees. Hilary is probably being underpaid relative to the men. Yes, Bernie doesn't get fees, but I think we can all agree that he's in the minority. Also no financial institution would pay him to come anyway.
Many living in poverty have a tendency of not voting. Therefore they are ignored.
If I were to ask you to name three national political figures that are more conniving than Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump you would be hard pressed to do do so. The three of them off the national stage are good friends. Bill and Hillary I believe attended Trump's wedding. Trump has been a big contributor to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton has said very little about Donald Trump's quest to become the GOP Presidential candidate. I find that odd. There is no one on the national scene who has coveted the presidency more than Hillary Clinton. ... http://lstrn.us/2aPxXxC
If I were to ask you to name three national political figures that are more conniving than Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump you would be hard pressed to do do so. The three of them off the national stage are good friends. Bill and Hillary I believe attended Trump's wedding. Trump has been a big contributor to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton has said very little about Donald Trump's quest to become the GOP Presidential candidate. I find that odd. There is no one on the national scene who has coveted the presidency more than Hillary Clinton. ... http://lstrn.us/2aPxXxC
2
Trump has stated:
"We will take care of the poor".
But my question is this; how does all that Goldman Sachs money get to the poor from Hillary and the Clinton Foundation? What do they do... wipe their server, you know, with a cloth?
And the poor are no longer poor!!! Miraculous.
"We will take care of the poor".
But my question is this; how does all that Goldman Sachs money get to the poor from Hillary and the Clinton Foundation? What do they do... wipe their server, you know, with a cloth?
And the poor are no longer poor!!! Miraculous.
7
Bernie Sanders said a lot about establishing a living wage during his campaign. Big media corps did what they could to sandbag his candidacy. It turns out that so did the DNC. But now there is concern about the poor?
The next US president will be Hillary Clinton. In her well-advertised bio, Hillary uses her own mother’s abject poverty the way that other candidates use their father’s or grandfather’s service in the Armed Forces to establish that the lessons of war were well-learned.
But being made to fear poverty doesn’t equate to empathy for those who are poor. Hillary’s $12 an hour minimum wage versus $15? She doesn’t get it. Distance. A person cleaning hospital floors of blood, vomit and diarrhea for the minimum wage. At $12 per hour they have to work 18,750 hours to equal Hillary Clinton’s minimum speaking fee of $225,000. So 9 years of their life. At $15 per hour, it will only take them about seven years. Sense the distance?
It is not just the Clintons and their money-grubbing speeches. Many Americans do not respect the nasty, menial work that goes into every business and enterprise that forms the basis of our powerful economy. If we did, we would pay the working poor a living wage and establish dignity for those on the bottom rungs.
When leaders are on that top rung, the thousandth one, the top one-tenth of one percent, they are propped up by everyone below them. But you wouldn’t know it… Let them eat cake while they are taking three buses to getting to their jobs…
The next US president will be Hillary Clinton. In her well-advertised bio, Hillary uses her own mother’s abject poverty the way that other candidates use their father’s or grandfather’s service in the Armed Forces to establish that the lessons of war were well-learned.
But being made to fear poverty doesn’t equate to empathy for those who are poor. Hillary’s $12 an hour minimum wage versus $15? She doesn’t get it. Distance. A person cleaning hospital floors of blood, vomit and diarrhea for the minimum wage. At $12 per hour they have to work 18,750 hours to equal Hillary Clinton’s minimum speaking fee of $225,000. So 9 years of their life. At $15 per hour, it will only take them about seven years. Sense the distance?
It is not just the Clintons and their money-grubbing speeches. Many Americans do not respect the nasty, menial work that goes into every business and enterprise that forms the basis of our powerful economy. If we did, we would pay the working poor a living wage and establish dignity for those on the bottom rungs.
When leaders are on that top rung, the thousandth one, the top one-tenth of one percent, they are propped up by everyone below them. But you wouldn’t know it… Let them eat cake while they are taking three buses to getting to their jobs…
43
Those on the bottom have innate dignity, the living wage would be an acknowledgement that is recognized by the government at least.
5
But don't you understand the raising the minimum wage DOES NOT HELP THE POOR? Businesses where min. wage employees work will have to raise their prices. Then the poor will be right back where they were. There is no way to stop this. Minimum wages are for teenagers and part time workers who are in college or grad school. There is no such thing as a living wage. The ONLY way to increase wages is to create a labor shortage so that businesses have to pay more to attract workers.
The only way to create a labor shortage for menial labor is to create jobs. The only way to create jobs is to reduce costs to businesses.
The other factor that you have going against minimum wage employees is the amount of immigration to the US. I am not saying we should stop this. What I am saying is that as long as you have the influx of workers willing to perform menial jobs then employers will be able to pay minimum wage (again raising the min. wage won't help -- see above).
So if we allow this level of immigration, then there is virtually no way to create a labor shortage. If you can't create a labor shortage, then wages will not go up. Make the minimum wage $1 million an hour, it won't matter. Within a year or two, milk will cost $1 million a gallon.
The only way to create a labor shortage for menial labor is to create jobs. The only way to create jobs is to reduce costs to businesses.
The other factor that you have going against minimum wage employees is the amount of immigration to the US. I am not saying we should stop this. What I am saying is that as long as you have the influx of workers willing to perform menial jobs then employers will be able to pay minimum wage (again raising the min. wage won't help -- see above).
So if we allow this level of immigration, then there is virtually no way to create a labor shortage. If you can't create a labor shortage, then wages will not go up. Make the minimum wage $1 million an hour, it won't matter. Within a year or two, milk will cost $1 million a gallon.
2
"But don't you understand the raising the minimum wage DOES NOT HELP THE POOR? Businesses where min. wage employees work will have to raise their prices."
____________________________
I don't mind paying more for goods or services if wages are raised. Did it ever occur to you that the people that are being paid minimum wages are still being supported by all of us because these same people will apply for assistance whether it be food stamps or Medicaid? One way or another we're going to pay. And who made the rules that that minimum wages are just for teenagers and part time workers? That may have worked back in the 1950's early 1960's but not any more. It's 2016....the 21st century.
____________________________
I don't mind paying more for goods or services if wages are raised. Did it ever occur to you that the people that are being paid minimum wages are still being supported by all of us because these same people will apply for assistance whether it be food stamps or Medicaid? One way or another we're going to pay. And who made the rules that that minimum wages are just for teenagers and part time workers? That may have worked back in the 1950's early 1960's but not any more. It's 2016....the 21st century.
2
We do not intend to help the poor. We are in a real sense in love with our material world. If God came to earth to live with us, we would smash his windows. If Jesus Christ returned we would crucify him anew, only we would do the job more quickly than the Romans did. Trump standing at the foot of the cross with his grin would sell nails at discount prices for everyone to use. Man no more intends to help the poor than he is willing to give up war. The Greeks defined Man as a "rational animal". Which part of that definition in your life is greater than the other part? Write it on a piece of paper and put it in your wallet for an occasional laugh.
5
Clinton and especially Trump are barely persuasive in their bid to be the candidate for the middle class. How can they then claim to be the champion of the poor?
8
Articles like this from the esteemed New York Times are not helpful to fully understand what is at stake in this country. The writers know that at the end of the day, Hillary has always been and will always be an advocate for the poor. To again equate Trump's policies or motivations to hers is absurd.
20
@ZJ,
Candidates and Presidents, mostly on the Democratic side of the fence have been "advocates for the poor" for decades. Yet as NYT's quotes, America has "the deepest poverty of any developed nation." So the promise that gets you a vote into office and the reality of what transpires are very clear. But, I assume you probably think that it's all the fault of the Republicans, because your candidate would never promise something they can't deliver. As for calling the comparison between Trump and Clinton's policies absurd, they're both just spewing rhetoric to get their foot in the door. Don't worry to much though. This fall the country will elect your candidate, nothing will change as this world is somewhat of a runaway train, hopefully on a very long track. But at least we got the lesser of to evils to try and run a ungovernable country.
Candidates and Presidents, mostly on the Democratic side of the fence have been "advocates for the poor" for decades. Yet as NYT's quotes, America has "the deepest poverty of any developed nation." So the promise that gets you a vote into office and the reality of what transpires are very clear. But, I assume you probably think that it's all the fault of the Republicans, because your candidate would never promise something they can't deliver. As for calling the comparison between Trump and Clinton's policies absurd, they're both just spewing rhetoric to get their foot in the door. Don't worry to much though. This fall the country will elect your candidate, nothing will change as this world is somewhat of a runaway train, hopefully on a very long track. But at least we got the lesser of to evils to try and run a ungovernable country.
1
The poor don't vote. They poor don't make campaign contributions.
How ironic - the poor would have power if they used the only currency they have: the right to vote.
How ironic - the poor would have power if they used the only currency they have: the right to vote.
25
You need an address to register to vote.
4
Not a nefarious scheme. An address is required by law so you may be registered in the appropriate local election for all offices from mayor to congress. Do you want people from Albany voting for NYC council members? A P.O BOX or shelter address is fine as long as you can receive US mail there.
1
Many very prosperous and free countries assure that nobody lacks the basic needs of life including not just food, shelter and clothes but health care, good educations, and support when they are not able to support themselves. The United States could do the same by adopting those programs for America. The United States was lucky during the times when those other countries were developing those programs because it was enjoying the greatest economic growth in history and everyone actually shared in it. Now that that time is gone, the lack of good social support systems is having it's worse effects on the poor. To overcome this requires convincing the entire country that everyone must be assured of what they need to live well and that raising taxes is a good thing. Until everyone believes this, no politician can be elected nor government official remain in office by advocating or providing such things.
117
The never mentioned fact is that the GOP intentionally and systematically for the purpose of creating the need we speak of deconstructed the social support systems and economy that supported it then destroyed t he government and got rid of the people who knew how to regulate and run a government properly and saw to it that the replacements were not instructed properly to as best as they could prevent it from being reestablished.
3
America is the richest third world country there is.
1
@casual observer,
"Many very prosperous and free countries assure that nobody lacks the basic needs."
When will people realize that we are not Europe or other countries who have the population of one or two of our larger metropolitan areas.
Is reality that hard to grasp?
"Many very prosperous and free countries assure that nobody lacks the basic needs."
When will people realize that we are not Europe or other countries who have the population of one or two of our larger metropolitan areas.
Is reality that hard to grasp?
2
$12 is not enough and the asked for $15 is after all the MINIMUM necessary to live properly if one is working full time and does not have extra expenses which people do more often than not.
What about ending rules that allow employers to deny benefits if they just employ more people and give them a few hours each instead of hiring a few employees full time? It pretty much costs the same or more to work part time than it does full time which gives the part time worker the expense of a job with nearly no benefit from the wages earned.
What about ending rules that allow employers to deny benefits if they just employ more people and give them a few hours each instead of hiring a few employees full time? It pretty much costs the same or more to work part time than it does full time which gives the part time worker the expense of a job with nearly no benefit from the wages earned.
1
It is bizarre that the Left has endless compassion and bountiful public funds for refugees and illegal aliens, yet none for our own low skilled citizens, who are deemed not worthy of jobs that pay a living wage.
As soon as a refugee obtains official status, they receive a bounty of taxpayer funded services, including Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and job training. Between our government racing to provide anything a refugee could want or need and religious organizations happily applying for these benefits (so they do not have to provide them themselves), every illegal alien knows to demand asylum, as soon as they hit our shores.
No poor American can obtain those services without pleading a disability, which requires a lawyer and takes years, so they are left to live on the streets, homeless and hungry.
Enter Trump.
As soon as a refugee obtains official status, they receive a bounty of taxpayer funded services, including Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and job training. Between our government racing to provide anything a refugee could want or need and religious organizations happily applying for these benefits (so they do not have to provide them themselves), every illegal alien knows to demand asylum, as soon as they hit our shores.
No poor American can obtain those services without pleading a disability, which requires a lawyer and takes years, so they are left to live on the streets, homeless and hungry.
Enter Trump.
9
Anyone who thinks the unrestricted immigration of 40+ million mostly low skilled immigrants, legal or otherwise - since the change to our immigration laws in 1965 and the first amnesty in the 1980s - has been good for America is either delusional or rich.
Supply and demand trumps all.
Supply and demand trumps all.
6
Bernie Sanders mentioned the poor. Problem was, the press, including the Times, barely mentioned Bernie Sanders (at least not when it mattered).
9
Seems they're still boycotting him as of now. I'm a little baffled how an article on the subject of electoral politics and poverty doesn't even mention him.
1
It was Lyndon Johnson that started, "The war on poverty" in the 1960s. Poverty has been prevalent in many states but not talked about. In the 1970's there was a paper published in New Hampshire, "The curse that lingers" We hear about poverty now only because the middle class is losing its buying power and falling closer to poverty levels. At the same time the financial institutions and the rich are accumulating more wealth. Trump is a 1% and Hillary has courted Wall Street. What a crazy time we live in.
4
Our economy is based largely on shopping and consumer spending. Take a look back to the Panic of 1873 and what happens when there aren't enough customers to buy the items being produced
I think it's time to go back to the program's began by Herbert Hoover (I didn't let the Belgians starve, and I won't let Americans starve) and picked up by FDR. It's painfully obvious that the private sector is not creating the jobs America needs, so someone has too. Think of all the infrastructure jobs that could be created by such a program.
Of course I'm not an idiot, or naive, I know that Congress would never fund any program like this, unless the poorest Americans spread a lot of cash around through K Street firms.
I think it's time to go back to the program's began by Herbert Hoover (I didn't let the Belgians starve, and I won't let Americans starve) and picked up by FDR. It's painfully obvious that the private sector is not creating the jobs America needs, so someone has too. Think of all the infrastructure jobs that could be created by such a program.
Of course I'm not an idiot, or naive, I know that Congress would never fund any program like this, unless the poorest Americans spread a lot of cash around through K Street firms.
11
It took the Great Depression and working class people's movements of the 1930s to get unionization (higher wages) and the New Deal, which helped to create the middle class. World War II finally got us out of the Great Depression. Government spending for war-related industry created jobs and infrastructure. After the war, the rebuilding of Europe and suburban development (highways, housing, infrastructure) grew the middle class at home.
The growth lasted from 1945-73. Since then, our model of cowboy capitalism has sought to retain profits by cutting labor costs and moving industry to low-wage regions, and capturing government to enrich the few.
NYT, Bernie Sanders was the one candidate focusing on the poor. You ignored and belittled him.
Clinton may make minor improvements here and there, but she supported her husband's decimation of the New Deal entitlement to government support for the country's poor children.
The growth lasted from 1945-73. Since then, our model of cowboy capitalism has sought to retain profits by cutting labor costs and moving industry to low-wage regions, and capturing government to enrich the few.
NYT, Bernie Sanders was the one candidate focusing on the poor. You ignored and belittled him.
Clinton may make minor improvements here and there, but she supported her husband's decimation of the New Deal entitlement to government support for the country's poor children.
14
The problem is that the Corporatist Duopoly Political Parties are not interested in helping the poor or even the working and middle classes. They do not care about anyone but the oligarchs and plutocrats on Wall Street and International Corporations.
American Manufacturing has been gutted and will only return in a fully automated form without any opportunities for the vast majority of American to be employed. Big Business wants it that way! They chase low wage low regulation manufacturing opportunities all around the world while they are waiting for the folks in silicone valley to make all manufacturing workers everywhere obsolete.
Who do they think will consume those consumer goods they manufacture if there are no jobs? This corporate juggernaut is destroying communities and the planet in their drive for unsustainable growth.
The fight against corporate greed is what the Sanders Revolution is about and what Dr. Jill Stein's candidacy is about.
We do not expect to see either Donald Trump nor Hilary Clinton take a stand for a sustainable future because what they are about is diametrically the opposite of sustainability.
American Manufacturing has been gutted and will only return in a fully automated form without any opportunities for the vast majority of American to be employed. Big Business wants it that way! They chase low wage low regulation manufacturing opportunities all around the world while they are waiting for the folks in silicone valley to make all manufacturing workers everywhere obsolete.
Who do they think will consume those consumer goods they manufacture if there are no jobs? This corporate juggernaut is destroying communities and the planet in their drive for unsustainable growth.
The fight against corporate greed is what the Sanders Revolution is about and what Dr. Jill Stein's candidacy is about.
We do not expect to see either Donald Trump nor Hilary Clinton take a stand for a sustainable future because what they are about is diametrically the opposite of sustainability.
12
I refuse to vote for somebody who, very much like Donald Trump, thinks that throwing adjectives and platitudes at problems means you know what you're talking about and have rational plans.
1
So then you clearly are not planning on voting on November 8th then?
Throw money at poor people, and all you get is more of them. The failed policies of the past have to stop. We have to stop paying people to stay home and have even more kids. We need a new plan, they need to go to school and work, and any change will be painful considering the sheer millions that have never had to get out of bed before noon and hold a job in their lives.
6
Once upon a time, a certain son of privilege read a book that touched him deeply. The book was Michael Harrington's, "The Other America", and the son of privilege was John F. Kennedy.
Once President, JFK made tackling poverty a domestic priority and, after his tragic end, Lyndon Johnson continued and expanded programs to help the most needy with his "War on Poverty". Those efforts alleviated a lot of unnecessary suffering in this country. Since then, despite the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and some other more modest measures, we have all but thrown up the white flag of retreat. One wonders if we are destined to forever have a so-calked (and unfortunately named) "underclass". But leave the leafy suburbs, or the well off sections of prosperous American cities and you will find poverty aplenty.
National politicians of both parties have focused on the middle class. That's where the votes are. And this election appears to be no different.
We need to focus anew with a sustained effort to reduce poverty. Capitalism will always leave us with some inequities and most Americans accept that reality. But I doubt most Americans are truly at ease living in what is still the richest nation on Earth but one that has terrible poverty at rates that are far too high. One in five American children live in, or on the brink of, grinding poverty. Folks, we can do a LOT better than that.
Once President, JFK made tackling poverty a domestic priority and, after his tragic end, Lyndon Johnson continued and expanded programs to help the most needy with his "War on Poverty". Those efforts alleviated a lot of unnecessary suffering in this country. Since then, despite the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and some other more modest measures, we have all but thrown up the white flag of retreat. One wonders if we are destined to forever have a so-calked (and unfortunately named) "underclass". But leave the leafy suburbs, or the well off sections of prosperous American cities and you will find poverty aplenty.
National politicians of both parties have focused on the middle class. That's where the votes are. And this election appears to be no different.
We need to focus anew with a sustained effort to reduce poverty. Capitalism will always leave us with some inequities and most Americans accept that reality. But I doubt most Americans are truly at ease living in what is still the richest nation on Earth but one that has terrible poverty at rates that are far too high. One in five American children live in, or on the brink of, grinding poverty. Folks, we can do a LOT better than that.
120
Thank you, Jack from Cambridge.
2
You forgot to mention that just when Johnson's polices were starting to make a real difference, along came a man named Richard Nixon who pretty much shut off the spigot, then turned around and said Johnson's war on poverty was a failure. A failure ensured by Republicans.
1
Our children live in poverty in large part because irresponsible teenagers are having children; times it by three generations. And there is no disincentive for doing so.
Yes, America has lost jobs to outsourcing. But that's only part of the problem. Sometimes companies go elsewhere because that's where skilled labor is.
As for the homeless: People who have functioned all their lives but become homeless through unfortunate circumstances have programs to which they can turn for help. Those who inhabit our parks, subways, and building entrances are for the most part dysfunctional, and sometimes violent, and need to be taken indoors and medicated -- a very different thing.
I am all for a higher tax rate on the wealthiest of our citizens, and for creating "shovel-ready" jobs, but let us not believe that that will solve the problem of poverty and homelessness, not when you have people saying it's a person's "right" to live on the street and it's society's duty to subsidize irresponsible baby making.
Yes, America has lost jobs to outsourcing. But that's only part of the problem. Sometimes companies go elsewhere because that's where skilled labor is.
As for the homeless: People who have functioned all their lives but become homeless through unfortunate circumstances have programs to which they can turn for help. Those who inhabit our parks, subways, and building entrances are for the most part dysfunctional, and sometimes violent, and need to be taken indoors and medicated -- a very different thing.
I am all for a higher tax rate on the wealthiest of our citizens, and for creating "shovel-ready" jobs, but let us not believe that that will solve the problem of poverty and homelessness, not when you have people saying it's a person's "right" to live on the street and it's society's duty to subsidize irresponsible baby making.
1
Growing up on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation in Central South Dakota I learned just how much Democrats help the poor. The tribe has voted nearly 90% for the Democrat Party since the 1960's when I grew up there. I return often and the place is as poor as it has ever been. Despite voting for Democrat for decades little has changed for the poor. The one thing that has changed is their belief in the Democrat Party. They won't be voting for the Democrat nominee this time around.
4
Oh sure they wont. Trump is your savior. right. not.
1
Trump's whining about his casino failing not because of his management but because of a tribal casino competing wasnt his finest moment. Maybe shop around.
Who are the poor? Why aren't they working? Are they disabled, so uneducated that they cannot even wash dishes, addicted, sick or living in places with no jobs? If they cannot feed their kids, why do they keep having kids? I'd really appreciate a serious sociological study trying to break down the poor into categories and explaining the cultural roots of the problem. Sob stories won't help. And if you think that capitalism creates the poor and socialism is the answer, I suggest you read the story about the starving middle class in Venezuela that was published yesterday. One way to solve the problem of inequality is to make everybody equally miserable.
2
Employers tend to prefer undocumented immigrants for dishwashers or in other low-skilled jobs. They don't complain, they don't unionize, and they can skip the payroll taxes for the off-the-books staff. These aren't jobs that Americans don't want, they are jobs that don't want Americans.
2
Two points.......Clinton has talked of further support of Social Security, a program that means poverty for recipients who are the most vulnerable in society, and, I simply cannot believe anything Don Trump says so what's the point if he makes any promises?
1
The poor have nothing to contribute to either Trump or Clinton, so how are we surprised at the lack of attention paid?
1
Neither of the candidates have the foggiest idea about what it means to be really poor, not even what it means to be working poor.
Both are flying around in private planes, live in mansions, haven't driven a car in years, and have their own foundations.
Both peddle the fiction that the American Dream of rags to riches is still alive today. They are wrong.
The only information they have on poor, working poor, or for that matter middle class people is what their consultants, pollsters and spin doctors tell them.
The masses of poor and working poor have literally just given up, knowing that they will get the shaft regardless of who gets elected.
Just ask the poor African-Americans in the Mississippi Delta if they are any better off today than January 2009.
Both are flying around in private planes, live in mansions, haven't driven a car in years, and have their own foundations.
Both peddle the fiction that the American Dream of rags to riches is still alive today. They are wrong.
The only information they have on poor, working poor, or for that matter middle class people is what their consultants, pollsters and spin doctors tell them.
The masses of poor and working poor have literally just given up, knowing that they will get the shaft regardless of who gets elected.
Just ask the poor African-Americans in the Mississippi Delta if they are any better off today than January 2009.
3
This is a very good, critical article, that's all too accurate--with a couple iffy propositions.
I'd suggest asking the following:
1. Which Party's running candidates who grew up without much, and which is running people who grew up with a ton of money?
2. Which Party wants to raise the min wage, and which wants to lower it?
3. Which is arguing for universal pre-K, and paid parental leave, and which argues for a "child care tax deduction," that doesn't do you any good unless you can afford child care in the first place?
4. Which candidate has a history of working for the Children's Defense Fund and programs like SCHIP, and which has a history of working to saw up poorer neighborhoods and selling off the oieces?
And neither Party, it's true, quite wants to talk seriously about what we need to do to seriously chop down poverty.
I'd suggest asking the following:
1. Which Party's running candidates who grew up without much, and which is running people who grew up with a ton of money?
2. Which Party wants to raise the min wage, and which wants to lower it?
3. Which is arguing for universal pre-K, and paid parental leave, and which argues for a "child care tax deduction," that doesn't do you any good unless you can afford child care in the first place?
4. Which candidate has a history of working for the Children's Defense Fund and programs like SCHIP, and which has a history of working to saw up poorer neighborhoods and selling off the oieces?
And neither Party, it's true, quite wants to talk seriously about what we need to do to seriously chop down poverty.
4
theres no money in helping th poor
if you cant turn a profit, why bother ?
1
So sad, the elitists in our country keep getting richer and flaunting their wealth. This president had to buy a multi-million $ mansion for when he leaves office; Bernie had to buy a third house, a summer house for $600,000; the Clinton's, well we know their story of greed and excess and Trump with his hundreds of millions.........
Close to a majority in America now live week to week with their pay while the media is infatuated with elitists in politics, hollywood and the rigged stock market. The poor and middle class under this president have gotten poorer. He has done nothing to help them or the economy. Talking about wall street is a joke for 98% of the public. Reality is food, housing and health, not stocks and bonds.
Meanwhile most Americans are generous and giving when others need it. Not the elitists, it is more important for them to talk about if they give to charity then to actually care and do it because it is the right thing to do.
The Times is an elitist paper that idolizes the Clintons and the president, can't do enough opinion writing about them. How sad, these people are all about themselves, not helping and caring for America.
Close to a majority in America now live week to week with their pay while the media is infatuated with elitists in politics, hollywood and the rigged stock market. The poor and middle class under this president have gotten poorer. He has done nothing to help them or the economy. Talking about wall street is a joke for 98% of the public. Reality is food, housing and health, not stocks and bonds.
Meanwhile most Americans are generous and giving when others need it. Not the elitists, it is more important for them to talk about if they give to charity then to actually care and do it because it is the right thing to do.
The Times is an elitist paper that idolizes the Clintons and the president, can't do enough opinion writing about them. How sad, these people are all about themselves, not helping and caring for America.
5
The rich are getting richer because the poor and middle class keep feeding them.
The United States has always prospered greatly when it has ignored the siren song of ideological magic which simplifies the inherent complexities and unpredictability of economies for the benefit of political movements to sway popular support for public policies that promise great improvements which are inherently self-sustainable. Private enterprises are basely selfish endeavors which always enrich some and to leave the many barely able to get by and ultimately produce a stable condition in which a few remain rich and the many never can achieve any prosperity. While government seldom runs businesses as well as private entities, it can ensure that all can share in the wealth created in their countries and that the means does not compromise the long term welfare of everyone. That is contrary to our myths about liberty and self reliance but it's true. Where politicians tend to make the economy less likely to take care of all is because politicians are poor administrators and policy makers because they rarely make any effort systematically review and evaluate the policies to assure that they work as intended. The disparities of wealth and power and the lack of wealth creating industries is the result of self absorbed private enterprises and of government unwilling to assure that they were serving the long term welfare of the people.
1
Housing? Might be good to figure out why it's becoming too expensive for both the poor and the failing middle class. Either there's a huge shortage or there are factors making it intrinsically more expensive. If it is simply more expensive than every before, we need to know why, and landlord greed isn't the whole story. Making it lower cost is, pretty much a matter of political will and engineering, a bit of both. Building for lower cost also solves shortage problems, but what we actually have is oversupply in areas with no jobs, and undersupply in other places. Different problem entirely.
Balancing wealth and poverty isn't a zero-sum game, involving transferring cash from one to the other. Poverty is a consequence of many things and is not inevitable, but it is real. More and more of us will experience it until and unless we understand that we all rise or fall together.
Balancing wealth and poverty isn't a zero-sum game, involving transferring cash from one to the other. Poverty is a consequence of many things and is not inevitable, but it is real. More and more of us will experience it until and unless we understand that we all rise or fall together.
6
The poor are not going to be investment banker clients, so they don't need them, and Hillary has them locked up as they have no place to go, so no need to serve them.
4
No one in America cares about the poor. Well, perhaps a handful of people who work for non-profits and charitable organizations care, but for the most part, no one else does. The U.S., one of the richest countries in the world, could eliminate poverty through government programs, but people do not want to pay taxes to do so. In fact, most people do not want to pay anything at all in any form whatsoever to eliminate poverty. Ask yourself how much you would be willing to spend each year to eliminate poverty in the community in which you live. Would you support programs that give money to the poor? Would you support welfare programs even for people who chose not to work? I doubt it. Americans don't give a damn about the poor despite voicing concerns.
3
The article should have distinguished among different groups of the poor. Two extremes among the poor are (1) those who care only about the government benefits that they receive and another are (2) those who wish to obtain jobs with wages consistent with a comfortable life style. Large scale, low wage immigration clearly hurts the second group but may temporarily benefit the first by creating a larger and larger group of voters who have essentially given up on competing in the work force. The cost of government in the United States is about $35,000 per worker, and a comparison with much less populous countries such as Canada and Australia shows this cost is roughly proportionate to population. One could pay an American $45,000 a year as an alternative to hiring an illegal immigrant with no more financial cost but with great social benefits to the society. An American labor market open to all the poor of the world clearly comes at an extreme cost to those among the American poor who wish to work. The insistence by Hillary Clinton that she does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants is a clear threat to America's working poor. The support given by many politicians who represent poor Americans, such a the Congressional Black Caucus, comes across as a greater concern for welfare than work. Let us hope that American voters will see through flawed arguments and vote to benefit Americans who are presently poor but wish to work.
50
In the real world poor neighborhoods consist of desperate people who are short of money and have no means of getting anymore, which means that the simple obstacles of day to day like the breakdown of an automobile causing one to be late for a new job or to miss a day because of a sick child makes pulling oneself up a lot more difficult than you might imagine. The people in poverty can be categorized into three groups. The first, simply lack resources and when they receive them quickly move into main society with jobs that support them and their families. The second, suffer from the deprivation of knowledge and lack of skills to make use of ample resources so they need facilitators and mentors to become self supporting. Then their is the third group, those too damaged and weak to overcome their circumstances with either ample resources nor competent help, whose children might learn to become self supporting but who themselves will never be for long. Practically, it's reasonable to help the first two groups because they will stop being dependent upon the rest of society, but the third challenges society's ability to live up the best and most generous capacities of mankind.
2
Despite all the hype people do not sneak into this country to live a poor and unemployed people in a rich country, they do so to improve themselves by working in a country where they can find jobs and earn more money that they can in their home countries. The come because of self absorbed Americans offering them jobs at low pay and contrary to the laws of their own country. Business people have been hiring undocumented workers to save money and to avoid having a labor force who will object to unsafe working conditions for over half a century, back when all Americans were much better off than they have since. The kitchens in hotels were packed with undocumented workers and shops of all kinds were employing undocumented workers where unions had not contracts, and homemakers who needed domestic help but could not afford to pay a living wage all offered undocumented labor jobs with very low pay for anyone living in this country. The reason that we have so many undocumented workers is American citizens who do not hire citizens and permanent residents who must be paid more so that they can live decently in this country.
2
From what you are saying, there are impoverished people who would avoid a steady job and a living wage in order to live an "uncomfortable" lifestyle paid for by the government. The fact is that in the United States today, those locked in poverty do not have a realistic chance of obtaining a steady job and earning a livable wage. Exporting industrial jobs and immigration are not the only, or even the most significant causes of the decline in skilled and unskilled employment opportunities. Mechanization and robotization of manufacturing, commerce and the service industries is a much larger problem. The fact is that in today's world, human labor is becoming less necessary.
3
This, folks, is an election, not an academic presentation. Candidates only address issues related to getting votes, so if the (real) plight of the poor isn't front and center with voters, it's not going to get much attention.
I do have to agree with other commenters that comparing Clinton and Trump on policy is stupid.
Of course, if anyone had politically viable cures for poverty, poor education, collapsing health care, and so forth, it would be nice if these were brought forward, not simply for votes. However, in this country, nothing appears to be politically viable except politics itself.
Let's fix this problem at lower levels and shake up Congress. It might help.
I do have to agree with other commenters that comparing Clinton and Trump on policy is stupid.
Of course, if anyone had politically viable cures for poverty, poor education, collapsing health care, and so forth, it would be nice if these were brought forward, not simply for votes. However, in this country, nothing appears to be politically viable except politics itself.
Let's fix this problem at lower levels and shake up Congress. It might help.
3
The only way to help the poor is by having a vibrant middle class. Otherwise who do you expect to pay for welfare and other support programs? Salaried people that comprise the middle class can no longer make ends meet and the rich who profit from capital gains contribute very little in taxes.
It sounds virtuous to talk about the poor but somebody has to pay to lift them out of poverty.
It sounds virtuous to talk about the poor but somebody has to pay to lift them out of poverty.
2
Can't have a middle class without a low/poor class.
1
Gee...what a surprise!
3
Mrs. Clinton and those who are "with her!" are on a crusade, a veritable "revolution!" to rebuild America's "mighty middle class!" who have "suffered the most!" - all reflected in the Democratic Party platform this year, which states their "vision", over and over again, as helping the "middle class," conveniently overlooking the fact that in order to have a "middle class" you need a lower class.
And meanwhile, these middle class revolutionaries "with her!" gleefully denounce Trump supporters as the "low educated, white working class, racist, misogynist, bigots." So, not only do those "with her!" Ignore those in poverty, they join the GOP establishment in scapegoating them as the root cause of all our troubles. It's not middle class or 1%er's who are the bigots and racists - it's the poor!
And note on the education thing this year: those "with her!" including Mr. Clinton, describe the "working class" as the "low educated" the "under-educated" or the "poorly educated" - i.e. "Low, Under, and Poor." And then express their incredulity that "they" are not "with her!"
And meanwhile, these middle class revolutionaries "with her!" gleefully denounce Trump supporters as the "low educated, white working class, racist, misogynist, bigots." So, not only do those "with her!" Ignore those in poverty, they join the GOP establishment in scapegoating them as the root cause of all our troubles. It's not middle class or 1%er's who are the bigots and racists - it's the poor!
And note on the education thing this year: those "with her!" including Mr. Clinton, describe the "working class" as the "low educated" the "under-educated" or the "poorly educated" - i.e. "Low, Under, and Poor." And then express their incredulity that "they" are not "with her!"
1
``And meanwhile, these middle class revolutionaries "with her!" gleefully denounce Trump supporters as the "low educated, white working class, racist, misogynist, bigots.``
Because they are. You just check out a Trumpf rally sometime and take a look around you. Angry, white, under-educated, nativist, racist.
Because they are. You just check out a Trumpf rally sometime and take a look around you. Angry, white, under-educated, nativist, racist.
1
Clinton says all the right things people want to hear. But as we say, "actions speak louder than words". Here is a glimpse of the Clintons' effect: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-213...
1
it's amazing to me how, in the many articles with HRC in the title, you continue to iterate only the negative.
3
hillary and don are economic republicans so in that they are the same
Poor people do not determine elections, a fact they also know.
Poor people do not determine elections, a fact they also know.
Hillary Clinton's plans call for increasing Social Security, minimum wage, childcare, expanding the Affordable Care Act and Free college for anyone earning $125,000 and under at public colleges or universities. Everything the working poor need to get ahead, Hillary Clinton has not only mentioned on her website but already planned for. On top of all that she has already has plans to pay for them.
Comparing Trumps website I saw no documented plans for Social Security, healthcare, college, minimum wage increases. What I noticed about his plans were more failed "trickle down" spend and borrow strategies that uplift the "well to do's" on the backs of everyone else.
Every time Republicans mention subsidizing the rich with massive tax cuts it's meant borrowing against Americans retirement investment, Social Security and Medicare.
Comparing Trumps website I saw no documented plans for Social Security, healthcare, college, minimum wage increases. What I noticed about his plans were more failed "trickle down" spend and borrow strategies that uplift the "well to do's" on the backs of everyone else.
Every time Republicans mention subsidizing the rich with massive tax cuts it's meant borrowing against Americans retirement investment, Social Security and Medicare.
12
Ah, but the "land of the free and the home of the brave" doesn't really WANT to admit to any problems.
The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's mantra is "give the 1% MORE tax breaks and jobs will be created"..they just don't tell you those jobs will be in Indonesia or Vietnam where the low wages just increase the 1%'s bottom line.
Both parties ignore the inherent racism of a system that for years has tolerated minorities living and dying in poorly maintained ghettos while single moms/dads work 2 or 3 low paying, non full time jobs (All of these ballyhooed as "great job numbers" each month) outside those same ghettos just to try to feed and cloth their children.
Billions for defense, not a dime for butter.
Coupled with police departments that turn a blind eye to their already skewed "enforcement" numbers, one can see where, at least, the black population is becoming more discouraged and angry.
Sometimes it's tough to look in the mirror and see reality but if this country has any chance of 'coming together' it has to, first, clean up it's own backyard.
The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's mantra is "give the 1% MORE tax breaks and jobs will be created"..they just don't tell you those jobs will be in Indonesia or Vietnam where the low wages just increase the 1%'s bottom line.
Both parties ignore the inherent racism of a system that for years has tolerated minorities living and dying in poorly maintained ghettos while single moms/dads work 2 or 3 low paying, non full time jobs (All of these ballyhooed as "great job numbers" each month) outside those same ghettos just to try to feed and cloth their children.
Billions for defense, not a dime for butter.
Coupled with police departments that turn a blind eye to their already skewed "enforcement" numbers, one can see where, at least, the black population is becoming more discouraged and angry.
Sometimes it's tough to look in the mirror and see reality but if this country has any chance of 'coming together' it has to, first, clean up it's own backyard.
7
"But it is also worth noting that Hillary Clinton is running on the most progressive platform any party has put together"
More progressive than 1912, 1916, 1936 or 1964?!?
More progressive than 1912, 1916, 1936 or 1964?!?
5
The poor, the disenfranchised and homeless, are and have always been "invisible" to us, and certainly to politicians, given they lack representation and strength to make a difference. Let us remember, though, that any chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and we ignore the poor at our peril. That the poor may benefit if all boats rise is a trickle-down philosophy only the republicans can be proud of, as they continue to predicate it in their economic plans, but a losing proposition when applied more broadly. Living in a capitalistic society, where capital trumps labor consistently, we have created a climate of rising inequality, and the inequities it engenders on the weakest link, the poor. If justice is to prevail, a paradigm is needed.
35
Invisible? Please stop the breast-beating. The homeless are all we ever seem to hear about. The chronic homelessness problem is not going to be solved so long as there are mentally ill people off their meds and addicts refusing to consider getting clean.
If you support raising the minimum wage, funding food stamps, reforming the criminal justice system, rebuilding mass transit, ensuring public college access,
keeping Social Security and Medicare public and financed, expanding Medicaid, and giving families access to: child care, PreK and parental leave, then you Hillary speaks for the poor. She is their voice.
keeping Social Security and Medicare public and financed, expanding Medicaid, and giving families access to: child care, PreK and parental leave, then you Hillary speaks for the poor. She is their voice.
4
amen! I am so sick of th emedia villainizing Hillary! She is for the American people- all of her programs will help pull those in poverty up. Unlike the ogre Trump who only spouts failed trickle down and tax cuts for himself. He is sickening. She will make a wonderful president and the country will continue its economic growth under her capable hands
2