Hating on the poors
Hating on the poors
by David Atkins
John Cheese has a great Sunday read at Cracked: Four things politicians will never understand about poor people. Subjects include "Poor Does Not Equal Unemployed," "Poor People Are Not Mindless Leeches," "Poor People Aren't Rampant Drug Addicts" and "You Don't Have Real Sympathy for the Poor if You've Never Lived It."
This is another hot debate in political circles because quite a few states have already adopted it, and several more are considering it. Why not? Yes, it was declared unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches, but other than that, it seems like a good idea. Drugs are a huge problem with the poor, and I most definitely don't want to be handing my tax dollars to someone who's just going to blow it on ... well, blow.
That's what all of these states thought, and some of them still think that. Then they did the testing and found out that, actually, the poor are pretty much as clean as the rest of us. In Arizona, out of 87,000 people they subjected to the test, exactly one monster-forkin' person tested positive. One. And Florida had just as embarrassing results: 21 people tested positive out of 51,000. That was right before a federal judge showed up and put a boot in their ... leg-hat, by blocking the law. Of course, that didn't hurt their feelings much since the program not only didn't save the state any money, but it actually put them almost $46,000 in the hole (must ... resist), even when you factor in the money they saved by denying applicants.
What really troubles me with this one isn't the occasional crackhead being booted from the system. It's the 6 year old that isn't being provided for, regardless of what illegal horsepoop their parents are putting into their bodies. As in all of these points, yes, those people do exist -- I'll never deny that. And yes, I think it's a dagnabbit falootin' shame that some of our money is going to crack instead of ... well, literally anything else. But that child is along for the ride, regardless, and pushing him deeper into poverty is unacceptable on pretty much every level.
MORE:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people_p2/
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/hating-on-poors-by-davidoatkins.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Though it still doesn't change the fact that he could replace everything I own with two hours of work.
Ditto on that last sentence!
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people_p2/#ixzz2Lphm78NT
K&R
Worth a look.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689604578220132665726040.html
From that article, this graphic, look at these sad people!:
and they did it with this article.
I don't know how the poor can be so invisible to the plutocrats that the suffering single parent is making >$200,000 a year in this particular piece of glurge (remember it?):
?v=1
They don't comprehend at all that the average single parent is lucky to achieve the average income of $47,000/year or that the average retiree is struggling on Social Security plus less than $100,000 in life savings or that most of the people they come across every day, from the pretty receptionist at the office to the busboys who clean up after them at the fancy restaurant are struggling on less than subsistence, which means wages that are too low to support them over time.
I think it's the invisibility of the 99% to them that I am angriest about, even though I know the plutocrats have taken pains to make certain they're equally invisible. We're right under their noses, making their rotten lives of privilege possible, and they never see us. Or worse, they ASSume that we're all out there draining their precious accounts to the tune of $200,000/year on minimum wage.
