General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo let me get this straight? To understand the poor, you once had to be poor...
And if you were never poor, how dare you comment on the poor.
Am I getting this meme right?
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)And you damn well better not mention the word money if you have any, or want any, or don't want any.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
cali
(114,904 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Or is there some other, yet to be posted about outrage, that you're going to go off on today?
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Reading their claptrap, if a person didn't know any better, they might think this isn't the best of all possible worlds!
cali
(114,904 posts)not that you've ever given any indication that torture is something to be outraged by, honey.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Spin that wheel, dear cali.
Sid
cali
(114,904 posts)torture would be one of them. continue with your oh so courageous indifference, siddy.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's about being tone deaf and making stupid ass fucking comments that get blared ad nausem from the MSM.
simple.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Or simply reading those same comments without supporting context to more conveniently realize existing biases...
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)FSogol
(45,312 posts)struggle4progress
(117,949 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And really, this goes for any group of people.
panader0
(25,816 posts)but it sure helps. There are those who have never suffered poverty than can empathize, just as there are those who are not black that
may empathize about racism, or men who can empathize about rape. But until you have lived those things, it's only empathy.
At best, it's empathy...not true understanding.
I equate it to going to an unmarried marriage counsellor.
They're not married, never lived thru any marital problems,
they empathize, but their only real understanding came from
reading a book about it.
Coventina
(26,808 posts)I don't understand why that seems to be so hard to grasp.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I think there are millions of people who grew up poor who don't "get it" and vote Republican.
Boehner was born in Reading, Ohio, the son of Mary Anne (née Hall) and Earl Henry Boehner, the second of twelve children. His father was of German descent and his mother had German and Irish ancestry.[3][4][5][6][7] He grew up in modest circumstances, having shared one bathroom with his eleven siblings in a two-bedroom house in Cincinnati. His parents slept on a pull-out couch.[8] He started working at his family's bar at age 8, a business founded by their grandfather Andy Boehner in 1938.[8] He has lived in Southwest Ohio his entire life. All but two of his siblings still live within a few miles of each other; two are unemployed and most of the others have blue-collar jobs.[9][10]
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Anyway, there are levels of understanding. I think being poor provides the opportunity for a gut-level knowledge that the more well-off will never get. There are concomitants such as hopelessness that just don't translate well.
On the other hand, one can have a sort of intellectual understanding of poverty without having been immersed in it.
I am neither black nor female and would never claim that I fully grok the circumstances of either, but I can certainly have some intellectual understanding of their conditions, and I can have empathy.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Is disingenuous at best.
If you preach against income inequality while your net worth is measured in millions and rising your words ring pretty hollow.
That's just wrong. Bill Gates is one example why.
What is his net worth? 80 Billion or so?
What tiny percentage does he give back?
In what world, ever, does anyone need 80 BILLION dollars?
He does good work, sure, but don't kid yourself- it is a tiny fraction of his net worth and what he could be doing.
Relative to his wealth is is little more than window dressing.
Squinch
(50,670 posts)one area where this is particularly glaring. Especially his ideas about education when those ideas are applied to education in poorer neighborhoods.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If someone runs a successful business that doesn't abuse its employees or harm the environment, that provides a service people want or need, and makes money off of it - why shouldn't such a person make money?
Or do you believe that in order to succeed in capitalism you have to abuse your employees?
Bryant
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If you want to make millions, and can, that is great for you.
But you can't be both out there making yourself far richer than most people will every be, having more money than you could ever need to live- and at the same time claim to honestly be bothered by income inequality. Because if you are amassing a net worth of millions pushing yourself deep into the 1% range and life you are part of the problem with income inequality.
A person whose net worth is measured in millions telling us that income inequality needs to be fixed is disingenuous at best.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)First of all the wealthy not only have outsized wealth they have outsized power. Things shouldn't be that way, but they currently are. Your policy would commit us to essentially kneecapping ourselves, by taking people who can reach politicians and taking away that ability.
Secondly, and importantly, it depends on how they make their millions - having a lot of money doesn't automatically make someone a selfish bastard - people make money in all sorts of ways.
Bryant
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)How somebody made their money doesn't change it one bit.
Accepting inequality as long as the person continuing to make themselves even more unequal to the rest of us talks about how bad it is- that doesn't seem very smart, does it?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Well regulated capitalism such as we see in much of Europe, for example.
Or do you favor some other economic system?
I am a capitalist myself, which means that you are going to have winners and loser, in which case it does matter how someone makes their money.
Bryant
JustAnotherGen
(31,631 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But since that will never fly here, we need much more highly regulated capitalism.
Winners, sure- but limits on how much winning.
There is no legitimate reason to allow people to accumulate a net worth over a reasonable limit- say 3 million dollars. You could give me 3 million and I could live the rest of my life in comfort and never need another dime.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)possibly even much, much higher, but have an transfer/inheritance cap, such that your total transfers during your life or inheritance after your life of wealth would cap out at maybe 5M per person.
So if you have 500M during your life, the most you can give to any one individual either during your life or after is 5M, and if you don't want the gov't to take most of it on your death, you better find 100 people you want to give 5M to at your death.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I recognize that some will, inevitably, always have more than others, but the "losers" should still have a minimally decent standard of living. I don't want to live in a glorified Third World country.
TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)promoting austerity, enabling corporate capture, designing phony oversight schemes that put the abusers in the Catbird seat, killing welfare, eroding and corporatizing public education, deregulation, and busting unions.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Where
Resulted in millionaires or billionaires.
Examples of such occurrences would be appreciated.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Limits on management and executive pay, decent salaries and full bennies for the employees, and any savings is passed on to the customer. The model of ethical business.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)This is a RW Meme of course - it's what the phrase limousine liberal points to. And of course those who are upper middle class or wealthy are big hypocrites for not giving away all their money to the poor.
But not sure that's what you are talking about here.
Bryant
FSogol
(45,312 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But when someone doesn't get it, it is pretty fucking obvious.
Like a person who says they have worked "hard" to get as rich as they are (even though they collect tens of thousands of dollars for a single speech written by someone else) or that they "aren't obsessed with money" (failing to recognize that it is because they are privileged so that they never HAVE to worry about it)/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I think it's about prevarication and pandering.
But if you are super rich and pass legislation that hurts poor people (Welfare Reform?) or makes lots more of them (NAFTA?).
All the while sitting in your Non-Prophit Ivory Tower behind the solid Mahogany Desk the OPTICS do not align.
Then your child of privilage tells the grueling tale of being a professional student and job hopping till the "right one" comes along. What are the chances it is at Mommies and Dadies Non-Prophit.
BTW Hubby called and he has to cancel dinner at Nobu. He is doing God's Hedge Fund work. You know so they have enough money to help the poor.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Which is why, if you go by the Gospels, the Paul Ryans of the world are going straight to hell.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)begrudge anyone the right to comment on the poor, but seriously, I would question how anyone could be able to truly understand the poor, or what it's like unless they've been there.
Just like anyone who's never been filthy rich can only imagine what it's like to be filthy rich.
Or how someone who's never lost a child can only imagine what that's like.
So I say, people can comment all they want to on various conditions or situations in life...just don't insult someone who's been there by saying "I understand what _____ feels like". Because unless you've been there, you don't understand at all.
Rex
(65,616 posts)once had to be wealthy and if you were never wealthy, how dare you comment on the wealthy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)May I comment on the poor and the "comfortable?"
Rex
(65,616 posts)May I discuss both?
merrily
(45,251 posts)the middle class. The term covers a lot of territory. Americans with a very wide range of assets and income consider themselves middle class. Hillary compared herself now with those who are "really well off," implying she isn't. And Bill Maher also attempted to distinguish himself by referring to to something like the .0001% as the wealthy.
On the other end, I bet you could find someone making 19K a year who would self-identify as middle class.
So, don't be posting too much above or below your lane, now, or I'll be after you, hear?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
Confucius
leftstreet
(36,064 posts)That would be nice
All she's doing, in typical fashion, is talking about herself
BootinUp
(46,848 posts)secondly she IS working for a philanthropic organization. Check it out, this years events are happening all week.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And how does her book tour further her volunteer work for said philanthropic organization?
Will she be donating the proceeds from book sales to it?
merrily
(45,251 posts)BootinUp
(46,848 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)Of course she's talking about herself and her book.
Book tour - political campaign, are not one and the same.
JustAnotherGen
(31,631 posts)But I think you need to empathise with those who are poor. You have to listen to what they are saying. And it doesn't hurt to go out into the community and help the poor.
I'm talking about hands on - volunteers and do booster work for a food bank. That's a good place. Because there you will find the Americans who work their fingers to the bone but still don't have enough to eat.
betsuni
(25,060 posts)If you do not experience something yourself, it does not exist. How dare doctors tell diabetics what diet they should follow if those doctors are not diabetics themselves. The nerve.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That's what your doctor/patient analogy seems to suggest, intentionally or not.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)at least attempt to sound a bit sincere and convincing.
Bill Clinton was an expert at it. He could talk about how much he loved the poor even while he was implementing policies that screwed them.
Obama is pretty good at it as well.
The Romneys, of course, sucked at it. They sounded condescending and insincere. Hillary is pretty much in the Romney mold. And since timing is everything, Chelsea needed to wait awhile before blurting out to god and everybody how much she didn't care about money while she was drawing a fat salary working at daddy and mommy's big money "foundation".
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And try to hide your contempt for average working folks - which Romney couldn't manage. At all.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But if you and your immediate family are all worth 8 figures, you don't get to go around talking as if you're poor, or blithely saying you don't 'care' about money without people realizing you're completely out of touch with 99% of America.
Tikki
(14,532 posts)what ms. Clinton Mezvinsky is talking about and her lack of abundant love for money.
I don't love money, as an adult I only let it do what I specifically want it to do.
As a child I was held an emotional hostage by two people who used money to avoid me at all costs.
Yeah, I never went hungry and always had a place to sleep and I understand the importance of that.
But, ms. Clinton Mezvinsky's only problem with her statement is that she didn't spill her guts as to
why she feels that way so that you all could talk about every little detail of why she made that statement.
Tikki
reddread
(6,896 posts)thats called common sense.
nice work.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Not part of the income equality problem because they pay income taxes?
Beacool
(30,243 posts)If you owe $12M and don't have even a third of that amount, aren't you broke? She never said that they weren't able to make money after they left the WH.
merrily
(45,251 posts)owing is your criterion, so you have no clue whether they were ever broke or not, by your criterion. But that was not my question about them anyway. "Simple, they never said it" is the right answer to my question. The whole point of this is Hillary's claiming she was broke, so rich Presidents who never tried poormouth have no relevance.
If you owe $12M and don't have even a third of that amount, aren't you broke?
First, I don't agree that was Hillary's economic situation. Second, if your net worth is down, but you have ample resources and know that you are going to be much richer very soon, who the fuck cares if you owe money for a minute and a half? You are not poor, period.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)provided his care and invited him into their houses.
He OBSERVED, and shared their poverty. Then he went to Washington and did something about it.
The Kennedys, raised as Catholics back when Catholicism stood for good works, had similar exposure.
merrily
(45,251 posts)what it is to live like a poor person unless you've been a poor person.
You can have sympathy. You can care. you can be willing to "transfer wealth", but, unless you've lived it, you will never get what it is like to worry every day of your life that your kids might need something that you can't provide, let alone almost never being able to give them what they want. Or that your fever might go high enough that you won't be able to work and you'll miss a day's pay.
And no, living in your mansion on a welfare budget for a week by choice doesn't come close. Not even the same universe. It's the grinding poverty, day after day, the stress, the fear for your kids, etc.
Nor can I understand what it is to have more money than I or the next several generations of my descendants will need unless that somehow becomes my reality someday.
Seriously, is this really a controversial concept?
The expression "until you've walked a mile in my [his][her] shoes" did not become an expression for no reason.
But, Hillary and Chelsea make a couple of tone deaf comments, so we are going to deny the existence of something we once all assumed without question was true? Something most or all of us have probably said or posted or thought ourselves more than once, believing it to be true?
This is about the most ridiculous I've seen this place get.
trumad
(41,692 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)Your post made good points.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You make good points and they are ignored. The other poster just moves the goalpost somewhere else or changes the subject entirely. There is an agenda to be pushed, not a desire to consider other views.
That is my perception anyway.
So, given your OP and my experiences on this board, yes, I was surprised. Gratified and delighted, yes, but also surprised.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm in the odd position of understanding both. I'm actually grateful for the experiences.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)The kids I grew up with ranged from near-poverty to very upper-middle-class, so I at least got a small taste of life experiences quite different from my own.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Others cannot ever really fully grasp though they may try. It doesn't mean that wealthy people can't attempt to empathize or learn about poverty. But they can't fully grasp it unless they experience it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Matthew 7:16
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)so I will give it a shot. Some of the poor, like me, know that they are totally vulnerable to criticism from people who are better off and have not made the same choices as I have. Some of the poor don't deserve the criticism because there were no choices involved in driving them to poverty. It only takes one injury or chronic illness to take a whole family down and make them homeless. What would be the criticism of them? "You wouldn't have got cancer if you took better care of yourself," or something like that.
I had this idea to create a reality show. You take billionaires and put them on the street with nothing. This would last months and years at a time. They don't get any cash, credit cards or vehicles, just the clothes on their backs. What I'm really curious about is whether or not the billionaires, with their enterprising spirits, being the job creators and all those qualities the GOP promotes, would do better than the average homeless dude. If you leveled the playing field would they survive? There is something visceral and stimulating about living rough. Even though I'm not in camp anymore I'm still in "camp mode." Sleeping in 2 or 3 hour shifts, being super alert like a watchdog and always looking for opportunities to get well.
I'm definitely of the opinion that all discourse about the poor should be discussed.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I've heard this type of argument applied to various minority groups, women, and teachers. Why not the poor, too?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Leaving HRC out of the issue...
I think that, in most cases, to understand the poor, you have to have walked in their shoes for awhile, at least.
Empathy, compassion, and action to help the poor don't have to come from being poor, but true understanding? For most, at least some kind of background experience might be necessary.
As far as HRC goes? I don't give a shit. Her dumbass words are being used against her. She's a politician. That's par. She's a politician. She can take it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I agree with you almost completely, maybe completely, depending on the meaning of this:
I think that, in most cases, to understand the poor, you have to have walked in their shoes for awhile, at least.
If you were poor for a while, with little to no prospect of not being poor, but then you won the lottery, maybe. And, even then, you will not have experienced what it is to be poor, day in and day out, year in and year out until you drop.
But, if you living in poverty doing it as an experiment, or while you are in Harvard Medical School, knowing full well it's only temporary, I am not sure that, even then, you can get it.
Living in "poverty" as an experiment, where there is a clear way "out," is not the experience of living with no way out.
I have lived in poverty. I still struggle to a lesser degree, but I remember what it was like to be evicted and have no place to go.
I remember what it was like to have the utilities turned off and no $$ to turn them back on.
I remember what it was like to have no food in the cupboard, and no surety of getting any soon.
I remember what it was like to fear losing a job because I had no way to get there.
I spent a decade, beginning at age 17, living like that.
I always worked hard. Laziness was not the problem. I knew how to live frugally; I didn't really know any other way. The only way out was help from others.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And since you lived in poverty for a decade with little hope, you probably get it.
But that is very different from the examples I gave.
Blessings.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)but until you've had to decide whether to buy necessary medicine for your child, or food for the whole family, until you've worked 80 hour weeks and still came home and weren't able to properly provide for your family, no you have no fucking idea what it is like. You have no idea the weight people carry.
I assume this has to do with Hillary. You know, she going to be the candidate, and I really try to like her, but commenting on how "broke" you are trying to pay for multiple mortgages and an Ivy League education, does not endear yourself to someone who is trying to pay for medication and food. You know, actual necessities.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)you cannot know what it is like to be poor.
This is a reality.
You simply cannot know what it's like.
Of course people can comment on the poor, but, no, you cannot fully understand what it's like.
dilby
(2,273 posts)you were poor when you had millions in assets.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I think Hillary's comments demonstrate that amply.
She is clueless about a life of poverty.
And also clueless about what to say on the subject.
Both are true.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But can someone really have full knowledge or comprehension of a situation they've never experienced firsthand?
mainer
(12,010 posts)They think "if I could do it, then everyone who can't is a loser and deserves poverty."
So no, I think some rich people are a lot better at understanding the needs of the poor.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)I've seen both. Great, caring people who are wealthy and some downright bastards who happened to be poor. Since when does income define the quality of the person? I don't get people here.
Beacool
(30,243 posts)The hypocrisy and bullshit are knee deep.