"I don't understand how poor people think,"

pistoff
I agree that the US has been on the wrong side entirely too often in our history. So has virtually every other country on the globe. There are no innocents here. I was not claiming those to be Bush's reasons... I was claiming them for myself and there is no dishonesty here. 1,000 wrong doings on the part of the US would make Saddam no less of a jerkoff! True or false?

I have no idea either how the subject turned from poverty to Iraq, but....
"We" did not put "the scum of the world" on notice. Instead, "we" announced to all the world that the US will no longer abide by international law and the norms which shaped it, and instead, by virtue of our inherent "right" to do as we see fit we will do whatever we wish, whenever wer wish, and to hell with anyone else. Our government has made the nation more vulnerable to attack, and, indeed, deserving of attack.

Our stumbling moronic commander in chief
"Our stumbling moronic commander in chief has restored an ora of respect."

LOL

What planet are you referring to?

BTW The topic is?

Since you are a newbie, allow me to suggest that one should address the topic that another person posted. Maybe it's in the arena of respect that you mentioned.

The far right's disdain for the poor has its origins in the Anglo-American doctrine of wealth as a symbol of Godliness. Pist, do you remember the quote from the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, where he stated that Christianity stood for hard work, prayer and prosperity?

The Poor.
Oh, I forgot about that Bob. The poor only have themselves to blame because they are lazy, unambitious and only want handouts. Damn!!! How could I forget that?

Uh...oh, oh What about those working poor? The ones that are too stupid to have high paying jobs and therefore work for minimum wage, have no health insurance, perhaps have two or three part time jobs. Well, sheeit, that aint the state's or the Natl. Govt.'s problem is it?

This is America where everyone has the opportunity to become rich. It's up to each person to deal with their own problems and stop lookin' for charity. Uh...those Corporation that get billions from the Govt.? Let's not talk about those, K?

I'm a little confused at the chastising. Did your original post not attack Bush for Lying us into a war? Which war were you reffering to, if not the one virtually every single post on here has referred to?I believe I've treated everyone with at least as much respect as I've recieved. The same Kim that siphoned cash from Clinton recently attended multi-lateral talks he said he'd never attend. And, he's going back for another round. I'd say that constitutes respect. It baffles me how anyone can consider Bush's one un-UN-Santioned move a travesty of justice while simultaniously argueing that Saddam's dozens were ok. As for our economy; the stock market was way over due for a correction... and a guy named Bin Laden, not Bush, provided the catalyst. Respectfully, Bill

Might I suggest that discussions of the war in Iraq might be betterhere
and discussions on the administration's involvement in poverty control remain on this thread? Just a thought.

My appologies, I posted before I realized the discussion had continued in another direction.

The Poor and the Working Poor
Are these people not Americans? Why does this Admin. act like they don't exist? These tax cuts for the rich are an extenion of the trickle down theory. The only thing that trickles down is piss. Conservatives believe in Welfare. The difference is that they feel that Welfare should go to the wealthy. The theory is that the wealthy will grow the economy. Is that a theory that manifests itself in rteality?

Horrors indeed! So let me get this straight: you're comparing Saddam's treatment of the Iraqis to a rapist attacking an innocent victim, right? And America is the bystander who could either intervene or do nothing, correct?

Well, America has certainly turned a blind eye toward North Korea, that's for sure. And Rwanda, and Sudan, and Burma, and about a dozen other places in the world. Your rape analogy, I'm afraid, will need to be modified. Suppose, then, that a guy witnesses multiple rapes on a daily basis, and could intervene to stop any of them. Should we lavish praise upon him because he only chooses to stop one?

Re: Our stumbling moronic commander in chief

Sorry, pistoff, I gotta' agree with Bill on this one. Your initial query was pretty vague -- just one of your usual anti-Bush screeds, really -- and included references to "killing" and lying about the war, so if we're assigning blame for the discussion veering off track, you deserve your share of it.

Yes, I realize.
The title of my the post was the subject. I chose the wrong paragraph to start the discussion. the paragraph did conclude that GW is incapable of relating to the poor. I can see where it was misleading.

Now that we have discussed this can we get to the topic of the title?

The wars are of course important to discuss but there is also the matter of the American people and how they are being neglected and in most case being screwed over.

Yes joe, we are on the same page now. Our lack of help in those other theatres is a source of shame to me. While some blame can surely be placed on the slow motion mechanics of the UN, in my example of myself, I feel no need for consensus. Right is right and torture is wrong. With the cold war over there is really nothing to stop the relics of it from uniting to eliminate the little players. Funny thing is, I seem to be the only person who feels this way. Oh, and thanks for stating your opinion on the thread.

Are you inviting me into that discussion as well pistoff?

There was a segment on NOW a few months ago about the "Faith Based Initiatives" pushed by the administration. Supposedly they are prohibited from prosyletizing, but the group profiled admitted that thy were only interested in working with the poor in order to bring them to "god." the family in question resented that in order to continue receiving help they felt compelled to attend a very conservative evangelical Co. Springs church. Another institution mentioned was set up to work with drug addicts to help them kick the habit. It turned out that their method was to have the addict attend church. If they didn't attend church, their funding was cut off. It would seem that the groups favoured by the administration require that poor people admit that they are poor becasue they are bad, and "convert" before receiving aid.
While some church groups have been successful with poor relief (Catholoci Charities, Salvation Army, etc...) in the past, it seems like most have ideological hangups which prevent them from effectively dealing with issues of society. The harsh view of absolute right and absolute wrong held by many in the administration may make them incapable of ever effectively dealing with poor relief.

Aint we all sinners?
Would it be OK if the sinners turned to Hinduism instead?

For the lazy who don't wanna bother clickin' the link.

The Uncompassionate Conservative
By Molly Ivins
Mother Jones

November/December 2003 Issue

It's not that he's mean. It's just that when it comes to seeing how his policies affect people, George W. Bush doesn't have a clue.
In order to understand why George W. Bush doesn't get it, you have to take several strands of common Texas attitude, then add an impressive degree of class-based obliviousness. What you end up with is a guy who sees himself as a perfectly nice fellow -- and who is genuinely disconnected from the impact of his decisions on people.

On the few occasions when Bush does directly encounter the down-and-out, he seems to empathize. But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost nightmare-type scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and praises it (AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around and cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000, Bush said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay their high fuel bills." He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to death.

Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency.

The Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty, told the New York Times that shortly after his election, Bush had said to him, "I don't understand how poor people think," and had described himself as a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it, but I'd like to." What's annoying about Bush is when this obtuseness, the blinkeredness of his life, weighs so heavily on others, as it has increasingly as he has acquired more power.

There was a telling episode in 1999 when the Department of Agriculture came out with its annual statistics on hunger, showing that once again Texas was near the top. Texas is a perennial leader in hunger because we have 43 counties in South Texas (and some in East Texas) that are like Third World countries. If our border region were a state, it would be first in poverty, first in the percentage of schoolchildren living in poverty, first in the percentage of adults without a high school diploma, 51st in income per capita, and so on.

When the 1999 hunger stats were announced, Bush threw a tantrum. He thought it was some malign Clinton plot to make his state look bad because he was running for president. "I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where?" he demanded. "No children are going to go hungry in this state. You'd think the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in Texas." You would, wouldn't you? That is the point at which ignorance becomes inexcusable. In five years, Bush had never spent time with people in the colonias, South Texas' shantytowns; he had never been to a session with Valley Interfaith, a consortium of border churches and schools and the best community organization in the state. There is no excuse for a governor to be unaware of this huge reality of Texas.

Take any area -- environment, labor, education, taxes, health -- and go to the websites of public-interest groups in that field. You will find page after page of minor adjustments, quiet repeals, no-big-deal new policies, all of them cruel, destructive, and harmful. A silent change in regulations, an executive order, a funding cutoff. No headlines. Below the radar. Again and again and again. Head Start, everybody's favorite government program, is being targeted for "improvement" by leaving it to the tender mercies of Mississippi and Alabama. An AIDS program that helps refugees in Africa and Asia gets its funding cut because one of the seven groups involved once worked with the United Nations, which once worked with the Chinese government, which once supported forced abortions.

So what manner of monster is behind these outrages? I have known George W. Bush slightly since we were both in high school, and I studied him closely as governor. He is neither mean nor stupid. What we have here is a man shaped by three intertwining strands of Texas culture, combined with huge blinkers of class. The three Texas themes are religiosity, anti-intellectualism, and machismo. They all play well politically with certain constituencies.

Let's assume the religiosity is genuine; no one is in a position to know otherwise. I leave it to more learned commentators to address what "Christian" might actually mean in terms of public policy.

The anti-intellectualism is also authentic. This is a grudge Bush has carried at least since his college days when he felt looked down on as a frat rat by more cerebral types. Despite his pedigree and prep schools, he ran into Eastern stereotypes of Texans at Yale, a common experience at Ivy schools in that time. John F. Kennedy, the consummate, effortlessly graceful, classy Harvard man, had just been assassinated in ugly old Dallas, and Lyndon Johnson's public piety gave many people the creeps. Texans were more or less thought of as yahoo barbarians somewhere between the Beverly Hillbillies and Deliverance. I do not exaggerate by much. To have a Texas accent in the East in those days was to have 20 points automatically deducted from your estimated IQ. And Texans have this habit of playing to the stereotype -- it's irresistible. One proud Texan I know had never owned a pair of cowboy boots in his life until he got a Nieman Fellowship to Harvard. Just didn't want to let anyone down.

For most of us who grow up in the "boonies" and go to school in the East, it's like speaking two languages -- Bill Clinton, for example, is perfectly bilingual. But it's not unusual for a spell in the East to reinforce one's Texanness rather than erode it, and that's what happened to Bush. Bush had always had trouble reading -- we assume it is dyslexia (although Slate's Jacob Weisberg attributes it to aphasia); his mom was still doing flash cards with him when he was in junior high. Feeling intellectually inferior apparently fed into his resentment of Easterners and other known forms of snob.

Bush once said, "There's a West Texas populist streak in me, and it irritates me when these people come out to Midland and look at my friends with just the utmost disdain." In his mind, Midland is the true-blue heartland of the old vox pop. The irony is that Midland along with its twin city, Odessa, is one of the most stratified and narrow places in the country. Both are oil towns with amazingly strict class segregation. Midland is the white-collar, Republican town; Odessa is the blue-collar, Democratic town. The class conflict plays out in an annual football rivalry so intense that H.G. Bissinger featured it in his best-selling book, Friday Night Lights. To mistake Midland for the volk heartland is the West Texas equivalent of assuming that Greenwich, Connecticut, is Levittown.

In fact, people in Midland are real nice folks: I can't prove that with statistics, but I know West Texas and it's just a fact. Open, friendly, no side to 'em. The problem is, they're way isolated out there and way limited too. You can have dinner at the Petroleum Club anytime with a bunch of them and you'll come away saying, "Damn, those are nice people. Sure glad they don't run the world." It is still such a closed, narrow place, where everybody is white, Protestant, and agrees with everybody else. It's not unusual to find people who think, as George W. did when he lived there, that Jimmy Carter was leading the country toward "European-style socialism." A board member of the ACLU of Texas was asked recently if there had been any trouble with gay bashing in Midland. "Oh, hell, honey," she drawled, "there's not a gay in Midland who will come out of the closet for fear people will think they're Democrats."

The machismo is what I suspect is fake. Bush is just another upper-class white boy trying to prove he's tough. The minute he is questioned, he becomes testy and defensive. That's one reason they won't let him hold many press conferences. When he tells stories about his dealings with two of the toughest men who ever worked in politics -- the late Lee Atwater and the late Bob Bullock -- Bush, improbably, comes off as the toughest mother in the face-down. I wouldn't put money on it being true. Bullock, the late lieutenant governor and W's political mentor in Texas, could be and often was meaner than a skilletful of rattlesnakes. Bush's story is that one time, Bullock cordially informed him that he was about to **** him. Bush stood up and kissed Bullock, saying, "If I'm gonna get fucked, at least I should be kissed." It probably happened, but I guarantee you Bullock won the fight. Bush never got what made Bullock more than just a supermacho pol -- the old son of a bitch was on the side of the people. Mostly.

The perfect absurdity of all this, of course, is that Bush's identification with the sturdy yeomen of Midland (actually, oil-company executives almost to a man) is so wildly at variance with his real background. Bush likes to claim the difference between him and his father is that, "He went to Greenwich Country Day and I went to San Jacinto Junior High." He did. For one year. Then his family moved to a posh neighborhood in Houston, and he went to the second-best prep school in town (couldn't get into the best one) before going off to Andover as a legacy.

Jim Hightower's great line about Bush, "Born on third and thinks he hit a triple," is still painfully true. Bush has simply never acknowledged that not only was he born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- he's been eating off it ever since. The reason there is no noblesse oblige about Dubya is because he doesn't admit to himself or anyone else that he owes his entire life to being named George W. Bush. He didn't just get a head start by being his father's son -- it remained the single most salient fact about him for most of his life. He got into Andover as a legacy. He got into Yale as a legacy. He got into Harvard Business School as a courtesy (he was turned down by the University of Texas Law School). He got into the Texas Air National Guard -- and sat out Vietnam -- through Daddy's influence. (I would like to point out that that particular unit of FANGers, as regular Air Force referred to the "******* Air National Guard," included not only the sons of Governor John Connally and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, but some actual black members as well -- they just happened to play football for the Dallas Cowboys.) Bush was set up in the oil business by friends of his father. He went broke and was bailed out by friends of his father. He went broke again and was bailed out again by friends of his father; he went broke yet again and was bailed out by some fellow Yalies.

That Bush's administration is salted with the sons of somebody-or-other should come as no surprise. I doubt it has ever even occurred to Bush that there is anything wrong with a class-driven good-ol'-boy system. That would explain why he surrounds himself with people like Eugene Scalia (son of Justice Antonin Scalia), whom he named solicitor of the Department of Labor -- apparently as a cruel joke. Before taking that job, the younger Scalia was a handsomely paid lobbyist working against ergonomic regulations designed to prevent repetitive stress injuries. His favorite technique was sarcastic invective against workers who supposedly faked injuries when the biggest hazard they faced was "dissatisfaction with co-workers and supervisors." More than 5 million Americans are injured on the job every year, and more die annually from work-related causes than were killed on September 11. Neither Scalia nor Bush has ever held a job requiring physical labor.

What is the disconnect? One can see it from the other side -- people's lives are being horribly affected by the Bush administration's policies, but they make no connection between what happens to them and the decisions made in Washington. I think I understand why so many people who are getting screwed do not know who is screwing them. What I don't get is the disconnect at the top. Is it that Bush doesn't want to see? No one brought it to his attention? He doesn't care?

Okay, we cut taxes for the rich and so we have to cut services for the poor. Presumably there is some right-wing justification along the lines that helping poor people just makes them more dependent or something. If there were a rationale Bush could express, it would be one thing, but to watch him not see, not make the connection, is another thing entirely. Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps -- horrors, they breed dependency. Whereas inheriting millions of dollars and having your whole life handed to you on a platter is good for the grit in your immortal soul? What we're dealing with here is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives.

Bush's lies now fill volumes. He lied us into two hideously unfair tax cuts; he lied us into an unnecessary war with disastrous consequences; he lied us into the Patriot Act, eviscerating our freedoms. But when it comes to dealing with those less privileged, Bush's real problem is not deception, but self-deception.

No, but for many who came to positions of authority during the cold war the idea of existing without an enemy with a capital "E" is too difficult. I think this is one of the reason the far right was so eager to attach itself to the idea of the "war on terror," or the associated and undeclared "war against Islam." Teh existence of an enemy who is wholly bad can be internalized to imply that your "side" is wholly good, and therefore whatever efforts help your "side" are forgivable in the long run. Consider our alliance with the Musharref govt. in Pakistan. The government is likely hiding and rehabilitating bin-Laden, but in order to combat the larger, mythic proportion beast of "terror" this alliance is allowable, even though it may lead indirectly to more large attacks on US targets. If one is engaged in perpetual war, as we have been imformed we are (Remember, both Rice and Cheney said this "war" will take "generations" to complete) then any possible casualties your "side" incurs due to alliances with not completely friendly forces are forgivable in the greater context of the "war." Does this bother you? It bugs the heck out of me!

{editing to claim my post remained in dormancy and now popped up here after 7 hours...sorry it is totally unrelated to your comments...}

Seems we are in a loop:

Last time (GW-1, back in 92) we were told it was "good" to keep Saddam in place, watched him mass-murder ethnic minorities in North and South with helicopters.

Clearly now it wasn't.

I wonder in 2013, if it we will eat our words of heaping praise on "good" that came out of some unnecessary war touted to do something about removing the threat of terrorism, but handing them a rallying point instead.

And yes I SAW it when he gassed the kurds, and yes he was a monster, and hope he doesn't return. But the "good" of this war is dwarfed by the "bad" that we will reap.

And the reason is Bush's "bad" motives (though wonderful to Cheney and co), and a total waste of a truly monumental moment in the world's history.

Absolutely yes it bothers me. Per my chosen nick name you've probably figured out I believe that all things being equal; the simplest solution must be the correct one. The simplest solution, is hardly a decades long war. If you've read my posts you no I'm no great fan of this administration or my Nations past behavior. Human rights is my number 1 concern. Violence against women and children drives me out of my mind. Where we seem to differ is I'm not nearly as concerned with nationality as you. I grew up poor. Until I got a job, I had two pairs of pants to go to school in and no allowance. This horible country that you and pistoff seem to enjoy bashing provided me with every opportunity I needed to succeed. No, I'm not black and no I'm not stupid so I didn't have to jump the highest hurdles, but make no mistake about it I sacrificed a tremendous amount of time and energy to achieve the moderate amount of success I enjoy today. My struggle was a walk in the park in reality. Several generations of North Korean people have never had enough to eat. Charitable donations are sold on the black market to the isolated few North Koreans who have money. Much of the Middle East practices barbaric faiths where their women are valued less than shoes. When the cold war ended, it seemed everyone just took a big sigh of relief. I submit; not everyone. There is no excuse for hunger on this planet let alone in this country. When it comes to babies it doesn't matter what color their skin is, or where they live, they should be entitled to sustenance. Our supposedly peaceful embargos and sanctions only effect the poor (far worse than anything Bush has done here). Do you think Saddam ever suffered from trade restrictions? Please. These supposedly peaceful solutions are the reason we are so hated. A war against their version of Islam… Oh no, we don't mean that… Well we damn well should! That's right I said it. Women are not dogs, and I'll happily put to death everyone who disagrees with me until everyone that's left does. That, is the humane solution. If you believe with all of your heart that you should stone your women to death if she insults you and you can not be persuaded to change your way of thinking, than good riddance to you. If half of the people in a geographic location need to be slaughtered, to make room for a civil society, than so be it. Allowing cultures to mature at their own rate when they were isolated was one thing. Now that they are armed with first-world technologies it is quite another. Gone is the possibility of rising up with your farm tools to defeat your oppressor yourself. It is no longer possible. Without help from some superior force these people will continue to suffer untold horrific fates generation after generation forever. That's the ugly truth. Now I really don't care what the cost of liberation is. It's worth it and I'll happily pay my share. This world will continue to be a cesspool for most of it's residents until we finally admit that our ability translates to a responsibility to help. Are you feelin me?

pistoff
Let me start by saying I'm sorry if I jacked your thread. It was an honest mistake. As for your complaints about dubbya's ineptitude at providing relief to the poor, I can see your point. Where I dissent is you seem to lay way too much blame on a presidency whose bills are only now becoming laws. Like it or not, we are still dealing with the Clinton years. It takes years to put new policies into effect and sometimes years after that before you can feel the effects. Bush obviously has no clue what it's like to be poor. How could he? I must point out however that you are contradicting yourself when you say he is failing because he is stupid. That's one of your complaints about the republicans isn't it? I also whole heartedly believe that an un-handicapped man in this can work his way up from poverty. Yes, you do have to be smart enough to not reproduce like rabbits if you want to get ahead. No one is guaranteed success. We are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, and rich and poor I've never lost sight of that. To some extent people do have to look at the man in the mirror when figuring out their lack of success. Government can not and should not try to take care of everyone. Ask the Soviets, the Chinese or the North Koreans. I agree that a reasonable hand and basic sustenance should be available to every American. But I also believe in workfare over welfare and yes, I do believe if your welfare check is more than the average wage you are likely to get used to it. That's common sense isn't it? This country may not be perfect but it's a damn site better than most of the world and you should damn well appreciate it. Our government is the most wasteful entity mankind has ever known but that doesn't slow my BMW down any. We have opportunity. We have hope. And I, for one, am very greatful.