The P Word

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Sherry Darling

New Yorker
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,857
Location
Virginia
November 22, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Shhh, Don't Say 'Poverty'
By BOB HERBERT

Former Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican from Texas who was known for his orneriness, once said, "We're the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat."

That particular example of compassionate conservatism came to mind as I looked over a report from the Department of Agriculture showing that more than 12 million American families continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves.

The 12 million families represent 11.2 percent of all U.S. households. "At some time during the year," the report said, "these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food for all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources."

Of the 12 million families that worried about putting food on the table, 3.9 million had members who actually went hungry at some point last year. "The other two-thirds ... obtained enough food to avoid hunger using a variety of coping strategies," the report said, "such as eating less varied diets, participating in federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens."



These are dismal statistics for a country as well-to-do as the United States. But we don't hear much about them because hunger is associated with poverty, and poverty is not even close to becoming part of our national conversation. Swift boats, yes. Sex scenes on "Monday Night Football," most definitely. The struggle of millions of Americans to feed themselves? Oh no. Let's not go there.

What does that tell you about American values?

We are surrounded by poor and low-income people. (The definitions can be elastic and easily blurred, but essentially we're talking about individuals and families that don't have enough money to cover the essentials - food, shelter, clothing, transportation and so forth.) Many of them are full-time workers, and some have more than one job.

A new study by the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit research group, found that more than 550,000 families in New York - a quarter of all working families in the state - had incomes that were too low to cover their basic needs.

We just had a bitterly contested presidential election, but this very serious problem (it's hardly confined to New York) was not a major part of the debate.

According to the study: "Most low-income working families do not conform to the popular stereotype of the working poor as young, single, fast-food workers: 88 percent of low-income working families include a parent between 25 and 54 years old. Married couples head 53 percent of these families nationwide. Important jobs such as health aide, janitor and child care worker pay a poverty wage."

In its introduction, the study says, "The implied bargain America offers its citizens is supposed to be that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can support his or her family and move onward and upward."

If that was the bargain, we've broken it again and again. Low-income workers have always been targets for exploitation, and that hasn't changed. The Times's Steven Greenhouse had a troubling front-page article in last Friday's paper about workers at restaurants, supermarkets, call centers and other low-paying establishments who are forced to go off the clock and continue working for periods of time without pay.

The federal government has not raised the minimum wage since 1997, and has made it easier for some employers to deny time-and-a-half pay to employees who work overtime.

Franklin Roosevelt, in his second Inaugural Address, told a rain-soaked crowd, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

I can hear the politicians in today's Washington having a hearty laugh at that sentiment.

There are advocates and even some politicians hard at work addressing the myriad problems faced by beleaguered workers and their families. But they get very little in the way of attention or resources from the most powerful sectors of society. So the health care workers who can't afford health insurance will continue emptying bedpans for a pittance. And the janitors will clean up faithfully after the big shots who ignore them.

These are rough times for the American dream. But times change, and the people who have broken faith with the dream won't be in power forever.
 
We had this 350 pound unemployed guy on my street, and his wife was wasting away and you could literally see the ribs through their little boy's shirt. He was such an inconsiderate hog.

In America, you probably won't starve, there are always neighbors, shelters, soup kitchens and food banks. But there are still people who can't afford a decent place to live, or their utilities. or a running automobile, or health care on their measley salaries (I have seen this first hand)
 
Where are your priorities, so what, a few people may skip a meal or two, there are homosexuals out there that want to marry and we've got to put a stop to it.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Where are your priorities, so what, a few people may skip a meal or two, there are homosexuals out there that want to marry and we've got to put a stop to it.

Sarcasm duly noted, and not completely unjustified. But it's worth noting that there very few politicians on either side of the aisle these days who are willing to confront the problem. To be overly cynical about it, the votes just aren't there.
 
strannix said:
But it's worth noting that there very few politicians on either side of the aisle these days who are willing to confront the problem. To be overly cynical about it, the votes just aren't there.

This is true--and sad.
 
strannix said:


Sarcasm duly noted, and not completely unjustified. But it's worth noting that there very few politicians on either side of the aisle these days who are willing to confront the problem. To be overly cynical about it, the votes just aren't there.

I agree 100%, but I think it's more of a reflection of our society that canidates can get votes for saying they'll ban gay marriage, but couldn't get votes for saying they will help the poor.

It's a discusting reflection of our moral priorities. It serious infuriates me to hear people say Bush won because of the moral vote. Just saying that is so bassackwards.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I agree 100%, but I think it's more of a reflection of our society that canidates can get votes for saying they'll ban gay marriage, but couldn't get votes for saying they will help the poor.

It's a discusting reflection of our moral priorities. It serious infuriates me to hear people say Bush won because of the moral vote. Just saying that is so bassackwards.

I'm just saying, even most of the people who didn't vote for banning gay marriage don't seem to have alleviating poverty as a priority. Even in the Dem primary, only Edwards really spoke at length about problems like this.

"People being able to eat" shouldn't be a partisan problem. I just don't think it's helpful to blame one side over the other for this until at least one side makes a serious effort to address it.
 
Poverty is an issue that both parties should solve if they can ever stand working together. Never let it be said that God favors the rich. Never let it be said that all republicans/conservatives favor the rich. I myself favor no social class or race. There are decent, clean people out on the streets who struggle every day. Even those who deal drugs would probably not do so if they had a chance to make it in the world any other way. I've seen them with my own eyes. I feel horrible that I can't help them out when I don't have spare change. Next time I go out, I will bring a few quarters to spare. It could save someone's life for all I know.
 
strannix said:


I'm just saying, even most of the people who didn't vote for banning gay marriage don't seem to have alleviating poverty as a priority. Even in the Dem primary, only Edwards really spoke at length about problems like this.

"People being able to eat" shouldn't be a partisan problem. I just don't think it's helpful to blame one side over the other for this until at least one side makes a serious effort to address it.

I'm in agreeance with you. I don't think either side addressed the issue. But one side does claim to be the "moral" side and that's what I'm taking issue with.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But one side does claim to be the "moral" side and that's what I'm taking issue with.

"One side" is not making such a claim. This started as a summary note from exit polls and grew into something monsterous which no longer resembles the original notation.
 
nbcrusader said:


"One side" is not making such a claim. This started as a summary note from exit polls and grew into something monsterous which no longer resembles the original notation.


i have to disagree. if you look at the jolt of energy that groups like Focus on the Family or Concerned Women for America or any other religious, right wing "family" group has taken from the election, they are certainly claiming that they both provided the winning votes in the election and they're now lining up for their legislative kickbacks. not all Republicans or Bush voters feel this way, but these groups only exist on one side of the political spectrum.
 
nbcrusader said:


"One side" is not making such a claim. This started as a summary note from exit polls and grew into something monsterous which no longer resembles the original notation.

Um no, I've heard churches, individuals, and politicians all over the country say "the people spoke and morality won." Even some of the individuals in here said the same thing.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Um no, I've heard churches, individuals, and politicians all over the country say "the people spoke and morality won." Even some of the individuals in here said the same thing.


yes ... whatever happened to GOP_Catholic? last i remember he was busy hiding his children from people like me.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Um no, I've heard churches, individuals, and politicians all over the country say "the people spoke and morality won." Even some of the individuals in here said the same thing.

Uh yeah, after the fact. Everyone jumped on the "moral values" bandwagon after the exit poll was reported.

If there was an influencial group, I would say it was the Catholic Church and their stand on gay marriage.
 
where I live poverty is real. I make $8.30 an hour and I am considered extremely well paid for this area. We have homeless people here and yes we even have people that have nothing to eat sometimes.

I live in a very rural area where there's really nowhere to work except at a fast food place or wal-mart. Most people are trying to get by and raise their kids on $5.25 an hour. So, to say that true poverty doesn't exist in America is false.

We spend billions of dollars on wars when people right here dont have homes, food, money to heat their homes or to buy medicine. It's disgusting.
 
nbcrusader said:

If there was an influencial group, I would say it was the Catholic Church and their stand on gay marriage.

Actually, I think that the Church hierarchy is more obsessed with abortion as a "moral" issue than gay marriage. At least that is my personal perception from listening to various clergy.
 
anitram said:


Actually, I think that the Church hierarchy is more obsessed with abortion as a "moral" issue than gay marriage. At least that is my personal perception from listening to various clergy.
I agree.
 
Historically, yes abortion has been one of the prime issues for the Catholic church. From what I've read in the post-election wrap-ups, the Catholic church mobilized members on the gay marriage issue.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm in agreeance with you. I don't think either side addressed the issue. But one side does claim to be the "moral" side and that's what I'm taking issue with.

True, despite claims to the contrary. But the other side claims to be the friend of the working class. There's enough hypocrisy to go around.

nbcrusader, find me a Republican who didn't run hard on some variation of family or moral values. Whether the exit polling showed that they won because of this is not the relevant point - they still made the claims.
 
First, we have never defined "moral values" in this context.

Second, both sides envoked moral values, religion, faith, whatever in their campaigns.



I find it interesting in how we all quickly argue and point political fingers on this point, and ignore the core message of this thread.
 
nbcrusader said:
First, we have never defined "moral values" in this context.

Who's we? Like I said, I've heard many, many conservatives define moral values in this context, this time around.

Yes both sides envoked morals and religion, but I only heard one side actually claim the moral side...and not only after the fact.
 
this points to a democratic weakness. i think we all know what republicans mean when they talk about "moral values":

anti-choice
anti-gay marriage (not necessarily anti-gay)
church attendence
honoring of the traditional nuclear family
opposition to sex and language in film, music, television (does not necessarily apply to violence)

these are just a few of the specifics i could come up with off the top of my head. but i have an idea of what the republicans mean -- they do a wonderful job conflating their platform and the term "moral values" with the highly idealized image we all have of America in the 1950s. picket fences, mom, apple pie, baseball, church, etc. i'm not saying, nor do i believe, than a majority (or even a sizeable minority) of Republicans would endorse such relics of the 50's such as racial segregation and gender inequality. but there's a yearning for a more easily understood and defined time, when boys were boys, girls were girls, dad was home by 6 and mom had dinner on the table. but we're talking more about the spirit of the thing than the specifics of the thing.

the problem with the democrats is that they haven't articulated or created a vision of their version of moral values. what would some of those be?

every child a wanted child
celebration of the diversity of American culture, i.e. religion, race, ethnicity, etc.
civil rights for all couples, or more bravely: the expansion of marriage
the value of nontraditional families
health care for all

these strike me as every bit as moral as the Republican values listed above. the democrats need to turn this into a vision, but it's difficult -- being more liberal and necessarily predicated on change, they don't have a reimagined past to tap into for easy emotion and instant connection.
 
Out of respect for the opposing side, I don't refer to their politics as pro-abortion or pro-death. I would appreciate it if you did the same.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Out of respect for the opposing side, I don't refer to their politics as pro-abortion or pro-death. I would appreciate it if you did the same.


i don't understand you're comment.

i do, however, refuse to call those who oppose abortion rights as being "pro-life." we're all pro-life. being pro-choice doesn't mean that you stand against life, that's a misnomer. the issue, in this necessarily political context, concerns the legality of a woman having a choice to have an abortion or not. instead of anti-choice, i could accept "pro-birth" because that seems to be as far as many (though not all) who call themselves are willing to go. if you were truly pro-life, you'd feed that child, care for that child, educate that child, provide quality housing for that child, etc.

therefore, i wrap the issue around the word "choice."
 
How about... anti-abortion? You can call me that. I personally think the choice is whether you want to have sex or not if you're not ready to raise kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom