Trenchant article on the side of America the GOP doesn't want you to see.
Maybe you have been like the people in this article, maybe you are now, maybe you will be someday.  Perhaps you have family who are in poverty, or friends, or neighbors.
Or perhaps you just smile back at your crushed velvet portrait of Ronald Reagan and say, "those bums, those lazy, irresponsible bums!"

http://www.masslive.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-52/1127579643310671.xml&storylist=masskatrina&thispage=1

I had replied to this, but it didn't work. So....

This article made me cry because I've experienced some of what he wrote. I'm better off today because I have the $8 an hour (actually $7.25) job, but some of those things he said still ring true. The fact that people are surprised that I'm not stupid or lazy still irks me. Just because I clean up the stuff you drop or pick up the sh*tty toilet paper off the floor where you leave it and flush the toilets you don't flush doesn't mean I'm stupid. And just because I live at home and have a baby and work at a cr*p paying job doesn't mean I'm lazy.

Sorry, venting again. I really need to lose that job. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with it for a while longer.

I too can relate to a lot of those quotes, especially the one about "wishing that the toothache just goes away".  I have not had any health insurance in YEARS.  We have medical/hospital bills stacked sky high with a pile of dust collecting on them.  My husband makes ok money at his job...but the poor excuse for health insurance that his job offers..doesn't even cover anything...and isn't worth the money that we would have to put into it every month.  Everytime I get sick...I hope and pray that I don't get sicker....so that I won't have to scrape up some money to get to the doctors.  I have even taken other people's leftover prescription meds so that I wouldn't have to pay all of the money to go to the doctors office.  It's a sad situation that the working class can't even get healthcare.

I was watching this documentary show on MTV the other day and they were highlighting people who were literally dirt poor and didn't know where they were gonna end up because of their situations, etc. It was really sad to see people in horrible conditions like that...and it made me look a little brighter at my own life....but, it also made me sick that MTV, the same channel that glorifies these overpaid rockstars, on the other hand, they were showing unfortunate people's lives, which was totally the flipside of the coin.

I know what you mean Jessica....how some people look down upon others who are apart of the working class that are just trying to get by and help support their families.  It's ok that you have to vent...sometimes that makes a person feel better.


Erin :)

yes, I know. No "poor" people before Ronald Reagan.

Part Of The Union
by Ford/Hudson, (The Strawbs)

Now I'm a union man
Amazed at what I am
I say what I think
That the company stinks
Yes I'm a union man.

Oh you don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
Till the day I die, till the day I die.

Before the union did appear
My life was half as clear
Now I've got the power
To the working hour
And every other day of the year.


Oh you don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
Till the day I die, till the day I die.

yes, I know. No "poor" people before Ronald Reagan.



Life was great under Jimmy Carter!  Everyone had a house, health care and a color television.

Clinton was great too.  Let's forget the fact that under Bush the poverty level is just over 12% while it was 13.6% under Clinton.

Life was great under Jimmy Carter!  Everyone had a house, health care and a color television.

Clinton was great too.  Let's forget the fact that under Bush the poverty level is just over 12% while it was 13.6% under Clinton.


^This is a half truth

Clinton inherited a high poverty rate from the bush 1 presidency, and it consistently went down during
his tenure.  It was at a low point when Clinton left and has steadily risen with bush 2. 

www.csmonitor.com/2005/0831/p02s01-usec.html

Naturally, every time someone posts something like this the conservatives politisize it -"it was worse under Cater, it was worse under Clinton".  I'm not going the split hairs over statistics, but my guess is that it was even worse under Ford, and worse yet under Nixon, and even worse yet under Eisenhower, and the further back you go, the worse it was. SO WHAT?

The point is that if we want to be are what we say we are (a middle class nation) than we all need to think about ways to end the dire poverty that forces too many of our fellow citizens to live as if they were Hatians. 

I heard Lil' Georgie's speach promising BILLIONS to rebuild after Katrina, but who did he ask to sacrifice to pull it off?  Not his rich friends, oh no, that would mean tax hikes.  No, cut spending on education, health care, housing (in other parts of the country) etc.  In other words, lets hit up the middle and working classes to foot the bill (yes, this is political). 

But this issue transends current, and especially past, politics.  This is an issue that touches upon the latant (and overt) racism and classism of our society.  It is an issue that touches the very heart of what the United States is and what it purports to be.  This touches tyhe very soul of our national being.  We will define ourselves for the 21st Century based on how we respond to what Katrina (an act of God) has so blatantly laid bare.

Life was great under Jimmy Carter!  Everyone had a house, health care and a color television.

Clinton was great too.  Let's forget the fact that under Bush the poverty level is just over 12% while it was 13.6% under Clinton.

The federal government's definition of "poverty" is ridiculously low.  It's about 18 grand per annum for a family of four and is still by food purchasing power.  The price of food has remained relatively static in the past forty years compared to the other costs of living.

Here in the northeast, a family of four living on double the threshold of poverty still struggles.

There have always been poor.

There will always be poor.

It will never go away.

There have always been poor.

There will always be poor.

It will never go away.


Certainly not with an attitude like this!

"Povery" is a relative thing until you get to the level of utter deprivation.  What passes for poverty in this country would, mostly, be concidered a good life in Haiti, but that should not make it tolerable in this country.  We can and must do better, and at least get rid of the racism that lies behind much of the poverty we see around us.

There have always been poor.

There will always be poor.

It will never go away.

Sure, give up.  No point in fighting for social justice.  And since America is turning itself into a Third World country, let's go the Third World route.  Ignore poor people.  If they encroach, if the become a nuisance, just shoot them.

Sure, give up.  No point in fighting for social justice.  And since America is turning itself into a Third World country, let's go the Third World route.  Ignore poor people.  If they encroach, if the become a nuisance, just shoot them.


Maxwell, have you ever been "poor"?

Don Carlos, have you ever lived in the street, selling plasma to make money for food for the next week?

Have either of you spent over a year looking for work, and not able to find anything?

Have either of you delt with problem teeth, because you could not afford to see a dentist?

I have, and currently am.

So please, do not tell me about "the poor".  I am the poor, I have been even worse in my past.  Who is guilty for my living on the street?  Both times I lived that way, Clinton was President.  But I do not blame him.  If I end up on the street tomorrow, I will not blame Bush.  That's life.

2,000 years ago, a teacher in the Middle East taught people that poverty would never go away.  Even back then, he admitted that there would always be poverty.

I am simply a realist.  It has nothing to do with "Class Struggle" or "Social Injustice", it is simply a fact of life.  I simply live in a real world, not in a world how I think it should be.

Well at least stop blaming other people for there situation and spitting on them that it's there own damn fault.

Maxwell, have you ever been "poor"?

Don Carlos, have you ever lived in the street, selling plasma to make money for food for the next week? (no)

Have either of you spent over a year looking for work, and not able to find anything? (yes)

Have either of you delt with problem teeth, because you could not afford to see a dentist? (yes)

I have, and currently am.

So please, do not tell me about "the poor".  I am the poor, I have been even worse in my past.  Who is guilty for my living on the street?  Both times I lived that way, Clinton was President.  But I do not blame him.  If I end up on the street tomorrow, I will not blame Bush.  That's life.

2,000 years ago, a teacher in the Middle East taught people that poverty would never go away.  Even back then, he admitted that there would always be poverty.

I am simply a realist.  It has nothing to do with "Class Struggle" or "Social Injustice", it is simply a fact of life.  I simply live in a real world, not in a world how I think it should be.


Obviously the president isn't responsible for the misfortunes of every individual, however this president , and his neocon ideologues are responsible for the attacks on the social saftey net that has been laboriously constructed since the 1930s.  It never was perfect, and has been rendered even less perfect by the blatant and the covert racism that is still all to pervasive in the country.  Certainly racism has everything to do with social justice.  The class struggle has to do with how much of the value labor creates labor gets to keep, and how much capital gets to expropriate.  To paraphrase A. Lincoln, labor is prior to and superior to capital.  Marx must have read Lincoln.

To paraphrase A. Lincoln, labor is prior to and superior to capital.  Marx must have read Lincoln.


"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

I honestly believed that if Lincoln had not been assasinated, he probably would have pulled the Republican party into a Socialist system.  For the time, he was very aware of social issues, labor, and social ills.  Of course, there is also a good chance that his idea of sending a large portion of the freed slaves to Lyberia would also have happened.

Sometimes, our heros are better as martyrs then they would have been if they kept living.

In a perfect world, I see "Labor-Capital" as a symbiosys.  Labor provides the manpower for Capital, which provides income and finished products.  Labor then buys the products, giving fuel back to Capital, which continues the cycle.  Profit is what feeds the system, attracting investors and spawning more investment.  Much like trees produce fruit, which is their profit.  The fruit is then used to make more trees.

In my mind, the days of Marx are ancient history.  In the 19th century, being an investor was unthought of for labor.  By the early 20th century, Public Stock allowed anybody to invest in, and have a say in the way a corporation ran.  The "Private Company" was a thing of the past, and instead of autocratic rule, we had a more Parlamentiary system of running companies.

Now, you have corporations encouraging their workers to invest in the company.  Harley-Davidson is a good example.  Disney also encourages it, and it was the workers that helped lead to the "coup" that ousted Michael Eisner.

Because of the power of Proxy voting, a lot of workers sign their proxies over to Labor organizations, who then use them as a large voting block to help force changes in a company.  When my dad worked for Litton in the 1970's and 1980's, he was not a member of the union.  But he gave his proxy to the AFL-CIO, because he thought they would ensure that his interests were met.

There are predatory corporations out there.  But there are just as many (if not more) who honestly look out for the welfare of their workers.  If you do not, you loose the quality workers to the competition, and you loose money.

Maxwell, have you ever been "poor"?

Don Carlos, have you ever lived in the street, selling plasma to make money for food for the next week?

Have either of you spent over a year looking for work, and not able to find anything?

Have either of you delt with problem teeth, because you could not afford to see a dentist?

I have, and currently am.

So please, do not tell me about "the poor".  I am the poor, I have been even worse in my past.  Who is guilty for my living on the street?  Both times I lived that way, Clinton was President.  But I do not blame him.  If I end up on the street tomorrow, I will not blame Bush.  That's life.

2,000 years ago, a teacher in the Middle East taught people that poverty would never go away.  Even back then, he admitted that there would always be poverty.

I am simply a realist.  It has nothing to do with "Class Struggle" or "Social Injustice", it is simply a fact of life.  I simply live in a real world, not in a world how I think it should be.

Actually, I have thousands of dollars worth of dental work on hold.  I have no dental insurance.
There is a difference between how you as an invidvidual feel about being poor and state social policy.  
Jesus did not teach it was OK for the ruling class and the merchants to rake it in while others don't have a place to live or food to eat.  Please don't tarnish the name of Jesus by justifying the unjust with his name.
You don't want to use Marxian terms such as "class struggle," or "social injustice," well OK then.  But is it "a fact of life" that we have to let the corporations run roughshod over us?  I mean, would Jesus say it is right for a few very rich people to hold sway over public policy in their own selfish interests?

Jesus did not teach it was OK for the ruling class and the merchants to rake it in while others don't have a place to live or food to eat.  Please don't tarnish the name of Jesus by justifying the unjust with his name.
You don't want to use Marxian terms such as "class struggle," or "social injustice," well OK then.  But is it "a fact of life" that we have to let the corporations run roughshod over us?  I mean, would Jesus say it is right for a few very rich people to hold sway over public policy in their own selfish interests?


I actually find this rather amuseing!

I know that most knew who I was talking about.  But I was useing the quotes in a secular way.  By useing "Teacher" (after all, Jesus was a Rabi) instead of his name, I was simply making the point that there were poor 2,000 years ago.  I was not trying to bring in religion or anything else, simply the observation of somebody who lived 2,000 years ago, and talked about poverty then.

In fact, I am quite sure that if it was possible to take a census back then, the average percentage of "poor" would probably be real close to what it is today.

I actually find this rather amuseing!

I know that most knew who I was talking about.  But I was useing the quotes in a secular way.  By useing "Teacher" (after all, Jesus was a Rabi) instead of his name, I was simply making the point that there were poor 2,000 years ago.  I was not trying to bring in religion or anything else, simply the observation of somebody who lived 2,000 years ago, and talked about poverty then.

In fact, I am quite sure that if it was possible to take a census back then, the average percentage of "poor" would probably be real close to what it is today.

Well, rabbi means teacher, and Jesus was a teacher in the rabbinical sense.  If you refer to "a teacher in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, it's safe to assume you're talking about Jesus, and it's kind of hard to talk about Jesus without bringing religion into it just a bit.
:)

Poverty is relative.  I wouldn't readily make comparisons of 2,000 years ago and today.

Well, rabbi means teacher, and Jesus was a teacher in the rabbinical sense.  If you refer to "a teacher in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, it's safe to assume you're talking about Jesus, and it's kind of hard to talk about Jesus without bringing religion into it just a bit.
:)

Poverty is relative.  I wouldn't readily make comparisons of 2,000 years ago and today.


I know what you mean.  It really is hard to compare an agrarian society with that of a modern industrial one.  I doubt that more then 2 in 10 could survive if they had to revurt to that standard of living.  We are a people that buys it's produce and meat from the supermarket.  No matter what growing season it is, we can have whatever kind of produce we want.  It may cost more (strawberries in December), but it is available.

I think they should make a reality show based on that.  Take 10 "Industiral Age" adults, and make them live as a farmer 140 years ago would have lived.  Teach them to raise and butcher animals, and grow their own food.  It might give them a greater appreciation for where we are now, and where we came from.

I know what you mean.  It really is hard to compare an agrarian society with that of a modern industrial one.  I doubt that more then 2 in 10 could survive if they had to revurt to that standard of living.  We are a people that buys it's produce and meat from the supermarket.  No matter what growing season it is, we can have whatever kind of produce we want.  It may cost more (strawberries in December), but it is available.

I think they should make a reality show based on that.  Take 10 "Industiral Age" adults, and make them live as a farmer 140 years ago would have lived.  Teach them to raise and butcher animals, and grow their own food.  It might give them a greater appreciation for where we are now, and where we came from.

I always say, the average dirt farmer possesses 100 skills most of don't even realize are skills!

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

...

In a perfect world, I see "Labor-Capital" as a symbiosys.  Labor provides the manpower for Capital, which provides income and finished products.  Labor then buys the products, giving fuel back to Capital, which continues the cycle.  Profit is what feeds the system, attracting investors and spawning more investment.  Much like trees produce fruit, which is their profit.  The fruit is then used to make more trees.

...


But if I read it right, and thanks for the exact quote, Lincoln was saying exactly what Marx pointed out, ie that profit is nothing more than value, created by labor and expropriated from it.  Without exploitation there could be no profit, no "capital" and no capitalists.  Lincoln also said something like - every workman deserves the full measure of his value. 

But if I read it right, and thanks for the exact quote, Lincoln was saying exactly what Marx pointed out, ie that profit is nothing more than value, created by labor and expropriated from it.  Without exploitation there could be no profit, no "capital" and no capitalists.  Lincoln also said something like - every workman deserves the full measure of his value. 

Lincoln said the chartered corporations were going to destroy America.  He was right.  Labor can NEVER trust the capitalists to do right by them. 
United we stand, divided we fall.  That is why the Republicans always go on about "individual rights," the "entrepeneur," "rugged individualism," "individual initiative."  None of these things are bad per se.  The point is, the capitalist elite could not give a rat's azz about your individual rights, entrepeneurs, or how rugged an individual you are.  The rhetoric is employed to divide worker from worker, person from person.  The more of a wedge they can drive between you and the next guy, the better.  Rush Limbaugh pioneered the use of ridicule rather than fear as a way of talking about organized labor and class solidarity.  The Right will tell you in no uncertainty that unions are bad, class isn't real, and racism is dead.  Three big lies...and they know it.  They just don't want you to know it, their piggie establishment depends on your denial, your ignorance.
:o

There is no reason why anyone on this Earth, let alone any citizen of this, the richest country in the world, should starve or go without even the most basic requirements of living in industrial society. A good education, a living wage for an honest day's work, and adequet health benefits are things to which every citizen should be entitled. What's so idealistic about it? The Scandinavians have already done it, for Christ's sake! Sure, not veryone can be a doctor or a lawyer or a senator, not everyone can be rich and have every material thing their hearts desire, but everyone CAN be assured that they won't go hungry, cold, and naked in the streets.

There is no reason why anyone on this Earth, let alone any citizen of this, the richest country in the world, should starve or go without even the most basic requirements of living in industrial society. A good education, a living wage for an honest day's work, and adequet health benefits are things to which every citizen should be entitled. What's so idealistic about it? The Scandinavians have already done it, for Christ's sake! Sure, not veryone can be a doctor or a lawyer or a senator, not everyone can be rich and have every material thing their hearts desire, but everyone CAN be assured that they won't go hungry, cold, and naked in the streets.


And then they'll ride away on a magical unicorn!  ;) ;) (To quote Steven Colbert)

I agree with you 100%. Utilities is another thing that should be better protected and insured. Recently my 77 year old grandmother lost her power due to storms. Well, the local power company d!cked around for TWO days before they got her power on. She actually went about 55 hours without. Nearly everyone else had their's back on within 24 hours. We called the power company about 5 times, and each time they'd set a "deadline" and pass it. The bad thing about situations like this is NOONE is accountable when it comes to utilities. If they were under government jurisdiction they'd be publically accountable and would not be able to screw around people and get away with it so easily.

I'll  have to ask him about it(hes asleep right now) but my uncle read about a study once where they calculated how much money each American would get if they were to divide it up equally per capita, and I believe it was something like $62,000. I'll have to check with him later.

But if I read it right, and thanks for the exact quote, Lincoln was saying exactly what Marx pointed out, ie that profit is nothing more than value, created by labor and expropriated from it.  Without exploitation there could be no profit, no "capital" and no capitalists.  Lincoln also said something like - every workman deserves the full measure of his value. 


Lincoln would be a classic example of a Pre-Marxist Socialist.  Born of a poor farm family, he got where he did by hard work.  He never forgot where he came from, and wanted to see those on the bottom of the social ladder given the chance to move up.  But at the same time, he knew that it should not be given to them.

I could not find the quote you listed, but here are a few others:

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." Abraham Lincoln's "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864)

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." Abraham Lincoln's "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855)

Lincoln would be a classic example of a Pre-Marxist Socialist.  Born of a poor farm family, he got where he did by hard work.  He never forgot where he came from, and wanted to see those on the bottom of the social ladder given the chance to move up.  But at the same time, he knew that it should not be given to them.

I could not find the quote you listed, but here are a few others:

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." Abraham Lincoln's "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864)

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." Abraham Lincoln's "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855)


God Darn, thanks again.  You see, the very basis of socialism is "from each according to his ability"  which means that human labor creates value, and NOTHING ELSE DOES, and "to each according to his need", so the disabled kid that I see cruising around Fair Haven should have that motorized chair even if her family can't afford it, and she should have the best medical care available, and she should have an education that builds on her natural abilities, and she should have decent housing and an adequate diet, and we should expect that she will contribute to society as best she can, like that physisist guy, Steven J. Hawking, who can't move, or even speak without lots of assistance, but is on the cutting edge of his discipline.

I'm not in favor of what has become to be know as "charity", but I must say that I do feel an obligation to those who are less fortunate than I, and want to see them achieve all that their gifts allow them to achieve.  Now that is real "socialism".  Lincoln would approve.