United States Are Democrats still for poor people?

[ShieldWife]

Earlier today I was watching Tim Pool while he was talking about opposing the rich and supporting the poor was left wing and it seemed odd to me, because decades ago maybe one could say that but I don’t know if it’s true any more.

It seems to me that increasingly identity politics has is replacing class warfare as the central issue of the Democrat Party. Virtually all of the nation’s big corporations are controlled by the left and almost all leftists seem to support the ability of those huge institutions to use their wealth and power to silence voices of less wealthy or powerful Americans.

On the other end of the spectrum, when ever the left talks about white poor people, they express utter contempt and hatred, as though the white poor are just the scum of the earth who do nothing but take meth, collect welfare, and fuck their siblings. Republicans, on the other hand, have vastly more respect and compassion for poor Democrats, like urban blacks.

So it seems that Democrats only like the poor if they have a valid (in their ideology) justification for being poor - like being a single mother and/or racial minority. A poor white man is a privileged oppressor and the filthy rich black women is his underprivileged victim.

The wealthy have the right to utterly crush the poor and middle class, to silence dissenting voices, to doxx children, to make people destitute, as long as their attacks are aimed against the right which they virtually always are.

Has anybody else noticed this?

 

[FriedCFour]

On the other end of the spectrum, when ever the left talks about white poor people, they express utter contempt and hatred, as though the white poor are just the scum of the earth who do nothing but take meth, collect welfare, and fuck their siblings. Republicans, on the other hand, have vastly more respect and compassion for poor Democrats, like urban blacks.

I don't think the contempt is as broad as poor white people. The contempt is for poor rural whites who are conservatives. The contempt is for the right as a whole. Poor whites who aren't stereotypically Republican or on the right wing do still get support. That also does apply to non-whites though too. So I would say that Democrats from the main base of support are very much for most of the poor so long as those poor do not politically oppose them. Most democrats too really don't like the rich as a whole, but they make exceptions for ones that support them. I would say it's default support for poor of all stripes unless politically opposed, and default against the rich unless politically aligned.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

The left as they are now don't care about the poor. They virtue signal but they don't really care. If they did, they would do something about the cities or states they control like Baltimore or California but they don't and cities in California have medieval diseases coming back.

The left if they cared about climate change would do something about corporations and how they pollute the planet or pretend they care and then throw trash into the oceans. If the left cared, they would show us the way by stopping having so many private planes and cars but they don't. These rich fucks talk down to the rest of us telling we have to sacrifice while they continue without a care in the world.

The left if they cared about the poor, wouldn't be so chummy with the corporations but they are. They fight and protect the corporations against criticism by normal people. They allow the corporations to censor people despite they saying in the past they were anti-censorship.

The left instead of persuing policies to help people attack entertainment even from other countries and seek to change it to fit what they see as right while at the same time bitching about cultural appropriation and imperialism.

Don't be fooled by this Yang person and his $1000 bullshit. This is a bribe to vote for him and a way to placate the masses.

Now I'm not saying Trump is better but I hope the left burn for their betrayal, lying and two-facedness.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

It seems to me that increasingly identity politics has is replacing class warfare as the central issue of the Democrat Party. Virtually all of the nation’s big corporations are controlled by the left and almost all leftists seem to support the ability of those huge institutions to use their wealth and power to silence voices of less wealthy or powerful Americans.

You wouldn't be able to tell that by what Hollywood and much of Western Entertainment shows

They think Rich Assholes are just going to be really fucking obvious about how they hate and look down on ALL poor people and are hypocrites who complain about welfare or "Handouts" and that poor people can become rich when they inherit lots of money

Basically, think of that scene from that Will Ferrel movie where he's a CEO who later turns out to be pretty nice and even helps his new black friend make a business.....also he wasn't corrupt and he taught a bunch of black gangstas how to get rich by investing all their drug money

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

The Democrats are for the poor in the way the People's Republic of Haven is "for the poor".

 

[Deleted member]

I think the democrats stopped being for poor people sometime around the late 70s when under Carter the party adopted a platform of being fixated on "human rights" at the idealised UN level, and focused on environmentalism at home while adopting an internationalist "deregulation" principle in the US economy, without seriously considering a rational objective of preserving American jobs (it worked in some cases, not so much in others). The '68 election was the start, Carter was when these policies came to the forefront, and by Clinton the transformation was complete.

Biden is of course owned by all the Delaware corporations, but he can fake it because he comes from the same background as the old blue collar democrats; that's why he's such a threat to Trump.

 

[S'task]

The answer to this entirely depends on what you mean by "for the poor". Recent surveys show that liberals do have a more favorable opinion of the poor than conservatives do (though, it should be noted that conservatives do not conversely have a purely negative opinion of the poor, rather, they just have a less positive opinion).

However, liberals understand the causes of poverty in a fundamentally different way than conservatives do, believing that poverty is primarily caused and perpetuated by systems outside the control of individuals, while conservatives believe that poverty is something an individual can overcome:

This leads, of course, to a fundamental difference in approach to addressing poverty. Liberals want to destroy the systems they see underlying poverty, and their politics reflect that. They seek policies that redress discrimination, seek policies that overturn or mitigate capitalism, and always push for more education (consider: affirmative action programs for college address TWO of these three believed underlying causes of poverty! No wonder they're so popular on the left.).

However, if you're coming at this from a more conservative viewpoint, you likely fall into beliefs concerning poverty that place more emphasis on the individual. Every single one of the believed core causes of poverty by conservatives places the primarily responsibly on individuals (with the possible exception of "breakdown of families" but even there, there is a pair of individuals who made a decision even if there are systemic issues damaging families in the US). To the liberal, these attitudes look like "victim blaming", while to the conservative the liberal's viewpoint looks demeaning to those in poverty (since blaming outside forces looks rather infantalizing and denying of individual ability).

 

[Deleted member]

@S'task I regard the breakdown of families and societies as leading directly to drug and alcohol addiction, so cause 3 links to cause 4. 1 and 2 are at best tertiary and caused by the social and familial breakdown. But arguably the traditionalist and integralist view ascribes the cause to influences beyond the control of the individual. However, the solution is still within individual power.

 

[Marduk]

This leads, of course, to a fundamental difference in approach to addressing poverty. Liberals want to destroy the systems they see underlying poverty, and their politics reflect that. They seek policies that redress discrimination, seek policies that overturn or mitigate capitalism, and always push for more education (consider: affirmative action programs for college address TWO of these three believed underlying causes of poverty! No wonder they're so popular on the left.).

What i notice here is the asymmetric nature of those in policy realm and their likely effects.
Even if the democrats are fairly accurate in their concerns, then addressing the conservative's concerns would still lead to a more functional society all around - how is less drug use or poor life choices not a good thing for the society, it's not a big political split, only the craziest would disagree that it would be good to have less of that.
OTOH if the democrats have it wrong, or even are right but their solutions of choice are poor, they will in fact facilitate and encourage problems like poor life decisions, unhealthy attitudes towards economic matters (what do you think being persuaded that there is discrimination everywhere, economic system is unfair, and capitalism is bad in general, since early childhood, does to the targeted people's thinking on anything remotely economic?) and many others.

 

[Deleted member]

Democrats refuse to consider what causes systemic problems for poor people. They simplistically assume it is "capitalism", which shows how Marxism has taken over the thought of the left, even if they are not really explicitly Marxist.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Democrats refuse to consider what causes systemic problems for poor people. They simplistically assume it is "capitalism", which shows how Marxism has taken over the thought of the left, even if they are not really explicitly Marxist.

Capitalism is a systemic part of the problem, alongside racism (the Drug War), especially the current type of capitalism that is so detached from it's original intentions (Smith explicitly stated that the State must be willing to intervene in the dynamics between business, customer, and worker to ensure that none of them have the ultimate upper hand in their deals, basically in words that commoners can understand the State is to be the Referee of the economy and be willing to punish any one group if they get out of line with penalties and even effective expulsion).

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

the real problem Dem's have is that they really don't pause to reasses. they assume their solutions work and if the problems remain it's clearly because their solutions didn't go far enough.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

the real problem Dem's have is that they really don't pause to reasses. they assume their solutions work and if the problems remain it's clearly because their solutions didn't go far enough.

There's also an impatience, the Industrial Revolution may have reduced poverty and do mass employment, but even that took awhile to produce widespread results

And there's another problem, the benefits of capitalism aren't so obvious given that things aren't perfect or instantly easy to see as being perfect

 

[Cherico]

There's also an impatience, the Industrial Revolution may have reduced poverty and do mass employment, but even that took awhile to produce widespread results

And there's another problem, the benefits of capitalism aren't so obvious given that things aren't perfect or instantly easy to see as being perfect

Capitalism tends to give societies slowly growing incremental returns, thing is after a few generations those returns are astounding but its hard to see how much it does while your living inside it.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Capitalism tends to give societies slowly growing incremental returns, thing is after a few generations those returns are astounding but its hard to see how much it does while your living inside it.

Yeah, even if Trump’s policies really ARE responsible for more people getting jobs and the economy doing fine-r in comparison to before, it’s still too easy to dismiss alongside statistics

People don’t travel much or know much about previous circumstances or know much economics beyond the really really really basic

There’s the whole illusion of there being enough money to go around and pay for every need, to an extent that can be understood

Like how can a CEO’s company be in dire straits and have problems paying for all their employee’s needs even as they work overtime when they can afford lots of jewelry, expensive trips, sports cars and other luxuries

Though getting that money from them through taxation, especially increased taxation, has unintended consequences

Frankly, those rich liberals should instead of supporting high tax policies just to show how “progressive” they are, they should be funding charities and scholarships and other infrastructure pieces

 

[Cherico]

Yeah, even if Trump’s policies really ARE responsible for more people getting jobs and the economy doing fine-r in comparison to before, it’s still too easy to dismiss alongside statistics

People don’t travel much or know much about previous circumstances or know much economics beyond the really really really basic

There’s the whole illusion of there being enough money to go around and pay for every need, to an extent that can be understood

Like how can a CEO’s company be in dire straits and have problems paying for all their employee’s needs even as they work overtime when they can afford lots of jewelry, expensive trips, sports cars and other luxuries

Though getting that money from them through taxation, especially increased taxation, has unintended consequences

Frankly, those rich liberals should instead of supporting high tax policies just to show how “progressive” they are, they should be funding charities and scholarships and other infrastructure pieces

I have lived amongst socialists and left wing extremists for years, they don't like the poor they just hate the rich.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I have lived amongst socialists and left wing extremists for years, they don't like the poor they just hate the rich.

They don’t really like “minorities” either except as their equivalent of purse puppies

Real tolerance doesn’t involve constantly needing to point out how accepting you are of someone, just a sort of apathy and willingness to treat a person as good or badly as you treat anybody else.

I think part of you Americans’ problem is that your White Liberals barely even hang around poor people or have much experience with them, particularly the crazier and more disgusting sorts

And when they do interact, the poor people barely know the real causes behind their problems and just think that they need more government help

And those who are aware, are stuck getting those welfare checks

Or even worse, having to support them by using lots of signs or protest after being bribed before and after

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Admittedly it’s scary being poor, the poor DO need help, its just that all that welfare has bad sideeffects to the economy and alongside healthcare isn’t exactly as efficient or well thought out

Charity is something that sounds scary or unreliable as that would mean a NOT always consistent source of help

 

[Rocinante]

A good portion of the left doesn't care for the poor, but rather, hates the rich and uses caring for the poor as a justification. What it really boils down to is hatred rather than care.

Now, this is a generalization and I know plenty of liberal leaning people who do genuinely care for the poor. The former is not a small amount of people, though

 

[Deleted member]

Admittedly it’s scary being poor, the poor DO need help, its just that all that welfare has bad sideeffects to the economy and alongside healthcare isn’t exactly as efficient or well thought out

Charity is something that sounds scary or unreliable as that would mean a NOT always consistent source of help

The simple way to provide the poor help in a way that is morally redemptive, that encourages their participation in society, and that gives them "skin in the game" and a connection to support, to camraderie, and other morally positive things, is to directly link welfare to work.