2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Millions of Americans Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Barely Mention: The Poor
Heckuvan election, ain't it???
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/us/politics/trump-clinton-poverty.html?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)the poor. It's something that we've been hearing for quite a while now. Sanders engaged in this as well so it doesn't surprise me that the election rhetoric is geared toward the vaunted middle class.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)that there is a natural order that rewards good behavior and penalizes bad. It used to be more sensible, before resistance to the social safety net turned them on all people who might need it.
The left comparatively does not have contempt for the poor.
Hillary Clinton has many policies to eliminate poverty for many and alleviate it for many others. During campaigning, though, the winning focus is on the middle class because this is where most voters are.
But if anyone wonders if this is true, GO CHECK HER ISSUES SITE! Abysmal ignorance of this serves those who want her to lose. And hurts the poor.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)snip
Were going to have to target billions of dollars to help young people in underserved communities find a job, maybe a first job, because in the absence of that first job, getting them into the workplace is really difficult. They need the attitudes of what goes with a good work ethic as well as the skills and the preparation, so that they can start to build financial stability, gain those skills, the confidence, and the experience to build and pursue their own career.
We need to direct billions of dollars to support small businesses in hard-hit communities where investment is scarce, so entrepreneurs have a real chance to turn their ideas into growing enterprises that will put people to work. After all, most of the new jobs two-thirds of them will come from small businesses. And right now, we are falling backward in the creation of small businesses because we dont have the credit, the access to credit, that we used to. It hasnt come back after the Great Recession. And we need to do more to help people start those businesses and succeed.
Now, there are some programs that I will shamelessly borrow from. For example, we need to push for initiatives like an expanded New Markets Tax Credit program something that my husband introduced on a bipartisan basis toward the end of his second term. And everywhere I go across the country, I see projects, I see revitalization because of the New Markets Tax Credits. I want us to explore Jim Clyburns, Congressman Jim Clyburns 10-20-30 plan to direct more federal investment into underserved areas those neighborhoods where we have generational poverty that need extra help to be able to get themselves up and going. And I want us to be measured by how much incomes rise for hardworking families, not how much higher CEO bonuses can go. Weve been on that path, and now we need to move toward really investing in everybody again.
I want to see how many children climb out of poverty, how many urban communities can give their residents a better future. I think thats what it means to have an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/updates/2016/06/26/hillary-clinton-delivers-remarks-at-u-s-conference-of-mayors/
BlueMTexpat
(15,370 posts)may not really have been paying attention to HRC, elleng.
Perhaps she doesn't use the word "poor" outright in her campaign rhetoric enough to satisfy some purists. But she has espoused and continues to espouse policies that will help the "poor" - among others. Her accomplishments have principally benefited the most vulnerable among us - and that includes the "poor."
This she has done ALL her life, not simply for the 2016 election, and not simply when she has been in or running for office.
elleng
(131,063 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)If you don't know which one, you've been too busy to notice. One assumes.
elleng
(131,063 posts)Buckeye_Democrat
(14,856 posts)... done a few years ago (maybe from Stanford???) in which surveys of people in various economic classes were done to indicate their general ideas about how government should operate. It was then compared to actual voting results in Congress broken down by party.
There was a positive correlation to wealthy ideologies for BOTH Republicans and Democrats, although Republicans were worse in that regard.
There was a strong negative correlation between voting actions and poor ideologies for both parties as well. Once again, Republicans were worse.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Pols vocabulary. This may have to view how people self identify. The second reason is how government identifies someone as being poor.
No president wants to move the government poverty line in fear of adding millions of people to the poverty list.
Most people, when asked, often consider themselves to be middle-class. Very few people consider themselves poor or rich. For this I blame the 1% narrative. It' s not the top 1% that are financially well off, they're the super-rich. The next 5-10% are the just the plain old rich, but rich none-the-less.
The word poor has a stigma to it, and no one wants to be viewed that way.