Why do some in the middle class feel the poor are out to get them?

[TwixVoy]

Am I the only one who has noticed this or do some middle class americans (typically republican it seems) actually have the delusional idea that poor people are "taking their money"?

I talked to a 30 something year old middle classer co-worker today that bitched and moaned to me that the poor people were "taking his money" and the poor were "getting all the money". Try hard as I might to get him to tell me exactly how they were doing this I couldn't get an answer from him. It seems to me that if anyone would be "taking his money" it would be the rich.

I asked him exactly what the issue was that caused him to feel this way. He said that he "only" makes 50K a year and can barely pay his bills. Now, I happen to know from prior conversations with this guy that he mortgaged a huge house and is paying for 7 years on a boat he hardly ever uses. He also drives to work in a brand new Hummer.

It seems to me that he has mis-managed his own money, lived beyond his means, and financed things he really should not have been buying to begin with.

But what blows my mind is the fact that he has somehow convinced him self that the fact he barely can make payments on all his financed crap is because the poor are doing something to make it that way for him.

He is not the only person I have come across in my time who seems to have this warped view of things. What kind of mental gymnastics do these people have to do in order to come to these warped conclusions? Are they really this brain washed?

Sad thing is this guy is an assets protection manager, and word is they are going to be part of the next round of lay offs. This guy is going to be in for a world of hurt when the corporate executives decide they need to shore up some more cash and he is out of a job with all these loan payments to make. I wonder if he will still be trying to blame the minimum wage worker for that one too?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Reminds me of all the people here whining about the octuplet mom.

[WVRICK13]

28. It Isn't the Poor People Taking Money From the Middle Class

it is the wealthiest people taking money from everyone else. Is EXXON poor? How about the Wall Street crowd and their bonuses? The top 2% of the population in terms of income had over a 250% increase in their income in the past eight years. Now isn't that convenient. What percentage did your income increase during those same eight years?

I used to work for a defense contractor and quit after a room full of colleagues were complaining about the poor getting food stamps. I asked them how they can complain about such things when the largest worry they had in the past year was picking the color of their new BMW or Lexus. Then I pointed out that not one thing we sold to the government was worth what they paid for it. For example, we had one office that maintained 2 government websites for about $26 Million a year. This was purely a gift because of political connections within the company's Board of Directors. The actual cost was closer to $1.5 Million counting a team of software engineers and operating expenses (it was a high security operation). So the other $24.5 Million was to pay for more corporate greed. When I first started with the company I tried to save tax dollars by being logical. On my first business trip I stayed at a Holiday Inn and rented a Ford Taurus. After I turned in the expenses I was told I would not stay anywhere less than a Ritz Carlton and I would not rent anything less than a BMW. Your friend is right welfare is the entire problem with our economy, but it is White Collar Welfare not food stamps and the like. Your fiends problem is he tried to live up to the false standards set by the White Collar Welfare set and he can't afford it.

We are slowly reverting to a feudal system where a handful of people control all of the wealth and the rest of us are so poor we are too busy trying to live to make waves. Hopefully President Obama can stop this trend.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. I'm not sure what that had to do with my post.

[MedleyMisty]

42. I admit that it disturbs me when people go on about the taxpayers paying for the kids

but it also disturbs me that she gave birth to a litter. It's possible to not give a damn about who pays for the kids but still think that it was a totally irresponsible thing to do and to worry about the future well-being of all those kids. Honestly I'd be perfectly happy with some of my taxes going to support them. It's a much better cause than what my tax money usually does, which is fill the pockets of people who are already incredibly rich and pay for weapons that are used to kill brown people. But I do still worry about the kids because I can't imagine that their quality of life is going to be very high.

[Skittles]

65. you need to stick to whacking off over guns

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. Reminds me of all the people here whining about the octuplet mom.

[Orrex]

12. Were there two octuplet moms recently? Wow!

:evilgrin:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. It just reminded me twice.

[obiwan]

22. The unwed mother who had octuplets for a total of 14 kids...

..needs a reality check. Condoms or some other means of birth control are far cheaper and easier than trying to feed 14 mouths.

I understand her boyfriend is considering going to work as a contractor in Iraq in order to provide enough money to feed everyone. Good luck with that.

Remember, having children in modern society is entirely a matter of choice. It doesn't require a great deal of intellectual capacity to use a condom or other means of birth control. Selfishness or unwillingness to use birth control are not valid reasons for bringing children into the world without the ability to support them.

Considering the number of children she already had, and her history of fertility (she had already had twins) it is astounding to me that she was using fertility drugs in an effort to have one more child. This is an entirely selfish motive and she did not think through how this decision would affect the new child (now 8 new children) as well as her existing 6 children.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I feel no responsibility toward this woman, for IMHO it is a situation of her own choosing. Yes, I am married but in 54 years produced only one kid, because that's all I could reasonably support.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Of course we don't have a responsibility to this woman.

Society does have a responsibility to the children though.

David

[JI7]

62. how does it remind you about people complaining about the dumb ass mother ?

[Hannah Bell]

2. cause they belong to the most heavily taxed group - with fica & income tax,

the upper middle pays a higher percent than folks like bill gates.

it's not just their imagination, they just blame the wrong folks for it.

[Tsiyu]

7. Bingo

Limpballs and other rightwing blowhards like to convince Joe Overextended it's the welfare mother with ten kids and a crack habit that's getting his taxes.

Really, it's the pasty guy in the business suit who makes him feel all special just by shaking his hand. Like trading beads all over.

People don't want to see it.

In this economy, there are plenty of poor who qualify and won't take any public assistance. I'm one. You won't see one of those suits turn down anything the government pours out to them.

[anonymous171]

58. /thread. nt

[hfojvt]

67. that depends on how you define taxes and whether he has children

At income of $50,000, federal income taxes would be
single - 6730
married - 4096
single parent, 1 child - 3746
married, 1 child - 2586

He also pays FICA taxes of $3825. Do you include the employer portion of FICA as his taxes too? I usually do, since that could be income for the worker rather than the government, but it does not impact how heavily he FEELS taxed.

Worst case scenario, federal tax rate is 21.11%. Perhaps less if he itemizes deductions, or contributes to an IRA.

According to IRS stats from 2005, there were 13,776 filers with income over $10,000,000. They had total AGI of $376,274,843 and they paid taxes of $78,268,719 for a tax rate of 20.9%. FICA taxes are hard to guess at, although the government probably has data on that too. It depends on how much of their high income is from wages. Their average income is about $27 million and FICA taxes on $100,000 are a negligible percentage of that. However, there is no cap on the medical portion of it, so they would pay 2.45% on all their wage income.

So the two groups are paying about the same rate. However, that is based on a 13.46 income tax rate. According to the IRS figures, people making $50-75000 paid an average tax rate of only 7.9%. The income level paying the highest rates is the group making between $1 million and $2 million who pay an average rate of 24.6%.

State and local taxes are generally more regressive than Federal, even including FICA taxes. According to the Kansas Tax incidence study of 2006, a household making $35-50,000 is taxed by state and local governments in Kansas at an average rate of 10.5% whereas a household making over $200,000 is taxed at an average rate of 7.7%.

[leftstreet]

3. They can't blame the 'upper' class when they're hoping to BE them

Blame always shift downward

[rhiannon55]

34. That is really the gist of it

People like your co-worker identify with the rich because they really think (or desperately hope) that they'll be rich themselves someday. Being poor, like the people they blame and disparage? They can't even imagine it. It's a very twisted (alas, common) way to think in this country. My brother has always thought the same way. Ironically, he's now living on social security disability and he STILL identifies with the rich and hates the poor.

[Greyhound]

54. Bingo! n/t

[terisan]

4. Afraid to blame the rich & powerful, poor become the scapegoat. nt

[pampango]

27. Good point. Scapegoating the poor, foreign and domestic, is a popular

substitute for taking on our own economic and financial system to make it more responsive to the needs of everyone not just the powers-that-be.

[jaysunb]

5. Because the media/ Republicans intentionally

deliver that message. :evilfrown:

[drmeow]

6. Add to the reasons above

they have bought the mythology that government programs that benefit the poor (or everyone which includes the poor) are why their taxes are so high.

[Radical Activist]

8. For the same reason Wallace blamed black people

and Hitler blamed the Jews for all of his problems. Many people are eager to hear a demagogue give them a group to scapegoat and conservative hate radio is playing that role today.

[bliss_eternal]

11. Agreed...

...many don't like "complex answers." Scapegoating provides an easy answer for those that don't like to think, and are eager for a human face to attach to their problems.

[islandmkl]

9. the root of all of this type of discriminatory 'justification' for one's feelings...

is in the apparent need for many people to feel 'superior' to others...even, as ludicrous as it is, to view the 'lower' people as the cause of all their problems...

the math of it doesn't make any sense >> i am the superior, i am being held back by my inferior...in essence, 2 is greater than 1, but 1 keeps 2 from becoming a 3...

[B o d i]

10. If the poor WERE taking all the money, then they wouldn't be poor anymore, would they?

Rich people didn't get rich by paying exorbitant taxes or writing a lot of cheques to charities.

[rocktivity]

14. Because that's what the rich tell them

and the middle class believes them because they want to be rich, too.

It's always been about the rich turning the middle class against the poor.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Juche]

15. To keep us fighting while the plutocrats loot the country

Keep us fighting over class, race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc just long enough for the tax code and economic system to be turned back into an aristocracy. So far it seems to work.

[Orrex]

16. My current unemployment makes me poor & I'm out to get every last one of you middle class bastards!

:grr: Consider yourselves warned! :grr:

[sohndrsmith]

17. lots of great answers here. My first thought was that it's fear-based.

I agree with the others who pointed out that even if the poor were out to "get them" they don't have the means to do so, so it's pretty goofy. Actually, I'm guessing they're angry at poor people because of the federal funding used for services for the poor - means that they are somehow short-changed... is that what the logic is...?

I wonder what they think they're being deprived of that would be "offered" to them if the poor people weren't out to get them and taking it all!

Humans are at their worst when they deliberately hurt or malign others in order to gain some perceived advantage... (sigh).

[madeline_con]

18. Some in this same group feel there should be NO taxation.

Until roads, schools, police, fire departments and the like are mentioned. :eyes:

[obiwan]

23. Great, but FREE condoms for everyone.

Or a new law for males that says "Keep it in your pants, bub!" Or both.

Actually, I favor some variation of the way the Chinese deal with it. Money fines would be a good deterrent to most unwanted pregnancies and would serve as a stopgap device when judgment and reason might not prevail.

[JCMach1]

19. Meanwhile the capitalist masters around the world are revaluing all currencies

without adjusting middle class wages...

Hello poverty...

The are just misplacing their paranoia.

[exboyfil]

20. Middle class folks recognize the unsustainability of the system

The Wall Street garbage is one aspect of it. Most conservatives/libertarians that I know were very much against any of the bail out approach. To have it constantly brought up in the context of welfare benefits misses the point - those folks are not in favor of tax dollars being used to fund these bail outs.

In regards to welfare, I point to a particular set of stories in the Milwaukee newspaper regarding the abuses associated with Federal child care payments. In one case four sistems effectively watched each others 17 children and pocketed over $500,000 over a 1 1/2 year period (this is only the child care payments). In another case caring for one mother's kids cost the taxpayers $67K per year.

Another story involved a grandmother in Detroit complaining about not receiving all of the welfare benefits owed to her and her teenage daughter and grandchild. She was also being paid to stay home with the baby while the daughter finished High School.

The one theme that runs through virtually all of these stories is the role of the fathers (or the lack thereof). In these particular stories the fathers are not even mentioned. The question is never even asked (Why can't the father help to support these children?) This is very disturbing.

If you view that the state has a complete obligation to fund every decision related to having kids, then the system makes sense (even the crazy lady in California with the 8 babies and 6 more children besides). Now the only question is how much and in what fashion the payments should be made.

What about the middle class families whose only support from the state comes in the form of a child tax credit and the deductiblity of the children on their taxes? The welfare state above quickly becomes having children in broken families a net positive dollars, while having children in a stable family with one income earner a net negative dollars. Resentment is naturally going to develop.

If the children resulting in these two sets of cases (ie large families from broken relationships on public assistance and small families in stable relationships from net tax payers) had equal outcomes (ie productive contributing citizens), then maybe we should not be concerned. If the situation continues to propagate and grow which it appears to be doing, then we have a problem with sustainability of the entire system.

How about a proposal. After institution of Universal Health Care. Every adult American gets $10,000 and evey child gets $2,000 to be handled by the custodial parent. No other forms of payment except Health Care occurs from the state (either state or federal). If both parents are not in a steady relationship together, then the first kid gets $5,000 from the non custodial parents check, the second kid gets $2,500. The third kid gets $1,250 and so on as the noncustodial father's check continues to decline. Roll in Social Security into this system ($10K is already over the SSI floor). Phase out all S.S. over the $10K figure. No more subsidized child care, no more food stamps, no more housing assistance. You can work as much as you want, and the $10K is never taken from you. If you can't make it on your own, get a couple of roommates to share the load. Fire most of the folks administering these welfare programs etc. To pay for this largesse a 16% tax on all income for Health Care benefits and a 22% tax on all income for the guaranteed income. The final piece for taxes would include everything else (defense, law enforcement, education, infrastructure, etc) at a figure of around 15%???. Total marginal rate on dollar one of 53%. No more tax returns for wage earners. A family of four starts out immediately at $24,000/yr without lifting a finger. Would such a system with such a high marginal rate on dollar one be sustainable??? Right now a family of four can earn up to $43K without paying any federal taxes. Would I be tempted to place my family on this hammock and stop living in a cubicle for 50+ hours/week - well perhaps???

[WVRICK13]

29. A Good Approach at a Superficial Solution

What you are missing is how can we not provide medical care to all yet give BILLIONS to Wall Street executives? If we had a national health program it would benefit the poor and small businesses. I get it, they deserve a yacht and the poor deserve scraps. When the rich take the cream and we are left with skimmed milk I find it hard to put down the powerless. You are being kept down because your labor subsidizes the rich much more than the poor. A friend in Canada who is a member of Parliament gave me a tee shirt that asks "What is Casual Cruelty?" and answers "What You Think Of Me." That was a bit hard for my little American brain to grasp until he explained it means that the labor of the minimum wage worker, without benefits subsidizes my lifestyle. I can life the life I live because there is a portion of the population who are underpaid and abused so I can have cheap goods and services. I am benefiting thoughtlessly.

Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT favor supporting those people who are young and healthy and who will not get a job, any job. We are not responsible for irresponsible people having children when they cannot afford to feed themselves. That is my problem with the Pro Life movement, how about some concern for Quality of Life. Personally if I were a woman I could never have an abortion because I value life but that is a personal decision. The Republicans want to stop birth control, abortion and family planning while taking all of the money for themselves. Or in the case of the poor and middle class they are duped into supporting a party who does not act in the best interest of the country but the interest of a few. The Republicans only value life in the womb, after wards the child can starve, be abused or die in Iraq after they turn 18. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. We need to stop paying for people to stay home and have children we need to get them into employment to maintain any form of subsidy. Create jobs, job training programs and job placement priorities. Oh right, we have to fix the Republican Depression that seems to be affecting only the poor and middle class so their are jobs available. How one party can collapse the worlds economy and blame it on the poor is pure unadulterated bullshit.

[exboyfil]

35. I am for Universal Health Care

I get into deep disagreements with my libertarian friends about this point. I would like to see us adopt a plan similar to the Germans (16% of income at 8%/8%) with rates set by a governing board.

I was against the Iraq War (as most of my libertarian friends were). I said it would cost $1T at the time it started, and I got a lot of looks that I was crazy.

I don't think you can say one party is responsible for the collapse. What actions, taken by Republicans, directly related to the collapse? A major cause of the collapse rests with the GSEs and easy money, both situations more related to Congress than the last administration (Bush). Banking deregulation (which was supported by both parties but mostly came from the Republicans but under the Clinton administration) also contributed to the problem. Lots of people at ground zero have not been punished and probably will never be punished (the brokers who sold the loans, the banks who bought them, the financial geniuses who bundled them, the ratings agencies who tripled A something they did not even understand, the insurance companies like AIG who sold naked insurance, the GSEs for backstopping this behavior, Congress and the administration for not stopping the growth of this bubble, financial reporters who sat on the sidelines as the bubble developed and did nothing, and the administration and Congress for stepping in with the bailouts and TARP). I begged my Congressman (a Democrat) not to pass TARP. He did anyway.

The problem is the moral hazard that developed when the first corporation was bailed out. I can't believe they actually forced some banks to take dollars because they did not want to embarrass the other banks. That is the point. If I was a bank I would not have taken a dollar of TARP, and I would have started running ads for depositers probably making that claim. None of the equity owners in these failed organizations should have received a dime after insolvency. All executives contracts should have been torn up after insolvency and each employment decision renegotiated with the debt holders in these institutions. The equity holders should then have gone after the major executives for failure in their fiduciary duty to the corporation and maybe get back some of the dollars in which they were paid.

The real problem with the economy, and one that many folks including some Republicans have continued to point out, is the loss of manufacturing jobs related to globalization. The tension always exists whenever someone else out there has the skills and the willingness to do a job for less than you are willing to do it. Unions exist to establish artificial barriers and protect the jobs of the current job holders. Protectionism also is a method to protect jobs on a global scale as well as strict immigration control. I personally feel the whole concept of free trade is meaningless. We need an administration to look closely at every trading relationship in which an imbalance exists, and diagnose what can be done.

Republicans do not want to stop birth control, and libertarians sure do not want to stop it. Abortion is another matter, and, as you stated in your message, the reason for opposing it rests with the fundamental concept of when life begins. As far as I am concerned, I don't have a problem with 1st trimester abortions. After that I think the potential exists that the object being killed has achieved a form of sentience. I think that there is no doubt that the baby is sentient in the third trimester (witness the capability of live births at this point). The extreme position on both sides ensures that we will never resolve the situation to everyones satisfaction.

The problem I have with Family planning is everyone always says, if we just spend one more dollar, we will prevent unwanted pregancies etc. I am so sorry, but my 11 year old and 13 year old both know were babies come from. Would spending millions more on education really accomplish anything? They already hear about it in 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, and 9th grade at least. Pregnancy can be absolutely prevented by spending $.50 (or a $1.00 at a gas station). Think about this - it is less than the price of a coke. $200,000,000 for Family Planning in a stimulus proposal on top of the dollars already spent. Come on.

[Raine]

21. Because many I just barely hanging

on by their fingernails, maybe thru their own fault or maybe not.

[inthebrain]

24. Because the middle class serves as the buffer between the rich and poor.

They are the protectors of the system and keep the poor off the throats of the wealthy.

[vadawg]

25. i think just by reading some of the posts here on DU

I logged on today and already ive seen posts attacking, anybody who makes more money than the poster, im probuably listed as middle class and i sure as hell think that a large minority of posters would be more than happy to take off me. shrugs

[DailyGrind51]

26. Conservatives always pit the "have littles" against the "have nothings",

so that the "haves" and "have mores" can fuck them both.

[varelse]

38. Yup, you've nailed it

sadly I see that many DU'ers fall for that too :(

[earth mom]

30. How in the hell can that guy pay for all that on 50K a year?

:wtf:

[HughBeaumont]

31. The answer is that he can't.

And the even bigger issue is that people like him reinforce the "living beyond their means" stereotype of the middle class, allowing the MSM to say that the whole thing "is OUR fault".

The reality is for many of us, as studies by Elizabeth Warren have found, wages aren't keeping up with the ever-increasing cost of living. It's not toys that are killing us, it's necessities: housing, transporation, groceries, health care, education, etc, etc. We're fast being priced out of those elements (especially health care and education) because corporations feel that "we just make TOO much money" and want to keep us at a real-dollar stagnant income (which has been happening since 1973) forever.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. I will coin a name for the phenomenon: "Outrage Inflation"

It is the money (income, net worth, whatever) above which some try to define "wealthy".

A person who has a net worth of over a million dollars simply because they bought a ticky tacky little house 45 years ago and have lived in it - frugally - ever since, is not "the wealthy".

An ordinary doctor working for a group practice and paying out the ass for insurance and netting a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in income is not "the wealthy".

Jack Welch, retired GE CEO is "The Wealthy".

John Thain, recently de-employed office decorator and former Merril (or whatever) CEO is, so far, "The Wealthy".

All those people who arrived in limos in Davos this past week are "THE WEALTHY".

The bottom end of "the wealthy", it seems to me, are the low end rich who are the camp followers, court jesters, and hangers on to the truly wealthy. Chris Matthews would be in this group.

Our outrage hasn't kept pace with inflation. "Millionaire" was an aspirational term in the 1920s. It should no longer be such. There are millionaires right here on DU who post frequently. I promise you they don't think of themselves as "rich".

We need to update the definition of "rich" to more accurately describe today's version of yesterday's Daddy Warbucks Millionaire.

It is not in the best interest of "The Rich" to have that definition inflated to match reality. Doing so would shine a spotlight on themselves. So they keep alive the myth that a mere millionaire is somehow RICH. That directs your (our) outrage at the "not actually rich". Which would be at a level several orders of magnitude too low.

It is easiest to be rich quietly. In the shadows. Behind gates and walls and heavily tinted ballistic glass.

If you can walk up and ring a person's doorbell to call them out to punch them in the nose because they're rich ...... they're not rich.

[MindPilot]

36. Chris Rock defined it well.

Shaq is rich; the white man who signs Shaq's paycheck is WEALTHY!

[Starbucks Anarchist]

59. "If Bill Gates woke up with Oprah's money, he'd jump out a fucking window!"

:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. Excellent.

In fact, I'm going to repost it myself so I can put in in my journal. :thumbsup:

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Please feel free to do so!

[Hekate]

64. Well-said Stinky,all of it. I live in a town full of "millionaires" whose only wealth isa tract home

Some, like Mr H and me, have frugally paid it off; others are mortgaged and re-financed to the eyeballs. We are not "wealthy."

To those at DU who actually have attained wealth, I say more power to you, and I'm real glad you are a Progressive. No resentment here.

Hekate



edited for tpyo

[Blue Dog Dominion]

33. Anecdotal story which is cause for some resentment

A friend (he's tested the bounds of friendship to be sure) of mine that I met back in the mid 90's was a college graduate making about 30k a year. At the time I was making about twice that amount. We were both in our late 20's.

My parents always taught me to be frugal, shop wisely and NEVER use credit cards unless I could afford to pay them off each month. I've been fortunate that I've never had a problem or accident that required me to go into debt. I would buy clothes only on sale and rarely get the expensive name brand stuff. I wore a modest, cheap watch and drove a modest car and maintained it.

My friend would do what seemed to be the EXACT opposite. He would max out his cards on expensive disposable items, bought a BMW (and didn't take care of it), bought a watch that weighed a pound and glittered (it got stolen, and of course he didn't bother to insure it). The list goes on and on. He believed in conspiracies, fast buck schemes and to top it off he is still convinced "The Blair Witch Project" was REAL. He's a nice guy and all, but you can't cure stupid it seems.

I was at his mothers house, and after meeting her it was obvious where he got his financial acumen (and street smarts) from. She's pissed away more money than a lot of people will ever earn in their lifetimes. He collects SS disability (born with polio) and we were talking about SS. I think they were talking about ways to game the system so he could get some extra spending cash. I said that I thought the retirement piece of SS was a rip off and said they need to drastically change the system. I've never heard a louder "NOOOOOOOOO" before in my life. I almost said "Jinx", but the blood drained from their faces at the thought. Just then did it occur to me that they were counting on SS to help them survive for when they got older.

Like a lot of people my age, I've always been skeptical about collecting SS benefits as they stand now. I've always assumed that the age would get raised and/or the benefits would get some sort of means testing. So, yes I am a bit resentful that some people like my friend and his mother are going to get far more from SS (exlcuding the disability) then they ever put into than I will. But the thing is I don't consider them "poor". They have been fortunate to have more opportunity and education then people that I would consider to be "poor".

But its not like I resent the single mother of three with a deadbeat dad on welfare and foodstamps (well, I DO resent them buying lottery tickets). Some people have never had a decent break or opportunity in their life for many reasons. SS should only be for our most at risk.

[havocmom]

37. who was the Robber Baron who said at any given time he could turn half the people on the other half

and that was basically how the few rich managed to keep the people from coming for the very rich who were the ones creating all the poverty

The only think most of the very rich scions of the Robber Barons know how to do is work mind games on the masses. They sure as hell don't create any wealth anymore.

[treestar]

48. Here:

"The working class? I am not afraid of the working class. I can pay half the working class to kill the other half."
JP Morgan

[havocmom]

49. thanks for that one, but there is a much earlier quote with pretty much the same sentiment

Gads, I am old!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Same reason average Germans thought the Jews were out to get them.

Established authority told them so.

Ah, so I broke Godwin's Law? Sue me.

[Mari333]

40. scapegoating

its been the GOP meme since reagan..blame the poor, not the uber rich. even tho the uber rich are the biggest welfare whores.

[inthebrain]

44. Bill Clinton's "end welfare as we know it"

Has nothing to do with it I suppose?

They both fucking do it.

[Mari333]

45. as far as i am concerned

clinton was republican lite.

[L0oniX]

46. Must be all those people with guns and knives begging for a hand out or a temp job for food.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

47. Because they're greedy ignorant assholes unacquainted with...

Herbert J. Gans.

The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All--Herbert J. Gans

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/che725/teaching/poorpayall.htm
. . . >
from the observation that the poor are always present in society he concludes that this is because they perform vital services (functions) for society. (An essential assumption of functionalism, one of the theoretical schools in sociology, is that conditions persist in society only if they benefit—perform functions for—society or some of its parts.)
<.>
Sociologists have documented that the poor confront social conditions so damaging that their marriages are more likely to break up, they are sicker than others, their children are more likely to drop out of school and get in trouble with the law, they are more likely to be victimized by crime, and, on average, they die younger than most.
<>
(An essential assumption of functionalism, one of the theoretical schools in sociology, is that conditions persist in society only if they benefit—perform functions for—society or some of its parts.)
< . . .
. . . poverty and the poor may well satisfy a number of positive functions for many nonpoor groups in American society. I shall describe 13 such functions—economic, social, and political—that seem to me most significant.

FIRST, the existence of poverty ensures that society's "dirty work" will be done. Every society has such work: physically dirty or dangerous, temporary, deadend and underpaid, undignified, and menial jobs. Society can fill these jobs by . . .

SECOND, because the poor are required to work at low wages, they subsidize a variety of economic activities that benefit the affluent. For example, domestics subsidize the upper-middle and upper classes, making life easier for their employers and freeing affluent women for a variety of professional, cultural, civic, and partying activities. Similarly, because the poor pay . . .

THIRD, poverty creates jobs for a number of occupations and professions that serve or "service" the poor, or protect the rest of society from them. As already noted, penology would be minuscule without the poor, as would . . .

FOURTH, the poor buy goods others do not want and thus prolong the economic usefulness of such goods—day-old bread, fruit and vegetables that would otherwise have to be thrown out, secondhand clothes, and deteriorating . . .
<>
They also provide incomes for doctors, lawyers, teachers, and others who are too old, poorly trained, or incompetent to attract more affluent clients.

FIFTH, the poor can be identified and punished as alleged or real deviants in order to uphold the legitimacy of conventional norms. To justify the desirability of hard work, thrift, honesty, and monogamy, for example, the defenders of these norms must be able to find people who can be accused of being lazy, spendthrift, dishonest, and promiscuous. Although there is some evidence . . .

SIXTH, and conversely, the poor offer vicarious participation to the rest of the population in the uninhibited sexual, alcoholic, and narcotic behavior in which they are alleged to participate and which, being freed from the constraints of affluence, they are often thought to enjoy more than the middle . . .
<>
. . . whether the poor actually have more sex and enjoy it more is irrelevant; so long as middle-class people believe this to be true, they can participate in it vicariously when instances are reported in factual or fictional form.

SEVENTH, the poor also serve a direct cultural function when culture created by or for them is adopted by the more affluent. The rich often collect artifacts from extinct folk cultures of poor people; and almost all Americans listen to the blues, Negro spirituals, and . . .

EIGHTH, poverty helps to guarantee the status of those who are not poor. In every hierarchical society someone has to be at the bottom; . . .

NINTH, the poor also aid the upward mobility of groups just above them in the class hierarchy. Thus a goodly number of Americans have entered the middle class through the profits earned from the provision of goods and services in the slums . . .

TENTH, the poor help to keep the aristocracy busy, thus justifying its continued existence. "Society" uses the poor as clients of settlement houses and beneficiaries of charity . . .

ELEVENTH, the poor, being powerless, can be made to absorb the costs of change and growth in American society. During the nineteenth century, they did the backbreaking work that built the cities; today, they are pushed out of their neighborhoods to make room for "progress." Urban renewal projects to hold middle-class taxpayers in the city and expressways to enable suburbanites to commute downtown have typically been located in poor neighborhoods,
since no . . .
<>
The major costs of the industrialization of agriculture have been borne by the poor, who are pushed off the land without recompense; and they have paid a large share of the human cost of the growth of American power overseas, for they have provided many of the foot soldiers for Vietnam and . . .

TWELFTH, the poor facilitate and stabilize the American political process. Because they vote and participate in politics less than other groups, the political system is often free to ignore . . .

THIRTEENTH, the role of the poor in upholding conventional norms
<>
. . . socialist alternatives can be made to look quite unattractive if those who will benefit most from them can be described as lazy, spendthrift, dishonest, and promiscuous.

The Alternatives

I have described 13 of the more important functions that poverty and the poor satisfy in American society, enough to support the functionalist thesis that poverty, like any other social phenomenon, survives in part because it is useful to society or some of its parts. This analysis is not intended to suggest that because it is often functional, poverty should exist, or that it must exist. For one thing, poverty has many more dysfunctions than functions; for another, it is possible to suggest functional alternatives.

For example . . .

[OwnedByFerrets]

50. It began with Raygun and perpetuated by the right wing

noise machine.

[AllentownJake]

51. Read Saul Alinsky

His theory on the Haves, Have Littles, and Have Nots.

[RedEmpress]

52. I'd say Republican middle-classers do it

Not all of the Americans in the middle class do it, in my view.

[BlooInBloo]

53. Lotsa luck to them, if they are.

:rofl:

[anonymous171]

57. The Middle Class needs to be kept angry at the poor.

They are the pawns of the upper classes. However, many have realized the truth that the problem isn' the poor but the rich.

[ColbertWatcher]

60. They don't. The middle class remember what it was like to be poor.

The investor class who own the media are spreading that lie.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

61. I would hope that is sarcasm and not deliberate horseshit! eom

[readmoreoften]

63. Underneath every impoverished home there is a tunnel to a city of gold.

It's where the poor "have your money."

[tavalon]

66. The truly rich want us to infight

Honestly, if we united, we middle classers, working classers, poor, etc., it would be game over for the elite. Unfortunately, they are extremely good at playing the divide and conquer game and we are really suckers for it. The rich tell me I'm "white collar" and therefore have nothing in common with those guys in Detroit and certainly not with the guy in front of PCC selling Real Change. The rich figuratively tell me that I'm almost one of them! Jackasses, every one. And as an aside to every Registered Nurse on this list, you aren't "white collar", think about it. None of what we do, though quite the important calling, puts us where the elite want to put us and we are not at odds with any other hospital worker or Detroit line worker. We are workers. We need to unite. United, we can change this countries direction really fast, divided as we always are, we remain serfs.

Short answer, yes, they are this brainwashed. Where else but in America would socialism be consider a slur. Socialized Democracy is our future, so we might do well to get over the shock at the words. We are quite the brainwashed bunch, probably the most brainwashed on the planet. Go USA, go Nike, swooooosh!