Politicians Ignore The Working Poor At Their Peril

In recent years, there has been a trend in politics away from any mention of the poor. Republicans never really paid them any mind, but Democrats have been convinced they should not make any mention of the poor–instead focusing exclusively on the middle class. The decision to stop talking about the poor was, for Democrats, based on polling data. Pollsters have tested traditional progressive language about the “poor, vulnerable, and needy” and seen that voters don’t have a very high opinion of those groups. Furthermore, polling shows that most voters want to self-identify as “middle class.”

Because of all of this, many Democrats have reached the conclusion that mentioning the poor or openly championing policies that explicitly benefit them is a political loser. This conclusion has very dangerous policy and strategic implications (especially with the looming sequestration debate) and will ultimately box Democratic leaders into a corner where they have no choice but to sacrifice programs that struggling American families depend on the most. Thankfully, in this case, we don’t have to choose between doing what is right and what works politically.

A recent nationwide survey sponsored by American Values Network demonstrates that the problem isn’t that Americans don’t support the poor or government programs that benefit them. The problem is that voters can’t relate to the way progressives have been describing low-income families and why government programs matter–which is the language Democratic pollsters have been testing. The AVN poll showed that, when framed correctly, voters across the socioeconomic and political spectrum respond much more favorably to politicians who talk about the “working poor.” And perhaps more importantly, this new messaging trumps the best Republican arguments for cutting funding to government programs that help lower income Americans.

The findings in the poll are pretty much all common sense, but they also fly in the face of current Democratic conventional wisdom. The key is to personalize lower income Americans and describe them in terms of their actions and efforts (such as “working poor” or “struggling families”) rather than in terms of their vulnerability, need, or lack of privilege.

Perhaps the best example of the power of this new framework is that the poll tested the leading Republican arguments for cutting government programs to determine which were the most convincing. Then it compared those best Republican arguments against arguments in support of government poverty programs that use this new language. Just shy of 60% of voters said they found the new language more convincing than the best Republican arguments for cuts. And even more encouraging, this new messaging approach was especially effective with Independents and Republicans.

Another key finding was that voters found politicians who talked about the working poor more authentic and driven by principle than those who talked only about helping the middle class. And using the “working poor” language, 87% of voters said helping the working poor should be a top or important priority for government. A whopping 62% of evangelicals said it should be a top priority. This evangelical number–especially when compared against voting trends in recent years–demonstrates why message matters and the political potential of embracing the working poor.

I can imagine some might read this post and say it’s just about spin. This messaging approach is not about using words to cover the truth, but instead ensuring the words we use better communicate the truth. One of the best indicators you are poor in America is that you are working more than one job. Twenty-six million Americans are paid so little that their families would still be in poverty even with both parents working. It is hard work being poor in America. Americans know that. And they will support politicians who start acknowledging it.

Am I saying we stop talking about the “middle class?” To borrow one of St. Paul’s favorite lines, “let it not be so!” The middle class are the economic engine of America. And needless to say, they also represent a big chunk of voters. Our programs and tax systems should always reward hard work over hoarded wealth – this helps the middle class and the working poor.

I’ll close with two final points. First, for all the Democratic talk about the middle class, it was “lower middle class” and especially the working poor who elected Obama. He won 60% of those making <$50K. He split or lost every income group above that. Second, some might point to the more recent “people struggling to get into the middle class” Democratic talking point as proof Democrats have been talking about lower-income Americans. But this language comes from a place of stigma and embarrassment–not pride–in America’s working poor. And it’s not accurate.

Millions of American families aren’t “struggling to get into the middle class.” They are struggling to get by. These people aren’t out there thinking, “if I can just get that next raise, then I can finally be in the middle class.” They are trying to figure out how they can pick up extra shifts to keep the gas from being turned off this winter. That is not an insignificant difference. And it has a real impact on what we can do to give them a leg up and why we can’t wait.

In America, we have always valued how hard a person works over what they have. Our politicians shouldn’t be embarrassed to even mention our working poor–they should be proud of them. This is a group of Americans that embodies the spirit of what has made our country great. They face incredible and sometimes seemingly impossible hardships, and yet they keep striving to make a better life for themselves and their families. It’s time our leaders started saying so.

  • Claude

    Bravo, great stuff! Let’s be honest about what we’re up against here: the politics of resentment. The appeals to people’s worst suspicions that some undeserving someone somewhere is leeching their tax dollars. Needless to say, that is why “working poor” gets a better reception. It defuses that resentment and gives the working poor their due. I know many of them. They work and work and work. Kyrie eleison.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Maybe as a symbol of your dedication, the Democrats could be renamed to the World Workers Party.

    • Eric Sapp

      I assume you mean that as a backhanded statement, but what’s wrong with being on the side of people who work for a living? You’re being critical b/c I’m suggesting we do more to help ensure that families with two working parents working multiple jobs can make ends meet…seriously? This is why so many people get frustrated with the “pro-life” position and why y’all are harming the Christian witness with it. Where is all that energy and fire and moral outrage for the kids of these parents? Where is the concern for their future and who they are as God’s children?

      I’m disappointed in this comment Tornado…it lacks the thought of many of your others, and it’s the kind of knee-jerk response that explemplifies why our country can’t come together. Here I am saying our leaders should pay more attention to America’s working poor (and I won’t even start into Scriptural comparisons on the amount of time Jesus spent on this topic vs any other you have commented on), and you dismiss it with a communist reference.

      It reminds me of when I was on the Hill and my boss used “From those to whom much is given, much is expected” in a speech that made the news. We got a letter from a constituent saying he was a good Christian and felt our government should be guided by Christian values and was writing to say how disappointed he was to hear his Congressman quoting Karl Marx and how it showed just far far the Democrats had fallen that they felt comfortable publicly quoting communists in their speeches. I’ve disagreed with a lot of what you’ve written in the past, but this is the first time I’ve been disappointed.

      • ToronadoBlue

        Eric,

        There is no reason to be disappointed because my principles are based on Christian beliefs. I used to be like you in thinking that unless you were for massive income redistribution from the top towards the bottom, you were a heartless heathen.

        First of all, I do care about the poor and those who work hard for a living. If a person is hungry, lets give him something to eat. If he needs shelter, lets bring him in. If he is sick, lets get him help. In my own personal life I attempt to do just that.

        I am not in favor in voting a portion of another man’s wealth to give to others or myself. You might find that unChristian, but remember Jesus said to do unto others as you would have done to you. I don’t believe in making the rich man pay a higher portion of his income than myself. If I don’t want to pay 35% of my income to taxes, then I shouldn’t turn around and make the rich man do so. I would rather have a flatter tax in which everyone has a skin in the game, with exceptions to the extremely poor.

        Secondly, I know what hard work is. As of now I’m not working hard because I’m a government slacker. But I know what it is like to work 3 jobs. I had a day job, an evening part time job, and a weekend job. But never once did I believe that someone else should give me money to make my life comfortable. Life isn’t fair, and sometimes it is uncomfortable.

        Next, I’m not in favor of creating a political system that goes beyond just helping the poor into one that creates a sense of government dependency. Because a society that is generous with other people’s money instead of celebrating hard work and enterprise WILL create more poor. We need to build a society that doesn’t favor big business over the small. We need to give people better opportunities, not handouts.

        There are numerous reasons why a christian shouldn’t support the Democrat party:

        The party believes in allowing the termination of the life of an unborn child, even the day before birth.

        The party believes in redefining marriage.

        The party barely kept the word ‘God’ in it’s platform and reinstated it over the ‘boo-ing’ of it’s members.

        The party believes in a political system in which the government can infringe on religious rights.

        Furthermore, throughout history, the rise of secularism coupled with leftism generally doesn’t bode very well for Christians.

        Finally, I can see which way the wind is blowing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJBW49afzg

  • Frank

    This is the party you voted for: “The decision to stop talking about the poor was, for Democrats, based on polling data. Pollsters have tested traditional progressive language about the “poor, vulnerable, and needy” and seen that voters don’t have a very high opinion of those groups.”

    And you are proud of your vote?

    Meanwhile over 21,000 unborn innocent children are killed each week most for reasons of convenience.

    • Eric

      You and Tornado are funny. You complain when I defend Democrats saying I’ll defend them no matter what, and you complain when I am critical of Democrats saying they need to do better. But to your question, I’d much rather vote for a Party that cares about the poor and decides it’s bad politics to talk about it than one that cares only for the wealthy. And if you don’t think everything that came out of Romney’s mouth (well, except for when he let his guard down and said what he really believed about the 47%, not really caring about the very poor, etc) wasn’t poll-tested, you don’t understand politics. When I actually became a Democrat was when I was on Senate Committee staff and realized that when we went to negotiate a bill with no press and no one watching, both sides set negotiating strategies under the assumption that Democrats would be fighting for regular workers and those struggling the most and the GOP would be fighting for business and the wealthy. That was the assumption both sides made and how we opperated when their was no spin involved, and I’ve never questioned my decision to put a D by my name since. Words do matter, but actions matter more, and it’s what people do when no one is watching that really determines where your heart is. When no one is watching, Dems stand for the regular guy and those who are struggling. Republicans stand for the rich and powerful. I sleep well at night with my choice.

      • Frank

        You sleep well do you? Tell that to the over 21,000 innocent unborn children killed each week mostly for reason of convenience. They are watching you “sleep well.”

        I am glad you are critical of your own party, you should be, a lot more than you appear to be but you at least have taken the first step towards wisdom. One day you just might understand that business creates jobs which lifts people out of poverty. The government is a mess and has proven itself untrustworthy with our tax revenue.

        I do hope the Dems get it because we all suffer if they do not but if they don’t I look forward to inevitable dismantling of the current Democratic party. Half of our country voted against them and they would be wise to remember that.

        • Sus

          Frank, is your sleep bothered by the fact that the GOP doesn’t think health care should be a right? Does it bother you that people choose between groceries rather than to fill a prescription for life-saving medication? Does it bother you that adults and children die because they don’t have insurance?

          If your fantasy comes to fruition and not one more abortion ever happened anywhere in the world, do you think all of our problems are over? Will the world magically become a utopia? I ask because your answer to everything that is posted at Patheos is the 21,000 innocent children that are being killed via abortion.

          • ToronadoBlue

            Sus, … Great Question!

            I know you asked Frank, but if I may I’d like to offer my opinion.

            Sus says: “Does it bother you that adults and children die because they don’t have insurance?”

            Yes.

            First of all, no system is perfect. People point to Sweden as a good example of a healthcare system, but even people there die because they can’t get care. For instance, Sweden has been rationing when the costs are too high. As an example, when turning 70 years old, the system will no longer give you drugs to keep diabetes in check. Different regions have different rationing rules but I do know that to be true in the Huddinge district.

            Secondly, a difference between the US and Sweden is that Sweden has a different system with regards to suing your doctors. It has been said that one of the reasons that health care is so expensive in the US is because lawyers are able to get large judgements, and thus siphon dollars from the system as well as adding unnecessary costs to prevent further suits. Sweden on the other hand uses a system called ‘Administrative Law Tribunal’ with a judge that specializes in malpractice suits and compensation is based on a scale. In other words, in Sweden no one is going to get $50 million for pain and suffering. Unless some sort of tort reform is done in the US, healthcare will always be expensive.

            And finally, according to Families USA, a staunch supporter of the ObamaCare bill, 26,000 people die every year because of not having insurance. Compare that to 21,000 dying every week from abortion (1.2 million/yr).

            To sum it up, no system is perfect and we need less lawyers and more doctors.

            Sus says: “Does it bother you that people choose between groceries rather than to fill a prescription for life-saving medication? ”

            –No one should have to be hungry ever and I support getting them needed food stamps.

            Finally, if a child survives an abortion attempt, do they have a right to healthcare?

            While a Senator in Illinois, 3 bills were introduced regarding Partial Birth Abortion.
            SB1093 – If during the abortion, if there was a chance that the baby would survive, a Dr. must be present.
            SB1094 – Parents have right to sue to protect the child’s rights.
            SB1095 – If baby was alive after abortion, it shall then be legally a person.

            Senator Barack Obama was the only person in the committee to oppose the bill.

      • ToronadoBlue

        Eric said: “both sides set negotiating strategies under the assumption that Democrats would be fighting for regular workers and those struggling the most and the GOP would be fighting for business and the wealthy. ”

        I understand what you are getting at Eric in that you believe in fighting for the little guy. I do too, but consistent and dogged attacks against those who create jobs will create the mess that California finds itself in.

  • Sus

    I *love* this post. Especially the last paragraph. Well done!

  • Claude

    Now let’s see, Frank. The wily Kenyan managed to win re-election despite the combined efforts of Fox News, the USCCB, EWTN, talk radio, Citizens United, flagrant voter suppression efforts, and a struggling economy! Not to mention Democratic successes in the Senate and marriage equality referenda. Doesn’t look like the Democratic Party has one smidgen of a reason to “dismantle.” The GOP, on the other hand, is in peril. What are the Republicans going to do about the Frankenstein they created when Nixon signed off on the Southern Strategy and when Reagan made that deal with fundamentalist Christians for votes? You know how that story ends.

    One day you just might understand that business creates jobs which lifts people out of poverty.

    Where were the jobs during the Bush administration, even with the war industry at full throttle?

    Half of our country voted against them and they would be wise to remember that.

    It is indeed sad that almost half the country voted for Romney, not least because he was peddling the same old supply-side snake oil that the Republican Party has been flogging for thirty years and was such an abject failure during the Bush administration. As my significant other quipped, Romney’s agenda is trickle down, but without the trickle.

    • Frank

      Claude on one hand I hope you and many others support what you posted here because it will only speed the demise. On the other hand we all will have to suffer for the ignorance along the way. Hubris is the fatal flaw in the party and hubris never ends well.

      There is an election every two years and what you call “progress” half the country calls “regression.”

      • Claude

        You’ve completely evaded the issue. Well, I don’t blame you. Racist dog-whistling and con jobs make for unpleasant conversation, not to mention that they are unChristian. And you seem not to have reflected very much on the dire state of your party.

        It’s interesting that you mention hubris, however. This has been quite the week for it.

        1) Mitt Romney had no prepared concession speech.

        2) General David Petraeus apparently thought his emails to his marvelous young mistress would never see the light of day.

        Sad.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Claude says: “The wily Kenyan managed to win re-election despite the combined efforts of Fox News, the USCCB, EWTN, talk radio, Citizens United, flagrant voter suppression efforts, and a struggling economy!”

    –Well, to be fair, Obama had help as well from MSNBC, NBC, NYTimes, WaPost, Media Matters, SEIU and other liberally biased media outlets. Furthermore, Dems are not innocent when it comes to voter suppression.

    Claude says: “Where were the jobs during the Bush administration, even with the war industry at full throttle?”

    –Before the housing bubble popped it was bouncing around between the 4 to 6 range and had a higher participation rate.

  • Claude

    Dems are not innocent when it comes to voter suppression.

    Why would Democrats want to suppress votes? The more people vote, the better it is for Democrats! That is not true for Republicans. The more people vote, the worse it is for Republicans.

    Claude says: “Where were the jobs during the Bush administration, even with the war industry at full throttle?”

    I would post a link, but the last time I did that my comment landed in limbo, where it still languishes.

    However, if you google “raging liberal Paul Krugman” and “Employment in Two Administrations” perhaps you can find it.

    I’m just curious. Do you approve of the House Republicans’ threat during the debt ceiling debacle to tank the economy on purpose?

  • ToronadoBlue

    Claude,

    Found the graphs. I tried to recreate it using BL stats, but couldn’t.

    The Bush admin started with 137M employed people and that figure was already in a minor decline. The employment picture started improving in 2002 and peaked at about 146m at the beginning of 2008 and by then the housing bust had occurred. Employment kept dropping until 2010 to a low of 138M. Now, towards the end of 2012, we are at 143M.
    The employment picture has been improving. How much of that is due to Obama, and how much is due to Republicans in congress preventing Obama from doing something, I don’t know.

    One point to note is that Bush started his admin with a mild recession and a low unemployment rate and had get more jobs from that point. Obama started his admin with a high unemployment rate due to a recession and a housing bust. Once the damage was done, companies could start rehiring all those that were laid off.

    The public employment graph appears to show not only federal, but local and state governments .

    The Federal government picture is that Bush started with 2.752 Million feds in 2009 that had risen to 2.795 million feds. Obama starts with 2.795 million feds and (ignoring the census) peaked at 2.873 million and has now declined to 2.804 million.

    Claude says: “Why would Democrats want to suppress votes?”

    I’m sure they have their shenanigans. Reportedly, Some districts in Philly have a 99% vote for Obama even though there was only 60% turnout. It is rumored (I wasn’t there so I don’t know) that GOP poll watchers were threatened and thrown out and ballots stuffed in their absence. Also a DEM Representatives son was caught on camera explaining how to carry out voter fraud.

    Claude says: “Do you approve of the House Republicans’ threat during the debt ceiling debacle to tank the economy on purpose?”

    Short answer: I don’t approve of anyone hurting the US economy on purpose.

    Less shorter answer: We can’t ignore the debt and rubber stamp increases forever. I think the earlier we take seriously our out of control spending the better for us all.

    Out of curiosity, what do you think Jesus would say regarding partial-birth abortion?
    1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.
    2. The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
    3. The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
    4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
    5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The baby’s brains are then sucked out and the head is removed from the womb, completing the procedure.

  • Claude

    I am amused that you gloss over the worst financial calamity since the Depression as “a recession and housing bust,” thereby implicitly drawing a false equivalence between the mild recession inherited by Bush and the disaster inherited by Obama.

    Krugman’s upper chart describes the cumulative change in jobs (jobs added), not absolute job numbers, since January 2001 and 2009 respectively. Let me see if I can get this link past the moderator:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/employment-in-two-administrations/

  • Claude

    OK, I’m going to skip the economic data and voter fraud nonsense for a moment, since I see you and your pal Frank are once again trying to hijack a thread to agitate on abortion. We’re supposed to be talking about the working poor, remember?

    First of all, “partial birth abortion,” which if I recall correctly was a phrase coined by anti-abortion demagogues, is a very rare procedure almost invariably performed to protect the health of the mother. I notice you also spam the propaganda about Obama’s votes in the Illinois legislature. These votes were part of a strategy to stall a conservative assault on Roe v. Wade. Fetuses viable outside the womb were protected by existing laws.

    I don’t like to speculate on Jesus’s opinion of culture war issues. Jesus was draconian but also unusually compassionate and sympathetic toward women. He was also full of surprises. So, who knows? The gospels are silent on the matter. But if I had to guess, I would say that Jesus would probably disapprove of abortion.

    Now, what kind of “freebies” are you so worried the poor will reap from Clinton-era tax rates?

    • ToronadoBlue

      Claude,
      I didn’t gloss over either the recession Bush inherited or the Deep recession that Obama inherited. I also saw the link and understood that it was cumulative job additions.

      Claude, ” These votes were part of a strategy to stall a conservative assault on Roe v. Wade. Fetuses viable outside the womb were protected by existing laws.”

      Wait a minute, Eric says that the GOP doesn’t care about abortion and uses it as a wedge issue!

      Never the less, Obama objected to it whereas even other Democrats voted for it. And you are correct that it was law at the time, but there was concern that the law was being ignored. Furthermore, in ’03 Obama called a “The Partial Birth Abortion Act” a retreat on women’s rights.

      Claude, ” [partial birth abortion] is a very rare procedure almost invariably performed to protect the health of the mother.”

      – I couldn’t find any statistics on the reasons for partial birth abortion, but I did find a quote from a doctor who has performed over a 1000 of these that 80% of these were elective, meaning presumably that mother’s health had nothing to do with it.

      Claude, ” But if I had to guess, I would say that Jesus would probably disapprove of abortion.”

      You are exactly right. 1,200,000 lives are being snuffed out on a yearly basis and as a Christian, I feel a duty to fight for these ‘least of these’. As a christian, there are several things I cannot support in a political party.

      For instance, as a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize pedophilia.
      As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize slavery.
      As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to ban Christianity.
      As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize child prostitution.
      As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to infringe on my religious rights.
      The list is short, but there are several clear boundaries that as Christians we shouldn’t support.

      Therefore, if you believe that each child is created in God’s image, then as a Christian, we cannot support a party that wants to allow the option to kill them needlessly.

  • Claude

    I couldn’t find any statistics on the reasons for partial birth abortion, but I did find a quote from a doctor who has performed over a 1000 of these that 80% of these were elective, meaning presumably that mother’s health had nothing to do with it.

    You “found a quote”? I am sorry, sir, but that does not cut the mustard. I remain skeptical.

    Now, what kind of “freebies” are you so worried the poor will reap from Clinton-era tax rates?

  • ToronadoBlue

    Claude says: “You “found a quote”? I am sorry, sir, but that does not cut the mustard. I remain skeptical.”

    Sorry, I can’t find any statistics on the reasons. The quote is as follows:”
    ————-
    In 1993, the American Medical News– the official newspaper of the AMA– conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said:

    And I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.”
    ————–

    FWIW, only 18 states have bans in affect with a range of various exceptions.

    Claude says: “Now, what kind of “freebies” are you so worried the poor will reap from Clinton-era tax rates?”

    – I want people to get the help they need if it is necessary for them to survive.

    Other than that, I would say that I would be disappointed to find someone who is receiving public assistance, and then is wasteful with the money. For instance, I know one family on food stamps (and unemployment until recently when that ran out which then prompted her to take a job), but each child has luxeries such as phones, laptops, and all the cable channels. Every week this family goes to Outback Steakhouse.

    Then there was this other family that I’ve worked with. I gave them money to help them fix the trailer they lived in, got their minivan out of repo. I bought the husband a small truck so he could commute to work and we agreed to a repayment plan.

    Well, he made two small payments, then left his wife and kids to run off with some gal. The money for the trailer house went instead to a new leather sofa which they said was a ‘smart’ buy. So I washed my hands of the situation. I still encourage them, but money is just a waste on these people until they change their decision making strategies. I received a phone call from the mother a few months ago, tearily telling me how the electricity was turned off. I told her to sell the couch. What else was I supposed to do.

    Now granted, not all people on public assistance are like that. I remember my mother pulling food stamps out of the purse when I was young. We were soo poor we lived in a shack that used to house goats.

    Another man I know came here from Liberia. He was targeted for execution but escaped during the civil war because he was perceived to be antigovernment. When he arrived he took a job at Walmart and worked as many hours as he could. Because he was struggling and he had a goal of going to college (at 60 years old which is impressive), I allowed him to live in our furnished basement rent free so that he could save money for college as well as to go back to Liberia to re-establish churches destroyed in the war. During the time he was with us, he never bought any extravagant items nor wasted his money. He repaid us by doing our dishes (which we told him he didn’t have to do). As a christian I feel a strong urge to reach to people like him.

    And as much as I want to help those who need help, I’d like more personal responsibility in people. I’m not in favor of creating a political system that goes beyond just helping the poor into one that creates a sense of government dependency. Because a society that is generous with other people’s money instead of celebrating hard work and enterprise WILL create more poor. We need to build a society that doesn’t favor big business over the small. We need to give people better opportunities.

    Furthermore, I don’t believe in making the rich man pay a higher portion of his income than myself. If I don’t want to pay 35% of my income to taxes, then I shouldn’t turn around and make the rich man do so. For me, voting for someone else to pay a higher tax that I wouldn’t want is violating the golden rule by ‘doing something to someone I wouldn’t want done to myself’. I would rather have a flatter tax in which everyone has a skin in the game, with exceptions to the extremely poor. People who pay taxes will tend to pay more attention to government waste.

    Those are just my general thoughts.

    • Sus

      ToronadoBlue – I’m not sure you have room to talk about any of this. You lost all credibility after you made this comment:
      “I’m also referring to federal government workers of which I would include myself. I’m an overpaid – underworked contractor for the government. The government pays $250/hr ($10k/week) to my employer for me to sit on my butt at home in my PJs to do a little work every now and then. I actually only work 8-10 hours a week. I earn well over 6 figures and I have excellent benefits. AND, I’m not the only one,…”

    • Claude

      Sorry, I can’t find any statistics on the reasons. The quote is as follows:”

      moan I had forgotten about the notorious Dr. Haskell. However, I am pretty sure that third-trimester D & X is rare, although I haven’t kept up with the debate. Didn’t anti-abortion activists admit that D & X bans are largely symbolic victories, since abortion providers can opt for alternative late-term abortion procedures? Now pro-choice will likely prevail through sheer attrition, unless Obama’s Supreme Court pick(s) become hostile to Roe v. Wade, which could happen given the unpredictability of Supreme Court justices. Still, the rising generation is pro-choice. The rising generation is also less religious, doubtless having been alienated by authoritarian church rhetoric that disparages them and their friends. In short, I think the battle to outlaw abortion will be lost.

      Your argument against government aid to the poor is largely anecdotal. (I won’t go into my own stories.) You also have a narrow view of anti-poverty programs, which span a wide range of services. That is a separate issue from the likelihood that taxes on $250K earners will go up, since that revenue will certainly not be exclusively allocated to the the poor. Anyway, if what you say about yourself is true, and I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, then you are remarkably generous toward the less fortunate, and I won’t moralize. But individuals are limited in what they can do, with neither the power nor the resources of the federal government. If we can use government effectively to improve the lives and prospects of the poor, not only is it the Christian thing to do, but it will benefit the country overall.

      • ToronadoBlue

        @SUS,

        I brought up the wastefulness of the government because the everyday worker doesn’t realize how much of a problem it is. I never asked for the salary I get, they offered it to me and I don’t know anyone who would have turned it down. And the problem is growing. Whether you like or disagree with me on issues, please understand that the government problem with wasteful spending is not going away. I hope that it becomes a bi-partisan issue, even if it is against my pocketbook.
        But, since I do have this job I, I have been doing what I can to help others as well as to adopt a special-needs child who is the joy of my life.

        —-

        @Claude,
        Claude said: “Didn’t anti-abortion activists admit that D & X bans are largely symbolic victories, ”

        – It’s possible it’s only a symbolic victory, but it does show the nature of those who fought to keep that legal. There is still a long fight ahead.

        Claude said: “In short, I think the battle to outlaw abortion will be lost.”

        – You may be right, but fighting for the right of the unborn to live is still a fight for justice, for which I’ll keep doing until the Lord calls me home. Encouragingly, there seems to be a shift towards the pro-life direction in beliefs according to some polls.

        Claude said: ” then you are remarkably generous toward the less fortunate,”

        – Actually I apologize, reading what I wrote in the other post, it sounded to me that I was tooting my own horn for which I shouldn’t have been doing.

        Claude said: ” If we can use government effectively to improve the lives and prospects of the poor, not only is it the Christian thing to do, but it will benefit the country overall.”

        – I agree, especially about the part of prospects. I’d like to see a focus from the government in creating an environment that allows small businesses to better compete in the marketplace. I believe that would do a lot to help narrow the gap between rich and poor.

        Happy Veterans Day and God Bless!

  • Claude

    Likewise!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X