Does Donald Trump hate the poor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeShlabotnik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

It changes the way the poverty line is calculated in a more restrictive way that will gradually result in a lower and lower amount to live on (on after-inflation dollars) before someone is considered to be below the federal poverty line.

For some reason his Administration felt that there are people currently qualifying for federal assistance who should be taken off the rolls because they make too much money to deserve the help, a problem the Administration feels is getting worse. Presumably, the President believes that people in that income range should be counted as doing just fine on their own.
 
Last edited:
Besides just being judgmental generally, the original article’s complaint seems to be that it’s wrong to require that people work in order to receive welfare.

Many years ago, under the Clinton administration, welfare recipients were required to a) work, or b) be looking for work, or c) be taking job training. And those were only those who were able bodied and did not have young children in the home.

Some states have stopped requiring that, which costs them and the federal government more than some think it should.

Trump’s proposal is to reinstate that requirement. I have not yet seen a cogent argument against it in this thread or, for that matter, anywhere else.
 
Ridgerunner said:
rump’s proposal is to reinstate that requirement. I have not yet seen a cogent argument against it in this thread or, for that matter, anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Able bodied people should work. The incentive should be to become independent of government assistance. The other option is to payback what we the people have borrowed you. Currently, there is a disincentive to seek employment because the line for loss of benefits is very sharp. Perhaps a more gradual phasing out would help to lift those on assistance get beyond it.,
 
whatistrue said:
Granted that there are some who have that mindset, it is much more common, especially in specific areas like restaurants, that paying those wages and benefits makes the price that the business must charge to stay In operation too high for the consumer. This is especially the case at fast food (McDonalds, Burger King, et al) and casual dining (think IHOP, Applebee’s, Olive Garden, etc.). Even high end non-franchise restaurants have to watch the bottom line like hawks; at least they can pay somewhat better than most, but are less likely to hire someone just starting out in the industry with no track record or reputation.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the short fiction piece, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” by Ursula Le Guin. It won several awards for short fiction. The author said of the piece that it “has a long and happy career of being used by teachers to upset students and make them argue fiercely about morality.”

The premise of the story is that there was a society of unbelievable happiness and delight that achieved this “utopia” for nearly everyone, but with the price that it all depended on the misery of a single child. Those who are old enough to be told have to consent to that child’s misery to stay. Those who can’t, leave. Most, although shocked and disgusted at first to know what buys all their bliss, eventually give in to that reality and stay.

Back to the topic of our thread: the farther removed we are from those trying to live at the margins, the easier it is to rationalize that it is necessary to the general welfare that they suffer what they suffer.

Well, does that have to be true? Do we have to give in to the idea that it is inevitable that some people will work full-time and won’t make enough to live a life that is simple but dignified and secure in essentials such as food, clothing, shelter and a basic level of health care?

Is it unrealistic to expect that?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Able bodied people should work. The incentive should be to become independent of government assistance. The other option is to payback what we the people have borrowed you. Currently, there is a disincentive to seek employment because the line for loss of benefits is very sharp. Perhaps a more gradual phasing out would help to lift those on assistance get beyond it.,
Click to expand...
We do have the problem that some are willing to abuse a system meant to protect their dignity as human beings by avoiding the dignity that comes from the productive work they are capable of doing.

It isn’t some “favor” to have a social safety net that exposes people to the risk of making their way through life by lying about their abilities or shirking their capacity to contribute their part to the general welfare. On the other hand, it is undignified to be constantly treated as if you may be lying when you come forward to accept outside help. It is not a simple matter, particularly not in a country that has a “how would you feel if someone did that to you?” moral standard and a good number of people who don’t give two figs about how anyone else feels about their willingness to deceitfully take advantage of a society that strives to be altruistic rather than co-.

People who game the system are a real problem, and what it does to them personally to live off of others without contributing themselves ought to be a real concern on a human level, too. That is also no way to help someone to live.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
We do have the problem that some are willing to abuse a system meant to protect their dignity as human beings by avoiding the dignity that comes from the productive work they are capable of doing.
Click to expand...
I support the social safety net.

People on unemployment come into our building all the time. They ask - do you have any openings. If we say no - they ask for a business card so they can take it back to the unemployment officer as evidence they are out looking, If we say yes - they just leave.

People game the system because they can. If things are tightened up there is less gaming.

Charity begets gratitude, government check arriving in the mail begets expectations.
 
PetraG said:
to rationalize that it is necessary to the general welfare
Click to expand...
I only described what is, I never said it was necessary that it be that way. Of course, fixing the issue is more complicated than “just pay everybody a dignified wage” (whatever that is in dollars and cents). Every choice has consequences, and each individual (and society as a whole) has to decide whether the consequences are tolerable.
 
Trump has done more for America’s poor than any president in history. By the way, most poor people choose to be poor by their daily choices.
 
Trump was born into wealth and has pretty much been given all that he has. I do not know if he hates the poor, but I do not think he understands what it means to be poor. From his words and hit writings, I get the impression that he feels people who are poor are poor because they want to be poor.
 
Most of the poor pay little in income taxes. So lowering their taxes would not help them much.
 
If it weren’t for their pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage stances, I’d probably be a democrat.
If it weren’t for their pro-big business/wealthy over the poor and anti-immigration stances, I’d probably be a republican.
 
MarkRome said:
If it weren’t for their pro-big business/wealthy over the poor and anti-immigration stances, I’d probably be a republican
Click to expand...
Republicans believe in individual responsibility. They are not anti-immigration, they are anti-illegal-immigration. They are for jobs and commerce. There are way more small businesses in the US than big.
 
When it comes to the poor and the needy, democrats are closer to Catholic social teachings.
 
Lowering taxes is an incentive to work and make a better living.

Further, it’s a total straw man to use the argument “Trump’s been given everything he has!” Why? Because the issue is that Trump is a doer, far more than any politician. Seriously, does anyone - ANYONE - on this board think they could take a vast hole in the ground in the middle of New York City and turn it into a 50 story building and make a huge profit? I know I couldn’t.
Further, by a lot of anecdotal evidence Trump is reputed to be a kind and warmhearted boss - as opposed to, say, Mike Bloomberg, who is reputed to be vengeful and vitriolic in person. I’m sure Trump had a lot of privilege growing up, but no one here can really say he has no idea what hardship is.
 
Markrome, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Heck, I might be a democrat if they didn’t favor abortion on demand, hate the USA, favor capitulating to Iran, love socialism, favor open borders, and a host of other wrong platforms.
 
MarkRome said:
When it comes to the poor and the needy, democrats are closer to Catholic social teachings.
Click to expand...
IV. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

[2426](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2426.htm’)😉 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God’s plan for man.209

[2427](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2427.htm’)😉 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another.210 Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."211 Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work212 in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.213 Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

[2428](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2428.htm’)😉 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.
 
buffalo said:
created
Click to expand...
2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative ; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215

2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate.

[2431](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2431.htm’)😉 The responsibility of the state . "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217’’

[2432](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2432.htm’)😉 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top