WHEN will "progressives" stop dumping social change on the shoulders of poor folk????

[bobbolink]

Time after time, people who call themselves "progressive" and "liberal" and oh-so-concerned about poor folk betray themselves by fighting for measures that hurt ONLY poor people, and get very defensive when it's pointed out to them WHO they are hurting.

Now comes the latest:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/

They won't let me quote from the article, but essentially it is about a proposal to charge .10 for EVERY grocery bag used. Now, who is this going to hurt? Not those who run to the store for a loaf of bread in their Hummer! You think THEY will change their habits?

No, it is in effect another tax on food for poor folk!

BECAUSE muddleclass people never stop to think about anyone besides themselves... it's all about them. They NEVER think what these things do to people who are already on the verge of hunger at all times.

The article proudly proclaims, "The only way you're going to change behavior, really, is to have a little ouch at the checkout.."

Well, now, little Barbie doll, isn't that just so sweeeeet. Have you paid ANY attention to the "ouches" poor folk are ALREADY dealing with/????

What the fuck??

Supposed "progressives" who praise Clinton for his welfare deform that hurt so many! (How many are homeless are dead because of it?? Does it matter/)

Supposed "progressives" who keep proposing an "ouch" tax on gas, to "encourage" people to conserve. All the poor people I know have cut back to the point they are ready to fall off the edge! Yet, I don't see the Hummers cutting back! Study after study shows that those who use the most are those who would be least likely to "change their behavior".

Yet, "progressives" cling to this punitive shit.

WHAT THE HELL??

What does it take to get your awareness raised???

[supernova]

1. Totally agree with you bobbolink

Fees on a many aspects of our daily lives are totally out of control. And charging for bags (when you have no practical place to store reusable bags) is another form of usery.

:hug: to you.

[canoeist52]

10. Oh fer cryin' out loud!

Not enough room to store 'em? My reusable bags live in my car or are hangin' on my back door knob waitin' to go into my car.

[bobbolink]

11. we bow to your superiority....

How 'bout being thankful you have both a car and a home????

[burythehatchet]

37. sorry about that dude. Its been pretty sucky around here as well.

[supernova]

16. Sweet Jesus you are self-centered

get your head out of your suburban smugness and look around you. Not everyone can afford to buy resuable bags. That's a fact. Not everyone can afford to be charged for bags. Not everyone has a place to keep reusable bags either. What if your home is a campfire at a major intersection? Resuable bags are just useless shit that you have to carry round.

[bobbolink]

26. .

:applause:

Oh, gawdess, thank you!

For the smile, and for the fine understanding!

:hug:

[Usrename]

253. There was a time I can remember when being poor wasn't a crime.

I also see all kinds of fines and penalties levied against people just because they don't have a lot of money.

And it keeps getting worse, with every new solution to an old problem. Your right, all progress is achieved on the backs of the poor.

[Patchuli]

47. It's not "self-centered" at all...it's about the environment

It's about reusing and recycling. It's about cutting down on toxic waste dumps. Our local stores started out giving free reuseable bags as the promo and now they sell for .99 cents. They are huge, strong and carry a lot. Even if one didn't have a place to hang them, I'm pretty sure one could find things to pack in them. We use them to haul all sorts of things. I think rather than ding the patrons for not having bags, the store should sell them to them dirt cheap.

edit for grammatical error

[waiting for hope]

54. It was "self-centered" to imply

where they kept their bags without a thought or care about what the OP was writing and ranting about. Homeless people do not have conveniences that someone who has a car and a home would even give a second thought too. I have always been under the impression that progressives and liberals had a bit more empathy and compassion, but sad to say, the ME generation has totally infected every aspect of our culture.

[Patchuli]

58. Well that's true

I think the ideas of others in this thread about environmental groups making these bags and giving them to people who can't afford them for free is a great idea. Also, our store gives you back money for bringing your own bags.

I'm trying to think of alternatives for picking up the dog poop my pooch leaves in the yard besides plastic bags...

[unapatriciated]

83. There is already one grocery store charging a nickle for a bag

If you don't have a bag and do not want to buy one, They will gladly let you do it for free the old fashion way..."Box" them. I might add this store is originally from Europe and most of their food prices are much lower than regular grocery stores.

[dysfunctional press]

130. ikea does too.

nt

[dysfunctional press]

129. if your home is a campfire by a major intersection, you can probably find PLENTY of plastic bags...

they blow around everywhere.

btw- if your home is a campfire at an intersection, where do you put the groceries that are in the bag once you get "home"...? :shrug:

[bobbolink]

228. "What if your home is a campfire at a major intersection? "

I keep coming back to your words of remarkable understanding.

Given the ignorance of some in this thread, I appreciate all the more your grasp of reality!!

There are those who simply CANNOT do more than they are already doing... just surviving to another day is all they can manage.

Penalizing across the board, without bothering to think of those who have no means to comply, is ... well, it certainly isn't "progressive"!!

Pitting poor people against the environment is a sure way to lose even more.... :cry:

Thank you again, supernova! The attacks on me have hurt, as they were intended to, and your words mean so much!

:hug:

[DJ13]

2. I agree

Im also constantly pissed off that progressives or liberals (whatever they want to be called) also put forward ideas like increasing the gasoline taxes to foster conservation.

The wealthy wont drive less as gas gets to $5 per gallon, that impacts only the lower income groups who can least afford to be without transportation.

[bobbolink]

17. Studies support exactly what you're saying, but "progressives" don't want to know the truth.

They have their pet causes, and anything that interferes with that, especially poor folk, they see as their enemy.

Gawd, I hate ignorance! Especially WILLFUL ignorance!

Thanks DJ13!! :hi:

[zanne]

82. Exactly what are YOU then?

I'm a poor person, too. A Progressive poor person and I don't have the need to criticize Progressives. You sound like you have a hair up your ass about something else and you're just here to take it out on other people.

[bobbolink]

117. "Progressive"? And you don't "have to criticize Progressives"?

Then apparently you are fine with cutting poor women and children off welfare and leaving many homeless and goddess only knows how many dead.

Then apparently you are fine with all the jobs shipped to other countries, creating MORE poor people.

Then apparently you are fine with added "REGRESSIVE" TAXES!

Yes, I have a "bug up my ass", and you so very kindly and delicately put it!

I'M SICK OF POOR PEOPLE BEING HURT BY THOSE WHO SAY THEY "CARE"!!

I'm sick to death of "progressives" taking it out on other people... those who can least absorb it.

You have the power to get rid of that bug, by understanding just how these policies are creating and hurting poor people, and speaking up to take ACTION against them!

Quite simple, actually.

[Gormy Cuss]

132. Progressives did all of that?

Progressives cut welfare and sent jobs overseas? That's horseshit. It also dilutes your argument when the issue is one (like reusable bags) where some progressives are responsible for placing too much of the burden on poor people.

[bobbolink]

139. Thanks for playing.

Too bad you're such a partisan you dn't understand history.

oh, and HORSESHIT yourself.

See how much that adds to your argument?

[Gormy Cuss]

142. Most of your replies were about as effective arguments as declaring "horseshit."

I guess that point went flying over your head.

[bobbolink]

212. Try studying history, because it's obviously "flying over your head"

CLUE:

Start with Clinton.

:crazy:

[Gormy Cuss]

217. Clue: nasty replies don't engender support for good causes.

The point that yet again went flying over your head.

I'm no fan of Clinton but blaming ALL progressives for the deal with the Devil that he made is a stretch. Do a search on my name and you'll see that I'm on the record here about Clinton and TANF. For that matter, search your own threads and to get a sense of where I stand.

[bobbolink]

224. CLUE. The party doesn't get votes by ignoring poor folks, and how

they've been betrayed by "progressives".

You can paint me as the one causing "trouble".... I've spoken to many more poor people than you have, and I can tell you that my views on this are, if anything, more gentle than other poor people.

They've HAD IT with the party.

Just decide how many votes you can afford to toss away with arrogance.

[Gormy Cuss]

226. How many votes can you afford to toss away with arrogance?

You made a pretty strong assertion there -- you have no idea how many poor people that I've known or worked with or otherwise heard. Let me make the math simple for you. I grew up in a low income neighborhood. Nearly all the families were on assistance, disability, or were working poor. There were a few "rich" families who actually had two nickels to rub together. As an adult my career has always required talking to low income people across the country, soliciting their opinions and documenting their experiences. On a personal level, much of my family is still in poverty. I know first hand that many feel that both parties have failed them and that the sting is worse with Democrats, but the ones who are still planning to vote won't be choosing the Republican. They just won't vote if it comes to that.

You have good insights but as long as they're packaged with a backhand you'll lose the attention of many of the very people that you could convince by stating the facts.

[bobbolink]

227. There are poor people, whether you want to believe it or not, who are ANGRIER than I am...

even right here on DU.

So, you are hereby invited to put me on IGNORE.

My anger isn't going away because of lectures from you, and neither is the anger of others.

I repeat... tossing votes because you don't like our "attitude" is kinda self-defeating.

NOw, given the authoritarian nature of your words.. you have the last word.

Cuz, I'm done.

buh-bye... :hi:

[Two Americas]

232. who?

Who are these people whose attention we need to get and who we need convince, and why?

[Gormy Cuss]

254. Voters.

When addressing poverty is on the radar of voters, it'll be back on the radar for politicians.

[Two Americas]

266. voting doesn't handle this

The voters cannot vote to end poverty. There is no such choice on the ballot. There never will be, unless there is pressure to force politicians to run on a platform of ending poverty.

I will not spend a bunch of time and effort trying to sell people on voting Democratic as th4e end all be all political action just because Democrats are kinda sorta better on poverty than the opposition party, or sit around waiting for those in power to magically present me with my perfect personal choice in candidates, nor stop talking about poverty because it doesn't fit in with the agenda of the powerful people controlling the party, or because it conflicts with someone's desire to express their personal stance on environmentalism.

The marchers, the strikers, the resisters, the rabble rousers - that is whom I am interested in reaching and edifying and supporting, not the voters. The notion that voting is the ultimate political action comes from a particualr type of activism - the activism of personal self-expression.

There is a deep divide within the party, and this thread illustrates that as well as anything I have ever seen. Ignoring that split and declaring unity won't make it go away. We have two completely different approaches to political action happening, and they are working against each other.

If the goal of an organization were to give people an opportunity to express their personal opposition to poverty through various activities, that would be one thing. If the goal of an organization were to eradicate poverty, that would be something different entirely. Depending upon people's expectations as to the goals, one person's success could be another person's failure.

Most liberal activism takes the first form. It is valuable to raise people's awareness about the various liberal causes, so I am not completely dismissing this form of activism.

But as bobbolink points out so brilliantly on this thread - the best DU thread I have ever seen - this can lead to activism in two different areas conflicting with one another.

Getting rid of plastic bags is in keeping with giving people an opportunity to express their personal commitment to the environment, but when we try to translate that type of activism into policy, it puts a hardship on the poor. Now, since the personal expression of opposition to poverty does not conflict with the personal expression of environmentalism, many liberals are resistant to seeing any problem there. Their personal expression in the two areas is not interfered with nor in conflict in their mind, and since their activism is all based on personal expression, they can't understand how anyone could object. "I have been an environmentalist for years" or "I have worked against poverty with great dedication" they will say, so "how dare you suggest that I am working against the poor??" What they mean is "how dare you question my personal expression?"

Now, these “eliminate the plastic bags” schemes are all predicated on right wing notions of social organization — pain/punishment control models, personal consumer choice models, free market ideas - so of course they will conflict with left wing political ideas. Yet we are to consider them to be left politically, because they line up with modern liberalism with all of its opportunities to express personal stances about various issues. See the problem?

How do we “herd the cats” and resolve this conflict? That is the challenge. It will require the cats to stop being cats, to some extent, or at least to stop insisting that being cats is the only possible way to be an activist. The two types of activism could be working together, but not so long as the “cat” model - personal expression of values — dominates and excludes the second more traditional form of activism, and so long as the inevitable conflict between the two is not acknowledged and resolved. We will forever be herding cats.

[Two Americas]

235. clue

This isn't Dale Carnegie's school of "how to win friends and influence people."

No one is rolling out a new product here and trying to make a persuasive sales pitch to sell you something.

The OP did not say "all progressives" - the meaning was quite clear. This is proved by the fact that most progressives responding to the OP do not feel hostile, offended, or angry.

If you feel hostile, offended, or angry then perhaps you are one of the progressives whom the OP was talking about.

[Gormy Cuss]

248. Yes, you're right that there is no interest in influencing people.

It's just a rant. If there were in an interest in influencing or educating people there wouldn't be so many hostile replies to anyone who writes anything more than just "good post." The street corner preacher who points to passerbys and declares them on the way to hell may feel good about his preaching but he isn't winning many converts.

If you've read all of my posts on this thread alone you'd see that I do not defend or condone the practice of charging for bags or the other little fees that low income people can't afford. I remember when the bottle deposit law was passed with similar feel-good "benefit for all" attitude, ignoring the fact that a five cent deposit on a container was a nickel that couldn't be used for food or toilet paper or toothpaste.

[Two Americas]

249. it is not about bags

I don't know how people got the idea that the OP was about bags.

The preacher trying to convert people on the street corner reference highlights the other failed liberal activism model - the quasi-religious spiritual conversion model, based on the absurd notion that if we could only convert the entire population to be "like minded" and to "share our values" whatever the hell those are anymore, that then we would be living in utopia. Worse, the idea is that personal conversion to new spiritual beliefs is the prerequisite to social change, and that a person once having converted to these new values is thereafter immune from any criticism or challenge. This is a formula for political paralysis, as well as window dressing that sounds kinda left wing but acts as cover for a very reactionary political stance.

Just as the OP is not speaking from the corporate sales and marketing model and trying to sell you on a new product that is being rolled out, nor is the OP trying to convert anyone to some new belief system. But these two models - both of which are apolitical and actually work against any effective political action - are pervasive in modern liberalism. So much so, that people assume that everyone must be using one of these two models.

Nothing turns people off more than sales pitches or evangelical conversion efforts. Yet you say the OP is turning people off because the sales pitch or conversion effort is not very polished or sophisticated.

But the message - it is far from being a "rant" and has nothing to do with bags - is neither a sales pitch nor an evangelical conversion message. It is old fashioned plain talk, one human being to another straight from the heart and hopefully straight to the heart. It is the way people sued to communicate. It is the way the vast majority of people, those outside of the privileged and elite progressive circle, still communicate with one another.

[Gormy Cuss]

255. It's not about the bags and it is.

The bags are a concrete and accessible example of the OP's premise. It's one a long list of little "inconveniences" to many that have the very real effect stated in the OP. It does place a disproportionate and unfair burden on those who can least afford it.

My reference to the preacher on the soap box was made in regard not to the OP but to subsequent responses by the same poster, where seemingly any response other than "Good post" is met with some version of "You don't get it, you've never been poor." That sort of reply suggests to me that there is a desire to want people here to get it. So if the purpose is not to inform those who don't understand, what other purpose does it serve to bring the topic to a discussion forum? Venting frustration? If the purpose is simply to vent then calling out progressives on a board loaded with them is a great way to start a flame war. Since the OP has announced that she will no longer be part of an exchange with me, there is no point in me continuing here.

[Two Americas]

256. no

People are not always speaking and writing in the hopes of selling something or converting someone. In fact, the best thinking, writing and speaking throughout history has fallen outside of those two very modern American concepts about the presumed purpose of communication.

For example, I don't expect to convert you, and am not responding to you for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of the other readers - to give them hope and courage, and to let them know that they are not alone and are not crazy for seeing things the way that they do, and maybe to ease their pain a little, and by doing that to ease my own.

I do that because I don't like to see people suffer, and I don't like to see people bullied and dominated and invalidated. I don't like to see lies prevail and control people. I do all of that because I am a human being, and caring about each other is what human beings do and reachiong out and saying "are there any other human beings out there?" is an essential component of who we are, why we are alive, what we are doing here.

I have nothing to sell you, nothing to gain by talking to you, no wish to convert you, and no expectation that I will change your mind, and nothing to gain were I to change your mind.

[cbayer]

3. With all due respect, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

You don't have to be rich to bring your own bags to the grocery store. You just have to have an incentive to do so. Grocery bags, particularly plastic ones, are a serious environmental threat. This is a proposal to reduce that threat by making people pay a little more for being wasteful.

[originalpckelly]

9. You may not understand this, but some people don't have any money to splurge.

I've been on foodstamps, and we barely made it. I can't imagine how much harder it would have been to have to buy cloth bags, we never had enough money to do that. We were barely eating let alone paying for fucking grocery bags.

[cbayer]

19. What do you do with the bags you bring back?

[originalpckelly]

56. I used to use them for lunch bags, I couldn't afford a lunchbox.

I remember the other kids used to make fun of me because I didn't have a lunchbox.

Those plastic bags are useful. I remember I couldn't afford boots, so I took the bags and use them to line my shoes! (Used them on the outside of my socks.) It worked like a charm.

Of course those shoes wore out, and I remember sitting in class afraid that other people could smell them, as you can guess they weren't too fresh after walking in the rain/snow whatever for 2 miles each way each day of school.

[NashVegas]

98. 99 Cents for a Cloth Bag

That can be used over and over and is 25 times as strong as a plastic bag? How can one not get good use out of that?

[bobbolink]

12. I hope to gawd you find yourself in the shoes of really poor people very soon.

It's the ONLY way you'll GET IT.

[cbayer]

22. That's not a very nice thing to hope for me.

And again, with respect, you don't really know anything about me.

[bobbolink]

24. Clearly, it's the only way some people who cling to ignorance willl GET IT

[cbayer]

29. Some of that positive incentive you talk about is something you might want to consider.

I have been called every kind of nastiness in this thread for expressing a different opinion.
I just disagree with you, OK. I don't see this as something similar to a gas tax, where you have to pay more for something you have to have. It is easy to get around this fee. Just take your own bags and re-use them. It's really easy and it helps everyone.
So, go ahead and call me clueless, ignorant, etc.

[bobbolink]

116. Have you ever been homeless? Have you ever been so poor you didn't have a car, or place to store

ANYTHING?

Several people have tried to explain that charging poor people more for ANYTHING is cruel.

You don't want to be called ignorant?

Then, pay attention to what people are saying, and get a clue.

When you start empathizing with the situation of those who are different from you, and stop insisting that they pay extra when they are already hurting for $$$, then you will no longer be ignorant.

See, it's really simple.

Something you might want to consider.

[Dorian Gray]

191. Honestly

I see your issue, and I question the surcharge on the bags as well.

But, it's been asked, how many groceries are you buying if you don't have a place to store them? Just carry them out in your hands or re-use plastic bags you've gotten in the past. Or go to one of the many stores that don't have the sur-charge. Most currently don't.

I know you feel passionately about this topic, but there can be a dialog about whether it is a worthwhile charge without jumping down other people's throats about how little they care.

[bobbolink]

215. Fine. You win. Obviously I'm just too fucking lazy. Thanks for pointing it out.

All the other poor people who will now pay an extra tax will be glad to know they're just scofflaws, too.

Oh, and you might take note... asking politely to be taken into account in policy decisions has gotten people .... exactly nowhere.

Interesting that you don't consider the rude replies to me worthy of correction.

[bobbolink]

262. It must be comforting to be in such a secure position that you can judge.

[unapatriciated]

84. bobo I like you but....

there are alternatives to this problem, most stores will accommodate those who do not are can not buy bags. they will let you box them. Before you wish that I walk in the shoes of the poor, I have and I get it.. There are many more issues we need to address than this one. More shelters, health care, education and jobs that pay a living wage not minimum wage.

[dropkickpa]

169. Several boxes of groceries would be impossible

to carry on the bus and then carry several blocks home.

[bobbolink]

247. You would think that would be easy for people to understand, wouldn't you?

Besides, where are these magical boxes supposed to be??

All stores that I know of collapse their boxes as soon as they empty them and stock shelves... there are NO boxes in the back anymore, like in the old days.

Then, HOW would a poor person take those boxes to be recycled???? You can wad up plastic bags and recycle them, but a box???

Thank you for seeing the sillyness in this. As someone else pointed out, it wasn't just about the fee for bags... it's the whole issue of not taking poor people into account with their damned policies!

[bobbolink]

246. The ISSUE is THIS.... take into consideration how proposals affect POOR FOLK,

before going ahead with it!

Environmentalists are some of the worst for forgetting totally about poor people and legislating "fixes" without realizing (or CARING!) what they are doing to some of the rest of us.

And, you are wrong... we DO NOT need more shelters!

We need HOMES!

[bobbolink]

263. You're missing the whole point!

Environmentalist do-gooders MUST start understanding the lives of poor folk, and addressing their policies to accomodate those of us who don't have all the resources THEY have!

It really is a simple concept, and I'm surprised that "progressives" can't/won't get this!

[Earth_First]

88. How progressive of YOU! n/t

[blindpig]

89. Thanks for the empathy

see post #81

[bobbolink]

182. Exactly. It's very sad when we poor folk are pushed to this point.

None of us feels good about feeling this way, but when we don't get heard at all, it's what happens.

I'm sure if you think about it, you can see this very same thing happening in the past with other issues that got ignored... race and gay issues come immediately to mind.

[supernova]

13. You don't have a clue

Some days, .10 can make a difference between paying a bill or or not. Getting public transportation. Or not. Being able to give your kid lunch money. Or not.

If you don't think it does, you haven't been poor enough.

It's all these little mindless fees that add up for folks who don't have ANY extra to spare and are just getting by as it is.

[originalpckelly]

57. I know, I remember the foodstamps we had didn't have the cash...

so we had to pay out of our own pocket for basics like toothpaste, toilet paper, etc.

[Two Americas]

133. personal choices

Approaching social problems with schemes based on personal choice notions is a byproduct of the "personal responsibility" rugged individualism politics from the Reagan era. It is inherently biased to be advantageous for the more fortunate and abusive to the less fortunate. It ignores the fact that many people have severely limited choices of any kind, and no power to change that, as well as ignoring the causes of the problems people are facing.

Replacing discussion about social public policy with talk about personal choice ideas inevitably will leave people behind, and create hardships and burdens for people. It never works, and it is always used as justification for neglecting or punishing people who do not "make the right choices."

[fenriswolf]

4. do yourself a favor

splurge a couple bucks on cloth bags. You will start saving money within the year. any other beefs you want to put on the shoulders of "progressives"?

[originalpckelly]

5. Thanks for some fucking common sense!

:applause:

You're absolutely right too! These people can take that tax and shove it up their collective asses! Poor people are already struggling, on top of paying for fucking grocery bags.

[bobbolink]

14. Thank YOU! It's not only common sense, it's called empathy and understanding.

It's also IGNORANT when, as I stated, study after study shows that IT DOESN'T CHANGE BEHAVIOR!!

What don't they get?

[Desertrose]

50. They don't get that is ALWAYS the poor that get screwed with these "wonderful" ideas.

In an ideal world...great idea...in reality.... not everyone can afford the reusable bags. Why doesn't the damn store give them a bag or how bout making bags that don't fuck up th environment just to save a few bucks? Why does the lowest guy on the totem pole always get stuck footing the bill?

I agree, if 10¢ means nothing, you haven't been there....and if it means nothing, is it seriously going to change behavior?

[bobbolink]

118. No, and they don't WANT to "GET IT". It might cost them a night of pain to

understand just how we have been hurt! Couldn't have that... want to live in wonderland...

"I agree, if 10¢ means nothing, you haven't been there....and if it means nothing, is it seriously going to change behavior?"

Very eloquently put!

And, studies show that you are completely right about the second part! What can't they grasp?

I've recycled my plastic and paper bags at the store for years, but goddam it, I can understand why some can't!

What the hell does it take to walk in someone else's shoes????

A mandatory tax on those who CAN'T follow the prescription... yeah, that's a "progressive" value.

:sarcasm: :mad:

[unapatriciated]

85. Your wrong it does change behavior

I work for a grocery store that encourages re-using and I see it working on a daily basis. Another grocery store that I shop at charges a nickle per bag, when I'm there shopping I rarely see anyone buying bags. They bring their own or use the boxes that the stock originally came in.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. I think we should be CHARGED .5 or.10 cents for each bag...

Then it works out for everybody. :)

[bobbolink]

15. And you're going to do what to help those who don't HAVE the extra????

I fucking don't believe the ignorance!

Get a fucking clue!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

65. bobbo, I'm penniless myself.

I know EXACTLY what it's like.

I've carried a bag for years, of one sort or another, all the time. It's a rare trip when I can afford to buy enough to fit into 2 bags. And I see all the rampant consumerism and waste around me and it just drives me bananas!

perhaps I didn't quite think it through though. :blush:

How bout "First 3 bags Free"? :)

[bobbolink]

119. If YOU can do that, great. WHY can't you care about those who can't,

for whatever reason?

WHY can't you grasp the concept of REGRESSIVE taxes? Generatios of Democrats before us KNEW how wrong it was... WHY can't we now????

Yes, waste makes ME angry, too. BUT.... have you ever looked at what those businesses waste??? Why the fuck should poor people be paying a tax they can't afford, when the businesses themselves waste more than that poor person EVER could? This is the same process as RWers complaining about welfare for poor women, then being blind to corporate welfare. SAME process.

I just saw your part later.... "Perhaps I didn't quite think it through", and I very much appreciate that!

That's exactly what I'm trying to get across.... THINKING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOSE ON THE BOTTOM! REally, we CAN do that, and Democrats USED to do that.

Thank you for understanding that!

:hug:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[knitter4democracy]

49. I've gone to the store and come home with twenty bags.

Baggers double up on certain items or think certain things can't be mixed with food or whatever. That's two bucks. If you've ever lived tight, you know that two bucks is whether you get orange juice for your kids or not, whether you get that small bag of potatoes or not. That's a lot of money to a huge percentage of the populace. You need to take that into account before mandating cloth bags.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Agreed.

This is a situation where the right wing motivation to shift taxes onto the poor and a progressive motivation for social change align nicely.

It happens more often than we like to admit.

[Warpy]

8. Absolutely agree

I think the nickel the stores around here give back for every bag you bring from home is a much better idea. Although I'd love to see those damn plastic bags banned completely, I know it's not going to happen because too many people need to use them, especially homeless folks and folks in substandard housing who simply don't have the room to store things like canvas or string grocery bags, not to mention have the funds to buy them in the first place. Shoot, I recycle the ones some stores force me to take as trash bags, so I use them, too.

Putting a punitive tax on them isn't going to change anybody's behavior. It's going to make some folks angry at all environmentalists and it's going to harm the poorest.

Some folks, especially environmentalists who want to use a stick instead of a carrot to modify the behavior of other people, can't see past their own agenda to what it's going to do to some people. They just haven't bothered to think it all through to the end.

It's up to us to do that thinking for them.

[Kali]

18. seems like the store offering a 5 cent INCENTIVE to bring in and reuse

is doing it the right way. Better to create conditions for the change than ram it down people's throats, rich or poor. Still it wouldn't be the worst fee if there was still allowed the option to bring in your own bags.

[bobbolink]

21. then walk in my shoes and PAY all the fees you can.... and smile while you do it...

You REALLY don't get it, do you???

Yes, change happens more by POSITIVE incentive.

But what the hell will it take for you to understand that all these taxes are making life IMPOSSIBLE for people who don't have what you have???

[ThatPoetGuy]

32. I think you misunderstood Kali's point.

Kali was saying grocery stores should pay us when we bring our own bags. Not that we should be penalized.

Great OP, by the way. Thank you.

[unapatriciated]

87. Well our store does give incentive when you bring in your own bags.

We have a weekly drawing for a bag of grocery's worth $25.00 packed in a re-usable bag. I agree there needs to be alternatives for those who don't bring there own bags, such as boxing.

[bobbolink]

179. Thanks, ThatPoetGuy... (cool username!) I DO get that.

And, yes, I have brought mine back for years, and when they are too tattered to be used anymore, I put them in the bag recycling bin, (which, until recently, was only at WalMart!).

What i'm trying to get EVERYONE to realize is the point about regressive taxes, which this actually IS.

Muddleclass progressives tend to think only of their circumstances, and what THEY can do. It's important to realize that there are those who CAN'T for various reasons. As a matter of fact, since I've been homeless, I'm reusing bags much less frequently than I did before, which shouldn't be surprising. HOWEVER, I shouldn't have to pay a penalty for that. I'm doing the best I can, and I want people to loook at that and understand that! We can't all live up to the same standards... some battles some of us can't fight.

"Great OP, by the way. Thank you."

Thanks! We all have our own style, and mine is different than some others. In the end, it's all the various styles that create the diversity we need. I hope YOU will post threads on your thoughts about these things from time to time! Especially some of these issues affecting poor people that "progressives" seem not to "get".

It needs to be repeated in different ways, to get through to as many people as possible.

Thanks for your input!

[Kali]

173. um yes I do get it

My secondary point is, if these kinds of fees must be used there needs to be a way to opt out either by providing free reusables, or having the option to bring your own.

My first point was that a refund is a better inducement than the punishment of a fee.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. This is why I disagree with punitive "sin" taxes.

Regressive taxes on things like booze and cigarettes. Now some geniuses want to add a tax onto junk and fast food to "incentivize" people to eat healthier. Poor people have shitty enough lives as it is, and it's not like they have gyms and parks available for healthy outlets, or well-stocked grocery stores for healthy food. All you're doing by charging them more for their small pleasures is punishing them for being poor. I got into an argument with a fellow progressive woman, a doctor, recently who thought the junk food tax was a great idea. I explained to her that many low income people don't have access to better food choices and even if they did, many don't live in places with the facilities to cook them. She refused to believe me, she was that clueless.

[kath]

23. uh, several Yurpeen countries, which are FAR to the left of the US (those damned pinko socialist

Yurpeens) have been charging for plastic bags for years.

It's not a right wing plot. It's protective of the environment, not punitive of poor people. These countries care far, far more about the poor than the rightist USA.

[bobbolink]

25. who said anything about a RW plot????? Poor people in European countries

have a LOT that USian poor don't have... good health care, advanced education, etc.

Your argument is bogus.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. These are the same people who think forced shitty private health insurance is a nifty idea

And that working people who can't afford insurance are deadbeats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. Poor people in Europe have free or low-cost health care, subsidized housing, and

child allowances.

When I was first starting my business, I reached a point where I couldn't buy stamps to send out invoices. I had enough food in the kitchen to scrape together meals till the next payment by a client (in a week), but no cash and so little in my checking account that using the ATM would have resulted in an overdraft.

There was a time during my graduate school years when I was completely broke and ate nothing but cereal for three days.

Some of my fellow graduate students had less generous financial aid than even I did, and they tried to apply for food stamps. Because their money came in a lump sum as a student loan at the beginning of each semester, they were "too rich" until about halfway through. Till then, they ate a lot of beans and rice.

Now imagine living like that all the time, and you'll understand why a deposit on a plastic bags can seem excessive.

[G_j]

27. there are better ways

like giving away reusable bags
or making laws restricting excessive packaging of products,
or the grocery store could stop filling mailboxes and newspapers with color paper ads printed on non-recycled paper.

gas? why tax us? tax the freakin oil companies, instead of giving them tax breaks!

I agree, people do not think that a dime may be a lot to somebody in poverty
and people DO get nickle and dimed to death!!

[bobbolink]

28. So right!

what about what they did in depression... stamps?

[Journeyman]

30. So instead of a CHARGE for plastic bags, why not give a REBATE to those with reusables?. . .

There's an incentive that doesn't take money out of the hands of anyone but the store owners, who were GIVING the bags away for free in past years. And all they'll be out is the supposed money they're saving by not having to provide plastic bags. Under this incentive program, I'm sure many people will find the means to acquire reusable bags, especially when they MAKE money by doing so.

[Warpy]

34. The carrot always works better than the stick

and most grocery stores here do give that rebate. The glaring exception is Wally World, where they force you to use their damn plastic bags even if you do bring in your own canvas bags. The once in a blue moon I buy something besides one of my $4.00 scrips there I end up using those as trash bags. I generate enough trash to put my mini dumpster out at the curb once a month.

Telling poor folks to reuse those plastic bags if they don't want to keep getting charged is no good, either, since they're so damn flimsy they barely survive 2 uses, if that.

Anything that dings poor folks on the food budget is a very bad idea.

[leeroysphitz]

108. Thank you! N/T

[frazzled]

31. A one time investment in a couple of reusable bags ($3) will save your folk money in the end

Tax or no tax. This argument fails to impress me (though I do agree with the sometimes faux empathy with poverty that is labeled 'progressive').

The need to reduce plastics cuts across all social lines: we're all in this together. It's only one aspect of the problem, but it's significant enough. The poor, remember, suffer inordinately from environmental problems: all those dumps with the waste material like plastic bags? They ain't putting them in Scarsdale.

I bought two heavy-duty (canvas/oilcloth) reusable bags from Ikea: they cost $1.50 each. They hold tons of groceries, and I've had them for about a year and a half. I also have a thermal bag that I got free from the opening of a new Whole Foods. If you want to go upscale, but convenient, buy an 'Enviro-sac'--it folds up to about 2 x 3 inches and weighs only an ounce or two, but is roomy and surprisingly strong. You could put it in your pocket or purse. It's $9.95 (I bought one for my son's girlfriend), but over a couple of years of use, even a poor person might find it cost effective.

Don't cut the poor out of being part of society--society that is trying to do its part to reverse environmental depredations.

Worry about more important things: like why the poor don't even have grocery stores in their neighborhoods. About tax policy. About the rising cost of heating oil and natural gas. About skyrocketing food prices.

But don't tell me even the poorest person can't afford to reuse a bag.

[bobbolink]

237. Fine, we won't tell you anything, because you are unwilling to hear.

Walk in our shoes, THEN discover how cold you really are.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

33. The way around this is to exchange X amount of plastic grocery bags for a reusable one

Grocery stores here are already doing that. You bring in two (I think that was the number I just handed them a huge bundle and don't recall for sure) plastic bags and they send you home with a nice $4.99 canvas tote for free.

In the end they make bonus points (and tax deductions) for being environmentally friendly and they cut overhead from plastic bags. And the consumers gets a nice bag to help encourage them to shop greener.

win-win.

Also, less oil is needed for the production of those plastic bags so demand goes down. Which effects the price of oil and thus the price of gasoline.

[eleny]

35. I have to be careful here since plastic is really hurting our world

But this new charging for plastic bags has got to have a next step. Like organizations stepping up and making cloth bags available to people who need them.

I know that some senior organizations have sewing groups who make buntings for newborns. The ladies here in my town used to do that if not still at it. So why not treat our environment with the same loving care by helping people meet this new need.

I just sent an email to the Better Bags Colorado organization asking if there is any effort planned or underway to get cloth bags to people who need them. Sincerely, b, if this proposed legislation goes through we'll need a response in the form of a helping hand.

Here's the link to the organization spearheading the new legislation.
http://betterbagscolorado.org/

[eilen]

41. Aldi's charges for plastic bags

If you have ever shopped at Aldi's, they do not provide free bags. However, their prices are significantly lower than other supermarkets. I don't go there all the time but do when I need to penny pinch.

In my experience, many times only 2-3 items get placed in plastic bags which causes more to be used than really needed. Cashiers do this for a number of reasons, a. because people complain they pack too heavy, b. the bulkiness of some items, c. to separate food from sealed plastic containers of home and hygiene products.

I purchased 6 reusable grocery bags from my favorite store at 99 cents each. I ask the cashier to really pack them or I pack them myself. I found I overbought. I can fit in three bags what they usually pack in 10. I use the other three for the farmer's market now. Plus, tote bags are amazingly easy to manufacture at home. There are also organizaions who take donations of reusable bags and distribute them at food banks and WIC centers.

I still take some plastic bags to handle household jobs like cleaning out the litter box for my cats, use as liners in my bathroom garbage pails, compost bucket and tape to my serger table--that ends up storing thread chain ends, strips of cut fabric from seam allowances that I use in collage. I also use them to gather pinecones and other found objects on walks. I will also take some paper bags to hold my newspaper and paper recycling since our RRA requires they be bundled in them.

Some stores have a recycle bin for plastic bags, others pay 2 or 3 cents per bag reused at the checkout. Plastic bags are really not very sturdy for people who take a bus for shopping. That is really not a good excuse as most people walk much longer distances in Europe and carry their groceries in reusable bags, some use little shopping cart/dollys. There is only so much you can buy at once when you take public transport.

Tragically poor people, such as those who are homeless have a multitude of problems and I hardly thing that being charged 5 cents for a plastic bag is the end all. So many shops hand out plastic bags, they are everywhere. However, the concern for them by the OP is very touching and hopefully, a exception can be placed on that tax for those who shop with food stamps. That there are people starving in this country is shameful. I think many are malnourished for lack of education and food preparation skill. I once knew a young woman who was just amazed that I could make a casserole--"how did you know how to do that?" I found out she and her husband ordered out every night. She knew how to prepare maybe three dishes, all of them from "food kits" and grill hamburgers/hotdogs. She was also in credit card debt and the couple were low earners.

[eleny]

43. "tote bags are amazingly easy to manufacture at home"

When I was in college, my aunt bought several of those inexpensive woven kitchen throw rugs. She sewed up the sides and added a cloth handle. I used it for many years. It was huge, sturdy and worked great. I keep thinking that they'd be easier to make than anything and hold tons.

[bobbolink]

229. If I had a home, a sewing machine, and some strong fabric, I'd do the same.

What I'm ASKING, is for people to realize that not everyone is muddleclass, and not all have the same resources.

"Progressives" used to understand that.

Or, so I thought.

Again, I thank you for having made the call, and am responding to the fact that so many really are ignoring the differences in abilities!

[BuelahWitch]

44. Aldi's plastic bags are huge

Lots bigger than normal stores. They're more sturdy and easier to reuse. I can fit lots more into an Aldi's bag than a normal grocery bag.
I'd be majorly pissed to have to pay for those puny little bags at the store...

[burythehatchet]

36. Fees are regressive taxation at its very worst.

[Two Americas]

134. absolutely

That is the point. It is not about "bags." All of the obsessive talk about bags, and schemes for bags, is a indulgent luxury for people who don't have to worry about survival and cannot relate to those who do, and who insist on seeing social problems as a matter of "personal choice." That is exactly the attitude that the OP is talking about.

Regressive taxation is pervasive and crippling, reactionary and at odds with eberyhting that progressives suppsoedly stand for. The bag thing is just one of hundreds of examples. It is the mindset - the assumptions and premises behind these schemes - that is the problem. That is what needs to be talked about, not a person's individual problems or individual choices.

[Xenotime]

39. The rich should be taxed and they should pay for it.

[KakistocracyHater]

40. Dollar Store Cloth Bags

maybe you've heard of them?

[bobbolink]

238. Your smirking snootiness is EVER so becoming .....

May you wake up and find yourself very poor...even homeless, and then lets watch you smirk...

[dajoki]

42. Some of our lives are already one big OUCH!!

Give me a freakin break already, this will only hurt the poor people who can barely afford to shop at the suppermarket already. This is total nonsense, prices of EVERYTHING are rising so fast that us people living on the edge can't afford the groceries to go in the bag.

"The only way you're going to change your behavior, really, is to have a little ouch at the checkout because you get enough ouches and you'll make a new habit out of it," she said.

Contact BetterBagsColorado and let them know what you think, not that they care.

http://betterbagscolorado.org/?q=contact

[Dhalgren]

45. K&R, bobbo! Dead-on as usual!

I don't know what it will take to make the currently well-off middle see the plight of the poor. If we as a society cannot find a grip on this thing there will be many many currently well-off who are going to find out about the poor first hand. Good essay bobbo...

[gollygee]

46. Ivory tower syndrome

People don't think about these things if they're not in that situation. I'm a huge believer in using reusable bags but the way to get people to use them is to give them away, or maybe even have people earn points toward free bags when they shop or something. They shouldn't be charging people for using plastic bags.

Who would get the 10 cents?

[knitter4democracy]

48. As usual, they don't take everyone into account. Reusable is good, but . . .

I love my Meijers reusable bags. In fact, I just got another one today. They cost a dollar, and I can fit a ton in them. They even have dividers inside for breakable bottles or my Silk containers and a small pocket on the outside for cards, stickers or small things. Great, great bags.

Thing is, I have a car to keep them in and a house. Not everyone has room for reusables. These bags don't fold flat well, either, so how would someone carry the empties to the store easily while taking the bus? What if you go from shelter to shelter at night--how are you supposed to carry the empty bags around? Along with all your other stuff?

Yet again, policymakers are only taking suburbanites into account. They're forgetting about the homeless, about the poor, about the bike riders, about those without cars, and about those whose food budgets are tight enough already. Bad law until they figure out a way to provide cloth bags to people for free that fold up and store very easily.

[Raksha]

203. Here's how you do it...

Re >>Thing is, I have a car to keep them in and a house. Not everyone has room for reusables. These bags don't fold flat well, either, so how would someone carry the empties to the store easily while taking the bus<<

When you're taking the bus and you know you're going to be buying more than you can carry (hopefully you have the money for it, or food stamps) you have one of those folding shopping carts and you put your 99-cent reusable grocery bags in the cart and take that on the bus with you...assuming you remember to bring them with you when you leave the house--and I don't always remember.

It's much easier when you have can just leave the bags in your car so you always have them when you need them. Voice of experience here...I have a house but no car. I've never been homeless, but damn close to it at times. I agree that the point of this thread is NOT grocery bags per se but ALL the regressive "sin taxes" (whatever the sin-du-jour happens to be) that impact the poor in ways limousine liberals don't have a clue about.

[knitter4democracy]

205. Those carts are great but still a bit pricey.

Best price I've seen for them was at Big Lots in town, but, if I remember right, they were still ten bucks. When money's tight, ten bucks is a lot of money.

The best bag I've seen recently was at Target--folded all up to pocket size. It was three bucks, I think, but I remember thinking that bag made the most sense. Maybe someone could buy a bunch of those to give to the poor and homeless who would need bags if this thing passes.

[scarletwoman]

51. I remember well desperately trying to find just one nickel so I'd have enough to afford to buy

a quart of milk for my 2 year-old kid, back in 1986. That was my grocery list -- one quart of milk, but I was a nickel short. I pulled apart all the seat cushions, pulled up all the floor mats in my old clunker of a car, paced the sidewalks hoping to come upon a stray coin somewhere.

I totally know what a big deal an extra dime can mean.

Great post. Rec'd.

sw

[fenriswolf]

52. good point not trying to marginalize it but

do you really need a bag for a quart of milk?

[scarletwoman]

53. It's not about the damn bag, it's about the 10 cents.

Of course I wouldn't need a bag for a quart of milk. That's so NOT the point! The point is, when you're living right on the edge, 10 cents can be a HUGE problem.

Anyone who thinks that paying an extra 10 cents for a bag has no frikkin' idea about how an extra 10 cents can be an insurmountable obstacle in someone's real life.

sw

[originalpckelly]

59. I know, that 10 cents adds up to a buck with 10 bags. 10 bucks with a 100 bags.

100 bucks with a thousand bags.

It all counts, you suck $100 out of someone's hand each year, and you're going to see consequences if they're barely making it.

[bobbolink]

259. Thanks, scarletwoman! It's really so easy to understand,

if one just has a heart!

:loveya:

[varelse]

55. Ah the road to hell is paved with such good intentions

... of the well-meaning but clueless. Your OP is spot on and I think the main problem is ignorance (or forgetfullness) on the part of so many "muddle-class" (borrowing your term because it's perfect) progressives who simply do not think at all about the poor.

Incentives work much better IMO - the store we shop at has an alternative system that works really well - they hand out tokens for every "disposable" bag you do not use. They contribute the cost of that bag to one of several non-profit community groups of your choosing. There's a box with slots for the various groups near the doors, so you can drop them in on your way out.

Rather than advocate a punitive law such as the one you cite as an example here, it would be so much better if retailers could be encouraged to adopt similar voluntary programs. Perhaps a law rewarding retailers for "matching" those mini-contributions (savings of the cost of disposable bags) would be truly progressive.

the carrot works better than the stick and is also much more fair.

[Kitty Herder]

60. Because poor people deserve what they get and rich people

are perfect, didn't you know that? The poor are bad and must be punished for being poor, where as the rich should be rewarded. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :mad:

That's seems to be the underlying paradigm in this country. It's unconscious for most people. I think most people have been conditioned to think that way. That kind of thinking obviously benefits the wealthy and powerful and they determine, to a large degree, what thought we are allowed to think, through domination of the media and control over the government.


:banghead:

[JosephSchmo]

61. It's not all about you.

There is an environmental impact with grocery bags.

Charging a bit extra will make people think about using grocery bags. Grocery bags that often end up as litter. This tax will result in less grocery bags being used and therefore less grocery bags turning into litter.

Yes, this tax will have to come out of the grocery bag users pocket. It's too bad this extra cost will affect you, but you do have options. You can reuse grocery bags. At my Safeway they even give you a nickel to bring in your own. You can get a cloth bag. You can adjust your behaviour enough so that the effect of the tax on you is nearly zero. I think that's what they were trying to do with this, is get people to change their behaviour.

[Kitty Herder]

63. Rather than charging for the plastic bags,

they could give a rebate for not using them. Also, it would be extremely helpful if some organization would give away re-usable bags. Those things are expensive if you're poor like me.

[Sanctified]

64. Yeah $10 a bag is fricking insane when you typically need 3-4 bags for groceries.

Who has $30-$40 for bags that are only used once every two weeks, thats 26 times a year.

[WhollyHeretic]

95. Most grocery stores sell bags for $1 not $10

They hold a lot more than a paper or plastic bag too. You can get insulated bags for $2-$3 most places as well.

[Kitty Herder]

122. Where?

I'd like to know where they're so cheap, so I can shop there. Everything else must be cheaper, too. I got mine for $15 at Wild Oats. The other grocery stores here don't even carry them.

[WhollyHeretic]

135. You got ripped off then. Wild Oats sells ones for 99 cents

Stop and shop sells bags for a dollar. (I've got a couple of these I've been using for a year+)
Costco sells bags for a dollar.
Trader Joe's sells bags for a dollar. (I've got a couple of these I've been using for 2 years)
Shaws sells bags for a dollar.

I'd give you a bigger list but that's all I shop at. So can the fucking attempt at sarcasm.


http://www.stopandshop.com/stores/


http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=15068

http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/trader-joes-reusable-bags

[Kitty Herder]

144. No fair. The Wild Oats where I got mine

didn't have cheap ones. At least not at the time. I asked.

I live in rural Utah and the grocery stores where I live don't sell such things period. They get really suspicious when I want to use my re-usable bag that I bought in Salt Lake City. So I stopped using it. Didn't want to give a checker or bag-boy a heart attack. Got sick of hearing, "You using that bag to steal stuff?" Anything that might be good for the environment is looked up with high suspicion around here.

Yes, I intend to move as soon as I can. This is my home town and always will be, but I'm tired of people thinking I'm a freak because I care about the environment, eat a vegetarian diet(another thing you can't buy at the stores here: tofu)and support progressive causes. Oh, and I gave up the Mormon church years ago. That makes me satan-spawn.

[rockymountaindem]

198. I got mine for $1.19 or something like that at Shaw's in Boston

They're insulated and they have shoulder straps. Since I don't have a car, I wouldn't be able to carry home nearly as much if I didn't have just two of those bags.

[Gormy Cuss]

112. Or ban them outright, which is what San Francisco and some other cities have done.

Paper bags are no bargain in environmental terms but they hold more groceries effectively (unlike many of the "breaks with two items" plastic bags) and the old standard thickness paper grocery bag can be reused at least a half dozen times. Another benefit is that paper bags don't end up as litter quite as frequently --I don't think that I've ever seen a paper bag caught in overhead wires or dancing along in the wind either.

Bag credits for those who opt out of store-provided paper bags would be a useful tool too. As others have mentioned, a backpack can double as a grocery bag. Not everyone needs reusable bags designated just for groceries.

[skygazer]

69. Whose behavior is it going to change?

The person who can afford to pay for the bags or the person who can't?

Tell me, do you see fewer SUV's on the road than you did 20 years ago when gas was $2 a gallon cheaper? I don't. I see a lot more. The people who have the money to pay for the gas will bitch and moan but they'll still buy that SUV. The people who are hurt are those who couldn't afford the gas - or the bag - in the first place.

[JosephSchmo]

113. it will change everyones behavior

when gas prices rose in the 70's, big American cars lost favor, and the more fuel efficient Japanese cars became popular. Things like the Prius and other super fuel efficient cars would not be around if gas prices were very low. SUV's were a lot more popular when gas was a buck a gallon in 99, the cheapest it had ever been.

A tax on bags will reduce usage, simple as that.

[Two Americas]

155. "free market" thinking

This is right wing free market thinking.

The people whose behavior needs to be changed are the few, the ones with the power to prey on the rest of us and who are amassing wealth at the opublic expense. That is the traditional Democratic party view, in alignment with the historical principles and ideals of the party. It is also the view that has coincided with the greatest electoral success by the party.

Calling for and praising "free market" solutions to social problems is the heart and core of the opposition party philosophy.

[JosephSchmo]

166. Everyone uses grocery bags

Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. You can use as many as you want because they are free (to you). There is a tremendous amount of waste because of this. I used to work in a grocery store and I saw this. You can see this when you see grocery bags floting around in the streets.

It is a problem. Not the most important issue facing us, but it is an issue.

A tax on grocery bags do some help and quick.

Perhaps there are other solutions to this problem, but no one has proposed any, and the tax will work.

It is too bad that there are people who can no longer afford to use grocery bags because of this, but ... they can change their behaviour. They can use reusable bags, they can use less grocery bags. This is a good thing ... for all of us.

I don't know what you mean by free market thinking, its not a conservative liberal thing. I don't think you get to define the Democratic Party and all the leaders of the Democratic Party have benefited greatly from a free market.

In any case, it is the best way to reduce the impact of grocery bags on the environment.

[Two Americas]

170. distorted view

This idea that grocery bags flying around is a problem worth putting any burden or hardship of any kind on people is a distorted view, and yes I will say without reservation that it is contrary to the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party. Not because I "get to define the Democratic Party" but rather because that is supported by the historical record. I don't "get to define" what a rock is either, but if you point to a tree and call it a rock I will challenge that.

What about the people who have been thrown away?

The idea that it is everyday people who need to have their behavior changed to solve a social problem is very much a right wing point of view. I didn't say "conservative" I said right wing - classist and reactionary.

Corporations didn't merely cater to an existing bad character trait in human beings that now is in need of reform - wastefulness - they forced a wasteful life on all of us for the sake of their profits and nothing but their profits.

I agree that "all the leaders of the Democratic Party have benefited greatly from a free market." Quite so. Many are fabulously wealthy thanks to their connections to the big players ion the "free market" economy. That is no doubt precisely the reason that they no longer work for us.

The "free market" folks have a political party that advocates for them already. They don't need two.

[JosephSchmo]

172. grocery bag litter

it is a problem.

From the Davis food co-op (those evil corporate fat cats):
"4 million bags that litter the globe each year."
"it takes 20 to 1,000 years for a plastic bag to break down in the environment."
"choking wildlife that mistake them for food"
"The only true earth-friendly answer is to either reuse the paper and plastic bags we already have or better yet, choose cloth or mesh reusable bags."

Well guess what kind of behaviour this tax will encourage.

You still haven't proposed any other solutions.

[Two Americas]

176. ridiculous

This is not about being for or against plastic bags.

Outlaw the plastic bags. Done. The few - those profiting on the grocery industry - are forced to stop introducing this hazard into our environment; they caused the problem, and it is their worry, their expense. The reason this does not happen, is because their lobbying bucks are more powerful than our votes. Corporate profits trump democracy. Corporate profits trump the environment. The few prosper at the expense of the many. You want to further burden or tax the many, and say "too bad" and "they can just change their behavior" to those for whom it is an excessive burden - the very people who are suffering the most and who are themselves treated as litter - and then call that a solution and claim that there are no other solutions.

[JosephSchmo]

181. So your solution would be to outlaw the plastic bags?

Is this what you are saying or am I misunderstanding you?

[Two Americas]

189. no

You challenged me to come up with my soulution, as though there were no good ones or as if my point was invalidated because I had not offered a solution, so I offered a solution to this problem, as defined by you.

If the problem is plastic bags flying around, eliminate the bags at their source, don't try to legislate behavior modification against the public as though they caused this problem.

But the problem is not as you describe it. The OP was not about plastic bags.

[JosephSchmo]

190. The OP is not about plastic bags, it is about "me"

Plastic bags are a problem that society must deal with. It is not the most pressing problem but it is a problem. The OP is upset because she must bear a burden as society attempts to deal with this problem.

Do you not believe that 4 million bags a year taking up to 1000 years to decompose, is littering our landscape. Surely as a self proclaimed progressive you see this as a problem. If not, there maybe another party more suitable for you.

If you see this is a problem, then what would be a better solution than a tax on grocery bags? Is it a ban on grocery bags or not.

[Junkdrawer]

194. Try between 500 billion and 1 trillion bags per year...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0902_030902_plasticbags.html

[JosephSchmo]

220. I clearly underestimated with the 4 million ...

I think my number came on a per store basis. After a few seconds of thought your number seems a lot more reasonable.

[Junkdrawer]

223. And, at $0.02 per bag, they're a $10 to $20 billion a year industry...

An industry in need of some kind of counter-environmental arguments. Of course, they'll need to test market those arguments.

Hmmmm. Wonder where they'll do that.... :think:

[Two Americas]

201. one of thousands

Plastic bags are one of thousands of problems caused by a completely de-regulated and unfettered private sector, as a result of 30 years of right wing political action and power grabs on behalf of industry and Wall Street.

The only reason that they are problems is because they negatively effect people. Many are harmed for the sole benefit of the few. Therefore, no solution that punishes the powerless is any sort of solution. Asking the least fortunate among us to make the sacrifices is morally wrong, and it is backwards, self-contradictory and contrary to the traditional principles and idelas of the Democratic party.

The "solution" is to regulate industry for the sake of the public welfare, a program for which Democrats once unambiguously stood.

Banning would be better than fining or taxing, yes. The ultimate solution would involve more than that, and I am resisting your attempt to present this as two and only two simplistic choices. The validity of my criticism of your solution is not dependent upon my coming up with an alternative solution that passes muster with you.

[JosephSchmo]

214. a different analysis

"Many are harmed for the sole benefit of the few."
Actually, almost EVERYONE uses plastic bags. It's the whole point of this thread. You don't have to be a millionare to use them, I don't believe you didn't know this.

Real Democrats care about the environment. Plastic bags are a blight on the environment.

"Banning would be better than fining or taxing, yes."

If plastic bags are banned then guess how many plastic bags poor people are going to have? The answer is none. That leaves them worse off then before.

You're response to this environmental problem is to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. Something typically done by Republicans.

[Two Americas]

251. not about bags

The OP is not about bags, nor about the environment.

Here is the topic:

Supposed "progressives" who keep proposing an "ouch" tax on gas, to "encourage" people to conserve. All the poor people I know have cut back to the point they are ready to fall off the edge! Yet, I don't see the Hummers cutting back! Study after study shows that those who use the most are those who would be least likely to "change their behavior".

Yet, "progressives" cling to this punitive shit.

WTF?

[JosephSchmo]

261. Excellent circular arguement

once you see you have no point, you copy paste the OP, like I haven't read it.

Good Job, now you can feel fine about pouring motor oil down the drain.

[Two Americas]

265. circular, yes

I intended to circle back to the topic.

We can talk about environmentally friendly personal lifestyle habits if you like, I am merely pointing out that it is off topic.

I don't understand if you read the OP, and understood it, how pouring motor oil down the drain could be relevant.

[JosephSchmo]

276. It is exactly the topic

The OP is complaining about being forced to change behaviour because of being too poor.

I say that is not an excuse.

I don't care if I saw Bill Gates, the Pope or a a homeless man pouring motor oil down down the drain, I would report them. And I would hope they would get fined. As they should.

I know certain people might have an easier time dealing with motor oil because he is rich and has a mechanic change his oil but that does not excuse anybody else.

Motor oil along with billions of plastic bags floting around along with many other things are some of the problems society must deal with.

If you think being poor excuses you then you have a lot to learn.

[Two Americas]

278. the OP does not agree with you

The OP would be the ultimate authority on what the OP intended to say.

As for the rest of your post, your hostility and lack of compassion are truly alarming.

[bobbolink]

268. You're so very correct, and studies show that those $$$$ with SUVs DON"T CUT BACK

ON CONSUMPTION!

It's only poor folk who are hurt... some lose their jobs, and more... yet these damned limousine and latte drinking liberals can't see that!

:nuke:

[JVS]

70. "Charging a bit extra will make people think about using grocery bags."

Only for those to whom 5 or 10 cents is a big deal. people with money can just pay it without any worries

[Two Americas]

138. your assumption is in error

The OP did not say it was "all about" her. Quite to the contrary.

"Charging a bit extra to make people think" is a very poor substitute for public policy, and we should not deceive ourselves about this. That is exactly what it is intended to be - a replacement, a substitute in people's minds for humane and truly progressive social programs. It is inherently an upper class notion and reinforces the right wing "personal responsibility" propaganda. There is also an authoritarian flavor to it.

"Progressives" and "liberals" - I put those in quotation marks because the modern versions of those bear so little resemblance to what they once were - favor the "carrot" approach to controlling people. Conservatives favor the "stick" approach. In both cases human beings are being thought of and spoken about as though they were dumb animals that need to be controlled.

It is cruel to lecture a poor person about their "options."

[bobbolink]

267. And THIS is the aware and ever so LIBERAL attitude of the current Dems.

:puke:

[Sanctified]

62. I use my grocery bags for garbage bags, I have not bought a Glad bag in 15 years.

If this law spreads to other states which I am sure it will then I am going to have to start buying big bulky Glad Garbage bags. I will also have to buy a lunch box and small baggies for dirty diapers. Shit I am going to have to redo my budget because I am going to have to pay for what used to be free.

[RadioactiveCarrot]

66. Incentives, not penalties

For plastic bags.
We got lucky here, and visited a local store that handed out cloth bags on it's own for free during some special they had over a year ago.
Still using that thing when we can.
But dumping another tax and another penalty on people who're obviously strapped is a bad idea. People not in that spot can't imagine a situation like that and so it's boiled down to just an 'ouch'.

:hug: Bobbolink , good to see your posts again!

[KillCapitalism]

67. This is a bummer bobbo.

You'd think the stores would be able to handle the costs of the bags themselves, but who knows, maybe they're also hurting.

Maybe someone might start a "dime bank," you know something like a donation pot of dimes that people can donate for shoppers who can't afford to pay $.10 a bag. I know I have a whole jar of change that I'd be willing to donate for a good cause like that.

[JanMichael]

68. How about a total flat tax on everybody?

Never. Unless all incomes and wealth are flat too. Then it would make total sense:-)

[amborin]

71. nonsense post

anyone can bring something to the store to use to carry their purchases, even store bags from home that are recycled

we need to save the planet.....do you know how many species die due to plastic bags???? many

the plastic bags are filling up our landfills and take way too long to degrade, they're made with petroleum, etc.......

paper bags are bad too, for many reasons, especially more forests lost

and----there is no "punitive shit"

those who would take a hit would be compensated with tax credits, etc....

[caseycoon]

75. Do you know what HOMELESS means?

They don't have homes to bring a bag FROM. People sleeping in doorways or under bridges don't have nice little shelves to put a bag on! They may go for days without food because they have no money. Not even a nickel or a dime. When they do have a little money they can't AFFORD a reusable bag. They need to eat instead.
And yes a further charge IS 'punitive shit'

[wuushew]

100. the U.S. has a large supply of otherwise useless buildings with plenty of space

[amborin]

109. totally separate issue

we're not talking about the homeless

[knitter4democracy]

204. Yes, we are.

The OP is homeless, so that explains why she's upset about this whole thing. The destitute and homeless will be severely punished by this law, while people who don't care about an extra dime per bag won't change their behavior.

[Two Americas]

236. exactly

That is exactly the problem. The desperate needs of human beings are a "totally separate issue" from various "progressive" causes.

[bobbolink]

270. I'm so glad you're here!! It's so depressing to see the lack of caring!!

:cry:

[bobbolink]

269. Do you know how many poor people are dying because liberals don't give a shit?

MANY!

[taterguy]

73. People too poor to afford cloth bags should just crash librarian conventions

Tell the folks at the entrance to the vendor area that you left your ID badge in your hotel room.

Soon you'll have more tote bags than you can shake a stick at.

[NuttyFluffers]

74. carrot, stick. ideally we should try carrots before sticks. but both must exist.

for carrot i would subsidized supplying reusable bags to "people in need." and considering most reusable grocery bags out there are about $1 total (yes, one whole dollar!) it'll be dirt easy to just start a quick project to help the poor. just supply those who get food stamps with a few, mail it to 'em if necessary, or leave a bin of free reusable grocery bags at the local food pantry.

and then there's just the simple usage of needle and thread on an old t-shirt. many people end up with discarded clothes; raw material for your own cloth bag. so most people, who are nowhere near so desperate that the absence of $1 will destroy them, can easily whip up their own bags without much effort.

but i still believe the stick must exist. help those in need to reach the carrot, sure, but be sure to wield the stick for those without need to be "nudged." freaking out that the stick exists at all is, frankly, illogical. surely we are not so inept that we can think of no carrots...

[varelse]

96. Big problem with this kind of "stick"

it hits the poorest citizens the hardest and does not even register on the pain threshold of the wealthiest consumers.

That is what I'd call a regressive policy, not one I'd expect from progressive activists.

[Two Americas]

180. human beings are not donkeys n/t

...

[bobbolink]

183. Couldn't a said it better me own self!

:) :) :) :) :)

Exactly how poor folk are too often treat, tho, isn't it?

[NuttyFluffers]

222. just look up human psychology and positive/negative reinforcement.

poor people are people, period. i never said anything different.

but all people work within the same parameters of positive/negative reinforcement -- just like most biological life forms. it is an inescapable fact. all i note is that positive reinforcement should accompany this negative reinforcement. there is nothing wrong with that. you have positive reinforcement, with special dispensations (called subsidies) to encourage those who otherwise could not or would not do something. for those who are still resistent you have the follow up negative reinforcement that incurs restitution and pushes people into the same action.

for simplicity purposes these are 'carrot' and 'stick', and no matter your protests otherwise all creatures fall within these 'guiding principles'. you either harness your energies to start thinking about some appliable 'carrots' now or you will continue to receive 'stick' from the powers that be. there is zero escape from this condition throughout the study of human history.

i may hear your petitions, but it's pointless for i have no power over you. you need to petition power, and the best way to do that is offer cheap carrots. anything else will fall on the deaf ears of power. you simply will not find another option outside this paradigm.

[Two Americas]

234. if control is the goal

If controlling people is the goal, then reinforce away.

"You simply will not find another option outside this paradigm."

Agreed. So dump the paradigm.

The issue here is not whether or not people are controllable through positive/negative reinforcement. It is about those who want to control people. Saying that the method "works," so therefore everything is fine is akin to saying that torture is fine if it stops someone from blowing up a building. In fact, I think that this pervasive assumption that politics and government is all about effective ways to control people to get desirable results is the underlying reason that there is any debate in this country about torture, as though there were "two sides" to the issue.

What gets ignored in these discussions is just whom is being controlled by whom, and for whom are the results we get desirable, and who benefits by controlling people.

Describing human beings as just one of many "creatures" that respond to the same punishment-reward controls is authoritarian and anti-humanitarian to the ultimate degree imaginable. You are describing your fellow human beings as though they were pets.

Who is pulling the levers and pushing the buttons to get the subjects to behave in a desirable way? Who are the ones eligible for being controlled in this way? Your paradigm dictates and requires a slave - master relationship to work. Someone controls, someone else is controlled. "For their own good" of course, we are always told.

[NuttyFluffers]

221. "... said the democrat." *snicker*

:dem:

i love unintentional irony, so thank you.

[Le Taz Hot]

76. The re-useable bags cost 94 cents each

AND I get a 5-cent-per-bag credit every time I use one. It took a few months but they actually paid for themselves. You seem to get your panties in a wad for the oddest thing yet ignore other things that are right in front of you -- like classism for instance.

[caseycoon]

77. Geez bobbolink...

You were right a few days ago...
Even here so many just don't get it!
I don't know whether to yell, scream & cuss or to cry!
All of the above, I suppose.

K&R for another great post!

[zanne]

78. If you're not a Progressive, what are you doing here? nt

[Junkdrawer]

79. Installment No. 3 in the "Progressives hate poor people" series...

Installment No. 1:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2795882

Installment No. 2:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2804461

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Ah, all is much clearer now.

Thank you.

[Junkdrawer]

102. As a "progressive", I go to bed each night thinking "How can I screw poor people?"

I thought that no one would catch on that, by opposing the war in Iraq, I was diverting attention from the plight of the homeless. Wrong.

Having been busted on that, I tried again. This time I thought no one, and I mean no one, would have caught on that my opposition to the hundreds of billions of throwaway plastic bags was, in reality, a plot against the poor.

Fool I was.

[U4ikLefty]

107. Uh-oh, it looks like we "progressives" have been found out.

I have been secretly stealing the shoes from the sleeping homeless for years.

I hope I am not exposed.

[Two Americas]

143. eschewing labels?

Questioning the validity of the labels? Suggesting that people's identification with a label doesn't really tell us much about them? Pointing out that the label, and what the label once meant are often diametrically opposed to one another? Challenging our assumptions about what "progressive" means?

Those are some of the legitimate reasons that a person might have for "being here."

"What are you doing here?" - the perennial question from the authorities or those with power leveled at those without power. Well, I was born into this nightmare through no choice of my own, and I think I have as much right to be here as anyone else. I think that people should be presumed innocent and treated with respect, rather than challenged about "what they are doing here?" because their presence makes someone else uncomfortable.

[blindpig]

80. A snapshot of what's wrong with contemporary environmentalism

It has become a plaything of the upper classes. Perhaps it always has been. This is not to say that it is wrong to care about the environment or that folks of little or no means don't cares about the environment. Rather, the options and solutions presented by the environmental movement are weighted heavily towards the sensibilities, capabilities and comfort zone of the well off. Those solutions and options, grossly inadequate to cure what ails us, serve as naught but a balm for the conscience of those that can afford it. Never mind that most proudly live in suburbs, environmental disasters, invest in corporations which fuck over everything in their paths. They shoot off a check for the charismatic megafauna of the month, rally for the creation of parks and preserves, not understanding or possibly not caring that these feelgood measures will not "save" much of anything in the long run.

The environmental movement has stalled precisely because it is classist. The corporatist have taken good advantage of this cynically using class to persuade working folks that environmental concern is an elitists hobby.

Immediate survival is the first priority. When people's needs are met then maybe they might have the time and means to care or work for environmental preservation and restoration. When care is taken with all of the environment and not just "vacation destinations" which can only be reached and afforded by the well off the poor might take the movement more seriously. The environmental movement must come to understand that without economic justice there is no chance for environmental preservation.

[Desertrose]

101. I wish I could recommend this post!!!

You've summed it up perfectly!!


When you can't make ends meet, you can't be concerned with a whole lot else.

[bobbolink]

124. Please encourage the poster to repost this as it's own thread, or at least give you permission to do

so!

REcommending the post wouldn't really get it seen more, but it's own thread... now THAT might garner a few eyeballs.

It's wonderfully written, isn't it??

:hi: :pals:

[varelse]

106. Spot on and well said

"The environmental movement has stalled precisely because it is classist. The corporatist have taken good advantage of this cynically using class to persuade working folks that environmental concern is an elitists hobby. "

I wish this were an OP.

[amborin]

110. environmentalism is not classist at all

your post is full of angry untruths

anyone can show concern for the environment---as simple as turning off all lights and appliances upon leaving a room

you sound bitter and envious

"immediate survival" is selfish and ignorant---does the immediate survival of one person or group come at the expense of the planet?

give me one example of how the "options and solutions" are weighted against the poor?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

193. I beg to differ--and I'm an environmentalist

There's too much "yuppie environmentalism," and its existence is the best weapon against the environmental movement that the conservatives have.

"I use fluorescent bulbs and cloth bags, unlike the unenlightened masses, and I drive a Prius." As if that's all that needs to be done. As if global climate change and environmental degradation would cease if everyone did these things.

It's going to take a complete revolution in a lot of affluent lifestyles to effect real change, not a lot of feel-good half measures or buying the products of greenwashing companies.

Ragging on poor people because they use incandescent light bulbs or plastic bags or drive a beater with poor gas mileage is a sign of cluelessness.

Actually, your typical yuppie who is so proud of having fluorescent light bulbs digs in his heels when you suggest leaving the Prius at home and cycling ("It's too far") or taking public transit ("What if I need the car during the day?" or even "I don't want to") or even paying taxes for public transit or bike paths ("I'm not going to pay taxes for anything I don't use"). They'll build New Urbanist villages in the suburbs (reachable only by car, of course) and let the developers try to impose suburban building patterns on the inner city (tacky big box stores with vast parking lots).

True environmentalism considers all social classes. It cares as much about the poor people whose river has been turned into a toxic waste dump or the mountaineers whose countryside has been turned into a slag heap as they do about whether the residents of some ski resort allow snowmobiles.

[knitter4democracy]

207. What if you don't have lights or appliances?

A lot of people keep lights off simply because they can't afford their electric bills, not for the environment. These same people turn to electric heaters in the winter, though, since their electric bill's better than their gas bill (or their only heat is electric). Ripping on them for using space heaters doesn't take into account that they need their living space warm enough for them to function in and not freeze to death.

The situation posted in the OP is weighted against the poor. To them, ten cents a bag is a lot of money. To the upper middle class and richer, ten cents a bag is nothing. What's another dollar for groceries? Nothing. So, they'll just pay it. When that dollar is a lot of money and the difference between getting a half gallon of milk or a whole gallon or getting fresh fruit or not, then it's weighted against the poor.

The reality is, we need to take care of the poor without making life harder on them. They can't afford it, and if it's a choice between survival and taking care of the Earth, most people will pick survival.

[Two Americas]

243. yes

"They can't afford it, and if it's a choice between survival and taking care of the Earth, most people will pick survival."

Indeed.

What sort of environmentalism is separate from, or even contradictory to human survival?

For whom are we "saving the planet" and why?

How can human beings be seen as dispensable in the quest to save the planet? Obviously, it is not all people who are to be burdened or eliminated in order to "save the planet" - the people who are placing "save the planet" above human beings and the desperate needs of human beings must imagine themselves surviving and enjoying this pristine Earth of the future that they are imagining.

And can there be any doubt that what we have seen expressed right on this very thread is "too bad if some people suffer! We need to save the planet?"

Who is this "we" that gets to make these decisions, who is the "we" who will be enjoying this improved environment, and who is the "they" that are required to suffer for all of this to happen?

If "save the planet" requires sacrificing human beings, there is something seriously wrong with the save the planet program.

[nemo137]

218. Spoken like someone whose immediate survival is not in peril.

You're really going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that the "easy ways to help the planet" aren't weighted against the poor?

Do you not remember the big flap over Elizabeth Edwards not running out and immediately replacing her incandescent bulbs with fluorescents? Well, that argument got turned into a moral pronouncement that all people who do not immediately go out and buy CFL's and immediately replace their old incandescents are fascist Gaia-haters. Nevermind that many people can't afford to be wasteful, can't afford to throw away still-working things, they should rush out and immediately buy the more expensive product as a replacement (yes, I recognize that CFL's save money in the long run, but that's if you can afford to buy them in the short run).

Then there's the issue of increasing gas taxes, which, since they're essentially a sales tax and by their very nature regressive, will hurt the poor person in the Geo Metro rather than the rich one in a Hummer.

There's there's bags issue, which someone upthread has addressed. I'd also like to point out that if your shopping uses 10 plastic bags, that's an extra dollar, which is (and this is by no means an exhaustive list) a bag of tortillas, or a can of soup or ravioli, or a bag of frozen veggies, or (depending on what sales Meijer is having) between 2 and 6 boxes of macaroni, or a few apples, or some soap or toothpaste.

Locally grown and organic produce, too, is often promoted as a way of reducing air pollution (by transportation) and water pollution (by runoff from fields). Some Farmers' Markets and CSA groups are good about this, but for the most part, it's out of reach of the poor. I remember when I was a kid and my mom lost her job, organic veggies were replaced with frozen peas.

Really, I'm just amazed that you can sit there and say with a straight face that the environmentalist movement isn't classist. Especially since your post seems to be saying that poor people should lie down and take it, since their "immediate survival" makes the planet worse.

[bobbolink]

121. You have said so much -- right on target! Please consider making this a thread itself!

I'm series!!!!11111

:hi:

What you have said here is very important, and if the Dems are EVER going to recapture the vote of poor folk, this is a great starting place. Please, consider writing this in a post of it's own!

The problem is we've all hunkered down in our own causes and don't take a wholistic view. Race and ethnic groups are huddled in one corner, gays in another, environmenatlists in yet another, etc., and poor folk most often find the door locked.

NOTHING will really change until we change the process of decisions and consider and include EVERYONE.

I so much appreciate your post... I wish more people were reading and responding to your words!

Thank you! :yourock:

[ProgressIn2008]

151. Exceptional post, thank you.

[supernova]

187. 2nd wish to Rec this post ^^^^

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Everyone one on this thread who is criticizing bobbolink needs to see this!

[knitter4democracy]

206. Wow. Best post I've read in ages around here.

You've really nailed it. I'd never thought of it that way, but you're totally right. Economic justice first, then environmental preservation. People just trying to survive can't work on making the earth better. You're so right. If only there were ways to take care of both at the same time.

[mntleo2]

86. For Poor Folk, If There Is A Fee We Call It

...a regressive tax. Regressive means that for the poor it is just another burden for them to pay something to somebody for a necessity. This means there is no sliding scale, no way for the poor not to pay those fees so if you need your prescription, you just have to pay it ~ or die because you could not afford it. In my state we do not have an income tax, so everything is taxed ... from the places we rent in property taxes to the toilet paper we use, and if we are lucky enough to have a car there are taxes on the tabs, the gas, and now tolls to pay if we have to use that particular route to get to work.

When they "cut" one place for taxes, you can bet they will sneak in a "fee" of some sort into another place. All these "fees" just pile up more heavy burdens on the poor, it is "just" 10 cents to someone who can afford it, but for someone who is poor, 10 cents can mean that, if they are a dime short, they cannot ride the bus to work 1 day before payday. To add the dime for a plastic bag SOUNDS good, but to the poor all it is doing is making it so they have to try to take the bus with 10 things in their hands and they cannot hold the hand of the toddler they took with them (if there IS a bus where they live). As boobolink notes, it will not change a damn thing for the Hummer driver, they could care less if they have to pay an extra dime, it will not affect them anyway.

One day when I was a little girl, I was walking down the road with my grandmother, who grew up so poor in South Dakota, she learned to make or scrounge for just about everything she needed. There was a penny laying on the pavement and I kicked it ~ and this was when a penny at least bought a small piece of candy, I am not sure a penny buys anything now ... My grandmother bent over and picked it up and pocketed it while kindly admonishing me for "treating money badly." I said to her, "Grandma, it is just a penny ..." My grandmother pointed out something important to me that day, she said, "You know if you go into a bank with 99 cents and ask to have it changed to a dollar bill, the bank will not give it to you until you find that last penny, so every penny counts..."

And what Grandma taught me is true to this day. I can walk into any store to buy food for my family with a penny short and they can tell me, "Sorry we will not sell that to you until you come back with the right amount." So thus my family will go without. If I wrote a check and my account was short a penny, it will cost me $20-30.00 in "punishment" because my account did not have enough to cover the check. If I try to pay my car tabs and are a penny short, they will not give it to me, unless they happen to have one laying around to give to me.

To the poor every cent counts, even a dime, as it can mean the difference between starving for the day or getting your needs met.

My 2 cents, which is about all I have ...

Cat In Seattle

P.S. I glare at Hummer drivers and sometimes even yell at them, "Halliburton lover!" or "Soldier killers!" They usually don't get it because they are so into themselves and their "rights" they do not realize that innocents and our kids in Iraq are dying so these clueless idiots can fill their tanks every 10 minutes at the gas station. Because I know laws or fees do not change behavior as much as social disapproval, I figure a little taste of public denunciation is something they deserve to endure if they are going to drive such a gas hog. Try it sometime, it is exhilarating and does not cost a cent!

[bobbolink]

184. Excellent post! I wish you would post this as a thread to itself!

Very important ifno!

[Geek_Girl]

90. I agree I live in a pretty low income area and I see policies that are intended to

improve air quality only financially hurt poor people. Like emission standards for vehicles. I see companies getting away with major air pollution but the burden somehow gets shifted to the poor to solve these environmental problems.

[amborin]

111. that is faulty logic

how does enforcing emission standards hurt poor people?

saving the planet is a collective endeavor....everyone needs to get rid of their spewing junkers....or clean them up....

[wuushew]

114. It compels a repair that would not otherwise impede the functioning of the engine

A faulty O2 sensor must be repaired in order to pass an emissions test.

However a common theme overlooked in these poverty posts is that the externalities of pollution also have a dollar cost. In a city that allowed a lot of NOX or dirty diesel you would invariably have more asthma attacks, premature deaths and worker sick days. Since there is a cost either way, the former choice is preferable to the latter.

[amborin]

146. yes

fewer bad emissions means the air is cleaner for all....

also, i will look for a link, no time now, but there are programs to reimburse those who cannot afford to take the anti-smog steps, in some cities

[Greyhound]

123. And I'm certain you've kicked many tens of thousands of dollars into your local

charity to give poor people new, efficient, low/no emission vehicles. No? then how about we start at the top for a change...
:think::eyes:

[amborin]

147. i have written pols

to allocate more funds for public transportation....for all....not just lower income

and, there are programs to reimburse for fixing polluting vehicles

otherwise.....

environmentalists are as disgusted with hummers and polluters as anyone

[Greyhound]

162. None of which addresses the issue at all.

Most cities in Amerika have no, or next to no, public transportation at all. Those that do have systems so lacking and haphazard that they are useless for the daily necessities of getting back and forth to work, shopping, school, etc. When a 20 minute drive to get to a minimum wage job takes 2 1/2 hours by bus, taking the bus is not a practical alternative.

If we had the will, we could cut the war industry budget in half, devote it to fixing and building the infrastructure, and in 20 or 30 years rebuild transit systems across the country, but that doesn't help the people you advocate punishing at all. So until you and those like you are ready to pony up the billions to replace all those polluting guzzlers, we will have what we have.

ETA; I just noticed that you live in California, ironic that someone living in one of the most horribly deficient states, when it cames to public transportation and has some of the worst problems with burgeoning poverty, thinks it's a good idea to punish the poor even more. Ironic, but not surprising.

[amborin]

175. false accusations

guess you like to attack people and accuse them of things they are not guilty of

no one is advocating punishing anyone

you also make general statements that are untrue....

lots of cities in the US have excellent public transportation systems

and, some parts of California have some good public transportation options, believe it or not

as for burgeoning poverty, let's see some hard data....not just statements that sound great to you

on one thing i do agree: we should have spent the war trillions on US infrastructure and transportation....

[Greyhound]

199. Nobody has accused you of anything, unless you consider pointing out the

consequences of your proposed actions an accusation. You said, "everyone needs to get rid of their spewing junkers....or clean them up....". To which I replied how about starting at the top for a change, and pointed out that the position you advocate hurts the poor terribly for comparatively little benefit.

There are American cities that do have decent public transportation, I live in one of the best, but that doesn't alter the fact that most cities, as in a majority, have terrible transit systems and many have none at all.

To deny that poverty is not rampant and expanding in California is just foolish, so why would I waste my time trying to prove the obvious to someone with no interest in the subject.

[bobbolink]

271. .

:rofl:

:applause:

:yourock:

[Desertrose]

126. Not really. Why not help them replace that" spewing junker"?

Ever occur to you that maybe they would love to replace that junker car...or maybe even have a car in the first place?...or bus money?

If you can't fathom that some folks just barely have enough $$ to get by on a daily basis, I guess you are also unable to imagine that enforcing some of the things that ,yes, although they may be good for the environment, are just not possible financially for so many.

So this is where maybe those who have enough,could step up & help out. But I suppose its easier just to complain, isn't it?

Why don't these giant corporations step up & help out? For that matter, why doesn't our gov't do more to help folks get on their feet instead of condemning the poor by calling them lazy or not worth the effort?

Sometimes the lack of compassion around here is truly staggering.

[amborin]

148. there are programs to do just that

financial rebates to help replace junkers

don't have time to search for the link but will later

you are conflating many issues here......

[bobbolink]

272. .

Must be nice, living in fantasy land....

[Two Americas]

174. yes!

Or support funding for public transportation, and advocate for the restoration of our public transportation system.

It is absurd expecting people to - and then forcing people to - adjust and adapt to one particular lifestyle that is only working for about 10% of the people, the more fortunate ones, and that is all designed to support corporate profits rather than human needs. Most people can not, and many people do not want to become little ideal modern professional suburbanites, and all of those people are suffering.

Millions of people cannot keep up with this rat race, or are smashed off or ground under the wheels of it one way or another. Others have chosen a life that is committed to the needs of others - nurses, eldercare workers, teachers, artists, farmers to name a few - rather than to focus their entire life on "winning" and making the most money they possibly can, and those careers cannot thrive in a "free market" world of having to "sell yourself" or "maximize your profitability."

We are writing off millions of human beings for the sake of a theory about “free markets” and for the sake of the privilege and status of the few. This is mortally unacceptable, as well as foolish and ultimately self-destructive.

I agree with you - sometimes the lack of compassion around here is truly staggering.

[Two Americas]

141. collective endeavor

If saving the planet is a collective endeavor, why are you advocating personal choice solutions that disproportionately punish the poor?

For whom are we saving the planet?

[amborin]

150. you misunderstand colllective

it means changing the micro decision making of all

including the poor

the programs do not disporportionately punish the poor

that is hogwash

there are reimbursement programs....

give me some hard data showing the poor are disproportionately "punished"

[Two Americas]

154. hard data

I don't need to give you hard data, you need to look around and see the evidence - it is everywhere. Fees that are the same for all people are regressive and harm the poor disproportionately - that is not open to dispute. More and more of the tax burden has been shifted to fees - that is not open to dispute, either. Ergo, the burden has been shifted to the poor.

You didn't answer my question - how do you reconcile your notion of collective action with your notion of personal choice? Saying that personal choice leads to collective action is nonsense. Just because everyone tunes into American Idol as a matter of individual personal choice, that does not make it collective action. Steering those personal individual choices with carrots and sticks is not collective action, either. It is the excercise of power over the powerless.

[amborin]

171. sorry, that's not hard data

'looking around' does not produce hard data; rather, it yields anecdotal evidence, that is often not at all representative of what is actually happening in reality

just "looking around" can lead people to all sorts of erroneous conclusions

scientists, including social scientists, do not rely on that kind of evidence

it needs to be systematically collected, etc.....

so I need hard data, for your fees statement also

otherwise---you misunderstand power and collective action

wielding power over someone is forcing them to take a certain course of action

offering carrots or sticks is not holding a gun to someone's head

collective action involves lots of micro decisions by many individuals

[Two Americas]

178. trying again

Let's say you make $100,000 a year, I make $20,000. We both pay the same prices for licenses and taxes on necessities and on utilities. That repersents a higher proportion of my income than it is of yours, and if raised indefinitely will impact my ability to even survive, but not your ability to survive. That is regressive taxation. That is in fact what is happening.

Offering carrots and sticks IS holding a gun to people's heads - quite literally. How do you think laws are enforced? You have led a very sheltered life, apparently.

[amborin]

186. you're a good marxist

and that's good, i admire that!

"from each according to their abiltity, to each, according to their needs"

but we do live in a capitalist society, so for the time being, we need carrots and sticks....what third option do you prefer?

letting people do as they damn please? in all arenas? or just some arenas? and on what basis do you decide? and who gets to decide?

[Two Americas]

188. red-baiting

The only alternative to right wing free market ideas is not "Marxist." That is red-baiting, to dismiss all alternatives to the extreme right wing as Marxism or communism. Red-baiting and McCarthyism have no place in an intelligent discussion.

Progressive taxation has been a standard middle of the road Democratic party position for decades.

[amborin]

192. oh please

how many issues of the Daily Worker have *you* read?

i am unashamed of my positions and i'm not baiting anyone, simply responding to that person's post....they happened to articulate an idea that was straight of out marx

i was not dismissing *all* alternatives....but the poster to whom i was replying was

go back and read, please

[Two Americas]

200. that is a textbook example

I advocated progressive taxation. You called that "Marxist." Why? Do you truly believe that it is?

[amborin]

216. wrong again

i firmly believe in progressive taxation

i also think marx had it right about most aspects of capitalism and historical change, etc....

was not saying progressive taxation was a marxist concept....

simply saying that one sentence of yours was straight out of.....however, i was *not* cricitizing that, as you seemed to think

not sure what you're referring to with 'textbook example'? huh?

[Nevernose]

197. Unintended consequences are at the heart of the entire American judicial system

Unintended consequences are at the heart of the entire American judicial system.

I've been poor. As in "sleeping in the back of my truck and stealing diapers" poor. I've actually done jail time for being unable to pay my bills (regulatory related), which I earned while trying desperately to make ends meet.

My state has some of the biggest legal premiums on driving w/o insurance, for instance. Last time I checked, it was 1200 bucks for a first offense. If a person could afford 1200 dollars, wouldn't they have just bought the insurance to begin with? 99% of the time the answer is "yes." And now they have to pay the fine AND buy the insurance. I know this because, after I wised up and got a college education, I spent a few years in the DA's office helping to prosecute criminals.

In most states, though, the emissions standards issue is rather specious anyway, since the regulations are usually regressive, i.e. older models usually get laxer regulations. And if your older model car isn't up to 15year old standards, well, that's just too bad.

The wealthier one is, the less one has to worry about laws; wealthy people can afford to break them.

[varelse]

275. The wealthier one is, the less one has to worry about laws; wealthy people can afford to break them.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

91. We just elected a progressive govenor in Md who immediately increases the sales tax.

Obviously, he had inherited some fiscal problems but a regressive sales tax increase that mostly hurts the working class does not reflect core democratic party values. He was handled by lobbists who represent the money class. Very disappointing and erodes my enthusism for anyone running now that Edwards has been forced out. My opinion has basically evoled into fuck the ruling class.

[El Pinko]

93. $300 traffic tickets, mandatory insurance, etc. etc.

There are definitely some policies (usually bipartisan backed, but anyway) that disproportionately impact poor folks, but this one seems to be a bit of a stretch.

It's not that hard to hold on to some plastic bags or get some cheap canvas bags - and I'm old enough to remember when there were no plastic grocery bags yet. It was paper or nothing.

I suppose it could be construed as "regressive" assuming there is no other way but to keep getting the plastic bags, but the point is to try and not use them.


If my store charged for them, I would probably still pay because I use them for wastebasket liners...

[dysfunctional press]

152. i'd probably keep using them too- but i wouldn't double-bag so much at the self-checkout...

we use them for all sorts of things- garbage bags, picking up our dog poop, scooping the cat litter, cleaning ashes from the fireplace, general organizing, boot liners in the winter, etc... if they ever stop offering them altogether, once my stockpile was depleted i'd have to back to buying garbage bags, i guess.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Hey, I've got an idea: Let's provide the safety net FIRST

For example, it's true that many poor people are dependent on driving. Why is this so? After all, even running an old beater is a huge financial drain, what with gas, insurance, and repairs.

The problem is that many areas of the country have NO alternative. There are no public transit facilities and no safe routes for bicycles or pedestrians.

So here's what we do: we build the alternatives to the automobile FIRST, using the savings from NOT fighting unnecessary overseas wars or building weapons system for enemies who don't exist. Concentrate the efforts in poor neighborhoods, so that everyone is within walking distance of a dependable bus or train line. Make sure that the bus and train lines are coordinated with one another so that transfers don't take too long. Create bike routes parallel to the arterial streets. Maybe even fund a program where people can trade in their old beaters for mopeds or Vespa-style scooters. (Portland's transit system is so good that I lived happily without a car for ten years, and I personally knew five people who gave up driving during that time.)

THEN raise the gas tax. Even if it doesn't stop the SUV hogs from driving, it will fund the alternatives.

With the grocery bag question, institute a program where community organizations distribute free cloth bags equivalent in capacity to a standard grocery bag. THEN require a deposit on plastic bags, with the proceeds going to food shelves.

But just putting a tax on something without providing alternatives IS a burden on the poor. Here in Minnesota, we have no sales tax on food or clothing, since everyone has to eat and everyone has to wear clothes (especially in Minnesota in the winter!)

[Bjorn Against]

99. The way to deal with the issue is to go after business, not the consumer

There was a time just a couple decades ago in which no place had plastic bags, and people managed to get by just fine with paper. A ten cent fee on anything would probably not stop me (although I have tried to avoid plastic for environmental reasons), and I am not by any means wealthy. I don't think a ten cent a bag fee would have enough of an impact on consumption, and it harms poor people more than anyone else. It is better to just ban plastic bags all together, people got by just fine without plastic bags before and they can get by just fine without them now.

[Elspeth]

105. Yes, but with corporations effectively owning government, that will never happen

.....

[bobbolink]

240. And there it is...... go after the source, rather than the victim!

:applause:

Why is that so hard for other progressives to grasp??

sigh...

Thank you for understanding...

[LeftyMom]

103. I've used reusable bags to buy groceries with food stamps.

The plastic ones would cut into my hands and arms while I carried them on the bus, and sometimes they'd split open and spill shit everywhere before I got home. And some of the stores give a small credit for a reusable bag, which isn't much but it can pay for an extra item or for bus fare home.

Then again, most of my bags cost me a nickel a piece at goodwill, they got a ton of donated extras after some trade show and were pretty much begging people to take them. I also have some I got for free at various events (a couple of trade shows I've gone to for work, the state fair, etc.) Though for travel on the bus or a bike, a backpack works brilliantly for carrying even a fairly heavy load of groceries, and most people have a few lying around (or can pick up a decent used one for almost nothing, since most school kids get a new one every year, needed or not.)

[Gormy Cuss]

120. The cheap plastic bags have always been stupid, IMHO.

They break if more than two weighty items are put into them, so the clerks double bag. I remember when plastic bags first made inroads into the markets in the Boston area. The same volume of groceries that one square bottom paper grocery bag held were now distributed in 3 or more plastic bags, and most stores were trying discourage use of the paper ones because of cost. That's when I started bringing my own canvas bags and backpacks. At that time it was very easy to find them on the cheap at Goodwill because there was so little demand (you're right about the trade show leftovers-- I have a few of those myself.)

[Midlodemocrat]

127. Last year, the VA National Guard donated almost 1000 to the high school.

We used them for post prom prizes and now a bunch of us use them as reusable bags for the grocery store.

[leftofthedial]

104. here in Amurka post-2000

You don't have to worry about progressives or about social change

[undergroundpanther]

115. What does it take to get awareness raised?

In people that DO NOT want their awareness raised?

Take away their fortunate circumstances.
Let poverty be their lot than they will be forced to focus on poverty issues because they ARE poor now.
Sadly that IS what it takes.

Fortunate circumstances BLIND people's empathy
Mildly fortunate circumstances creates such fear and resentment twords the ass they have to kiss to survive,So the fear blinds their empathy to the poor..And their resentment of the well off boss that won't even give them a small raise or a day off,since they cannot let that anger out on the boss they let it out on the poor a target that can't fight back.

That's the problem people allowed by accumulated wealth to insulate themselves from hardship get blinded to it,and begin to believe lies like "since I made it everyone else should be able to too." and this is a lie. But a damn popular and appealing one..

People dominated by an unjust unfair boss or workplace resent the boss or company they spend the majority of their lifetimes at but cannot say their boss is an asshole unless they want to get fired so unable to unleash the anger at the real source they sublimate it and resent the poor.

It's like a dog at the vets office he is scared and pissed for being put in a crate examined by the vet,who basically dominates the dog to give him uncomfortable treatments,the dog knows at the vets office he can't get away with snarling, but at home his owner opens the crate the dog snarls and snaps.Why because the dog sublimated the anger at the vet he could not fight and so he released it on his owner by growling and snapping as the crate was opened..

People one step above the gutter so fear the gutter they lash out at the poor through their fear of being poor,homeless etc.

[bobbolink]

125. You are almost always right on target, panther! You have such an incisive mind.

Oh, how I wish that you were required reading! Is your journal updated with all this? :)

I used to think that it was very important for this society to have a strong muddleclass. I now see that it leads to hardheartedness, ignorance, and just plain greed.

You're right... it will take another huge depression.

And it won't be pretty, but it will cause some conversions...

:( :( :(

Keep preaching it, panther! :hug: :pals:

[wuushew]

128. How do you know that a higher initial grocery cost is not offset by lessened demand for plastic?

Lots of things share the raw material supply chain of plastic.

Have you done a total cost benefit analysis?

I mean if styrofoam coffee cups were banned, one might expect the cost of eggs to drop owing to cheaper packaging. Same principal.

[bobbolink]

136. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Riiight....

Have you ever known a business to actually LOWER prices???

Whatever they "save" would go to their stockholders, not poor folk!

Surely you know that?!

You clearly missed the whole point of what I was saying.... STOP putting the burden of social change on the shoulders of poor folk!

Many in this thread have addressed this eloquently.... I suggest you read their words with an open mind, and understand what we're saying.

[uppityperson]

131. While I understand/agree with the point, I am tired of the broadbrushing.

"BECAUSE muddleclass people never stop to think about anyone besides themselves... it's all about them. They NEVER think what these things do to people who are already on the verge of hunger at all times."

I know you are frustrated and understand why, but drop the all and NEVER stuff as broadbrushing is just wrong. And yes, I do know what is like to be homeless, without a job, and with a small child.

I would like to see the money raised by fees such as this used for the homeless, rather like using taxes raised on tobacco used to fight the issues with tobacco, and alcohol alcohol.

Your link goes to the front page of a newspaper. Here is link to story:http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/08/10-cents-a-bag-surcharge-suggested/

Paper or plastic?

It really doesn't matter because either one might cost you a dime more under a proposal making the rounds at Denver City Hall. An organization called BetterBagsColorado is lobbying the City Council for legislation to charge grocery store shoppers 10 cents for every plastic or paper bag they use to carry their goodies home.

The proposal, which would affect supermarkets with annual revenues of $2 million or more, is intended to help protect the environment by reducing the plastic and paper bags that end up in landfills.

Although in the early stages, the idea is generating resistance from grocers, the plastic industry and at least one councilman.

"We're generally opposed to any new tax or fee on our customers," said lobbyist Chris Howes, president of the Colorado Retail Council, a trade association for national retailers doing business in the state, including grocers. "A lot of the stores are doing some creative things without government mandating that they do anything," he said....(more)

[Two Americas]

145. broad brushing

Why is it that every single group of people in the United States can be "broad brushed" without anyone objecting, except the 10% of people still living something that could remotely be called "middle class?" Why is that group to be given extra consideration? We can talk about poor people, urban people, minority people, fundies, rednecks and use a very broad brush. But upscale professional and educated suburbanites - a small percentage of the population, although extremely dominant in liberalism and the party, and in the upper 10% in household income - especially those who consider themselves to be liberals or progressives and therefore on some higher moral plane than others - for some reason that group is off limits.

[uppityperson]

149. I complain about all sorts of broadbrushing.

I may be uppity but I don't hold with broadbrushing. That is one of the things I do here, talk about broadbrushing when I happen across it.

[Two Americas]

158. that's good

Whom do you think is getting the broad brush here, and how?

I assume that by broad brush, you mean violating this statement:

"You cannot judge the individual by the group, and you cannot judge the group by the indvidual."

[uppityperson]

163. Did you read the quote? Here, once again.

"BECAUSE muddleclass people never stop to think about anyone besides themselves... it's all about them. They NEVER think what these things do to people who are already on the verge of hunger at all times."

Those darn middle-class people who NEVER ever think of anyone but themselves. It's all about them. (See?)

[Two Americas]

165. yes

And I went back and re-read it to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

I think this is a misapplication of the concept of "broad brush," similar to the false concept of "reverse racism."

This not about politeness, it is about power and abuse of power, and further it is about hypocrisy. A slave saying that "the masters are cruel" is not equivalent to a master saying "slaves are stupid." That is because one group has the power to define themselves, and the other group does not. One group controls the game, the other does not. "Middle class" has to do with position and status in society, with a set to attitudes and behaviors, not with people being involuntarily placed within a group and abused as a result.

Poor people are poor as a result of aggressive and greedy behavior by others, as a result of injustice, as a result of callousness and indifference and hypocrisy by others. We are not starting with a level playing field here. The actions of those who are more fortunate are not benign or neutral.

Asking poor people to not paint those who are better off with a broad brush is akin to asking slaves not to paint slave owners with a broad brush. Eliminate slavery and there won't BE any slave owners to offend or paint with a broad brush.

Of course there are exceptions. There were kind and benevolent slave owners, too.

And of course it is true that "muddleclass people never stop to think about anyone besides themselves." If that weren't true there wouldn't BE poor people and muddle class people would have no more worries about being painted with a broad brush and feeling persecuted or offended by the rabble farting at their elegant tea party.

[Junkdrawer]

167. "Of course there are exceptions. There were kind and benevolent slave owners, too."

So if middle class progressives aren't putting down the poor, they can rise to the status of benevolent slave owners.

Wow. That's something to shoot for...

[Two Americas]

202. it is an analogy

I used an analogy, and you misunderstood it.

I did not say that "if middle class progressives aren't putting down the poor, they can rise to the status of benevolent slave owners."

The analogy says the exact opposite of what your statement says.

[KamaAina]

137. My store doesn't even ask "paper or plastic?"

They don't have paper bags. And if I were to try to bring in a reusable bag, like the cloth bag I carry around daily anyway, some goon standing behind a podium at the front door would take it away from me.

So I'm supposed to do what? Ride the bus to another store, instead of walking one block to this one? :eyes:

edit: The best I can do is to reuse the plastic bags to wrap food in, and as trash bags. (sigh)

[bobbolink]

140. Thanks for giving another example of things some aren't able to do.

And, thank you for trying to do what you can.

The lack of understanding here sometimes is amazing.

Always it's painful.


Mahalo,

Bobbie

[earth mom]

153. I'm sorry but I think you are picking a fight with the wrong people here.

There are many people on this board who care deeply about the plight of the homeless and the poor. A 5 or 10 cent tax isn't really the issue IMO. It's that prices are getting so damn high across the board on EVERYTHING. That 5 or 10 cents you are complaining about is already tacked onto that loaf of bread or bag of apples TIMES 10 or 20 from a year ago!!! I went into sticker shock at the grocery store the other day. I could NOT believe the prices. Some items were DOUBLE what they were a year ago! Sorry, but 5 or 10 cents is nothing compared to what the corporate bastards are doing to us all over the map!

For you to come out with a thread like this is just disrespectful to the many people here on DU who have cared about you and others in the same boat and it's simply unfair to take your frustrations out on us. We aren't "barbie dolls". Not by a long shot.

[Two Americas]

156. in defense of the OP

Hi, TheGoldenRule, good to see you.

I think it is really difficult to know whom to trust and whom not to trust, and what people are really saying and where they really stand. I can forgive a person for getting that wrong, because so many people are so deceptive.

We need some proportion and perspective. The slave complaining about and being disrespectful to the master is not equal to the lifetime of abuse and disrespect the slave receives from the master. I think this situation is analogous to that. We have all been trained to eliminate the effect of power and economics from our political thinking, so we see the resistance of the slaves to the master as equivalent to abuse of the slaves by the master.

Any who feel disrespected or broad brushed or persecuted by the OP can solve that quite simply: stop speaking for master. It is attitudes that the OP is challenging, she is not attacking individuals. At the same time, I think it is the attitudes that are being challenged of the people who are objecting to the OP - and they find that uncomfortable and are playing the victim.

I say this as a person whom the OP does not currently trust, but that does not diminish my complete support for her and for her message. I do not blame her for not trusting people.

I don't think Bobbolink was complaining about five or ten cents. I also don't see how one person describing their hardships takes away from another person being able to complain about their hardships.

[bobbolink]

157. And I disagree with you, so there we are.

Poor people have been used as "pets", and I'm not the originator of that sentiment.

We aren't taken seriously.

Look how many people on DU, who consider themselves "progressive", thought Ron Paul was just great.

Only because of his anti-war stance. They didn't even THINK to look at his issues on poverty, which suck.

Look how many "progressives" think it's just great that Clinton stopped welfare for so many women and children, many of whom were then left homeless, and we don't know how many died.

Look how many DUers think a higher tax on gas is a great idea!

I could go on and on... there is a lot of ignorance, and you can look down your nose at me all you want, get angry and throw things, but that won't change the ignorance, and the resulting pain to poor folk.

[Two Americas]

159. I agree with you

I completely agree with you about this.

[earth mom]

164. I don't look down my nose at you.

Actually, I sneer at Hillary & Obama supporters because I know for damn sure that H & O will forget about the middle class, the working class, the poor and the homeless the minute one of them gets in office.

When Bill was in office, my husband and I were not better off and it got worse every year. The ONLY reason we are doing better now is that my husband lucked into a good but rare union job 3.5 years ago. We know what it's like to be on the edge of homelessness and having to pawn and then lose everything we owned of value to get a place to live. We've been ripped off by the payday loan places more times than I care to count because we had no where else to turn. I could go on, but I think you get what I'm saying.

My point is that most of us are close to the edge. Closer than any of us ever think. I know this because I've been there more than once. But I save my rage and frustration for the thoughtless self absorbed rethuglicans, the DINOs and the corporations who've got us all by throat and don't give a damn. I just can't be angry at people here who aren't part of the problem. The Hillary & Obama supporters-yes. The rest of us-no.

[Two Americas]

168. we have all been influenced I think

I think all of us have had our thinking corrupted by the right wing propaganda on this.

I also think we have as many enemies within the gates as we do without. I do think that we are being "wounded in the house of our friends" and subject to divide and conquer tactics. The obvious enemy could be easily defeated if only our friends were not holding our arms behind our backs, you know? So I think it is powerful and constructive to look at this.

[bobbolink]

230. To believe that "progressives" aren't sometimes "part of the problem" is denial

that keeps the problem going on.

Someone else wrote how environmentalists are insensitive to issues of poverty. They consider themselves "progressives", yet are ignorant of how they are hurting poor folk. We're supposed to just turn the other way, because they aren't RW, or DINOs? Yet, then we expect poor folk to keep voting for us? Keep trusting us?

What I'm saying may not be comfortable to you, but it's the truth.

[Junkdrawer]

160. Aww...can't the OP stir up a little trouble between the poor and the "progressive" middle class?

After all, I can't think of any other factors keeping the poor down other than the dwindling "progressive" middle class. Can you?

[Two Americas]

250. I now believe that this is true

You say that you "can't think of any other factors keeping the poor down other than the dwindling 'progressive' middle class."

I think that is true. Of course it is easy to see that the Republican party, actually their wealthy and powerful masters, are directly causing much suffering. But that class of people has always been around, and probably always will be, and their program and goals never change. They seek to be the lords and masters with all of the rest of us being peasants or slaves. What is different today is that we are being wounded in the house of our friends. We are unable to fight back against the bullies, against the wealthy and powerful masters, because our own supposed friends are holding our arms behind our backs to "help" us, and are urging caution and compromise and submission while they themselves promote the very ideas of rugged individualism, of punishment/reward, of hierarchy and aristocracy that are at the core of the program of our overt and obvious enemies.

So yes, I believe that the "resolute enemy within the gate" as FDR called them, represent the group most responsible for the desperate conditions that so many of our people are sliding toward.

[apocalypsehow]

161. Excellent post. You are quite right.

[bobbolink]

177. Thank you, apocalysehow, and Welcome To DU!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

There are so many who are threatened by the thought that we can actually criticize our own, and yet for years now we have derided the RW for their lockstep mindset.

Confuddling, isn't it?

My priority is poor folk first, and the party comes after that.

If the party, and the "progressives" can't FIRST take into account how their proposals will affect those on the bottom rung, then they need to be brought up short.

Thanks for your reply!

[eleny]

185. Just a follow up to let you know

I wrote to the Better Bags group yesterday and asked if there was any move to get free reusable bags to people who couldn't purchase one. I got a note back a minute ago letting me know that one of the group members is trying to create a non-profit group along those lines. And they're going to try and get the stores to use some fee they get to subsidize reusable bags for low and fixed income people.

I replied with thanks and also suggested that they give away a free pattern or instructions for people who sew at home. They could do that via their website.

Thanks for the heads up on this issue, b. Please take care of yourself.

[bobbolink]

211. Thank you for having the gumption to actually take this and DO something with it!

Most people would rather bark at me and just take matters into their own hands like you have done, and I appreciate this soooo much!

:yourock: :pals: :yourock:

NOW... I want you to think of this.... I'm living in my car, as are many people. I lose things all the time. I really can't be sure that I would always know *where* the "reusable" bag is... do you know what I mean? I really don't see why I should be penalized in this way. I'm doing the best I can with what I have.

I mean, damn it, I even keep stomping on plastic bottles and keeping them floating around in my car until I can get to a recycle place. I gather up torn plastic bags and put them in the recycle bins (I notice both King Soops and Safeway now do this!)

I do what I can, but my survival is right on the edge. Should I be penalized???

Again, thank you for taking action! I hope you will also let them know just how scary some peoples' situations really are!

[apocalypsehow]

196. Thank you for your warm welcome, poverty is an issue

very important to me. That's why I was so disappointed when Senator Edwards dropped out of the race. I hope to see the remaining two candidates continue to pick up that mantle - and be sincere about it.

Yes, my priority is poor folk, too, and I think we've been guilty, as a party, of not paying as much attention to poverty as we should have. Certainly much better than the Republicans, but that's not really saying much, is it? I am exactly on the same wavelength with your post on this - it is so important to our soul as a party.

Again, thank you for your warm welcome! It is truly appreciated.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

195. 100% right

Many up scale grocerie stores even have curb service..

[smalll]

208. 100% Right. People also need to realize how USEFUL plastic bags are for a lot of people -

I use them a lot myself. Live in an apartment building, don't generate much trash, my supermarket plastic bags serve perfectly well as garbage bags for me. Need to carry something when going somehere? Nothing easier than a plastic bag. Need something to wrap lunch in? Plastic bag.

Need to go out to work or eleswhere carrying things, and it's raining, or threatens to rain? I'll put all the things I need in my backpack as usual, but TIE THEM UP in platic bags first -- the backpack can get wet, but the plastic bags will keep all the items inside it dry.

Or if it's raining, I'll wrap my debit card and metrocard(public transportation card) in a plastic bag before leaving, to make sure they don't get wet. A loose plastic bag in your pocket is also useful if it has been raining and it's wet outside -- then you can sit at the busstop even though the seats will be wet -- just sit on the plastic bag!

[demgurl]

209. I think this tax idea is on the right track.

I do think that blaming progressives for something that may not have even entered their mind is a bit drastic. If you have not lived without then you do not even comprehend that some people can not afford an extra $.30 - $.40.

I think most progressives are really working on how to get attention on the environment when the government will not even admit there is such a thing as global warming. If progressives even thought it would hurt people then they would try to find another option.

Most stores, these days, have cards and built in reward programs. Perhaps, instead of charging for the bags, stores could go ahead and be able to record, on your card, when you reuse bags rather than getting new ones. Each time you do this points could accumulate for prizes, rebates and such. A local store already does something to that effect. This way the people who can not afford to pay for bags are not. And people who can afford to recycle are rewarded for doing so.

Would that be an acceptable compromise for this problem or have I missed anything?

You know, I brought up a REALLY stupid tax idea a while back. I was met with understanding and caring folks who gently explained to me how it would effect the poor and how it would hurt them. I had had no idea and I was thankful they took the time to explain it to me in a fashion even I could understand. Shortly after that I read "Nickled and Dimed" and that truly changed my view. A lot of people do not honestly understand where you are coming from but most are on this board because they do care. A little understanding on both sides can go a long way in working together for a solution that benefits us all. It can be a frustrating process but well worth it in the end.

[Rex]

210. Never, no other group is as defenseless as the poor.

The poor are considered a renewable source of energy to the rich and the middle class never thinks of them until they seem poor people begging for money on the side of the road.

It is easy to kick someone that stays down on the ground.

[Jennicut]

213. How about getting rid of plastic bags all together?

Maybe if well all just used paper bags and we could recycle them? I reuse the platic bags for lots of things but eventually they do have to be thrown away. Or if all grocery stores had to give some out for free. I think a gasoline tax is much worse as it hurts the poor. A carbon tax is a better idea as it goes after actual big polluters. We just don't have any other means of running our transportation here in the U.S. right now that is affordable or transportation made for different kinds of fuel that is affordable. I do think that some progressives are trying to make changes but don't realize thy hurt the poorest people. I have been poor but never so poor as to be homeless. I have always had a great family to help me as well so I am lucky but I understand your anger bobbolink. It is unfair but maybe something can be done with regards to some of these issues that don't penalize poor people the most.

[martymar64]

219. Right on Bobbo!

I agree with every thing you say on this thread. A lot of people don't realize that small things that wouldn't affect the affluent can have huge effects on those of us that are struggling.
We're being nickeled and dimed to death in this country. The smugness of limousine liberals is just as bad as the wilfull ignorance of compassionate conservatism.
I have a friend that was homeless for a year and a half even though he had a fulltime job. He recently found a place to live and I'm very happy for him. It was starting to cause a deterioration in his health. I hope your keeping well, I've been thinking about you a lot this past week.

[bobbolink]

241. Thank you, martymar64!! "he smugness of limousine liberals is just as bad as the wilfull ignorance

of compassionate conservatism".

So very right, but many will deny it til the bitter end.

EVERY issue trumps poverty.... environment, war, and others I can't mention without getting kicked even more.

Yet, those limosine liberals can't understand why the Dem party has been shrinking...

WEll, DUH!

Thanks for your kind thoughts!!

:pals:

[Horse with no Name]

225. The poor cannot afford lobbyists

Therefore, they have no voice in Washington.
That is it in a nutshell.
They aren't valuable politically and they aren't valuable as possible financial contributors. Many are homeless and can't even vote.
That is why they stay "invisible".
I find it amazing that many are upset about the subprime mortgage crisis and the people who will be losing their homes(read into this--people who have jobs, can vote, who CAN be valuable politically)...but care very little for the people who LOST their homes before this happened.
I am so sorry for your struggles.
I cannot say that I have been "poor", but I have been a paycheck away from losing everything I own more than once and for the grace of God I was able to hang on to the edge and didn't fall off.
Thank you for keeping this topic alive in these forums.

[Zorra]

231. "Motivated By A Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags"

snip--
In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.

Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[Junkdrawer]

233. Heresy! Are you trying to kill the $10 billion a year plastic bag industry...er.. I mean...

Are you trying to punish the poor who cannot afford the bags?????

[bobbolink]

242. Your hatred of poor folk is truly amazing.

It earns you a hit of the red marker...

[Junkdrawer]

244. Please...red smudges on my limousine! What would Buffy say...n/t

[Zorra]

273. "Ya might be a redneck if yer porch collapses and four dogs get kilt."

;-)

[knitter4democracy]

245. How many could afford fur or dogs?

What a ridiculous statement, that they became socially unacceptable. Only those with enough money to play the game can work on being socially acceptable. Man, it's awesome that those poor people feel shamed into not wearing fur or now using plastic bags. :eyes: I hope groups have made them available to those who cannot afford the bags, but then, Ireland has a long history of taking care of the least of these while we don't.

[Politicub]

239. Great post!

A real progressive way to approach this would be to provide the reusable bags to everyone in a city, and not require that they buy them.

[Two Americas]

252. it is not about bags

The OP is not about bags. Here is the topic:

"WHEN will 'progressives' stop dumping social change on the shoulders of poor folk????"

The bags situation is merely an example - one example among hundreds.

Nor is it a slam against all progressives, as some have claimed. The word "progressives" is in quotation marks for a reason - meaning "so called progressives" or "self proclaimed progressives" for example. Bobbolink is talking about people who self-identify as progressives, yet have a very reactionary and inhumane stance toward the poor, as she explained quite clearly. That means that the criticism only fits the ones it fits and is not prejudicial, nor is it a "broad brush" smear.

Nor is bobbolink complaining her own situation. Not once in the post does she even mention herself! All poor people - that is what bobbolink is talking about, and not really about them but rather about the way others treat poor people.

So it is not all progressives who being criticized, it is some, and it is made quite clear exactly which ones - as defined by their behavior and attitudes, which is a perfectly legitimate way to group people. "Those who watch TV 6 hours a day, but claim to be against watching TV" for example. Those would be the "hypocritical critics of television watching." It would not be a broad brushed smear against ALL critics of television watching, would it?

This should be obvious simply by the fact that most progressives responding on this thread were not offended by the OP, nor angry or hostile to the OP.

The OP did not ask for help, nor for a solution to the bag problem. The OP is talking about attitudes toward the poor, and people supporting programs that hurt the poor. It is about those better off people, especially the ones who claim to be "progressives" - they are the ones with the problem that needs solving, they are the ones who need fixing, not the poor people.

[bobbolink]

264. I wish that people could hear you. I wish they could hear me.

It really is a simple concept.

Yet, they wonder why I get so furious when a simple concept is so consistently missed.

:(

[pitohui]

257. delete more stupid double posts EOM

,

[pitohui]

258. seriously, have you ever met a homeless person?

i'm starting to smell a put-on, maybe i was just an unusually resourceful homeless person in my day, but what is to stop you from looking in the dumpster and grabbing a few plastic bags and bringing them along to save the 10 cents bag charge

you assume that poor people are absolutely helpless and stupid and unable to do even the tiniest thing to help themselves, even acquire a 10 cent bag without paying for it, i assure you that this is not the case and it's even a little bit insulting

[caseycoon]

274. Perhaps if you were reading this with any understanding

you would see that the subjuect isn't actually the bags, but the total lack of thought the majority of people, even progressives, give to the plight of the poor. It seems to be extremely difficult for them to understand that even an amount as small as a dime can mean no milk for your child, no food for the day. Each & every seemingly small thing such as the bag charge or many other 'good' ideas they come up with can have a huge impact on the poor. It never occurs to them.
Yes, the OP has met a great many homeless people. She IS homeless.

[Horse with no Name]

277. Yeah everyone wants to put their groceries in a bag that

someone threw their used Kotex away in.:sarcasm:

[Mojorabbit]

260. Well

this is a good reason to ban them altogether.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2853348
It would be nice to have some free reusable ones available to those who cannot afford them