There are liberals and elitist liberals.

[C......N......C]

Liberals can relate to the post about being broke. Liberal elitist can relate to their friends that can relate to the post about being broke. Being broke is not having less money than someone else, it is having no extra money and losing more things everyday. Not all poor or broke people are liberals. The great success of the Rethuglican propaganda is that they have a lot of poor broke people thinking it shameful to expect help.

[kestrel91316]

1. Subject-verb agreement: "elitistS". This has been a public service announcement

from the grammar police.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[originalpckelly]

4. Elists liberals?

No, liberal is the noun, and elitist is the adjective.

It has become popular to use liberal to describe a person, not a noun. The liberal elitists is what you're thinking of. In that case liberal serves as an adjective and modifies the noun elitists, and elitists must agree with the verb.

[kestrel91316]

49. I was referring to a later sentence in the post. "Liberal elitist"

was used when the plural should have been.

I always got straight A's in english. I notice these things, lol.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. and they have a lot of poor people who will happily vote themselves into the poorhouse,

or into a dictatorship, so long as gays can't get married and women can't make their own health decisions.

[C......N......C]

3. The success of the Rethugs is real.

[HillbillyBob]

8. My partner and I have been asking/wondering about how

folks who ain't got a pot to piss in have the time to worry about how us having a fair legal shake affects them or why they vote against their better interests.
Are they really that fucking stupid?!
Oh and contrary to rpig yammer pernts ..we are just as po as everyone else but since we are not a 'real' family we cannot depend on any kind of help when both of us lose our jobs, and with me now on a small disability payment,the ssd excuse? I don't have family to support so don't 'need' as much as a straight man would to survive on. I guess my share of house hold expenses, food, gas, medical care, etc are cheaper somehow than for a straight persons.
Actually we have cut expenses to the bone, if I don't get some new thrift store clothes soon I'm gonna be nekid...

[C......N......C]

9. Its the better dead than red mind set that is narrow minded and blindly focused.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. and just because you have personally never been homeless doesnt make you an elitist

bah. these posts deliberately try to drive a wedge between people for no good reason.

[C......N......C]

85. and you threaten their guns. They will vote blindly giving up any chance for hope

to protect their guns also.

[stillcool]

5. and there are a lot of poor people...

who get government assistance, but they don't want anyone they don't like to get assistance. They're worried about their take. I, me and mine.

[C......N......C]

6. I have heard the poor getting on other poor. Unbelievable.

[stillcool]

7. We're all pretty much poor..

to varying degrees. If you pay a mortgage, and have to get a paycheck every week to survive...are you 'rich'? I don't think so. Divide and conquer is an excellent strategy to keep the little people fighting amongst themselves, rather than direct their anger to the source. But then again, they say everybody needs their own dog to kick.

[hfojvt]

17. what if you don't pay a mortgage, and could live 6 months without paychecks?

Does that make you non-poor?

And where is the division? Is it in the way $15,000 people feel about $150,000 people? Or is it in the way that $150,000 people feel about $15,000 people?

You seem to blame it on the $15,000 people who are so silly as to think that $150,000 a year is rich.

[C......N......C]

30. The difference is between recognizing first line help and the

things that are good for you in the long term. I have been to informal democratic gatherings where the poor issue has been discussed in long term solutions. Poor people need help today. Children suffer today because of high electricity costs, high helath care cost, high gasoline cost, high food cost, and high childcare cost. And now they are talking about dropping the health care program. Giving billions to people who squandered trillions will not help these people today. And remember, there is no guarantee these plans will work, just the thought that they might work is where the support comes from. Everyone is willing to take any chance or risk to get the stock prices back up. That is a risk. Given the state of the country that does not make hardly anything to sell, a country that is mostly a service economy I see a risk of another failure as grater than the chance of success. But a lot of high level people would still make out very well. If the poor were helped instead, that would be money directly infused into the economy. Job and training programs would be a better payoff. Those 401's and other assets could be purchased out right and guaranteed based on the success of a working USA.

[stillcool]

51. If you don't own property...

and are not self-sustaining I don't know how you can be considered 'rich'. At least not in terms of the rich and super-rich in this country, who inherit their wealth, and make money off their money.

[hfojvt]

56. it's very easy

rich does not mean "self sustaining" or "able to live off of your wealth".

My desk dictionary does a poor job of defining it, but the old unabridged dictionary says "having wealth or great possessions, abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds"

abundant says "present in great quantity: more than adequate: oversufficient"

thus, if families can live on $30,000 a year, and approximately 30% of them do in this country, then those who make $120,000 are "abundantly supplied with funds".

It does depend on a perspective. From the perspective of a guy making $400,000 or $1.5 million, then $120,000 is a severe hardship. But since there are only about 2% of families making over $250,000, I don't see why their perspective, which is not shared by the vast majority of Americans, should be considered the default or true perspective when it comes to defining terms. Making more money than 90% of the country fits the dictionary definition of rich. Defining it upward just helps to justify the greed of people who already have a lot, but still want more.

There's never gonna be enough for the under $30,000 crowd if the $60,000 - $100,000 crowd is all saying "more for me! more for me!"

[stillcool]

59. I got my definition..

from Ferdinand Lundberg's book "The Rich and the Super-Rich" in which he defines wealth in this country. He has some really interesting findings, about the 2%'ers like the DuPont's the Rockefellers, the Mellons, etc., and the category of wealth just below them, new wealth..that can never quite make it to the top, and then the rest of us. If you're interested in his findings the book is available for free down-load because of it's copyright expiration..(it was published in 1968) here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/
Here's a few excerpts..

Poverty Defined

For my part, I would say that anyone who does not own a fairly substantial amount of income-producing property or does not receive an earned income sufficiently large to make substantial regular savings or does not hold a well-paid securely tenured job is poor. He may be healthy, handsome and a delight to his friends--but he is poor. By this standard at least 70 per cent of Americans are certainly poor, although not all of these by any means are destitute or poverty-stricken. But, as was shown in the 1930's, Americans can become destitute overnight if deprived of their jobs, a strong support to mindless conformity. As a matter of fact, many persons in rather well-paid jobs, even executives, from time to time find themselves jobless owing to job discontinuance by reason of mergers, technical innovation or plant removal. Unable to get new jobs, they suddenly discover, to their amazement, that they are really poor, and they also discover by harsh experience to what specific conditions the word "poverty" refers. And even many of those who never lose their jobs often discover in medical and similar emergencies that they are as helpless as wandering beggars. They are, in fact, poor. In such eventualities the man of property is evidently in a different position. He is definitely not poor. And this is all I say.
*****************
What I term super-wealth is prominently, although not completely, represented on this list. Super-wealth simply consists of a very large generic fortune that may or may not be split into several parts. It has other characteristics: First, it generally controls and revolves around one or more important banks. It absolutely controls or has a controlling ownership stake in from one to three or more of the largest industrial corporations. It has established and controls through the family one to three or four or more super foundations designed to achieve a variety of stated worthy purposes as well as confer vast industrial control through stock ownership and extend patronage-influence over wide areas. It has established or principally supports one or several major universities or leading polytechnic institutes. It is a constant heavy political contributor, invariably to the Republican Party, the political projection of super-wealth, It has extremely heavy property holdings abroad so that national, foreign and military policy is of particular interest to it. And it has vast indirect popular cultural influence because of the huge amount of advertising its corporations place in the mass media.

Critics mistakenly blame a shadowy entity called "Madison Avenue" for the culturally stultifying quality as well as intrusiveness of most advertising. But here it should be noticed that Madison Avenue can produce only what is approved by its clients, the big corporations. If these latter ordered Elizabethan verse, Greek drama and great pictorial art, Madison Avenue would supply them with alacrity.

Beyond this, the dependence upon corporate advertising of the mass media--newspapers, magazines, radio and television--makes them editorially subservient, without in any way being prompted, to points of view known or thought to be favored by the big property owners. Sometimes, of course, as the record abundantly shows, they have been prompted and even coerced to alter attitudes. But the willing subservience shows itself most generally, apart from specific acts of omission or commission, in an easy blandness on the part of the mass media toward serious social problems. These are all treated, when treated at all, as part of a diverting kaleidoscopic spectacle, the modern Roman circus of tele-communication. As Professor J. Kenneth Galbraith aptly remarked, in the United States it is a case of the bland leading the bland. No doubt it would be bad for trade if there was serious stress on the problematic side of affairs. It would disturb "confidence."

[hfojvt]

60. sorry, that is a horrible definition of poor even if he did manage to publish

it's kind of an insult to the truly poor to compare the upper middle class to them and try to distinguish between poor and destitute, which most people use as synonyms.

Consider this stupidity

"But, as was shown in the 1930's, Americans can become destitute overnight if deprived of their jobs, a strong support to mindless conformity. As a matter of fact, many persons in rather well-paid jobs, even executives, from time to time find themselves jobless owing to job discontinuance by reason of mergers, technical innovation or plant removal. Unable to get new jobs, they suddenly discover, to their amazement, that they are really poor, and they also discover by harsh experience to what specific conditions the word "poverty" refers."

Just because somebody can become poor does not mean they currently are poor. Yes, I could become poor in any number of ways, and yes those things really do happen to many people in this country. I could also be killed or paralyzed in an accident today as will happen to about 300 people today if this is an average day. It doesn't mean we are all dead now just because we don't have a 100% chance of not dying today any more than we are all poor now because we don't have a 100% chance of not falling into poverty today.

The fact that we can lose our jobs should also be a strong support to savings accounts.

It does not help the poor or those in the bottom quintile to define everyone except the top 5% as "poor" and it's not accurate to common language usage either.

[stillcool]

83. II guess it depends on what you are comparing..

If you are comparing the poor to the middle class via government guidelines..then being destitute is your definition of poor. This book addresses inherited wealth, and how it controls government, industry and finance, why there is such income disparity, and why that is not likely to change. There is an awful lot of information in the book that backs up what the author has to say. I'm probably doing a poor job of expressing his findings..or maybe it's not your cup of tea.

[hfojvt]

97. it's one thing to talk about the power of the super-rich

it's another to say that people making $90,000 a year are poor just because they are not super-rich. Most people do not make a distinction between destitute and poor. The ones who do are the upgraders. Those who want to define the poor as destitute and the middle class as poor and the upper middle class as middle class. I still do not find those upgraded definitions either accurate, nor are they things that will help the poor or the working class.

[Hannah Bell]

105. here's what i took issue with:

"There's never gonna be enough for the under $30,000 crowd if the $60,000 - $100,000 crowd is all saying "more for me! more for me!""

you frame this as though people making $60-$100K are:

1. taking most of a limited supply of money
2. responsible for the distribution of income.

it's ludicrous.

[Boojatta]

89. Thank you.

Just because somebody can become poor does not mean they currently are poor. Yes, I could become poor in any number of ways, and yes those things really do happen to many people in this country. I could also be killed or paralyzed in an accident today as will happen to about 300 people today if this is an average day. It doesn't mean we are all dead now just because we don't have a 100% chance of not dying today any more than we are all poor now because we don't have a 100% chance of not falling into poverty today.

I appreciate that it consumed some energy for you to write that because I'm losing the motivation to write that kind of thing. I suspect that a lot of things posted on the board are rationalizations slapped together without much thought.

[Hannah Bell]

69. the folks making $60-$100K taking all the money are why the poor are poor?

& they're "rich"?

ludicrous.

by your definition, someone living in a cardboard shack is "rich" v. someone sleeping under a bridge.

Rich = degree of control over income-producing assets: money, property, & labor.

Someone making $60K as a wage slave is just like you with a bigger cardboard box.

[hfojvt]

96. rich means "more than most people"

Not far, far, far more than most people, although even that would work for families making $150,000.

I still say it is bogus to restrict 'rich' to only the super-duper rich, and yes, even the upper middle class looks pretty rich from the middle of the bottom quintile.

Look at income distribution. In 2005, the top 5% got 22.2% of the income. That's up from the 16.6% they got in 1970. Still, that leaves 77.8% for the bottom 95%. The top 20% got 50.4% of the income. Leaving only 49.6% for the bottom 80%. The 6-20% richest people got 28.2% of the income. That's a larger share than the top 5% got. The next 20% got income about equal to its numbers 23% of the income. Still, that's 73.4% of the income for the top 40%, leaving only 26.6% for the bottom 60%.

The income level for the top 6-20% in 2001 was $83,500 - $150,499. That has gone up by quite a bit. I just looked it up for 2007, it was $100,000 - $177,000. Well $60-100,000 would fit part of that range for 2001.

A home is much more than a cardboard box, and a nice home even more so.

[Hannah Bell]

99. The *actually* rich people don't show up on income distribution stats taken from census data.

They *control,* *create,* & *manage* the money supply,
they don't just take a share of it.

They *employ* the people making $150K.

Your definition of *rich* = "someone who has more money
than me."  It's nonsense. You may think they're rich,
& they may too, but they're not.

Most of the income analyses you'll run across are from census
data.  They deliberately don't even try to analyze income over
a certain cap (I forget what it is, maybe something like
$250K).  It's worthless.

This is from the Congressional Budget Office, which is
somewhat better, but still misses much of the super-rich:
household data, not individuals.  Quintiles 2-4 roughly =
"middle class".  These are averages, not lower &
upper limits of the quintiles.  70K = upper middle.  Barely.


                                 2003 
                   Million       average income
Income Quintile    households    Pre-tax    Post-tax

Lowest Quintile    23.0          14,800     14,100 

Second Quintile    21.6          34,100     30,800 
Middle Quintile    22.4          51,900     44,800
Fourth Quintile    21.8          77,300     63,600 

Highest Quintile   22.8         184,500    138,500 

Top 10%            11.5          260,000   190,400 

Top 5%              5.8          377,300   270,200 

Top 1%              1.1        1,022,400   701,500 

All Quintiles     112.1          71,900     57,700 
(average)


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/12-29-FedTaxRates.pdf

[hfojvt]

100. that would be a ridiculous definition, but it's not what I said

I make $13-16,000 a year. Do I think that somebody who makes $18,000 or $26,000 a year is rich? Of course not. Somebody who makes $80,000 a year does not just "make more money than me" they make more money than 70% of U.S. households, and they make 5 times what I make. Still, they are "only" upper middle class, but rich "compared to me".

Get up to $100,000 or $150,000 and you make more money than 80% or 85% of U.S. households.

What you call "rich" I call the super-duper rich. I don't give any cover to people who make $180,000 a year and whine "I am not rich" with the sub-text (I need a tax cut. I need more income.) So they love to define "rich" = "super-duper rich", because especially in politics, it is all about the middle class, and "hey, that's me too, I am middle class."

[Hannah Bell]

103. 80K = a household of two working parents making $40K each. Not rich.

They're working people who make more money than you, not carefree "rich" people.

I don't know if you live alone or with a child or what, but if you live alone & made $22K more, would you consider yourself "rich"? I seriously doubt it. I think you'd feel more secure, but not rich.

I understand why, from the vantage point of <$20K, it might look like a household getting $80K is rich, but the fact is, they're not. I can understand why complaints about taxes would gripe you when after taxes they make more than you do before, but it's still about 1/4 of their gross off the top to a family making only about $30K more than median household income.

Their somewhat higher income isn't the cause of your somewhat lower one, it's the symptom. Fighting over how to divide a dwindling pot isn't good politics, & neither is scapegoating people who are only somewhat better off than you, & can very easily become you. Anymore than when those people scapegoat *you* as lazy or unskilled on the basis of *your* income.

That works out well for the *actually* rich - they found lots of people who were glad to help them take down autoworkers, for example - because autoworkers "make too much money".

See if that approach does anything to raise *your* wages or get *you* a better job.

They found plenty of people to help them cut state benefits, because those people "needed to be forced to get jobs". The upper-middle class is now finding out how worthless that approach was in reducing their taxes.

But the actually rich love it when the little folk fight amongst themselves over money. They use it to their advantage, playing one against the other to bring everyone down.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. Especially the southern states that get so much state welfare - bitching about a handufl

of illegal immigrants in the north east, who might - only might - be getting welfare.

[Believing Is Art]

10. Republican success is stroking egos

If you're filthy rich, it's because you are brilliant and you deserve it. If you're flat-out broke, it's because the government has interfered and suppressed your talent. The Republicans have convinced all their followers that they're Atlases, even when they're usually not.

[Reform]

11. there is also

NeoLiberalism

[StreetKnowledge]

12. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping others.

Unfortunately, in the United States, nobody gives two shits about helping anybody else. I, me and mine. And those pigs at the GOP have just added to the maelstrom. Don't focus on voting someone in who will better your life, because that person isn't a God-fearing moron like you. That seems to be the attitude of many. Which is why American "conservatives" will get away with the destruction of any chance we all have of making sure our children live better than us. My generation will live much worse than my parents because of the ridiculous ideas and total obsession with "how I am today".

I don't blame the people here. Most of them live better and try harder. But to those pigs, those animals, those worthless pieces of shit that are happy to let my generation and that of my children clean up for your mistakes, fuck you and fuck the donkeys and elephants you rode in on. I hope your proud of yourself. No morals, no ethics, nothing positive to leave the kids, but at least I'm successful. Some fucking achievement.

[Binka]

14. Buried Alive, Indeed. That Is Their Plan, Rock On. Great Post.

:hi:

[silverojo]

13. The OP has only gotten 1 recommendation

Kind of proves his/her point. :(

[rvablue]

16. Your hypothesis is wrong!

There are plenty of poor or broke people who sympathize with the GOP who don't think it is shameful to ask for help.

They just think that white, straight, Christian people aren't shameful in asking for it.

Exhibit A: Samuel the Plumber's Assistant.

Your psyops posts are getting very tiresome.

[C......N......C]

53. Help me. I don't mean to get on the wrong side of everybody. I make my

posts in the hope that I will get informative supportive information. I have fought for workers rights, organized meetings to promote unionization of non union coal mines, vocally supported every group that has been made fun of or ostracized. I truly feel that most of responses that I get criticizing and demeaning me come from an elitist cultured scholastic life style. I believe that people and the country need help now, not after some prolonged meeting and discussion. I think that too many people don't realize that our poor and soon to be poor are the lifeblood of our country. Like the people that support high gas prices in spite of the immediate and day to day hardship it places on so many people. Am I wrong, is it my low number of posts or am I just in the wrong web sight. I admit I don't see anybody else on here with the fervor or heart that I seem to have for the suffering, so am I just out of place? You sound like you would answer and direct me. Thanks CNC

[Gregorian]

18. Love me, I'm a liberal

I heard this again today. Phil Ochs. I'm not sure I agree with all of it. But there are some parts that are painfully true. There aren't many pure liberals. After all, if I can keep a few bucks to myself, I might just like that.

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[MadBadger]

19. What the hell are you saying?!?!?

[GreenTea]

20. Sounds like the pigmans rantings...where you from again?

[No.23]

21. It depends if you're "nouveau poor" or not.

Just as the rich have their "nouveau rich" (newly gained wealth), so do the poor have their nouveau poor (newly lost assets).

We tend to use the term poor too loosely, I think.

There are two classes of the poor:

those who have always been poor and never had (cross-generational); and,

those who have just become poor, but who once had (current generation)..

The outrage, today, comes overwhelmingly from the latter.

Now if we could only find a way of being outraged at the existence of the former too.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. This "elitist" bullshit wins for one of the most tired fucking RW talking points of the decade.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go stand in the corner, smoking a cigarette, sipping a martini and mocking people of faith.

:eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

23. Oh fuck off.

So now we're not real Liberals unless we're broke is that right? Way to divide and conquer.

[C......N......C]

24. A liberal would drill for oil on the Whitehouse lawn if it

would make the quality of life better for the poor. An elitist liberal would like to see gas at $5/gallon and tell the poor to buy a Prius. Liberals make life easy for the poor, elitist liberals tell them what is in their best interest. Geithner and the crew don't have a clue as to how to help the poor, who are USA citizens also. They are just trying to keep the ball rolling for the Wall Street gang and the big financiers. They are throwing billions at people who are giving pennies back to the stockholders. There is just as much risk in the USA citizens losing again as they did in 08/09 meltdown. They should be throwing that money at industry that can start making something the USA can sell. They have the USA citizens sitting on the edge of the chairs hoping the 401's and portfolio's will turn around. Well the country that made those stocks and portfolios and 401ks is out of a job. The emphasis should be in putting the USA back to work. I know it is hard to read a whole paragraph, but thanks for the ones that did before they start to clobber me again.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. What are "the poor" (I spent years working for min. wage, BTW) going to do when the oil runs out?

You seem to think that only poofy snobs care about the environment, or that the only reason anyone gives a shit about alternative energy is so that they can boast about their carbon neutrality over Lattes to their Hollywood elitist friends. You DO realize that oil is a finite resource, right? That we live on a spherical mass, and petroleum products are pumped out of the ground, and the even if the inside of the Earth was 100% petroleum (it's not) even THEN we would still run out of the shit?

You do realize that, when global temperatures rise 5, 10 degrees, when coastal cities start to flood, when the weather starts to suck BAD-- it's "the poor" who will suffer the most, the worst, get the crappiest deal out of it?

Fuck, who do you think got hit worst by Hurricane Katrina? The "elite"? :shrug:

[C......N......C]

78. What are "the poor" going to do when the oil runs out?

Then everybody suffers together, but in the meantime why ride the backs of the poor with high gas prices. Too make the gas last longer for those who can afford it?

[Warren DeMontague]

81. It's supply and demand. Jane Fonda & Tim Robbins don't set the price of gas, the oil companies do.

I think you're spending a little too much time fantasizing about these "liberal elites" who you seem to think are controlling the price at the pump, and not paying attention to the multitude of crises which spring from our planetary petroleum addiction. The answer is to find sustainable, renewable, non-polluting ways to power our shit. If we can fund that through increased gas taxes, sure, I'm all for it- but politically such a thing is probably politically untenable anyway. (Again, these cabals of liberal elitists plotting controlling gas prices notwithstanding)

"in the meantime", don't you think the sensible thing to do is address the problem, and not act like the alcoholic who hasn't considered the fact that the 12 pack in the fridge isn't going to last forever?

[C......N......C]

84. Jane Fonda & Tim Robbins discourage oil production .

That makes the price of gas higher. That is an unfair burden on the poor. Would you try and help the poor now ? Pelosi wants the price to be higher to discourage consumption to save the planet. Obama wants to discourage consumption. All this is an unfair burden on the poor. Why ride to saving the world on the backs of the poor? I watched people suffer last summer because of high gas prices. Not just an inconvenience, but suffer. It is not fair to ride the backs of the poor to save the planet.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Bullshit. Putting a fucking oil rig in everyone's back yard isn't going to make gas super-cheap.

Let me guess--- we just need to drill in ANWR, litter the coast of california with oil rigs, and gas will be 50 cents a gallon, right?

"Drill, baby, drill", right?

:eyes:

Bull fucking shit. What we would end up with is destroying irreplaceable environmental treasures and we STILL would be paying through the nose for a limited, non-renewable, environmentally destructive resource. All the oil in ANWR isn't going to marginally affect the price of gas. But we won't get that land back. I used to live in Santa Barbara (before it was an "elite" enclave, mind you)-- I've seen what a serious oil spill can do. And even if we drill every drop of oil, convert Canadian tar sands to oil, mine the sea floor for frozen methane, whatever- eventually we'll be right back where we are now-- oh, except the planet will be significantly warmer and we will have destroyed that much more irreplaceable environment. And the poor will STILL have to pay ever-increasing gas prices, because, as I keep saying, it's a finite resource.

Saving the planet benefits everyone- especially the poor.

Fuckit, I don't know why I'm bothering--- not while you're working yourself into a good froth with ridiculous bullshit rw talking points about "nancy pelosi" and "liberal elites".. Go tell it to the four nimrods who showed up for Joe The Plumber's book signing. I'm not going to waste any more time on this dittohead crap.

[plum eggplant]

76. How's the Benz treating you, Doctor Feelgood...?

[Warren DeMontague]

82. How's the pizza treating you, Disruptor Von Fucknutt?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=238523

Hmmm. This seems to be a popular thread with new arrivals, for some reason. :shrug:

[Kitty Herder]

25. I hate the term liberal.

It's used to describe the entire spectrum from Joe Lieberman to the far left. Hell, I even use it. But it isn't an accurate term for the left. (Although it does describe most of our congress pretty well.) It doesn't describe me. I'm a leftist, thank you very much. A democratic socialist. And proud of it.

Edited to add: What I hate is that it displays the poverty of our political discourse in this country. We have two options: liberal or conservative. And that leaves out a lot of ideological territory.

[ShortnFiery]

26. I love the term LIBERAL. The GOP has tried to attach negative connotations but I take it back.

Bless all thoughtful and unabashed LIBERALS! :patriot:

[Kitty Herder]

27. I wouldn't mind it if it were used appropriately.

But it usually isn't. Most people in the U.S. have little understanding of the term. I get called liberal all the time and it just isn't accurate.

If you're liberal and proud of that, that's great. It's just not an accurate term for leftists like myself.

Edited to add: If those of us on the left were to truly adopt the term liberal for ourselves, it would render us even more invisible. We would be even less separate and distinct from the liberals in the minds of the media and the public than we are now.

[C......N......C]

35. I am a liberal socialist. I take the term liberal to mean in the political context to

do things to help the disadvantaged. I take the term socialist to mean to help people who can't help themselves. I want this country to provide all the basics for free. So far it has transferred all the wealth upward to a group of conservatives who will not spend any money. Trillions of dollars are hoarded and represented as trophies to the smart, opportunistic and manipulative.

[Kitty Herder]

57. You might enjoy this video that talks about the relationship between liberalism and socialism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1385596000672897684&ei=kcTLSfzpOpPCqAPphayUCg&q=socialist+2008+videos+liberalism&hl=en&client=firefox-a
It talks about liberalism in the classic sense.

[No.23]

48. Then you would probably resonate with these bloggers' sentiments:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/leftist_vs_libe.html

http://swerveleft.blogspot.com/2005/10/liberal-vs-left.html

I'm glad that you're making the distinction that you are.

The line between the two "L" words has been blurred for too long.

[Kitty Herder]

55. Excuse me?!

That first link was insulting and inaccurate to say the least.

The second one was good, though.

[No.23]

58. I've been known to provide a buffet...

of opinions on the same subject.

So you can pick and choose to taste.

[Viking12]

28. Speaking of people that have bought into Repug propaganda....

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Next Time, Have A Point

That was a confused, meandering, and pointless post.
GAC

[PVnRT]

31. Apparently, you haven't had your latte yet this morning

:sarcasm:

[ProfessorGAC]

32. I Drink Espresso Or Regular Coffee

I don't like the milk in there! :)
GAC

[plum eggplant]

75. I cannot fathom that...Cream makes it all

palatable.

[Arugula Latte]

101. And add in some arugula extract, and you're good to go!

You can sip it in your Volvo or Prius, too.

:)

[C......N......C]

33. It is about putting the USA back to work. The point is that the economy has nothing to offer.

All the current work on Capitol hill is to boost a system that can't sustain itself. The US does not make very much to sell. That is why we have such a horrendous trade deficit. The support for the current plan of action comes from the hope that the stock market will revive and replenish all the 401 and depleted stock portfolios. Well, that may happen in the short term, but it is destined to die. The country does not sell anything. The elitist in charge are boosting the system of their friends and cronies. They are frightened to death to raise taxes, are now dropping health care and want oil prices to rise. My OP may appear confused, meandering and pointless because the concept is from the point of view of a humanitarian side that will reconstruct the base of this country. I realize that I am not in contemporary rhetoric with a class that has known no hardship, but it is coming and the current solutions will only guarantee a further reduction of he USA into a dependent service economy. There is nothing to kick start. This did not just happen in the last few weeks or months. It was a trend that guaranteed profits to the stock holders by moving production means to the cheapest countries possible abandoning the USA.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Then We Disagree

And your OP doesn't say that. Now i know your point. I just don't agree with it.
GAC

[C......N......C]

37. I certainly can be wrong. I have no training in economics or government.

I just know that when you don't have anything to sell you don't have any income. I don't see the current movement offering any plans for anything to sell. Tricking people into buying more stock that doesn't represent anything will provide a short term revival and sell more stock and then it will bust again. The stock doesn't represent anything other than salesmanship. If you have stock and 401 then you must think I am an idiot because I am jeopardizing your outlook. I understand that. But there have been many people including myself that have over the years analogized the stock market to a pyramid scheme. It needs a constant influx of money, not based on anything other than needed to sustain the inflation of the increasing value of the stocks that don't represent the increasing value of companies producing anything. The stocks took on a life of their own. Explain to me how a country cannot make any products can survive. I am not trying to disrupt, I am trying to awaken. Look at the idiocy of Greenspan and others saying how the derivatives were to complicated to understand. That is beyond comprehension how anybody other than a caught scammer explains his way out of a crime.

[LWolf]

36. I don't think Republican propaganda

is responsible for people being ashamed to accept help. At least, not for all of it.

My mom is 70. She comes from working poor people. She is proud to this day that she managed, as a single woman her entire life and a single mom to me, through work and responsible financial decisions, to never need "charity."

It's a value she was raised with. At the same time, she strongly supports a well-developed safety net for all people who need it. Part of the "pride" is in knowing that, because she didn't need to use it, other people who needed it more COULD.

She has never been a republican. She's a liberal clear through.

I don't think that republican propaganda is responsible for the pride of the working poor.

I think it's responsible for encouraging people to think that the poor have no pride, that the poor are poor because they are unwilling to work, and that the poor would rather "take handouts" than work.

[C......N......C]

38. Republican propaganda is responsible for changing entitlements

to charity. Our constituion says life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They ( the framers ) were mostly farmers and I am sure they were thinking in terms of providing for everyone. Not making anyone beg for help and then calling it charity. They understood taking care of the workers.

[LWolf]

43. Yes, that's true.

"Changing entitlements to charity" is not the same thing as making people think it's shameful, though.

[C......N......C]

62. Well there are a lot of derogatory remarks out there, the most hateful one is calling

women welfare queens. When I give a street corner unfortunate 5 bucks I don't expect or want him or her to say thank you and I don't care what they do with the money. The rethuglicans want undying gratitude and servitude for any help they give.

[LWolf]

80. That's true, too.

Republicans aren't, of course, the "liberal elitists" you are trying to make a point about in the OP.

[C......N......C]

87. This is from my original post.

"The great success of the Rethuglican propaganda is that they have a lot of poor broke people thinking it shameful to expect help". I wasn't making a point in my OP. Being new here, I did not know the nerve that I hit. Liberals favor diplomacy over military action. I did not get much diplomacy. I am learning though !

[LWolf]

88. I should tell you:

I've never seen this place more hot-tempered and reactive, in the almost 7 years I've been here, since last November.

You won't be able to say much of substance that won't spark flames from somewhere, so don't worry about it.

Come in with your flame suit on, and take everything with a grain of salt.

And, belatedly, welcome to DU, lol.

[C......N......C]

90. You can't believe how much that helps me. I thought I stepped on a land mine of

get me ! I have never been on a discuccion site before, I was expecting academic exchanges. Thanks again for taking the time. CNC

[LWolf]

102. You're welcome,

and good luck.

You might try browsing through the lobby for some of the smaller, more focused forums. Those based on personal interest of some sort. The conversations there tend to be less jingoistic and antagonistic than in GD and GDP.

You have to be a member to post in them, but it only takes a couple of dollars a year to have that star.

[LeftinOH]

39. The term 'elitist' is overplayed and misused (by the right)..just like the word 'values'..n/t

[C......N......C]

40. let me pose this question.

What would you call the people that support high gas prices in spite of the fact that it is a terrible hardship on the poor. It makes poor people chose between healthy food practices and gasoline. I knew people last summer that had to pay 1/3 of there take home pay for gasoline.

[Echo In Light]

45. It's a marked difference in the shared worldview of the working poor vs the profe$$ional classes

[tjwash]

41. Nice attitude...a perfect microcosm of why the Dems are fucked, and why we will stay fucked.

Your post pretty much sums up why Dems will never accomplish a damn thing. Hell...your attitude is pretty the embodiment of why we as a nation are pretty much much fucked, and on a fast track to marginalization and mediocrity.

We spend so much time grinding up little pieces of gnat shit amongst each other, that the amoral, ideologically-neutral power elite in this country will continue to keep ass raping everyone that is not in their little club. These fuckers have already divided the country down the middle with this "liberal -vs- conservative" horse shit. Not content with that, we end up with a plethora of "purity trolls" in both parties running around, that wants to compartmentalize each type personality in the 2 parties, to further divide and conquer us as a people.

Nice way to try and split everyone up into tidy little groups. Is there going to be a "liberal purity test" coming soon from you?

:eyes:

[C......N......C]

42. I am sure I will be leaving soon. So you don't have to worry about me splitting

the party by by bringing up the fundamentals that are wrong with the country. I am trying to unite, not split. There was a common Democratic goal under FDR to help the poor, knowing that that was the way to save the country. And it worked under him. Why is it such a derided philosophy now? Raise taxes, put people to work,train people, do public works projects that we enjoy to this day.

[C......N......C]

44. Immediate help to the poor, abused and used would be a good uniter.

That would be a platform of unification. Not ten year plans for what we think is in the best interest of the poor. The poor is who does the work.

[tjwash]

71. And instead, you are spending all those hours you could be using to be helping others...

...posting snarky, condescending, bullshit on an anonymous internet message board. Woohoo...what a working class hero hero you are!

[C......N......C]

72. What is lacking in your life that you are predisposed to vile and bile.

I was under the assumption that this message board was to promote discourse and present ideas for conversation, maybe leading to the discovering of a leader to help solve all the mess the country is in. So far it seems to be a place to lure thinking people out into the open so that cheap shots and innuendos can be anonymously hurled at them. What have I done that is inconsistent with democratic ideals? I have been attacked more on here from the slant of right wing conservatives than I have been in my whole life. I have done nothing except look for and promote ideas that would help the poor and soon to be poor. And how do you know what I do in the time that I spend when I run from here to administer to the cuts and blows and stabs that I get here? Is there a quota that you have for destroying people ?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. there are stupids and then there are vicious stupids. nt

[smalll]

50. Here's 3 of the MOST annoying elitist liberal points I see here on DU a lot -

1) Discussion about incomes come up. Virtually without fail, some richie pipes in about "Where I live, no one can SURVIVE on less than 100K a year." :eyes:

Well, go look up median incomes for NYC: Median incomes according to the 2000 census were around only 30K a year for NYC. And even in the richest zip code, on the Upper East Side, median incomes were only at "over 90k." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#Income How does NYC maintain it's population? Everyone should by dying off from starvation, exposure, etc. etc.

2) A discussion emerges about how rich people have it so good in this country while poor people are screwed. Without fail, someone pipes in with the idea that "As long as you're working for a salary, as long as you have a mortgage, make car payments, etc. etc. you're not rich. There's really no difference between the average person and someone making 250K a year. It's only the BILLIONAIRES who are the bad guys." :eyes: Yeah, the supermarket cashiers, the bus drivers, the construction workers, the nurses -- and the surgeons, the attorneys who made partner, the overpaid "creative" types who design choreographed websites for Hollywood CG whatnots and what have you -- we're all proletarians! Solidarity forever!

3) Every now and then, people write up intense, heart-felt OPs about great tragedies -- when movie stars who GO SKIING have accidents and end up dying because they refuse treatment. Or when kids FLYING IN PRIVATE JETS to GO SKIING end up dying. :eyes: Because we all know, movie stars are as gods, and gods should be immortal. And when private planes jetting off to snazzy ski resorts can go down, NO-ONE'S CHILD IS SAFE!

[cali]

52. You completely misrepresent the facts.

The reason the median income is so low is because so many people live in poverty in the city- well over 1 million.

From the wiki article:

Overall, the distribution of household income in New York City is characterized by tremendous disparities. This phenomenon is especially true of Manhattan, which in 2005 was home to the wealthiest U.S. census, tract with a household income of $188,697, as well as the poorest, where household income was $9,320.<36> The disparity is driven in part by wage growth in high income brackets. In 2006 the average weekly wage in Manhattan was $1,453, the highest among the largest counties in the United States.<15> Wages in Manhattan were the fastest growing among the nation's 10 largest counties.<15> Among young adults in New York who work full time, women now earn more money than men—in 2005 approximately $5,000 more.<37> Nationally, women's wages still lag behind men.

New York City's borough of Manhattan is the richest county in the United States. In particular, ZIP code 10021 on Manhattan's Upper East Side, with over 100,000 inhabitants and a per capita income of over $90,000, has one of the largest concentrations of extreme wealth in the United States. The so-called outer boroughs, especially Queens and Staten Island, have large middle class populations.

New York City's per capita income in 2000 was $22,402; men and women had a median income of $37,435 and $32,949 respectively. 21.2% of the population and 18.5% of families had incomes below the federal poverty line; 30.0% of this group were under the age of 18 and 17.8% were 65 and older.

As for the rest of your bloviation, well, it reeks of bitterness.

[smalll]

54. I didn't misrepresent the facts --

From the article, the section you posted -- ZIP code 10021 on the UES has a per capita income of "over $90,000" -- that's what I said. It also says that in NYC "men and women had a median income of $37,4345 and $32,949 respectively" -- I said 30K -- I should have said IN the 30Ks -- but either way, that's far under the 100K-for-survival limit we hear of so much around here.

The article DOES also say that Manhattan "in 2005 was home to the wealthiest U.S. census, tract with a household income of $188,697" -- I think that comma between census and tract has to be a wiki typo -- a "census tract" is a pretty small area -- less than a zip code even. So there is one tiny "census tract" in Manhattan that has a household income of 188K, but again, "census tracts" are extremely small.

It also says there that "In 2006 the average weekly wage in Manhattan was $1,453" -- If someone made $1,500 a week, times 52 weeks, that's only $78,000 a year. What this all boils down to is that in NYC -- OR EVEN IN MANHATTAN ITSELF -- MOST people do NOT make 100K a year! But somehow, they survive.

[smalll]

61. Also, you misunderstand the concept of "median" - it's not "average."

With averages, if a lot of people are making VERY little money, it can pull the average down. Median means 50th percentile, meaning the median income is what half the population is under and what the other half the population is over. So with medians, even if there ARE a lot of people way down at the lowest of the low, it's not going to pull the median any lower.

[bicentennial_baby]

106. Exactly

[Hannah Bell]

70. coverage definitely biased toward wealth. why did Titanic go down in history? Full of rich people.

[YoungAndOutraged]

63. if you're not poor, you're not a liberal

as far as I'm concerned.

[Raskolnik]

64. Well that's a rather silly standard.

Is a poor person who votes a straight Republican ticket, forbids his kids from associating with people of other races, and believes a woman's place is in the home more "liberal" than an upper middle class person that volunteers at the local homeless shelter, campaigns for increased funding for public schools, and consistently votes for pro-choice candidates?

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Lotta people showing up in the past few weeks to tell us what we all should think.

Curious.

Oh, and welcome to DU. :hi:

[smalll]

68. So Mac-using arugula-eaters can't be liberals?!? There's something wrong with your definition. /nt

[Warren DeMontague]

74. What about mac eating arugula users?

Hmmmm???

[LanternWaste]

73. What are the precise and relevant points...

What are the precise and relevant points which lead you to that conclusion?

[plum eggplant]

77. Hey, man...I totally dig that concept

The bourgeois DUers will sit in their townhouses aghast, however...

[Bluebear]

79. bye

[devilgrrl]

93. If you don't like Barbara Striesand, you're...

oh never mind. :eyes:

[Bluebear]

66. There are right wing phrases and right wing catch phrase.

:crazy:

[BlooInBloo]

86. Gawd - the notion that the only "real" liberal is a poor liberal is SO FUCKING STUPID....

In fact, this is in the running for Stupidest Post Of 2009.

[C......N......C]

91. I guess not reading the OP doesn't require commenting on it.

From the OP "Liberals can relate to the post about being broke. Liberal elitist can relate to their friends that can relate to the post about being broke". How you can get what you said from what you didn't read qualifies you for your own criticism.

[JI7]

92. Republican Corporate Execs have no shame in asking for "help"

or rather demanding taxpayers give them money after they fucked up at the job on purpose.

[Mike 03]

94. I appreciate your post in principle, but I wish you would widen your heart a bit

and embrace all liberals, because even the so called "elitist" Liberals save the lives of what you call Liberals by giving.

It's such a turn off to read these divisive types of posts that serve no purpose at all and just make us hate each other.

[C......N......C]

98. If you are talking about the OP, I was merely pointing out the different degrees of sympathy.

I said nothing divisive. For instance the sympathy for the poor regarding gas prices vs the need to cut down on consumption by raising gas prices.

[Iris]

104. huh? Because I'm liberal but not broke, I'm an elitist?

I'll admit to being an elitist about some things but my being elitists has nothing to do with my finances.