Evangelicals Raise Poverty Issues -- Time For Liberals To Do The Same!

[bobbolink]

There has been much talk on DU about people voting their own best interest.

Many times I've spoken up about the lack of attention liberals pay to poverty issues, and what that means for voting in '08, and on in the future.

At a city gathering on Sunday, Evangelicals spoke about commitment to poor people. They plan new programs "to push charity to a new level". "We've been a greedy nation."

So, how do liberals think this sounds to poor folk? Like maybe someone is paying attention, and caring about their situation?

If liberals don't start taking poverty seriously, and caring about those of us stuck at the bottom, they're going to be wondering where many of their votes went--votes that they have previously taken for granted.

Because we poor folk aren't stoooopid... We vote our own best interests!

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/69110.html

[ingac70]

1. Anyone with two brain cells....

to rub together knows Evangelicals talking about "poverty issues" is code for "we need to get our hands on that taxpayer money", and that they have no plans to use it for the poor.

[rucky]

3. I guess I'm short a brain cell, then...

www.sojo.net

[liberaldemocrat7]

7. The Republican evangelicals will not support government to help the poor

and the aftertaste of fire and brimstone sexual moral issues turn many people off.

[jwirr]

20. Sojo is the liberal arm of the evangelicals. However, I think John

Edwards is doing a great job and I also think that every time one of our Dems bring up health care they are talking about a poverty issue. Minimum wage is also a poverty issue and the Dems bring that one up often.

[intheflow]

29. Not all Evangelicals are conservative Republicans.

And many, many Evangelicals work very hard on poverty issues. For instance, I'm sure the majority of soup kitchens and food pantries in the US are run by Evangelical churches. While those kinds of programs do nothing to curb the systemic injustice of poverty, they are still addressing the needs of those living in poverty.

[yardwork]

2. Many Evangelicals ARE liberals.

There is persistent confusion on DU and elsewhere about the difference between Evangelical Christians and right-wing fundamentalist Christians. They are two different things.

Evangelicals believe in spreading the word of Christ. They can be liberal, conservative, or in-between.

[bobbolink]

5. Some are, yes.

The point is, so many DUers are so upset with any "out-of-the-mainstream-Christians", yet have no interest in poverty.

My point is that when liberals ignore an important and historically main constituent of the party, they risk losing them.

[yardwork]

9. I've never seen a DUer state that they had no interest in poverty.

Please point out those threads and posts so that I can go disagree with them. As Democrats, I believe that the vast majority of DUers are very concerned with poverty, and many of us work on this issue every single day.

[bobbolink]

10. I"ve been told that to my face.

"many of us work on this issue every single day."

If you do, that's great, and I thank you.

I can tell you that MOST poverty threads sink like stones.

People have been asked and asked to support HR2895, and other issues, and get little response.

The reality is, and an Air America host said this, poverty just isn't "sexy", and liberals aren't that interested.

[yardwork]

13. I totally disagree with you. If anything, I think that fighting poverty is a unifying issue for DU.

While I've seen many posts and threads dismissing issues that I strongly believe should be bedrock foundations of the Democratic Party, I've never seen anyone dismiss poverty as an important issue.

Just because a thread sinks doesn't mean that people don't care. It's entirely possible that poverty threads sink because everyone agrees.

[bobbolink]

37. Then I'm sure you will be happy to do anything/everything you can on DU to further HR2895

I've been trying very hard to get attention to this bill, and get DUers to contact their Reps to sign on as co-sponsors.

I'm sure you would be happy to help in this important effort.

Thank you.

[Greyhound]

23. I've never heard a conservative say that killing minorities should be legal.

Did you have a point?

[sandnsea]

4. Because liberal Democrats pushed them to it

Like Edwards and Obama, for starters. And people like Jim Wallis. These folks didn't start talking about poverty without being pushed by liberals, don't think for one minute they did.

Not to mention, there's 'faith based' funding available that they want to get their paws on too.

[BlooInBloo]

6. It's Edwards' centerpiece. It's a primary focus of Obama. Liberals DO raise them.

[baldguy]

8. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.

Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

That's a liberal attitude.

A conservative attitude is: if you want to fish, then pay me first.

The opposite if evangelical isn't liberal.

[bobbolink]

11. That's an oft-repeated bromide.

What happens to those who are too old or unable physically to fish?

Let 'em eat rocks?

[baldguy]

16. A liberal would still give him a fish.

A conservative get him to sign his house over first.

[dajoki]

12. K&R

To me this is THE most important issue, bar none. I have started many threads about poverty and healthcare and will continue to do so. Thanks for posting about this!!

[bobbolink]

14. Thank *YOU*, dajoki!

:hug:

[autorank]

15. A couple of responses - a candidate and a miscoinception.

I was surprised when Edwards began his campaign focusing on poverty and economic inequality. He'd obviously gone through so e change. Why else would anyone take on this issue. You're right, "liberals" don't even support income equity let alone help for the poor. I hope Edwards carries on his journey sincerely and makes a whole lot of converts.

The misconception that promotes this is the notion of scarcity. Somehow, people think that that the pie is finite and there's only so much to go around instead of looking at resources as a river that flow continually. If anyone thinks we've got the full benefit out of our economy by basing it on harmful fuels, they're ignorant. That's the basis for Iraq - only so much oil, blablabla. No creativity or invention focused on the problem, but we conclude we've failed.

There are enough resources to handle the worlds population with proper organization but people won't even give that a chance because they think it will cost them something.

[Katherine Brengle]

19. Exactly -- people see it as a zero sum game -- more for you means less for me,

because of course we all can't be comfortable and healthy and safe.

[DJ MEW]

17. There is a really good book about this, "The Working Poor, Invisible in America"

"Because we poor folk aren't stoooopid... We vote our own best interests!"

This is not true, over half my own family proves that poor people do not always vote for their own best interests. I even have a single mom friend that was just a manager at McDonalds and proudly lets people know that she is a republican. Alot of time, especially in rural towns seemingly, the moral issues are beat on so hard by the local chruches that people will vote against their own best interests or how ever their church congregation tells them.

If you really want to see proof of this, I have relatives that actually have in their house a picture of Jesus with streams of red, white and blue coming from his heart.

[Katherine Brengle]

18. I could just be naive, but those Christians sound liberal to me...

which means liberals are paying attention.

Maybe you mean the Democrats need to wake up and get on board, in which case I heartily agree.

[Kajsa]

21. I agree, Bobbolink.

Those of us who are in the lower income/poor bracket do pay attention
to what candidates are saying and doing to help the poor.

Edwards has made this a central issue in his campaign.

We need more job training programs that will help people earn a livable wage,
not just a minimum wage.

Those who are disabled and cannot work should have SSI/SSDI benefits that reflect
real world economy. The cap on assets( all assets) has not changed in over
10 years- $2,000.For those who can work part time, inflation and housing prices should be
a consideration. What is considered "substantial" earnings for a learning disabled
young man ( my son) is $900./mo! He will not receive any benefits if he earns that amount.
In CA, that hardly covers the rent on a studio apt!

Big changes are needed and more progressive Democrats need to address this.

[Greyhound]

22. While I don't personally subscribe to any of the popular mythologies,

I do appreciate it when those that do actually do what their books tell them to. It is quite rare for this to happen and in times like these, I'll take help from wherever it is offered.

Now, let's hope that the offer is real and followed through on.

[JHB]

24. Class Warfare! Bleeding Heart! Culture of Dependency!

These standard conservative responses to "Liberals Do(ing) The Same" brought to you by SNews. When it's time to bring you the news, turn to Snooze!

:rant:

[bobbolink]

38. Which is worse.... being denigrated, or being ignored?

Which would you choose?

[Blackhatjack]

25. The OP raises an important issue... working poor and poverty voters will show up to vote in 2008...

We need a strong push within the Democratic Party to reach out to those who are presently politically helpless --in that they will never give the huge sums of campaign contributions that Repubs thrive upon.

However, Repubs realize that neutralizing this group of voters that historically vote Democratic is important to Repubs winning in 2008.

As John Edwards has pointed out, it is the moral issue of our time. We cannot have a government by and for the people without including the working poor and those living in poverty.

And while there are many evangelicals who identify with Democrats, they get little press compared to evangelicals who identify with Repubs. WE need to change that.

[knitter4democracy]

33. Good point--we do need to change that.

Many evangelicals are liberal but may not know that. They may vote Republican out of ignorance. I'm trying to figure out how to reach them better.

[bobbolink]

36. So, how do we PUSH the Dems to do the right thing?

Yes, Edwards is right on target (except that he keep talking about poor *Families*, forgetting that many of us have no family).

But, he doesn't get heard much either in the media, or in the Dem party.

How do we change that?

[Blackhatjack]

26. K & R #5 thanks for posting Bobbilink!

[ananda]

27. Now is the time to ask why..

.. so many people are not tuned in to the issues
of poverty and the poor.

There is definitely a concerted corporate agenda
of invisibilizing and marginalizing the poor and
their issues, or else finding a way to distract people
from these issues, or else a way of demonizing
minorities with crime and law and order issues or
even sexual and reproductive issues.

The whole thing stinks.

Sue

[bobbolink]

39. Yes, indeed --- This IS The Time!

THere's still time before the primaries, before the election of '08 to reach out to poor folk, and LISTEN.

If the Dems had the will, they could once again include poor people in the party.

[PDenton]

28. starting with Clinton

Democrats started taking the poor for granted starting with Clinton. In fact he ran on that platform- disciplining the welfare queens. People rightly condemn politicians who use gays or atheists as political gain, but when somebody uses the poor, the vast left wing ivory tower academics are moot. Poverty happens to every race, creed and sexual orientation. Increasingly even education is not a ticket out of poverty. It really should be an issue that unites people, not divides them.

The two biggest economic issues today are the fact that poverty is growing and healthcare is unaffordable for many Americans, and of poor quality. Economic justice should be the No. 1 issue in 2008. If it isn't, I'm going to stay home on election day. It should be a priority because so many Democrats have neglected it for so long.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[bpeale]

31. i thought this was what that "faith based" initiatives

bullshit was all about. they've been sucking at the government tit for 7 years & now they start whining about poverty? oh please! they just need to STFU.

[Cleita]

32. You already know what I think of charity.

But for those who haven't heard me on this, religions and other "non-profits" like to push charity in place of government social programs because charity is much more lucrative for them. Charities are only required by law to deliver one-third of their revenue for the actual needs that they are addressing. The rest can be spend on "administrative" costs and fund raising. I have a friend who works for the "Meals on Wheels" program. The impression I'm getting is of a two tiered organization. There is a top layer of fat cat administrators and directors getting big salaries and a second layer of low-payed workers and volunteers that actually do the work under some dire conditions at the time. If the volunteers don't show up the low-paid workers have to do double duty and the upper echelon administrators seldom help out. They don't seem to be interested in running the program efficiently after they have collected the money, which seems to be their main focus. The recipients have to jump through hoops to qualify for the program yet the scammers who know how to work these programs for their benefit do so at the expense of people who really need them.

[bobbolink]

35. You're right on target. Yet, when these people are the ones making LOUD NOISE,

and poor folk don't hear much from liberals about REAL programs, guess what they're going to follow.

[KillCapitalism]

34. I do my best to pay attention to & help with poverty issues.

The Dem. candidates I support the most right now are Edwards and Kucinich and they seem to be the ones most focused on ending poverty.

I also volunteer in a shelter 8 hours a week teaching young homeless people to read and how to fill out job apps. In a nutshell, I do take poverty seriously because I've been there before.

[bobbolink]

40. .

:kick: