The Deeper Truth About Plastic Bags

[bobbolink]

First, and foremost.... as with the previous post I wrote about this.... This ISN'T only about plastic bags... This is about being Democrats in the traditional sense, and "looking before we leap" -- i.e. searching for and understanding ALL ramifications of proposed solutions. It means, especially and specifically, looking at how proposals to fix one problem will affect those most unable to absorb more responsibility for fixing... those on the bottom rung of our society.

I repeat, this is about considering first and foremost, how any solution we pose will affect people who are made poor in this society.

The last post about the plastic bag fee got much praise for Ireland, and how their TAX (yes, this is a REGRESSIVE TAX), was a resounding success, and resulting in a reduction of the use of plastic bags of 90%. NINETY PERCENT! WOW!! Let's rush to do this NOW... over any and all objections, EVERYWHERE in the country! NOW!

Except it turns out that the promoters of this TAX were a little less than forthcoming. They chose NOT to tell the other side of it. That now the Irish use a *HEAVIER* plastic plastic bag, not covered by the tax. The sales of these heavier plastic bags have ballooned 400 per cent!

Now, take note of this... "the overall amount of plastic resin used in Ireland has actually increased 10 percent." It also turns out that there is a bit of self-interest... one of the backers of this promotion sells reuseable bags in her own shop. So much for Full Disclosure.

(See the editorial, "Sack This Plan" http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/18/sack-this-plan/)

"And while affluent and middle-class shoppers might be willing to overlook the program's basic ineffectiveness and swallow the cost in order to palliate their eco-consciences, it would be a clear burden on many others."

It needs to be repeated.. studies show that these "disincentives" don't work. Those who are affected by them are already doing all they can to cut down. Those who NEED to cut down, don't give a damn about the little raise that comes from these taxes. If you really want to cut back on gasoline consumption, water usage (especially in the arid west!), plastics and other toxins, then RATION it. It worked during WWII, and will work again. If we have the courage of our convictions. Those who already have a small carbon footprint, poor folk like me, wouldn't be affected. Those who waste the MOST, not only *would* be affected, but would have to start making some clear decisions that they aren't now faced with, and won't be faced with with one more regressive tax.

I was talking about this with a stocker in the grocery store today. As he unpacked the boxes and put the products on the shelves, I noticed he had some plasic wrappings he wadded up and put in a box. I asked him if that would be recycled. "No", he said, "we recycle a lot of things, but not this." So, all that waste will continue, but people who are hurt by even a small tax will pay the price? Is that what we really want?

When I said to him that people were floating these proposals without even considering how they would affect those some "liberals" look down on, he said, "We're only as strong as our weakest link." Imagine that.... someone who actually remembers when Democrats looked out for "the weakest among us."

What about the young mother of three children whose husband has left her for an unencumbered woman, who is now working two jobs to try to support her children. She gets criticism because she can't afford to buy them new shoes when they need them, and she gets criticised because she can't now spend very much time with her own children. Now she will get criticised and taxed because she has so much on her mind and so much she is juggling ALL the time, that she forgets to take the bags back to the store, or can't find the reuseable bags. How is that going to save the earth?

Think of the war veteran, struggling with demons most of us will never know (Thank God!), just putting one foot in front of the other after yet another night of horrible nightmares, who can't quite get it together much of the time to remember his shopping bags, either. He's just doing good to get a passable meal fixed for himself, and to actually manage to eat it.

There are many other examples of people on the edge. Can you really look them in the eye and say it's THEIR responsibility to "save the planet", when so much is thrown away at the corporate level, or by affluent people who will waste much and NEVER feel the pinch of an extra charge? Have we really come to that kind of tunnel vision?

What are we accomplishing by driving headfirst into "solutions" that punish poor folk, but do little for the basic problem? First, we are showing them we really aren't concerned about them. How is that going to help us? How is that going to help the nation? Second, we are painting them into a corner where they instinctively know they can't win. No matter how hard they try, they are going to fail at being "good stewards" because ..... because they don't have the money to buy new, fancy lightbulbs? Because they're angry at one more tax on what little grocery money they have for their kids?

Are we really ready to deeping the class divide, and push away people who we have TRADITIONALLY sought as allies?

I end, again, with the reminder that this isn't intended to be about plastic bags. The issue that I'm BEGGING "liberals" to understand and take to heart is that we MUST begin (again!) to consider FIRST the impact of our proposals on those least able to shoulder the burden.

If we can't soften our hearts enough to put these people first, then we at least need to be logical enough to look at what simply doesn't work.

[Warpy]

I'm for anything that will get those damned things out of my trees

where they flap around in the wind for an average of 2 years before they get tattered to the point of invisibility. I loathe plastic bags.

I use canvas bags wherever I can. Most stores around here use a carrot approach instead of a stick--they credit me two plastic bags for each canvas bag I fill, ten cents a canvas bag. It's not a big deal, but it can make a difference over time to folks on a budget who buy a lot of groceries at a time.

The problem with the stick approach is that it hits the people who can't afford to go out and buy canvas or string bags the hardest. The plastic bags they'd have to pay for are so flimsy that they can be used only twice before they develop holes, stretched or broken handles, and other problems. In short, they're not worth ten cents apiece. Sturdier plastic bags can be used about a dozen times, but even they are vulnerable to tears and broken handles.

I'd like to see the carrot approach expanded and subsidized to 25 cents a plastic bag. That would be enough of a difference that even poor folks would go out and spend the three bucks or so for string bags. That's a program that really would work to reduce the use of those plastic bags and the number of them that end up in the tops of the trees around here.

[Two Americas]

33. anything?

Is that really true? You would do anything "that will get those damned things out of your trees?"

One thing that you seem willing to do is to place the burden on poor people.

Are you willing to stop those profiting by manufacturing the bags? Impinge on their profits and carte blanche to operate with complete impunity,no matter the consequence? Are poor people OK to burden, but not those making fabulous wealth from corporate profits, the ons responsible for introducing the bags into our environment in the first place?

Poor people's survival, then, ranks lower than the right of the few to profiteer, regardless of environmental damage? Profits are sacred and cannot be touched, poor people are expendable.

It would seem that the truth, perhaps, is that you are willing to do almost nothing that would require you to take any risk, while refusing to place any burden on those most responsible and best able to solve the problem, and while cavalierly dismissing any possible impact on the poor.

That hardly qualifies as "I would do anything." You will call for forcing the powerless to obey the program you desire, but you will not have the courage to face the powerful. That might as well be "not willing to do much of anything."

[Warpy]

61. Read the damn post

You'll see what I proposed would be a benefit to poor folks, not a burden.

[Two Americas]

67. I did read your post

Plastic bags blowing in your trees is a priority over human beings blowing around the street.

You could argue that saving the planet - or getting those bags out of your trees - is the best path to saving the people. I am open to that. Make that case.

[Speck Tater]

1. Reminds me of the great flush scandal

in an office building where I once worked. They adjusted all the toilets to use 20% less water with each flush expecting to save 20% on water bills. The result was that water bills went UP by almost 60%. The reason: one flush didn't do the job, so everybody flushed twice. Two flushes at 80% each uses 160% as much water as one flush at the previous 100%.

Unintended consequences will get you in the end.

[bobbolink]

4. Now there's a good example with a gripping title...

:hi: :thumbsup: :hi:

[G_j]

2. K&R!

Very well stated, & your conversation with the store employee really underscores your point.

[bobbolink]

5. He's a gem! We'll bring up a topic, and both say... "Don't get me started.."

He understands corporatism all the way, so why aren't we as Dems really reaching out to people like him????

He told me that he's been "off the grid" for 13 years now "Because I was fortunate enough to be able to do it." I remarked at his humility, and how the latte liberals want to DECREE all the changes for people, and he said how ridiculous that is.. that people do what they can. Many poor people would like to do more, but don't have the means.

Yes, he's got his head in the right place! He really understands.

[Two Americas]

34. "he understands corporatism all the way"

Why do so many people - Democrats and liberals and "progressives!! - not understand corporatism?? They would rather kick poor people to the curb than to have the balls to honor the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party, and the courage to fight to protect the least powerful form the powerful and rapacious who are preying on all of us. It is cowardice to kiss the boots of our masters, and it is moral depravity to kick the poor at the same time.

"Many poor people would like to do more, but don't have the means." Attention so-called Democrats - they don't have the means.

They don't have the means.

Why are we not holding those who do have the means accountable? Especially when their wealth came from marketing the damned plastic bags to begin with? Why are so many taking the Republican party position on this - hands off the wealthy, strict rules for the poor?

[knitter4democracy]

3. If only we'd always think of our brothers and sisters who are hurting first.

Look at most zoning laws. They're designed to hurt the poor deliberately so they will move out. Instead of helping them, we shunt them off to "somewhere else." Bags are just another sign of what we really think. Yes, plastic bags are a problem, but hurting our brothers and sisters who are already down and out isn't the answer.

Our local bakery outlet doesn't buy their own plastic bags. They collect them from customers and use those to bag everyone's bread and such. That's where I prefer to recycle mine, knowing that everyone shopping there needs a helping hand of some kind, even if it's just a bag. What if we expanded that to most stores? What if stores used the recycled ones first instead of just having the barrel out front? That's a lot easier than making people buy yet more bags.

[bobbolink]

6. You're so right... so much is done so that we'll give up and "move on"...

I'm convinced that's what happened to me a couple of weeks ago, but of course, then I'm seen as "paranoid". :mad:

The solution has to be good for everyone, or it's good for nobody.

And nothing.

[dajoki]

14. Yes, you are right...

So-called do gooders are the first to say how much we need to help the poor, but are also the first to say, but not in my neighborhood. It really makes me sick, all these laws are intended to keep the people who "inconvenience" them somewhere else. I have said this issue is an embarrassment to our country which has so much, yet does so little to deal with poverty and homelessnes. Being "somewhere else" allows these people to live in their ivory towers and feel good about themselves, thinking that they have done their part, "out of sight, out of mind." And that attitude helps nobody.

[demgurl]

7. It is hard to balance the environment and people......

but people must come first. This is not a case of inconvenience, it is a case where those who can not afford would be deeply hurt and that is not acceptable.

There can be instruments put in place where it is a won-win compromise. Our local grocery store gives credit and rewards to those who bring their own bags while conserving and not using new ones. This rewards those who can and does not punish those for whom it would be impossible. We need to work together with respect and make sure solutions are something everyone can live with.

[bobbolink]

8. R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Now, *there's* a concept...

:applause:

:hug:

[pitohui]

11. there's always a reason why the earth comes last

that's why the planet is dying and anyone who thinks the planet dying won't affect poor people doesn't have eyes, brain, or heart

poor people aren't morons, instead of 10 cent bag fee they'll pull a plastic bag out of the dumpster and bring their own for nothing

this is the same old, same old, of why there is always a reason why the earth isn't worth saving -- and it's got nothing to do with helping the poor that some posters apparently believe to be morons without eyes, brains, or hearts

i will tell a story here about desperately poor people -- the moral being that REAL poor people do want to be engaged, do want to matter, do want to help others, and do want to count -- (this may be why the poor consistently give a higher percent of their $$$ to charity than the rich) -- well this story happened after katrina, poor women in uganda, who earn something like $1 a day, got together and pooled their money earned breaking rocks ! and managed to send $800 to louisiana to help katrina victims -- they didn't whine, they didn't say 10 cents is 10 percent of my income for an entire day of breaking rocks, they actually donated a significant fraction of their annual income to americans -- to help them

real people do want to matter and they do want to make a difference -- even if they are poor! they have the same human desire to matter and to make a difference


10 cent a bag is not an issue, it's just too easy to work around, maybe i'm evil but when i was that poor i just scooped the bags i needed out of dumpsters and recycling bins

the earth matters, AND a person's sense of worth matters

don't assume that because a person is poor, all they are is "take," they do want to matter and they CAN contribute something

okay my two cents, i'll slink away now

[dajoki]

18. Again, the USA should be embarrassed...

$800 from desperatly poor people in Uganda!! I mean, my heart goes out to these women and they should be proud of what they did, they really do count and are engaged. This money should be accepted graciously and they should be made aware of how important their gift is.

However, our government should feel like the thieves and do nothings they are. All the while the Katrina victims were suffering and dying, our leaders were trying to pass the buck on who was to blame and getting their photo ops instead of actually doing anything substantial to help. "You're doin' a heck of a job Brownie", and that goes for the rest of them also.

[bobbolink]

21. you're so right, pitohui

All I ever do is whine.

[pitohui]

95. i agree, so when are you going to make a change?

you say All I ever do is whine.


i say -- we've all noticed this, so when are you going to step up and make some positive changes in your life and in your attitude?

this "progressives suck because they care about the earth, boo hoo" schtick is getting very old

real poor people can walk and chew gum at the same time, and when i was poor, and the poor people i still know, they DO want to matter and they DO want to make a difference

[Two Americas]

108. this is extremely malicious

"I got out of poverty, so why can't you, you loser."

This is worse than the attitudes of the person born to wealth who has lived an insulated life, and is oblivious to how others live and unable to be compassionate toward their presumed inferiors.

Your callous dismissal of the OP and your contemptuous and cruel attitude are highly destructive and can only make things worse for all of us - but you got yours, I suppose, and are exceedingly proud of that. I am glad that you were able to make it out of poverty. I pity you for the sprirtual price you apparently have paid to achieve that level of relative comfort. I'd rather stay poor, then to make the pact with the devil you are describing.

[dajoki]

149. How anyone that has...

gotten themselves out of poverty and become so coldhearted is beyond me. It would be nice if we could all "get ourselves out of poverty" but attitudes like this are what make difficult for everybody. I agree with you Two Americas, I'd rather stay poor...

[bobbolink]

150. "I pity you for the sprirtual price you apparently have paid "

That is so right, as Cheney so well exemplifies....

No heart...

:applause:

[MH1]

97. Thank you

"poor people are not morons"

even if some people would try to have us believe that.

Good post.

[Leopolds Ghost]

132. What about when Sec.8 houing is torn down for a parking lot b/c they didn't want to bulldoze trees?

Parking, like a vast strip mine, is always more important than trees
OR people in this country, or even entire towns and buildings.

And trees are always more important than poor people

(but not rich people who are allowed to cut them down, even on national parkland, so long as they pay a fine.)

What is the value of plastic bags compared to the destructiveness each and every one of you have wreaked upon your landscape by building, patronizing and advocating for vast seas of asphalt in your home towns and insisting that they get built as a GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT (driving up the cost of US made goods, incidentally?)

YOU require those parking lots to be built. All you on DU who drive and pay taxes and attend public meetings to make sure every new development in your neighborhood has "enough parking".

As if the developer should answer to the State on the issue of parking and be compelled to build more of it, making his development even uglier and less enviro-friendly. The State -- YOUR state -- considers parking an issue of public welfare more essential than affordability or trees or cost of retail goods, cost of living.

Canvas bags? Just another cost of living add-on. Try walking to the grocery store sometime.

I feel NO GUILT about using plastic bags.

See, where I come from (and most liberals I meet can't comprehend this -- I remember a thread about it here) we RECYCLE plastic bags. EVERYONE does it.

[bobbolink]

151. I don't think Sec 8 housing matters to most DUers. That's just for those of us

who are only needed at election time, and then discarded. And, even with elections, the attitude is, "So, who else would you vote for? Suck it up, because we don't have to listen to you or care, because there's nobody else who does, either."

:mad:

[Two Americas]

36. is it?

Are we so sure that people and the environment are at odds? I don't believe that. People who are greedy and rapacious and exploitative are at odds with the environment, and we praise, admire, emulate, shill for, reward and obey those few who are simultaneously destroying the environment and human culture, communities and well being - destroying human life for the sake of amassing personal wealth and power.

The two causes are the same - save the environment and save the people who live in the environment - and always - ALWAYS - human beings come first or we cease being fully human ourselves.

We don't need to control the people with carrots and sticks - that is tyranny. We need to control the few who are preying on the many - we need to defend the many from the few. This has been true throughout history, it is the essence of politics, let alone liberal or progressive politics, and we are shirking our duty through nothing but fear and cowardice and complacency.

Protecting the many from the dominance and tyranny of the few is the age old struggle we are called to participate in. We are AWOL. That is the problem, and nothing else.

[demgurl]

43. I do think that is what a lot of people here believe.

I have seen this thread before and a lot of folks either put down poor people (like they have a choice about being poor) or they just say somehow the poor people will get along. The people who are having a hard time making ends meet have spoken up and said this would be a hardship on them. I am not one of those people and so I do not have any idea what they are going through. That is why I try to listen to them with open ears and an open heart. If they say this will be a hardship then we must take that into consideration and try to work around it.

I tried to illustrate that we can be aware of the plight of those in need while still putting forth the effort to try and save the environment.

You want the truth? No, I do not think it is hard when choosing between the environment and those who have to do without. I was trying to be kind to those who would only choose the environment so they would keep their ears open and hear what I had to say to try to help those who have less than I do.

I see many more problems than you do and they are not those who reign above everyone else. If that were true than everyone else who could, would, recycle. No, I see much bigger problems. I see that the GOP is being supported because they are enablers. They set the tone for this country and they allow people to express pure hate and disdain for others and it is OK. (in their eyes, of course) That is why people like them because people have these feelings inside that they have always felt bad about but the GOP allows them to express these feelings without feeling bad at all.

I am a member of a progressive board where people do everything to save the environment but have become out of touch about the plight of the poor in this country. We can not afford to loose sight of our humanity. We can not just dismiss the poor and say they will make it somehow because you know what? A lot of them are not making it. Every time someone dies because of no health insurance, they are not making it. Every time someone goes to bed hungry, they are not making it. Every time someone is put out on the streets, they are not making it. And the list goes on.

This does not have to be an all or nothing solution. We can compromise and help the poor while we save the environment. Why are so many people not willing to listen and try to help? Why are concerns shut down? How much longer can we keep turning a blind eye before we are the ones not making it? I hope others have more compassion for me when that happens then the lack of compassion shown on this board right now.

By the way, all of this is not directed at you. I am venting about a lot of things I have seen here that make me sick.

[Two Americas]

66. I won't blame the people

When almost all power and wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few, and when our lives, our government and our very survival are controlled by and dependent upon the whims, desires and needs of those few, I will not blame the people for our social problems.

Good post, and my response is not directed at you, either, nor meant to contradict anything you are saying.

[Miss Chybil]

9. I don't like the tax, or ration idea.

I'll just bring my own bag and plant cactus in my yard. I still like the little bit of freedom of choice I have left.

[pnwmom]

10. Good post. Lots of food for thought. K & R.

[smokey nj]

12. K&R

[Subdivisions]

13. A compelling post, bobbolink. Thank you for writing it. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

15. And the divide will grow worse until progressives re-embrace their

roots, and return fore square to bread and butter issues: poverty, housing, hunger, education, and debt relief.

Excellent post: bookmarking.

:thumbsup:

[pamela]

16. K & R & thank you.

"If we can't soften our hearts enough to put these people first, then we at least need to be logical enough to look at what simply doesn't work."

Well said. :applause:

[pamela]

17. oops, dupe nt

[bobbolink]

22. Heh...it was worth repeating...

I'll take all your applause I can get.

:rofl:

Oooooooooooops, now I'll get my lovely troll with her "drama queen" slam...

:rofl:

[knitter4democracy]

19. Kick for the night crowd

:)

[dajoki]

20. kick

[truedelphi]

23. bravo! Bobbolink

I had friends who were never more than three days away from jetting around the planet. Their jobs took them to exotic places all the time - and for whatever reason it never dawned on them how heavy a carbon footprint that lifestyle is.

They used to yell at me for eating meat.

Everyone uses a carbon footprint defined by their needs and their lifestyle requirements.

But like you say - the Corporatists are going to have us examine the ways that the poorest can be trashed for trying to exist. While the same old same old continues.

[bobbolink]

25. Divide and conquer still works pretty well, eh?

Set the muddleclass against poor folk, and light up and enjoy the fireworks show!

:mad:

What's *really* sad is that we don't seem to learn, and keep being willing to play the same game, with slightly different game pieces.

[truedelphi]

26. Yeah Ilike the description of different game pieces

Especially apropos as we head into another Depression, which of course most of us learned in school could never come about again because of the restrictions that were put in place after the last one.

But over the decades, the behind the scenes players came up with some game pieces that were free of the regs - and now our economy heads off the abyss.

[bobbolink]

27. what I meant by different game pieces.... black vs white, gay vs straight,

poor vs just about eveyone else, etc.

They can always manage to find ways of getting us at each others' throats. And we cooperate with them.

But, of course you're right, also..... they're changing other game pieces behind the scenes.... I hadn't really thought of that part in that way.

Oh, well, just thanks for that... I'm sure that'll guarantee me a good nights sleep tonight.

:rofl:

[truedelphi]

29. See -- you are even deeper than you thought that you were. n/t

[bobbolink]

59. And the funny thing is, I still keep digging.

:rofl:

[kineneb]

24. I still use plastic bags

I recycle them as bathroom garbage bags. If I remember, I can donate them to the Gleaners, from whence comes our free food each month. Or just put them in the blue recycle bin. Admittedly, I have a car, and I try to remember to leave the "cloth" bags in it. But I don't always remember them.

Charging extra for store plastic bags is absurd and will only hurt those least likely to be able to afford the extra amount. I prefer the "carrot" approach of our local (independently owned! huzzah!)grocery- they take money off (I think 5 cents) when you bring in your own bags. It is a good incentive, and if it were $.15/cloth bag, more people would be likely to BYO.

Again, a kneejerk reaction to the wrong problem. The problem is not the plastic bags, it is the SUV into which they are loaded.

[blindpig]

47. The SUV is a convenient target

but it goes much deeper than that. It is the industry which makes the plastic bags, it is the oil which the bags are made from. The question is, why is it that regular folks must take responsibility for the products that a few get rich on? The few get wealthy beyond worry, live on their 20k acre with the view of the waterfalls who sends a big check to WWF and they're a big environmentalist. Never mind that their bucks come from some earth destroying enterprise...It's not just the grotesque unfairness of it all, it is that we will never succeed in getting a handle on our degraded environment by not dealing with the source problem, a production system whose purpose is the ever greater generation of profits instead of the meeting of human needs.

[bobbolink]

52. "it is the oil which the bags are made from." BINGO!

Sometimes when I just buy one or two things, and will be asked if I want it in a bag, I say, "No, thanks. I'll save a petroleum product today, so we don't have to bomb another country."

I'm just EVIL.

:evilgrin:

[youthere]

49. Contact your local seamstress too...

and ask your farmer's market vendors...they can almost always use extra bags. That's a great idea for stores to offer an incentive rather than a penalty for reusing bags, or using cloth...punitive measures are rarely effective.

[Leopolds Ghost]

134. Everyone should encourage their regional grocery chains to recycle plastic bags

Here in the DC area, everyone does it. You bring them back to the store

and you put paper bags out with the TONS MORE paper you get from "liberal"
publications and the US 4th class mail (the degrading and enviro-harmful
practice of junk mail, which is what pays for the remnants of our postal
service, which depends on more and more junk mail to survive) inside them.

Parking lots are the real issue. And number of bodies on the planet, and percent arable land that goes to feed cattle or humans. And overall oil consumption.

Plastic is a moot point because it's an oil byproduct, just like hydrogen.

[KillCapitalism]

28. K&R

[balantz]

30. K&R

The economic disparity in this country is not the mark of a fair and equal society. If this society truly were the democracy it espouses to be, there would be no poverty problem. And the safety nets for those who fall through the cracks would be wide and compassionate--and a mark of wisdom! All signs show there will soon be more and more poor in America, and the current theivery and looming crash of our economy will enlarge that population and increase the burden on them (us).

WHERE IS OUR GOVERNMENT? WHERE IS OUR AMERICA? WHY DO OUR REPS. SIT IDLY BY?

We are sliding into a ditch of despair. Will Obama or Clinton reach across the table with the corporate elite and make deals that will save us?

Or worse, is McCain the corporate darling?

As long as the system is rigged to fill the coffers of the elite the poor in America will suffer more and more.

This sham is a rigged fascist agenda.

How will the poor and economically disadvantaged regain a seat in this government?

[Two Americas]

31. "in order to palliate their eco-consciences"

A very important phrase from your stellar post - "in order to palliate their eco-consciences."

What sort of solutions to social problems do not take into account the impact on human beings?

Think about that. Think about the insanity of that - supposed solutions to social problems that not only do not take into account the impact on people, but that often do more harm than good. Solutions to social problems that do not take into account the impact on human beings are not solutions to social problems at all. They cannot be. They are something else, masquerading as solutions to social problems. What are they, exactly?

Guilty consciences are driving such ersatz solutions. Why guilty consciences, and who have these guilty consciences?

And how do these guilty consciences not get translated into true and effective political action? Why do they not get translated into true and effective political action? Why do the same people who are defending these phony solutions so vigorously, also resist any and all talk of true and effective political action?

Do we have the courage to ask these questions?

[crispini]

32. OMG it is so not hard to remember to take your own damn bags.

I don't understand why people don't do more. It's EASY. Put them in the car!

[Two Americas]

35. did you even read the OP?

Some people don't have cars.

The OP is not about plastic bags, it is about misguided liberalism that shares more with Republicanism than it does with traditional Democratic party politics, and that often places the least fortunate among us as the last priority. In the OP's example, the wonderful scheme didn't even achieve the goals it was designed to achieve - it made things worse.

Some people don't do more because they don't have the means to do more.

For some people nothing is "easy."

Where is your humanity?

[crispini]

40. I think the criteria of "made things worse" is possibly unsubstantiated.

If the throwaway plastic bags were replaced with more durable, reusable alternatives, then of course you would see a spike in the amount of plastic resin used, but it would be a onetime spike.

Furthermore, the quote is attributed to Serge Lavoie is "president and CEO of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association." -- so forgive me if I take his numbers with a grain of salt, as opposed to a more impartial source like the New York Times.

And I do think it's silly. The OP is railing against legislation that has been proven to work in Ireland. This kind of legislation is going to have minimal impact in the long run when people learn a new habit. Yes, of course, we should consider the impact of EVERYTHING before we pass legislation, but we can mitigate that impact on lower socioeconomic groups in other ways. The truth is that we have to save the planet.

It's just bullshit to say people can't remember to bring bags. I see people still -- STILL -- getting bags every day in Whole Foods, even though all of them ought to know better -- and Whole Foods gives a 5 cent rebate on the bags. Those people are shopping at Whole Foods; they're not disadvantaged, they're just fucking lazy.

[Lorien]

51. Amen crispini! n/t

[bobbolink]

53. " I see people still -- STILL -- getting bags every day in Whole Foods, "

Exactly, and thank you for proving my point.

It's the LATTE LIBERALS at Whole Foods who WON'T change their habits, no matter how many sanctions you increase that hurt poor folk.

I appreciate you making the point!

[Leopolds Ghost]

133. Where I come from, we RECYCLE plastic bags. Most DUers can't comprehend that.

Besides which, the Poor will always be the revered Sacred Lamb of the

Middle Class Civic Religion that Bourgeois Bohemians have bought into--

ready and willing to be sacrificed to alleviate the self-acknowledged
sins of the upper classes.

[bobbolink]

139. When you're right, you're right! But, you see, the liberal mind-set is there is only

ONE way to solve the problems, and that is THEIR way, poor folk be damned!

:nuke:

[Two Americas]

64. that is fine and well

But the discussion is not about bags, which has been stated and demonstrated and illustrated again and again.

The OP is railing against a set of attitudes and assumptions.

It is clear from your post that you think "we have to save the planet" takes precdence over the need to save human beings, and you are angry and impatient with anyone who does not share that view. That anger and impatience has real consequences to real people. You dismiss that possibility with the cavalier statement that "we can mitigate that impact on lower socioeconomic groups in other ways." In other words, we can worry about "them" later, right now "we need to save the planet." The attitude you are expressing is what some of us here are challenging.

[bobbolink]

57. "Where is your humanity?"

Humanity is no longer a liberal value.

Castigating poor people *is*.

:(

[apocalypsehow]

37. "It's EASY. Put them in the car!" Are you listening to yourself? Did you read the OP?

Let me put it in plain English: FOR SOME FOLKS THERE IS NO FUCKING "CAR"!!!

There was a time - I well remember it - when progressives truly adhered to Hubert Humphrey's maxim: "It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

A maxim you - and, sadly, many of my other fellow progressives - apparently have long forgotten.

[mntleo2]

48. Uhhhh, What If You Don't HAVE A Car?

...I'm just sayin' ...

As someone who has had to depend on the (being polite here) "urbanely challenged public transportation system" with a couple of toddlers, a stroller, blankets (it is cold at the bus stop, their coats are not enough, and they also may need it while they nap) some toys (to keep them from snatching the hat off the dozing lady in the seat ahead, etc) and a backpack (to not only carry money but sippy cups, diapers, food to keep them happy, and the sticky crumbs that eventually get all over everything), I can tell ya, "just loading up my car," has been a luxury.

Plus, it is not about loading up a car or even a backpack already loaded with baby things. Even if you have a car, cloth bags are expensive to someone who has to watch literally every single penny in order to make it until the next time there is some meager amount of money coming in from that low paying McJob. If you have to have the car to get to work because the "urbanely challenged public transportation" doesn't go to where you work, you have to get kids back and forth to daycare (with their lunches, and all their gear), the cost of gas alone has skyrocketed. So gas alone is eating into everything else including food costs, you have to feed the family, pay energy costs for the home, and somehow manage to AFFORD groceries, even with food stamps if you qualify.

Oh. And BTW. Food stamps. Did you know they only supply $1.19 per meal per family member? While it is better than nothing, try feeding yourself on that, keeping in mind to even qualify for them you have to be beyond poor, you are destitute (your income would not even pay rent). If you do the math, for a family of 4 this means the head of household is expected to feed everyone, including beverage, for 4.76 per meal. What can you prepare with that that is nutritious, filling and not too time consuming? Remember, working a 40 hour week with kids means you are lucky to get 5 hours sleep after all the chores before and after work, so fixing a good meal that is fast and filling is also a challenge.

Cloth bags just do not compute in many low income people's budgets. Food does compute. Gas does. Heat and lights do (and sometimes that has to go in order for the cost to get to work). Toilet paper does. Clothes for ever-growing kids do (I have seen 2nd hand clothes costing as much as discount stores at many used clothing stores, underwear is almost always as expensive as if you buy them new). Shampoo does. Washing and cleaning costs do ...the list goes on. God forbid if in the middle of all that, your old barely running car poops out on the freeway and you have to somehow figure out how to not only get yourself and the kids the rest of the way home and the car off the freeway and repaired, you have to figure out on the spot how to get everyone everywhere including yourself to work within about 10 hours ahead without a cent extra in your pocket.

Perhaps you might understand better why figuring out how the poor are going to get a meal fixed much less carrying around cloth bags. Perhaps you can see how cloth bags could be one more "invisible tax" that the burdened poor has to pay. And btw, the poor pay about 17-19% of their incomes in regressive taxes (such as property taxes in their rents, gas taxes, etc) while upper income people pay less than 5% of their incomes in taxes. This computes to almost 1/5 of someone's income compared to 1/1000th for the rich.

It takes a village to raise a child indeed. If only the "village" just invested in decent, affordable public transportation instead of assuming everyone has a car to load those cloth bags IN, is only one of the problems, there are myriads of others to consider, if it would be considered but are not.

See what I mean?

I am just sayin' ...

Cat In Seattle <---who knows of what she speaks, I have experienced all of the above

[Lorien]

50. If you don't have a car, then you sure as heck don't want to carry

your groceries home in a bunch of cheap, flimsy plastic bags. Yeah, I used to be so poor that I lived on only $80 a month and even a ride on the bus was a luxury. I put what little i could afford in groceries in an old backpack then. Even the .99 cent reusable bags are far more comfortable and far SAFER for your purchases then the cheap plastic kind. OR have you never lost a dozen eggs to a torn bag before?

You DO pay for cheap plastic bags already! They cost 4.5 cents each and the cost is added into the cost of your groceries or other retail items. Do away with them and the shop owners can take a few pennies off your purchases.


Lastly, our ancestors survived very well without such convenience products. The larger implications of what plastic bags are doing to the environment make them INconvenience products. They are now the main culprits in marine animal deaths; even in the most remote regions of the oceans plastic bags can easily be fished out of the water.The planet is literally choking on them, so it's time to take a little responsibility and think of better, more sustainable options.

[bobbolink]

54. Thanks so very much for listening to those you see as beneath you.

need I add....

:sarcasm:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. I walk to go shopping and I just carry the rolled up shopping bags with me

:shrug:

I don't see what the big deal is. They are light, they roll, and since I walk, I can't carry too much anyway. When I'm done with them, I hang them on a nail next to the door.

Perhaps they should make a few free reusable shopping bags available to every household. Then everybody would be happy?

Bottom line: Rich, poor, young, old, we are all screwed when we destroy our planet.

[bobbolink]

62. You don't "see what the big deal is" because you don't allow yourself to put yourself

in the shoes of another.

I gave some very clear examples of people on the edge... people who just don't have any more struggle to give.

You can either open your heart and understand that not everyone is like you and has your options, or you can look down your nose at people and further divide the nation and the party.

Cat In Seattle painstakingly described her own experience, and how it feels to just not be able to do one more thing, and to have others look down on her in judgement. You can decide to care about her, and others in her situation, or you can judge and condemn.

It's the judging that is so prevalent in today's "liberals" that is earning us the name "Latte Liberal". You can add to that, or you can open your heart.

It's your choice.

Which one will it be?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. No, I was poor. My mom was poor too.

She had to move out of her apartment when it was condemned. I understand not being able to afford the cloth bags. They should be given out for free. If the country can give out coupons for the much less important digital TV converters, than surely they can afford a couple of dollars per bag.

However, I cannot understand not taking the bags with you, except in the case of the soldier. Seattle cat talked about having a bunch of stuff to take with you on the bus. But if you are given bags at the grocery store, then you have to carry the same amount of stuff home with you. The only difference free cloth bags would make would be that you would have to carry them to the store. They roll up and take no space at all. You could fit one in each pocket. I know how difficult it is to remember everything. I have to write out lists for myself and I don't even have children. Perhaps people could be given two misses per month or something. That way as long as you made a good faith effort, you wouldn't be charged extra.


We must stop these bags though. The woman should do it for her kids. The impact on the environment is too great. They've tried having boxes for recycling, they've tried incentive programs. The only option left is to either make those incentive programs much much better or punish people for using new plastic bags.

You could say that you could reward those who bring their own bags with savings, but wouldn't the grocery stores just adjust their food prices to make up the difference so in the end the burden *still* gets shifted to the poor?

But we absolutely must get rid of those bags.

[bobbolink]

68. Too bad you missed the Compassion Train.

Maybe next time.

[Karenina]

75. Rather than "punishing people," perhaps the SOURCE

should undergo a bit of scrutiny.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

81. I thought about that

As a poster mentioned below, they are just dying to push those bags on you. However, if they were to fine the manufacturer, or even the store, for pushing unnecessary bags, I can just imagine that that is going to get pushed onto the consumer.

I think that the best best option would be a hard hitting media campaign urging people to use cloth bags. But that would a.) require Congress to spend money on it and unnerve the plastics lobby and b.) require a long term commitment to the project. I think it would be a smashing success if they spent the wasted money on abstinence only education on it.

[Two Americas]

107. so clear

So obvious, so simple. So much in keeping with the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party. Such an important component of the times of the greatest electoral successes by the party. So in line with our better natures and our humanitarianism and compassion. Such a strong common denominator we could all share, such a powerful basis for consensus.

Yet so controversial here.

"Rather than 'punishing people,' perhaps the SOURCE should undergo a bit of scrutiny."

Yes. Why are those with the most power, who profit the most from the current state of affairs, who have caused so many of our dire social problems and brought us involuntarily to the brink of catastrophe, completely immune from scrutiny among Democrats?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

80. Do you think they should allow lead in toys?

Toys that have lead in them are cheaper. More poor people would be able to afford toys for their kids. This is good. But lead poisons the environment and children. This is not as good. So, they banned lead in toys. This hurts the poor because toys are more expensive and they are less likely to be able to afford toys for their kids.


Now, this is just an example. Obviously foods are a necessity while toys are not. However, I think there are similarities. If the bags were free, then the only thing you would need to do would be to bring them. There are a lot of things that we could allow that would make things cheaper. However, we don't because they are harmful to the health. Biggest factor that affects our health? The environment. Therefore, destroying our environment is destroying our own health. And like lead in toys, we know that we cannot count on the manufacturing sector to correct itself. And this is what it all comes down to.

We must combat the manufacturers steel grip on the media. As someone posted below, they bag every single item. So perhaps the best first step would be to charge the stores for the bags they give out. But again, I see this just being passed on to the consumer. In fact, I cannot think of a way to punish the plastics corp. without them just passing the burden on to the consumer.

To complicate this environmental destruction, we do not have solid ground to stand on. My husband is from England. In England, "poor" means something totally different than it does here. You have access to a counsel house, food, a stipend, etc. So I think that reasonably all people of England could afford the tax, or at least the vast vast majority. However, in the U.S., we have people out of their homes, and out of work. We do nothing to help them. So I think that something that could work in Europe, might not get the same results here.


Perhaps, they could use the money from the tax to increase funding for Medicaid, food stamps, etc. But perhaps the burden would still lay at the feet of the poor.

[puebloknot]

76. I get what you are saying, and you *didn't* miss the compassion train.

Everyone, if they are *at all* able to care for themselves, has to remember certain basic details of life, whether they're driving a car or riding the bus.

We need to avoid sermonizing and stick to the subject we're all interested in, and that is using our commons for the good of us all. And we don't need neighbors ratting on neighbors about whether they made a good-faith effort. We need leadership in the country to see that certain destructive practices are stopped, even if some corporation does see their bottom line affected.

[bobbolink]

83. Avoiding sermonizing would be good.

Please begin with avoiding sermonizing and punishing poor folk for doing the best they can with horrible circumstances.

[puebloknot]

88. "Too bad you missed the Compassion Train."

I think I've engaged here long enough. But I also think that your stridency does not serve *poor people*! I, to my knowledge, have never punished anyone who was poor, except in the larger sense in which we could assume that anyone who is eating is taking from those who are not. That's an ancient and universal problem, and enlightened beings like Jesus and the Buddha were not able to solve it.

[bobbolink]

90. Latte Liberals need to get a grip, and stop proposing "solutions" that hurt those who can least

afford to be hurt.

If you read others posts on this thread, you will see that many are saying the same thing.

Strident?

Like, say, Malcolm X?

Shame on me!

:crazy:

[puebloknot]

110. Definitely not like Malcolm X. nt

[bobbolink]

128. Well, geee... ya got me there.

Thank you for your liberal kindness.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

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

[mntleo2]

105. 4.5 is 93.5 cents more in the pocket of the poor

...lemme see what I could buy for the family on that ...oh yeah ...
*1/2 lb cheap hamburger to stretch with pasta and sauce in a meal,
*adding another dime it is a trip to the doctor on the bus with 2 under 5 year old kids who are free,
*2 rolls of TP,
*1/3 gallon of gas which, if you pray hard enough God will make more to get you to work (and She has done that dozens of times for me),
*3 boxes of mac and cheese to make for dinner if they are on sale,
*a couple pieces of clothing for the kids or for your work clothes at a garage sale,
*a small bag of flour on sale so you can make noodles, bake a birthday cake or make some cornbread for you and the kids,
* a few kotex at a vending machine to replace the rags you use because kotex are too expensive ...OOOO now you are in the lap of luxury!
* 2 jars of baby food if they are on sale
* a small bottle of shampoo for the family
* at the dollar store you can find about anything for the house you desperately need by merely adding about a dime more to cover tax and the rest of the price
* at the dollar store a large candle for when they shut off your electricity and you have to use them to cook, stay warm or see in the dark


Last of all:
* what you can give to your child because it is required at school for supplies and they are too embarrassed to let you ask for help or they will get teased and bullied by some middle classed kid whose parents have taught them that "it is just a buck ..."


Need I go on? See what Bobby is trying to say is a buck is something the poor have to SQUEEZE until there is nothing left. 4.5 cents is a savings. And yes I reuse those bags at the food bank, for garbage, to store things, etc.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[knitter4democracy]

99. Ummmmm . . . Not everyone has a car.

You know that, right?

[puebloknot]

38. K&R Interesting article! I lived in post-war Germany when I was 12...

...and I remember that *everyone* used string bags for their shopping -- something we Americans soon were doing, too. And even the poorest of the poor used them for all kinds of purposes. Of course, they were merely practical, not a desiger item, in a variety of colors, as they are now.

I wonder when plastic bags first came into use. It would certainly be great if the stores that claim to be concerned about sustainability, like Whole Foods, would just use their buying clout and get string bags made up by the thousands, and offer them for free, in lieu of plastic. And even if there were a charge in various places, a string bag sans frills couldn't cost much to manufacture.

Let's get George Soros involved in this idea! :) Kidding, but not kidding.

[bobbolink]

55. Did everyone in Germany have a home?

[puebloknot]

70. If you know anything about the destruction that took place in WWII...

...you'll know that not everyone in Germany had a home. And many people who *had* homes before the war ended up losing them, or if they and their homes survived the war, they leased them out to the American military (in the Ameican zone) because they could no longer afford to live in them. There were more maids and cooks and chauffeurs than can be imagined because people had to do *something* to feed themselves. Some people ended up doing those tasks for their conquerors in what had formerly *been* their own homes. Some did it with resentment and hatred of their occupying overlords; some accepted their particular "karma" and made the best of it. I learned how to make cheesecake from a 60-year-old German woman who came once a week to help my mother with household tasks. While she was earning the American dollar cleaning *our* house, she was paying someone in German marks to clean *her* house! You just can't keep a good woman down! :)

There were people living in gardening shacks and cooking their food over a charcoal burner, long after the war ended. Bombed out buildings were still to be seen all over the landscape. They were growing their own food, and hiring themselves out to do "menial" tasks in order to survive. There was no public assistance.

Ten years after the war, I knew a German family who were living in what amounted to a large storage locker. An elderly mother and father, their son and his wife and their two children, their daughter, were all living with sleeping bags and camping equipment, and wearing very worn clothing. They had all suffered terribly during the war, but their attitude was happiness that they had the opportunity to go forward with their lives, and they did so. They all worked at various things and pooled their resources, and rejoiced in the smallest comforts of life. And, again, this was ten years after the end of the war.

I attended a concert with a German friend, and saw a room full of people who all looked like vababonds, based on the quality of their clothing. The war killed off their prosperity, but not their love of music!

I don't intend to paint a bucolic picture here. Things were tough for the Germans, but they put that legendary "trains running on time" efficiency and determination into building what is now the modern German state. And they owe, still, much to the Marshall Plan in helping to rebuild their country. That was public assistance on a grand scale, but it was not a way for individuals to pay for everyday living expenses.

I can't speak to whether everyone has a home in Germany today. I doubt it seriously. Every society faces the problem of how to take care of people who have fallen on hard times, and can't go clean someone else's house because they are too frail to do it. Every society also faces the problem of people who feel uninclined to do things they feel are beneath them in order to survive. It has ever been so, and I don't know what the answer to it all is.

How *did* we get from the use of string bags for shopping, to whether everyone in post-war Germany had a home? I can say that most everyone in Germany had at least one very utilitarian string shopping bag.

[bobbolink]

84. We GOT there because of the sermonizing to poor people that they

aren't doing enough for the country.

ENOUGH!

[puebloknot]

86. Perhaps I'm just feeling a little dense today, but your responses to my...

...post about Germany (the question in the first place), simply do not compute. Maybe you could clarify a bit for me.

I get your larger premise that a tax on plastic bags would hurt those who can't even afford the plastic bag. Removing the tax? There are still people who can't afford the plastic bag, and there is a crying need in the country to use our common resources to try to help -- as and when we can as individuals, as and when we *should* as a country.

Taxes on gasoline, motel rooms, telephone usage, food -- you name it, it is a greater burden on the poor than on those who can afford to pay it. It has always been so. I favor banning plastic bags, not taxing them.

Sermonizing is unproductive always, I think.

[amborin]

39. never use plastic bags anymore

i use a large canvas sack from a grocery store

not everything fits in it, and often i forget it

so i tell the bag person 'no bags'

i simply put everything back into the shopping cart, take it to the car where i have two large cartons in the trunk... i put everything into these two large cartons....

this is my penalty for forgetting the canvas bag

i'm not the only one who does this....many people now in so cal do not use any plastic bags, not paper either

[uppityperson]

71. I get odd looks when I say "no bag", but really often don't need one.

So much is already packed, twice, and yes, I can carry several things at one time. "No bags, thank you". "do you need help out?" "no, unless you want to come home and help me inside too".

[groovedaddy]

41. The basic conundrum is this: do we want an economy where profit is king

or do we want an economy where the needs of people come first?
We know what we have now - profits matter more than people.

Those of lesser means need to get politically active in greater numbers. That's a tall order if you have to work 2 - 3 jobs just to survive. But WE can still VOTE (and hopefully, it will actually be counted!).

If you've never been poor, you really don't know what it's like.

I heard Dennis Kucinich say that we already have weapons of mass destruction in our cities - poverty. The guy lived it growing up and knows of whence he speaks.

Plastic bags are only the tip of the iceburg. As prices rise on food, medicine, fuel, etc. the poor are disproportionately effected. Poverty is (or should be) issue #1. Cure that ill and we can truly call ourselves "civilized."

[Two Americas]

65. hear hear

Thank you for stating a few very important things so clearly.

"Do we want an economy where profit is king or do we want an economy where the needs of people come first?"

"Plastic bags are only the tip of the iceburg. As prices rise on food, medicine, fuel, etc. the poor are disproportionately effected. Poverty is (or should be) issue #1. Cure that ill and we can truly call ourselves 'civilized.'"

Why is there so much resistance to these simple ideas, among people who are supposedly liberals and progressives? Such anger, such hostility? Are we to ignore that? Are we not permitted to point that out?

The absurdity of claiming to be concerned about "saving the planet" and then turning all if these discussions into debates about the use of plastic bags is so obvious. There is an inconsistency, a dishonesty, a denial implicit in the position people are taking.

Saying that "we need to save the planet" - taking the high ground - so therefore we need to use a free market approach to getting rid of plastic bags - advocating more of the sam approach that has caused the problems to begin with - and too bad if that approach and method has a negative impact on struggling people - thereby taking the moral low ground and justifying to themselves the need to take the moral low ground - is the absolute height of hypocrisy and moral cowardice. It is the precise opposite of everything that liberalism and the Democratic party once stood for.

But is is OK, supposedly, because "we are saving the planet" - whoever "we" is, and that "we" certainly excludes quite a few people. But the planet is NOT being saved by this approach. It is not, and human beings are being harmed.

[groovedaddy]

122. very similar to the phenomenon of taking positions that are good

for the environment but threaten people's livelihoods, i.e. loggers. Too many people discount this aspect and kill off much progress by ignoring this aspect of change.
If we had a society that said "everyone who wants to work, will work and have income," it would be a very different matter of "saving the trees."

[lies]

42. I live in Ireland

And I can attest that you do NOT see ANY plastic bags beside the roads... Anywhere.

If you happen to see one in the park, blowing around, you soon see two or three people going over and picking it up and putting it in a bin.

Great law!

You also, in case this wasn't mentioned, pay to throw things away (you buy a "bin tag" which the garbage guys take when they empty your bin) or you recycle, which is completely free.

And (surprise surprise) it works, perfectly.

People recycle like mad here.

Good job Ireland, no wonder you constantly finish near the top of "best places to live" surveys, even considering the weather.

[puebloknot]

79. Your post brings to mind the great contast I observed once...

...between what you've described -- where people care about their neighborhood, and take personal responsibility to pick up the trash (or follow a law that says they must) -- and a time when I attended a concert in a park in America, and at the end, people were wading through trash as they exited the area. There were garbage cans placed all through the park, but no one bothered to use them. After all, there was a cleanup crew that would take care of the problem later!

In the book "The Tipping Point," there is a chapter which addresses the matter of run-down neighborhoods, subway areas, etc., and what happens when the Power of One (my paraphrase of the author's idea) kicks in, and one person picks up the trash, mends a broken window, paints over some grafitti. The "virus" begins to spread, and one more person cleans up his/her act. One small act which breaks into desperation can have a strong ripple effect. We can talk all day about how people got to be poor, and how they are not to blame, and there is much truth in that. What we need is a means to make it the norm for people, no matter what their socio-economic level, to start with picking up just one plastic bag that they did not, personally, throw in the street. But that's spitting in the ocean. There should be an outright ban on toxic substances of all kinds, not a tax on allowable continuing use. And let me add here that I'm well aware that someone who doesn't know where he's sleeping or eating on a given night has greater concerns than saving the planet.

I lived in Germany post-war, and traveled a lot with my family, and I observed that the simplest, poorest little neighborhood was clean as a whistle. People swept the streets, picked up trash, kept their small lawns tended. I've often thought that people there, and in that time, were so grateful to have peace, and even the smallest place to live, that they exhulted in making it shine.

To fend off any shots across my bow, I'm well aware that there are veterans and poor and mentally-ill people living under bridges in America -- and there were in Europe too, back then, and maybe still. That social/moral conundrum has always been with us, and no one has been wise enough or caring enough to solve it so far. I just think that putting a tax on the use of a destructive item is a burden that would/will be borne by those who can easily afford it, and would not mitigate greatly against the wellbeing of those who are destitute. That is a problem that needs a broader answer.

In a sense, *every* value added tax could be seen as adding to the already-existing burden of the poor. This extremely rich country could afford to use its tax system to assure that there is a place of safety, if not luxury, for everyone. Given that everything that FDR tried to do in that regard is under attack, I do not hold my breath until it happens. And unfortunately when "faith-based" entities enter the picture, all too often it's a case of a bowl of hot soup in exchange for a required Sunday school lesson.

Your post makes me wistful about the idea of living in Ireland. In the soup of my bloodlines, there's some Irish. I was there once, too. On the way to Frankfurt to join my military father, we landed at Shannon Airport. I remember the patchwork green fields below, as we landed, and the crisp white linen tablecloths in the dining room. And then we took off again, and that's all I've ever seen of Ireland! I was 12 then. My 30ish daughter will attest to the fact that that was a while ago! I seem to recall reading somewhere that the green patchwork I saw is gone now. Is that true?

[lies]

125. wow!

What a great post!

Well, I can't recommend a place more than Ireland... The population is very well educated, the standard of living is extremely high and the things some of us love, the arts, music, literature and even sports, are still maintained and exulted by the government, the schools, etc.

Come visit!

[puebloknot]

138. I'd love to visit!

All that you describe, in spite of a history of a great deal of political trauma, and a history of the worst poverty imaginable in the Potato Famine. Inspiring!

I've just watched "The Wind that Shakes the Barley." Great film.

[Chovexani]

143. It's a very American mentality

I went to a Pagan festival once and actually had words with a Wiccan about throwing her cigarette butt into a creek! People tearing up the campground with their SUVs and leaving trash everywhere. AT A PAGAN FESTIVAL. We are supposed to be Earth honoring people! :wtf:

It was the first and last time I went to that particular event. But I find this utter contempt for one's surroundings to be a uniquely American pathology. People litter everywhere but not nearly the way they do here.

[CrispyQ]

44. Whole Foods Market® to Sack Disposable Plastic Grocery Bags by Earth Day

AUSTIN, Texas. (January 22, 2008). Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFMI), the world's leading natural and organic foods supermarket, announced today it will end the use of disposable plastic grocery bags at the checkouts in all of its 270 stores in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. with the goal to be plastic bag-free by Earth Day, April 22, 2008.

"Central to Whole Foods Market's core values is caring for our communities and the environment, and this includes adopting wise environmental practices," said A.C. Gallo, co-president and chief operating officer for Whole Foods Market. "More and more cities and countries are beginning to place serious restrictions on single-use plastic shopping bags since they don't break down in our landfills, can harm nature by clogging waterways and endangering wildlife, and litter our roadsides. Together with our shoppers, our gift to the planet this Earth Day will be reducing our environmental impact as we estimate we will keep 100 million new plastic grocery bags out of our environment between Earth Day and the end of this year alone."

The first U.S. supermarket to commit to completely eliminating disposable plastic grocery bags to help protect the environment and conserve resources, Whole Foods Market has declared today "Bring Your Own Bag Day" and will give out over 50,000 reusable shopping bags to customers at the checkouts this morning to celebrate today's announcement. "We hope to inspire shoppers to prompt positive environmental change by adopting the reusable bag mindset," added Gallo.

more at link: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/pressroom/pr_01-22-08.html

===
Seven years ago I purchased 3 large canvas bags from Safeway. The routine is simple: keep the bags in your car, take them in the store, when you've emptied the goods in your house, place the bags under/by your keys to go out to the car again. I haven't collected more than a dozen plastic bags in seven years. It took a few times to get the 'place the bags by the key's' part down. ;)

Don't like the look of plastic bags? Here are some ultra fashionable reusable bags. A friend gave me a set this year for xmas & I love these bags!! I keep one in my purse, one in my car, one at work & my husband keeps one. They are durable, fashionable & carry a ton of stuff!! Envriosax: http://www.peacefulcompany.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=140

Many of the local grocery stores are selling reusable bags for 99¢. Whole Foods sells a giant colorful bag for $1 - it holds a ton of stuff!

Plastic bags are toxic conveniences that we need to wean ourselves from.

[knitter4democracy]

101. Re-read the OP, please.

The poor can't shop at WholePaycheck. It's too darn expensive. Heck, I have to budget like mad there and check my price book for every item, and my hubby's a doctor.

And not everyone has a car. Or a door. Or keys. Telling people to just buy four bags for all their shopping assumes they have the money and the space to store them in the meantime. Not everyone has that.

[Two Americas]

111. I am truly stunned

"ultra fashionable reusable bags" ??

"They are durable, fashionable & carry a ton of stuff!!" ??

"Whole Foods?" with the trademark register?

"a giant colorful bag for $1 - it holds a ton of stuff!"??

"The routine is simple: keep the bags in your car, take them in the store, when you've emptied the goods in your house, place the bags under/by your keys to go out to the car again. I haven't collected more than a dozen plastic bags in seven years. It took a few times to get the 'place the bags by the key's' part down."

I think you must live some sort of charmed existence that I can only imagine. I am happy for you.

What does this happy story of wonderful domestic life have to do with the OP? Or is it satire and I missed it?

[waiting for hope]

45. Wonderfully written bobbo!

Again, this society and our culture has proven to be one of greed and callousness. The American Idol phase of our existence has taken hold. It seems the path we all need to take is to help push progressive Democrats at the state level - for what is happening nationally is so out of touch with reality.

K&R!

[ChazII]

46. Great last line.

Thank you.

[Luminous Animal]

56. One solution is to use the tax to distribute free canvas bags. (n/t)

[amborin]

58. young mother of 3

it's selfish to have 3 kids, so she's already shown disregard for the planet

saving the planet means sacrifice on everyone's part....we can't continue to indulge our "wants" as much as we'd like to....

otherwise---yes, there should be a tax credit for those under certain income levels, to compensate them for the "regressive" burden of buying a canvas grocery bag

the plastic bags kill birds and other wildlife, they take decades to degrade, they fill up the landfills, kill wildlife, cause all sorts of other problems, require petroleum for their production

of course we need to go after the rich and their gas guzzling SUVs.....slap a penalty on them, that is a must! we also need to let the price of gasoline approach the price Europeans pay....$10 a gallon.....make it costly for people to squander and pollute...and we can compensate there, also, with tax credits or rebates, for those under certain income levels

[RevolutionToday]

69. Those "selfish" poor folk really need to get with the program don't they?

Liberalism, with its holier-than-thou elites who do nothing to change the economic status quo that benefits them, ever. Those tolerant do-gooders who push for gradual, half-assed reforms that eventually get pushed back in the name of economic neccessity. The free market solves everything huh? It will be a good day in America when both liberalism and conservatism die a horrible death.

[amborin]

72. huh?

are you confusing "liberalism" with "neo-liberalism?"

the two are polar opposites

neo-liberalism refers to free market, supply side economics == reaganomics

liberals such as myself constantly fight to improve workers' rights...

[Tech 9]

87. How?

QUOTE

liberals such as myself constantly fight to improve workers' rights...

[amborin]

89. thru

pro union activities

[bobbolink]

92. THANK you! I couldn't even stomach looking at that! These DU RW talking points are

nauseating!

:puke:

No WONDER so many don't even bother with the Dems anymore!

Thanks!

Oh, and welcome to DU!

:toast: :bounce: :toast:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

100. reforms that eventually get pushed back in the name of economic neccessity

Er, what?

"We can't push for environmental reform because of economic necessity."

Liberals rarely get elected by congress, they are passed over for moderates, and when they do, they are so thoroughly shouted down by moderates or RIGHT WINGERS, that they cannot get anything done. Liberals and democrats push for larger tax burdens on the rich and do you know what the right wingers counter that with? "It will hurt the middle class and poor". It doesn't even matter that that isn't true.

"liberalism....die a horrible death"

fantastic.

[puebloknot]

73. We also need to strong-arm the manufacturers of all kinds of gas-guzzling...

...vehicles into doing what they could do if they were sufficiently inspired -- and that is to build vehicles that get infinitely better gas mileage, in the short term, and which use alternative fuels into the future.

We also need efficient and safe public transportation systems. There are a lot of poor people who are driving around in an old klunker that is spewing toxic pollution into the air -- because they have to get around, and there's no other choice.

Speaking for myself (I'm not rich and at retirement age, I'm working for a living every day, and will continue to do so far into the future), I'd love to drive a hybrid vehicle that pollutes a *lot* less. Problem is, you have to *be* rich to afford those vehicles which are allegedly supposed to make a difference for us all.

Plastic bags and disposable diapers are items that need to be banned across the board, everywhere. We can live without them. We did live without them for all of history, up until the present.

I've lived in several areas where the local government has put out plastic bags in parks, in some kind of dispenser, for the purpose of picking up dog shit! If they can do that, they can have cheap but useful string bags in distribution centers throughout each city, and no one has to pay. Of course, string bags won't work for dog shit! But there are "plastic" bags made from corn starch and other materials which do biodegrade. And there's old-fashioned wax paper, or paper bags. And then, of course, we need to stop cutting down trees and made our paper bags out of hemp....

I do go on. We all need to go on and on and on until we see change.

[amborin]

91. agree

it's expensive to drive a hybrid, the price needs to come down

though the honda civic has a fairly affordable one...the accord was supposedly excellent, but it's been discontinued due to lack of sales....folks prever gigantic SUVs

however---shouldn't we all try to stop buying japanese products, until they stop slaugtering whales?

somewhere I read that people who have their own business....or incorporated themselves (apparently not that difficult or costly to do) get gov't rebates or tax deductions for purchasing giant gas guzzling SUVs....how's that for insane gov't policy?

with all the talent here, if we really wanted to, we could have found ways by now to cut our dependence on petroleum

[bobbolink]

93. wow.. so you agree with #58 about the "selfishness" of the mother of 3???

Really?

I thought you had a bit more compassion than that.

Interesting what really comes out...

:(

[puebloknot]

109. I don't know how you made that connection, but it's seriously...

...not rational.

Vaya con Dios!

[bobbolink]

127. That was who you REPLIED to.

Talk about rational..

:crazy:

[blindpig]

74. Your prescriptions are unnecessarily convoluted

and this is because they are all within the frame of our capitalist economic system.

Why should the poor, already overburdened, have the responsibility heaped upon them? What of those who profit greatly by the production of these environmental burdens? Why is it that they profit but we carry the weight?

Yes, I believe that the human population is in excess of the planets carrying capacity, but it is cruel to chastise people for that most natural of human behaviors. It has been shown that when women escape poverty that they reduce their reproductive rate. However, we have an economic system that thrives on keeping people poor that the few might maximise profit. Our society favors profits over people, environmental degradation is an after thought to be fobbed off on any but those who are it's ulitmate cause. It's a crying shame that some who aren't even of the fortunate few insist on playing that game. That, I think, is the nut of this thread.

[amborin]

94. yes, familiar

with the arguments that it's not overpopulation that causes poverty, but poverty that causes overpopulation

i've taken one too many political ecology course ha ha

i agree with all that also....

except that's for underdeveloped places, where people are on the land and squeezed, the peasant squeeze

here, there's no reason for anyone to have more than 2 kids, even one is enuf.....it's selfish to have more....

of course EVERYONE should bear the brunt and proportionally.....of cutting environmental degradation

but are you saying those under a certain income level should get carte blanche to pollute?

[knitter4democracy]

98. I don't even know where to start.

Thank goodness people like you are around to tell the rest of us how to live, right? *sigh*

[mntleo2]

103. Sooo, Who Should Pay YOUR Social Security?

...I am asking this question about your assumption that having three kids is so selfish. We pay our parents' generation's Social Security. Am I to assume, since this woman is so "selfish" her children should say everyone who did not have kids should pay their own and only people with kids should get their kid's contribution? Should they only fight in HER wars? Should they only fix HER sewer? Should they only become president for HER family? should they only teach THIER kids?

Listen here, buddy, raising the next generation is who will take care of YOU when you get old. Whether it is changing your diaper in a retirement home or working for the government to run this country, or picking the lettuce you put in your over-privileged rather smugly set mouth.

May people who think having children is "selfish" die alone in their own filth, because they should live the consequences of their ill formed opinion!

Disgusted and in shock
Cat In Seattle

[dajoki]

104. Wow!!...

"it's selfish to have 3 kids, so she's already shown disregard for the planet"
I'm having trouble finding words to express my feelings on that statement!! Just exactly tell me how many children a woman is ALLOWED to have before SHE destroys the planet? I am about to become a first time grandfather, is my daughter showing disregard for the planet? I'm just curious to find out your thinking on this.

I agree that we must sacrafice our WANTS, the trouble is that too many people ARE sacrificing right now, and not their WANTS and not by choice, but by complete disregard for their NEEDS. Millions of people are being trashed by our society just because they were not born into the right class or happened to suffer unimaginable circumstances and personal tragedies, BEYOND their control.

Paying for plastic bags will only hurt those who cannot even afford to buy the food to put in those bags to begin with. Are they supposed to EAT THE BAGS? Maybe the stores can donate cloth bags, they will only pass it along to the costomers with their prices anyway, and maybe they could recieve some kind of tax credit for their so-called "kindness".

Now, $10 A GALLON for gas!! That will wipe out what's left of the lower middle class who must drive a few miles to work for the low paying jobs that seem to be the only ones available anymore. Not to mention what it will do to the already impoverished in our country, who I'm convinced that our government and the "upper classes" would just as soon see disappear in the first place. That's right, I truly believe that the poor and homeless are an embarrassment to our country, and they(our government)should be embarrassed. The HUGE UNDERCLASS of our country exposes our leaders for what they really are; cold, heartless politicians who care only for themselves and their images.

[Two Americas]

106. human beings are not livestock

And you have no moral authority to judge a mother with 3 children.

What is especially disturbing about these remarks is the complete estrangement from you own humanity they represent. It is just as though a farmer were talking about his hogs.

This betrays your view that there are in fact two classes of people - although you deny that this is a significant factor in social problems in other threads. There are those who can make determinations about the "breeding" of other human beings, and about what the "acceptable losses" might be in the pursuit of social goals that appeal to you, and then there are those who will be the subject of your experiments and control.

There are people like you, who by virtue of some arcane tests, are the controllers and the deciders, and then there are others whose behavior you disapprove of and who need to be controlled.

So this "sacrifice on everyone's part" you propose because "we can't continue to indulge our 'wants' as much as we'd like to" is not really true, is it? Some must sacrifice more, and the least among us are held to a higher standard of accountability than those who are actually responsible for the problems, who caused the problems, who profited from creating the problems. They are not mentioned. They get a free pass, and this is accomplished by shifting the burden downward - somewhere far below your status and importance, your image of yourself.

There is no sort of honest liberalism that can be based on the contempt for the people you are displaying here. No planet will be saved, or could ever be saved, with your attitude and approach. It is an excuse for and urge to control and dominate people, for dismissing them and holding them in contempt. That is the cause of environmental destruction, not the solution.

It is not possible to have reverence and respect for the earth and the creatures on the earth and simultaneously have such contempt for your fellow human beings. It can only be that pretending to embrace the first is merely an excuse for indulging the second.

[caseycoon]

119. What do you suggest?

Spay & Neuter the poor?
Is that a program you could get into?
:sarcasm:

A woman with 3 kids is too selfish to deserve help feeding those children?
Just dismiss those selfish folks?
GEEEEEEEZ!

[cushla_machree]

77. Cause cloth bags are so expensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should plastic bags be free? How did poor people ever go to the grocery store before the advent of plastic bags? Are we so convoluted here that we cannot imagine a life before our throw away society?

Are cloth bags expensive? No. I have stacks of them i got for free. No one is saying you have to buy the expensive logo ed grocery bag. I personally hate plastic bags, so any move to get rid of those would be a great step. People SHOULD pay for them, because the environmental cost of them is so high. Should they be taxed? I don't know, but it wouldn't be the first regressive tax out there.

You already pay for plastic bags, the grocery store doesn't get them for free. They don't magically grow on trees either. I totally and absolutely support a tax on the plastic bag. Or, in the very least, 10 cents off your purchase for each bag you bring in. Everyone has a bag, backpack or sack lying around. But, what would be even better would be to totally get rid of the plastic bag, and use a totally vegetable made biodegradable bag. That can't be instituted now because they contaminate the plastic bag recycling programs.

But it still all boils down to waste. Do we want to continue to be a throw away society because its convenient, its all we remember, and of course now, throw away societies help poor people!

[Two Americas]

112. you missed the point

How many times does it need to be said - this is not about about bags?

Posts like this dramatically and undeniably support the main contention that the OP made - that in the pursuit of modern liberalism, poor people have become invisible.

You read the OP and did not "see" poor people - you saw bags.

[cushla_machree]

158. Why shoule we pit poor people against environmentalism

Yes, I am aware that a plastic bag tax is regressive. The average trip to the grocery store would cost on average 50-60 cents more. But, Paper bags would still be free. Reusable bags? Free as well. Everyone has bags, yes, even the poor.

Here is my problem with plastic bags: Having free unlimited plastic bags for patrons is a colossal waste. The grocery store pays for them, which gets passed down onto the food prices (they really probably aren't 'free') and we all pay the environmental cost of them.

The pros of a plastic bag tax would be people would use fewer bags or none all together. Has anyone actually seen the way goods are bagged these days? Plastic bags are seldom filled up, they are so cheap and flimsy half the time you have to use two at a time. They are treated as an unlimited resource, when in fact they are not. The high usage of plastic bags is an addiction just as gasoline is. Same source, awful environmental toll not only when you make them, but also when they end up floating in trees, sitting in the dump, or floating out in the water for sea turtles to die from.

A plastic bag tax would use pure economics to reduce the amount of bags used. The only CONS of it is, it is a regressive tax AND it doesn't really address the issue that we shouldn't even be using them in the first place. We should be using biodegradable bags, or no free bags at all. A tax isn't getting down to the real issue, though it is a halfway step. But why not just go the whole way first, therefore there isn't the burden of who can afford the tax.

Perhaps the original point of the post was about poor people, but i completely reject the idea that we have to either choose between the environment, or poor people. That is EXACTLY what has stopped any action on global climate change. It would *cost* society too much to make any changes to our lifestyle. We can't keep living backwards for the sake of the economy (even though green policies benefit the economy in the long run) or because it might be a little more burdensome for the 'poor.' I can think of a thousand other policies that are slightly more important in poverty than the idea that a poor person may have to start using paper bags or a backpack to the grocery store.

No one has really addressed why bags should be free in the first place.

[cushla_machree]

78. One thing a plastic bag tax would do

Is make you think twice about taking a bag with you for your candy bar purchase. Raise your hand if you have ever walked away with a bag from the gas station or convenience store with 1 or 2 small items?

How about at the mall, every store gives you a plastic bag, its a struggle for me to tell them that, yes i already have an oversized bag from macy's, so i will just put my goods in it, thanks. They still try to put my purchase in one of their own bags and then stick it in one of my other bags. A tax would make people think twice about whether or not they really need that extra bag, its pure economics.

[DaDeacon]

82. YOU **cushla_machree** are right!

Sorry but after reading the thread and a few other that this issue has come up in I am sorry to say that "I don't care for the poor's burden or need for "free bags". This isn't a statement I make as a rich man but as a man who loves his home, the planet Earth. The bags should just be banned PERIOD point blank. The fact that a "punitive tax" is being applied a SLOW first step that is long over due! This punitive tax is no worse than one that is applied to cigarettes or alcohol. The tax should be applied to bag wholesellers to reduce production and keep stores from buying them to GIVE to shoppers! I DO CARE about the POOR but you know what? I have other areas of concern politically and environmentally that come in conflict to whether you pay a few cents more when you visit a store. The same way you could give a damn about the APR on new S Class I could give two bits about your "right" to a free plastic planet killer! Yeah look at me MR. Latte Liberal craping on the poor folk so I can feel like I'm helping the environment. Yep! All day everyday. Have I been poor, hell yeah? That's why I say this with such venom "You need to get up, get out, and get something". Sorry to seem rude but if you got time to type little speeches about the extra nickel or dime you might have to pay at the store you got time to go make that money. I don't know you or your story and to be frank, I don't care but I will say that I know the pain of asking a stranger( or twenty) for money to get into a shelter or just get a hot meal. I also know what it means to "get lucky " enough to have someone take a chance on you. Needless to say is the tax fair, hell no but you can't let your economic state dictate ALL of you world outlook.

[Junkdrawer]

85. Take a guess at how many of these bags are made each year...

Answer below...
























Somewhere between 500 BILLION and 1 TRILLION EACH YEAR....

And, at $.02 to $.04 per bag, that's a $10 to $40 Billion a year industry...

An industry in need of a PR rationale to stop the environmental backlash...

[DaDeacon]

123. To my point good sir or lady...

The industry should be outlawed. They overproduce a bad product for the exact purpose of cheep distribution. The tax should be on the industry as a whole FIRST and the end user last (if any).

[knitter4democracy]

102. Look over the OP again. She's not talking about that behavior.

Are the poor really shopping at Macy's? The mall?

Please look over your posts through the eyes of someone who's homeless or poor and struggling mightily to hang onto the roof over their head. They're not all that nice, frankly.

[mntleo2]

113. thank-you K4D!

Bobby's angst is mine as well around some well meaning people who don't get it but think they do, but to me it is worse to see rude people as who posted above who just do not get what it is about. Like reformed smokers, people who have been poor and are no longer, can be the worse kind because they do not seem to realize the poor has worked as hard as they do, they just do not have the connections, the "right" friends, the family who is there to support, and the most glaring THERE IS A VERY TATTERED SAFETY NET. They usually believe with all their little coal-black hearts they got where they did all by themselves with no help from anybody, why they practically raised themselves and changed their own diapers and others are poor because, well they "just are not working hard enough .."

My parents were raised in the Great Depression. All my childhood I heard the stories about how they "walked in the snow for miles" to read a book, go to school or whatever. So did I for those things sometimes, but what I did not realize was, they had it easy because they were just kids, they were not the ones doing the hard work, their parents were. But you would have thought they were the ones out there breaking their backs at the washtub, wiping the sweat from their brow as they raised vegetables in their back yard and then canned them in their stifling kitchens in the summer, not their mothers. I respect what they lived through as kids and I am sure they helped with all that, but they were not the ones who held the whole thing together as they often portrayed they were. Mom and Dad were holding things down, and most of the time it was Mom holding most of it down. Dad did his day, came home and put his feet up and demanded dinner knowing full well, after rising in the morning hours before he did, getting the stove ready and cooking his breakfast, minding the kids and the house all day, she would finish off her evening "doing nothing" tending the fire in the wood stove, mending, washing dishes, and sweeping the kitchen floor. Here is the clencher.

My parents would not have gotten anywhere if it had not been for the socialized programs that gave them a decent education, the GI bill, good paying union jobs low cost transportation, energy cost, and decent housing at an affordable rate. they did not do a thing of those all by themselves, they were KIDS when their parents created those opportunities. Just like the few people who make it out of the ghetto are not the epitome of how to do it right. No matter what their talent or whatever, they would not have gotten an inch unless they had help in some way. Most people in the ghetto will never see that.

Well I DEMAND an answer to this one: is working 2 jobs, going to school, and raising kids for the future of this country "not working hard enough?" Why is it that the person is still poor? Drinker? No she sould not afford it. Druggie? Hah! No, she has kids to raise! Shopaholic? with what? After the rent and heat are paid she will be lucky to get to work! What is "working hard enough?" I love the saying "You never hear deathbed confessions like, "I should have spent more time at the office ..." What is work anyway? Only making money? Of course to people like that, making money is the ONLY way to contribute to your community, since "women's work is doing nothing" like (mostly white males or white wannabes) assume!

Here is my answer to their stooopid assumption that working harder will somehow fix everything: PAY A DECENT WAGE. Women work for 1/3 less then men, they are the caregivers for the children AND the elders in the family. RESPECT THAT UNPAID WORK IS ALSO LEGITIMATE, SUPPORTABLE WORK! WOMEN are also usually the ones at the school bake sale, the community meetings and who made the dish for the community potluck besides working two full time jobs one paid and one unpaid raising a family.

GET REAL


GRRRR!

Cat In Seattle

[Two Americas]

118. killer post

That is a great post Cat.

It is a privilege to meet you here on these threads. Great post.

[knitter4democracy]

126. You're entirely right--people work their butts off and still stay poor.

All it takes is one emergency. It could be the car, or a hospital stay, or a really sick kid, or whatever. Then those who think they're okay but know they're close to the edge will fall. And where's the social safety net? It's tattered and full of huge holes that real people fall through.

I've thanked my lucky stars more than once when we had some emergency happen and had family to fall back on or had just enough resources to survive. Not everyone has that.

[Two Americas]

136. even worse than that

The social sickness goes even deeper than that.

People working their butts off and making honest and real contributions to the betterment of all is punished. People finding clever ways to cheat and exploit others, to siphon off the wealth from the labor of others, to manipulate and exploit resources, to corner markets and suppress the economy, to mislead and fool people, to take advantage of the most vulnerable - all of that is lavishly rewarded.

We don't have a poverty problem, we have a success problem. There is nothing wrong that needs to be fixed about the "losers," but there is something very wrong with the "winners." How we define success, what we admire and emulate, who we see as the "winners," what we accept and promote as the "right choices" - all of that is what is causing the suffering and degradation and humiliation and maiming and death of millions of people, both here and everywhere around the planet where American corporate power extends its tentacles.

We are all complicit in this, we are all morally compromised. We reinforce, justify and promote this in hundreds of ways in our everyday lives. No one's hands are completely clean.

It is our success ethic, the assumptions and premises upon which our notions of success are based, that needs to be acknowledged, confronted and attacked, not poverty or poor people.

[knitter4democracy]

147. You're right about the success problem. I hadn't thought of it that way.

It's true, though. We teach our kids to do whatever it takes to get into the "right" college, then we teach them to take the most lucrative majors and get the highest grades, then we move the least scrupulous up the ladder the fastest.

I do know of exceptions, but I'm pretty sure they're not the rule.

[bobbolink]

152. Yes, the deeper we think about these issues, the more revelations there are.

I remember reading somewhere an article about the dangers of education, speaking to some of these very issues.

I wish I could remember it... it was shocking because we're so used to thinking of education as the savior. But, as with most things in life, there is a down side. And that down side isn't even being seen, let alone addressed.

And knowing all these things only leads in one direction.. attacks like above, and being shunned and ostracized.

:cry:

[bobbolink]

141. You see it as it is. that poster is so lucky you have a generous heart!

Thank you, friend!

you make the planet so much nicer just being in/on it!

:loveya:

[JosephSchmo]

114. Again?

Having a tough life still doesn't excuse you from a responsibility for this planet we share.

[Two Americas]

116. posturing as an uber-environmentalist...

...doesn't excuse you from the moral responsibility you have to your fellow human beings.

[JosephSchmo]

146. Not wanting to flush this planet down the toilet doesn't make me an uber-environmentalist

it makes me a progressive member of this plantet.

Not caring about this planet makes you, by definition, more aking to an ANWAR drilling, Exxon forgiving fill in the blanks.

[Two Americas]

115. The Deeper Truth About White Liberals

from "Stuff White People Like," by clander

Recycling

Recycling is a part of a larger theme of stuff white people like: saving the earth without having to do that much.

Recycling is fantastic! You can still buy all the stuff you like (bottled water, beer, wine, organic iced tea, and cans of all varieties) and then when you’re done you just put it in a DIFFERENT bin than where you would throw your other garbage. And boom! Environment saved! Everyone feels great, it’s so easy!

This is important because all white feel guilty about producing waste. It doesn’t stop them from doing it, but they feel guilty about it. Deep down, they believe they should be like the Native Americans and use every part of the product or beast they have consumed. Though for many white people, this simply means putting plastic bags into a special drawer where they will accumulate until they are eventually used to carry some gym clothes or bathing suit. Ultimately this drawer will get full and only be emptied when the person moves to a new house. Advanced white recyclers will uses these grocery bags as garbage bags.

more...

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

[Two Americas]

117. more from the same pen

Knowing what’s best for poor people

White people spend a lot of time of worrying about poor people. It takes up a pretty significant portion of their day. They feel guilty and sad that poor people shop at Wal*Mart instead of Whole Foods, that they vote Republican instead of Democratic, that they go to Community College/get a job instead of studying art at a University.

It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things.

A great way to make white people feel good is to tell them about situations where poor people changed how they were doing things because they were given the ‘whiter’ option. “Back in my old town, people used to shop at Wal*Mart and then this non-profit organization came in and set up a special farmers co-op so that we could buy more local produce, and within two weeks the Wal*Mart shut down and we elected our first Democratic representative in 40 years.” White people will first ask which non-profit and are they hiring? After that, they will be filled with euphoria and will invite you to more parties to tell this story to their friends, so that they can feel great.

But it is ESSENTIAL that you reassert that poor people do not make decisions based on free will. That news could crush white people and their hope for the future.

[bean fidhleir]

135. "it is ESSENTIAL that you reassert that poor people do not make decisions based on free will"

But quite often they don't. They "make decisions" based on Hobson's choice. That's the defining characteristic of being poor: having NO CHOICES. Except between evils: do I buy gas to get to work or pay the electric bill. Am I better off to drive across town where it's 50c cheaper, or buy it at the corner. If I go without dinner this week, can I squeeze school supplies out of the food budget. Would the kids and I be better off if I turned on the gas tonight.

Choice is a luxury item. Only the wealthy can afford it.

[Two Americas]

137. good point

Excellent point there - "choice is a luxury item. Only the wealthy can afford it."

I do think that it is an illusion, though, that any of us who must work for a living in this economy have much in the way of choices.

The error that many liberals make is in thinking that they have a job and a degree and a house and a nice car and credentials and status, so therefore they are the opposite of the poor and have more choices or more freedom and have nothing in common with the poor. They then start talking and acting as though they are not working class, as though they are not compromised and restricted and enslaved, and begin spouting the language and arguments of the upper class.

But all of us are much, much closer to the bottom than we are to the top. The idea of a "middle class" - as though some are half way between the wealthy and the poor - is absurd and delusional. Those who are slightly better off have already given up their choices voluntarily and submitted to their chains in exchange for status, security and trinkets and baubles. You suffer in poverty, or you sell out. Increasingly those are the only two alternatives. Whether you are a house Negro or a field Negro, you are still a slave. The only difference is that the house Negro identifies with master, and advances master's agenda, is confused about reality and morally compromised, and is quick to betray the field Negroes.

[bobbolink]

153. Could you pleeeeez make this a thread of it's own?

Much to chew on here!

Thanks!

:applause:

[bobbolink]

140. OH, that is TOO RICH!

:rofl:

DANG! Even the name of the website if hilarious!

I really needed that tonight!

:yourock: :hug:

[caseycoon]

120. KICK! I just got up &

I can't believe some of these replies.
YOU GO BOBBOLINK!
Spot on as usual!

[llm]

121. usually

Sadly those who can't shoulder a burden, often have no voice.

[doni_georgia]

124. Why pit poor against environment? Non-issue really

I bring cardboard boxes with me to the grocery store (ones I get from work from copy paper). I keep them in my car, load them, unload them, and put back in the car for next trip. Doesn't cost me a dime. My mom shops at a store that doesn't offer bags of any sort. She unloads straight from the cart into her car. Okay, someone without a car would have problems with this, but you can buy a crate on wheels for 10 bucks at Staples. Perfect solution for those who must walk to market. If we really wanted to, we could eliminate bags all together and it would lower grocery store overhead. Stores who do not offer bags charge less.

[Junkdrawer]

129. Good question. Does damage to both causes....

The only ones who benefit from the "fight" is the bag manufacturers.

[Leopolds Ghost]

131. It's not going to matter soon. Price of plastic is going up for the first time ever

Because of Peak Oil. Read James Howard Kunstler, "Long Emergency".

[bobbolink]

142. Aren't you the lucky one for having a source of free boxes, having aplace to store them,

a car to transport them.

Thank your lucky stars.

Seriously.

[blindpig]

148. It's not the environment vs the poor

it is the classist assumptions which have become ingrained in the environmental movement. It is the utter reliance on "market based solutions" which curoiusly never get to the source of the problem and instead throw the onus upon those least able, solutions ineffective other than to give some a warm fuzzy feeling.

People will not survive without the environment but the environment will not survive without the will of the people. Pushing people away from the environment with classist solutions is lose/lose.

[bobbolink]

154. Yes, it's classist! What don't liberals get about this???

"Pushing people away from the environment with classist solutions is lose/lose. "

You have a book in you!

:applause:

[Leopolds Ghost]

130. "Disincentives" are the Democrats' only solution to the "problem" of the Poor

Note the word "problem" not "problems" -- the sense of the word is conflated by most Democrats when it comes to the "problem(s) of the poor".

Disincentives are NEVER applied to the Middle Class, whom the Democratic Party apparently says is the sole constituency that they are trying to support. But it is OK to take a "sucks for you" carrot and stick policy (emphasis on the stick) to the electoral minority.

It's the same rationale used to justify discounts on credit card users versus cash in public facilities by the government. And restrictions of (privatized) public housing to those who have credit.

Which makes you wonder why the Dems have become so dependent on an urban coalition of Poor and Upper-Middle-Class people simply because of the overt racial and class hostility expressed by people immediately up the ladder from poverty, who vote Republican.

The Poor being already in the Dem corner, Democratic politicians have no reason to pander to them or spend money to assist them. Instead, this overt Middle-Class Chauvinism ("we are the party of the MIDDLE class")

is designed to bring those Reagan Democrats back into the fold, who hate the poor because they are one step out of poverty and feel conspired against from above and below. This is not a new phenomenon. It happened with Irish/Italians versus Blacks and WASPS in the 1800s.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

144. Great thread

thanks Bobbo and all those who stand up for the poor, stand up for what is right.

As for the others:



Try walking for just a minute in someone elses shoes:

[bobbolink]

155. Oh, that photo is heart-wrenching!

Thank you so much for the kind words!

:hug:

[Chovexani]

145. bobbo thank you again for trying to wake people up

:hug:

I think some people are really lacking empathy...they can't wrap their brains around how privileged they are to be able to think about these things instead of day-to-day survival.

[bobbolink]

156. Thank YOU Chovexani! It is a tough issue, and it's not going away.

It's really sad... history shows that continuuing to ignore the poorest among us ends in eruption of society.

Yet, Dems, who pride themselves on being ever-so-aware, are pushing us away, and an uprising is inevitable.

:cry:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

157. Kicking