The voters have decided that WinniethePooh is wrong!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also by WinniethePooh
+27Almost all of the political posts that make it to the home page are liberal, amirite? Also by WinniethePooh
-7You stay away from posting controversial subjects just so you can get more likes, amirite? Also about Politics
-154Abortion is grotesque so it's no wonder the left wing treats it as a sacrament, amirite?
Also by WinniethePooh
+14You're a trend setter: nobody seems to go into the bathroom until you do, amirite?
Donating to charity =/= Relating.
Why do you need to "relate" if you help?
Because you'll be serving an entire country full of people you need to serve and, in a lot of ways, provide for.
But again, if he can fix the problems for middle and low class Americans, why does it matter if he has been in their position before?
Ah, I see your point now.
I agree, but in this specific instance, he hasn't really done anything to prove that he can fix those problems.
Well that's because he isn't president (yet?)
True, but he also doesn't have a plan to help if he does become president.
His entire campaign is pretty much based on bashing Obama (well, democrats in general).
That's probably fair. I personally think its time to abandon the policies that brought us from bad to worse and give someone else a shot.
Well that's a different debate. I personally believe he has the experience and motivation to get Americans working again. But assuming his plan is a good one, my point is: who cares if he knows your situation if he can get you out of it regardless?
Just because you donate doesn't mean you can relate.
See above
If that's the case, why did you need to include "relate" in the post?
That's probably a fair question. I guess I included it because this fact answers that whole "relatability" issue
But you just said yourself that it doesn't...
I said if he can fix the problem, it solves the relatability issue. Sorry for my lack of clarity, it's difficult to respond to multiple comments that say essentially the same thing
Oh yeah, and he is not concerned about the very poor.
It's statistically true. The bottom 50% of American earners pay -2% of the total income tax. That means they are dependent on government...or they are just okay with the fact that they are taking money from hard-working people when they don't even need it.
And also, this is kinda my point. People say he doesn't give a crap about the poor, but then why does he donate millions to charity of his own free will ON TOP of what the government takes so that they can give out their handouts?
Well 1) poverty rates have risen under our current leadership
2) those people don't fall under his comment, especially because most of those are likely undocumented for whatever reason
3) we have a very warm sense of poverty. In 2009, someone living under what the US defines as the poverty line was still better off than 80% of the rest of the world.
4) and his comment was what he should focus his political campaign on. If you're getting free money from Obama and Romney would take it away, there's probably not much point in trying to convince them to vote for Romney. So, he says with complete grace, screw them.
And you don't really pay attention to what he's actually done do you? Just to the liberal media's gruesome twist on the comments he makes I assume. If you're so convinced that he hates poor people, why don't you argue my point?
1) Unless something new has happened since I last checked, 2009 is the most recent year the IRS has released its books
2) Where did I say he wants to take poor peoples' money? I don't believe anything close to that meaning came forth from my fingertips. And if he wants poor peoples' money, why does he give them so much of his of his own free will?
His video of him "bashing poor people" isn't what he's done. This completely confirms what I said. You don't pay attention to his actions, but just a highly misunderstood statement that has been twisted to suit the media's view.
My point (which you haven't argued, most likely because you can't using any sound reasoning) is that if he hates poor people, why do his tax returns beg to differ? Why do the jobs he's created? Why do his Massachusetts citizens who have been insured by (state-run, non-mandated) government healthcare? All you can point to that says he hates poor people is a misconstrued comment he made. That is textbook ignorance
And in response to the article, you might want to reread.
"The term "relative child poverty" refers to a child living in a household where the disposable income is less than half of the national median income. Many critics argue that relative poverty isn't the same as real hardship, or absolute poverty."
You clearly don't understand empathy. You only care about the poor if you're willing to donate other people's money to them...
I don't believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people.
-Eduardo Hughes Galeano
So what does this mean in the context of the post?
The idea of charity running from the top to the bottom basically means that you are superior to the person in poverty and you don't relate to them. It is also a political strategy. You can easily donate to charity and then say that you are a good person. This does not substitute for policy that helps make necessities like health care and education accessible to the general public. (To be fair, Obama's health care act and the Race to the Top supported by Obama do not do this either, the former favors people who can actually afford the best insurance plan, while the latter favors charter schools over public schools.)
But who's to say that Romney isn't "horizontal" either? I mean, whether he is or not, he has still done more to help the less fortunate through charity, job creation, and policy making than most people have. I believe that whether he has suffered the same problem that you're suffering is irrelevant compared to his ability to solve that problem
"Less fortunate" = perfect example of verticality. It suggests that these people did not encounter as much fortune as the person giving the charity, and that nothing can be done about it besides the charity. As for job creation, a study has shown that if you take $1,000,000 that are spent on war and use it to invest in health care, education, and better infrastructure, more jobs of better quality would be created. But an end to the multiple wars the United States is involved in is not something that either candidate would be dedicated to.
What's wrong with saying "less fortunate?"
Apparently it's too vertical
Ridiculous. We can't say anything that's even slightly offensive to anyone
Well I'm speaking of what Romney has already done, not what he can or will do. He gave startup investments to companies that are now international corporations, such as staples. And also as governor he passed legislation such as healthcare that give permanent help to...I don't know what you what me to call poor folk.