They hate poor people


They Hate Poor People | The Weekly Standard

On January 1, 2012, Maine became the first state to ban smoking in all low-income public housing. Twelve thousand poor people faced their New Year’s Day hangover without the solace of a Marlboro to accompany their aspirin and coffee.

This, of course, was good. Just ask the high-minded, right-thinking progressive elites who, it’s safe to say, run Maine’s public housing authority. Progressive elites like to run things. They’d run the government, the media, and the entire U.S. economy if they could. Failing that, public housing authorities will do. The Detroit, San Antonio, and Portland, Oregon, housing authorities already ban smoking. Boston’s housing authority will do so in September. Los Angeles is expected to follow. And it’s no mystery what that highest-minded, most right-thinking, way-progressive elitist Mayor Bloomberg has in mind for New Yorkers.

The elites who denounce poverty despise the poor. Their every high-minded, right-thinking “poverty program” proves this detestation—from the bulldozing of vibrant tenement communities to the drug law policing policies that send poor kids to prison and rich kids to rehab to the humiliation of food stamps and free school lunches to the loathsome inner-city public schools where those free lunches are slopped onto cafeteria trays.

The federal government has some 50 different “poverty programs.” Nearly half a trillion dollars is spent on them each year. That’s about $11,000 per man, woman, and child under the poverty line, enough to lift each and every one of them out of poverty. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2011 poverty guideline for a family of three: $18,530.) We call them “poverty programs” for a reason. If ordinary people with down-to-earth common sense were spending that half trillion, we’d call them “modest prosperity programs.”

Have progressive elites always hated the poor?

P.J. nails it as usual.


Poor people seem to be particularly vulnerable to being TOLD what to do.

I think there may be at least two reasons for this (probably more):

  1. They are generally not well educated. While a few may be, or seek to educate themselves, that is only the exception that proves the rule. Poorly educated people are less inclined to resist indoctrination and less inclined to suffer the rigors of working and educating themselves at the same time (as I said, some do, but I think that is the minority.) It is difficult to control educated people . . . which is why liberal eggheads, which the author calls “high-minded, right-thinking progressive elites”, don’t try too control each other. Trying to control educated people is like trying to herd cats. So the poor become a target rich environment.

  2. A lot of poor people feel desperate. Desperation becomes a motivation for “tell me what to do and pull me out of this mess.” The high-minded, right-thinking progressive elites say, “OK, we’ll pull you out of the hole, but you have to do two things: 1) Do EXACTLY as we tell you, and 2) Vote for us. If you don’t do these things, our opposition will throw you back in the hole.” Or “put you back in chains” as Biden phrased it.

Most of the poor respond, “OK, as long as this pulls me out of the hole, I’m in.”

Now there are some poor who pull themselves out of the hole, without the “help” of the high-minded, right-thinking progressive elites, through hard work and diligent effort. But these generally become conservatives, because of the experience they had in getting THEMSELVES out of the hole primarily through their own efforts. These people are useless to the high-minded, right-thinking progressive elites, so they don’t even try to herd them. The high-minded, right-thinking progressive elites generally preach, “BTW, if you’re going to try to get out of the hole yourself, we’ll not lend a hand, and probably try to defeat your efforts.”, knowing that those that are successful in helping themselves are likely to turn out to be their opposition.

Bottom line, as I said, the poor provide a target rich environment for these high-minded, right-thinking progressive elites, otherwise called Liberal Eggheads, otherwised called . . . Dems.


I tend to agree.


It would be a more respectable piece were it not such a partisan rant, and if he had instead noted that nearly everything he attacks in the article has widespread bipartisan support among political elites in both parties. Unfortunately, as it stands, it just comes across as a hack piece. Still, he’s right: the alleged “concern for the poor” among left-wing elites is a patronizing joke. But let’s be honest: conservatives are far worse in this respect, and not just among elites. For days after the election, “blame the poor” reached a hysterical fever pitch on this site, for instance.


Also, the elites tend to see the poor as having low intelligence.

Oh, btw, ObamaNOT, that “exception proves the rule” is a bunch of baloney. I first heard it from my high school Latin teacher, in grammar study. It didn’t make sense to me then - an exception would weaken a rule, not “prove” it. It has since occurred to me that the original meaning of the phrase did not use “prove” in the sense of “confirm” - but in the sense of “test.”


[quote=“Susanna, post:5, topic:37272”]
Oh, btw, ObamaNOT, that “exception proves the rule” is a bunch of baloney.
[/quote]As I understand it, the proposition is that every rule has an exception (whether that’s true or not, I don’t know . . . I don’t think anybody can prove that one way or another though, but it seems intuitive.)

If you accept that, then the word “prove” DOES indeed have meaning.

In any case, I think we’re playing with words here, but “tests” works too.


Well, I never heard that proposition, but the statement still doesn’t hold to say that the exception proves (confirms) the rule. And does it mean it has only one exception? That, I think, would be unprovable. My point is, if you find an exception, it weakens the rule, even if it’s true that every rule has an exception. And the more exceptions you find, the weaker the “rule” becomes. I still think that it originally meant that the exception tests the rule.


Well its the old LibTard people control. Never met a liberal who did not hate, who was not a bigot and everyone was so impressed by themselves they never needed God or anyone else in their lives. When you attend the church of the 1st self-rightousness and narcism and self inflated ego are your only friends why not deny the basic human right of self determination.


You do realize that many of us conservatives fit the definition of “poor” ourselves, don’t you? It has nothing (for my part, at least) to do with poverty, and everything to do with slothful dependency.


Do you not agree with this:

Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.

We appear to be about here;

**from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage **



Progressives are slowly becoming more totalitarian everyday, I swear.