alexxkay: (Default)
[personal profile] alexxkay
So, you know that thing about the Evil Republican who said poor people are going to have to decide between new iPhones and health insurance? I’ve seen many arguments go by about how many cell phones it takes to equal the cost of health insurance, and similar arguments on an economic or factual basis. The same sort of dialogue is happening about the National Endowment for the Arts, and many other recent political issues.

But I think there is a moral argument worth having here, also, which seems to be largely overlooked.

One of the moral stances implicitly held by many people on the Right (though they are usually too canny to come right out and say it), is that if you spend ANY money on something that isn’t a necessity, you are Not Really Poor. Or, to look at it from another perspective, anyone who is actually poor does not deserve to spend any of their meager resources on entertainment.

This, I find abhorrent. A life which is entirely spent on the bare means of survival is worse than that of most mammals. A life in which one is not allowed to EVER choose enjoyment is a life not much above that of a slave.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-03-18 09:49 pm (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea
As we go marching, marching,
Unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing
their ancient call for bread.
Small art and love and beauty
their drudging spirits knew;
yes, it is bread we fight for
but we fight for roses, too.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-03-19 05:32 am (UTC)
dewline: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dewline
Bingo. Too many people nostalgic for the days when slavery was legal, and believing themselves destined to be owners or at least overseers. And this is part of their "logic" too.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-03-18 05:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] negothick.livejournal.com
It goes back to 19th-century distinctions between the "deserving" and "Undeserving" poor--and it was the "Overseers of the Poor" (an actual office in many New England towns) who got to decide who belonged in which category. As in my most recent journal entry, it's not a long step from accusations that the poor don't "deserve" anything to the workhouse, poor farm, etc.

(no subject)

Date: 2017-04-24 09:33 am (UTC)
conuly: (Default)
From: [personal profile] conuly
This, I find abhorrent. A life which is entirely spent on the bare means of survival is worse than that of most mammals. A life in which one is not allowed to EVER choose enjoyment is a life not much above that of a slave.

I just quote FDR back at these people.

In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

Profile

alexxkay: (Default)
Alexx Kay

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
345 6789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags