By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 21 June 2025
Edit Thread
pokoko said:
sundin13 said:

I feel like this type of hyper-emotional arguing leaves me not really sure what to say. It's all about how you feel or what you personally believe. We aren't dealing with a shared reality or any set of debatable facts. There is just a fanfiction about the progressives that you've made up and are now attempting to wield in an argument. 

What am I supposed to do with that?

Here's what I'll say: Compare actual policy proposals and tell me what side hates the poor.

Look at the "Big Beautiful Bill", for example. The poorest Americans (lowest decile) are set to lose roughly 2-4% of their household resources, while the richest Americans are set to see their household resources increase by 2-4%. Thats hundreds of thousands of dollars going into the pockets of the richest people in this country every year and what fraction of that loss is being paid for is coming from the pockets of the poorest Americans, who will go hungry or avoid seeking necessary healthcare as a result. This is one of the most regressive bills in decades.

Is that the policy of a party that is truly looking out for the poorest Americans? 

As long as you're still doing the whole "my side are the good guys" thing, nothing you say has anything to do with reality.  If you're a reliable voter then you won't need reality, you can just follow the sound of the pipes.

You also clearly didn't read my entire post or you're simply misrepresenting what I said to make it fit into your dichotomy--and I refuse.  If you don't want to see the flaws in the side you support then that's on your head.  I don't care if you do or don't.

As far as which party cares about the poor, are you fucking joking?  Neither one gives a damn.  Wake up.

I went to a poor rural school, in a poor county, in a poor state.  We didn't have computers until a local company donated their outdated units from storage, which were completely useless by that point.  Not only could they not run modern software but we only had around 12 of them.  I remember sharing one with an older student but the teacher stopped teaching because he said there was no purpose.  Meanwhile, the big focus for the Democrats at the time were inner city schools.  That is all they cared about.  Not disadvantaged students in general, no, just those who met certain criteria.  The part that I find most ironic is that my graduating class was around 50% black, but they were fucked, too, because they shared a school with lower income white kids.

I remember reading that some of those inner city schools that were getting so much attention and support actually had advanced computer and networking classes.  That must have made those rich progressive white people really pleased with themselves.

Do you know what actually changes for the vast majority of the poor and working class when either Democrats and Republicans are in office?  Nothing.  If it did then people wouldn't get fed up and switch back and forth every few years.

Of course there are flaws in the left. But the right had dragged itself so far down towards hell, that I can't imagine a modern MAGA republican ever being the right choice.

I'm also somewhat baffled by your anecdote. I don't know when or where you went to school, but it would be a lie to state that there were no efforts to help Rural schools. First of all, most school funding is provided by the State/Local funding, not Federal funding. With a lot of rural land being in red states which try to tax low, and don't provide much government funding, I feel like this problem largely is the result of Republican policies, but lets talk about some things that have been done:

One important piece of legislation that has been in the news recently is the Secure Rural Schools act. Originally passed in 2000 (under Bill Clinton), this increased funding to rural areas around the country by providing them funding to replace the loss of timber sales. This gave millions of dollars to many rural communities around the country. For a few decades it continued to be renewed, keeping many of these communities afloat until recently, during Republican spending fights, Mike Johnson refused to bring the bill containing it's renewal up for a vote and this funding to rural schools has since stopped.

Additional federal grant programs such as the Rural Education Achievement Program is also threatened by Trump's cuts to federal grants. It'll take a few years to see how the changes in the Education Department shake out, but this is a program that has been supported by federal dollars for many years.

Now, lets take a look at some more local policies. I don't know where you're from, so I just decided to search up one of the most Blue states in the country:

Massachusetts: 
Current Legislation - Rural School Aid
Current Proposed Legislation - Act to Provide a Sustainable Future for Rural Schools (Primary sponson in both House and Senate is a Democrat)

So, do Democrats support rural school funding: Yes. Is the funding enough? Probably not, but who is fighting to increase funding to all schools? Democrats.