Let me throw something out here.

[JeffR]

I watched, intently, the President's address to Congress tonight, and yes, it was great. It was possibly historic, and I posted my predictably superficial GDP thread as soon as I'd seen Jindal's predictably crappy response.

But I only heard the word "poverty" uttered once by the President, IIRC, and it was with regard to poverty overseas, not poverty at home. Without wanting to be histrionic about it, I was very disappointed by that. Anyone else feel the same way, or willing to point out why my opinion on this is wrong? I'd actually prefer the latter, if someone can explain it to me, because otherwise, I thought it was a landmark presidential address.

Anyone?

[kestrel91316]

1. I don't think he uttered the word "feminism" either.....

:shrug:

I'm not exactly worried.

[JeffR]

6. Worry wasn't what I was trying to get at.

I just sensed a bit of a disconnect in a speech devoted largely to economic issues that didn't touch on domestic poverty, at least overtly.

Maybe my OP wasn't very articulate.

[madrchsod]

2. he did`t have to bring up the obvious

what he wants to get done will lift many out of poverty

[JeffR]

7. I think it will, yes.

But by the same token, he took pains at the beginning of the speech to try to bring up a lot of obvious things and explain them in terms that all but the most idiotic Freeper could understand. So I'm still not clear about why the most abjectly poor and most deserving Americans weren't at least noted in passing. I know a single speech can't encompass everything, and I know he has a lot more in the pipeline as far as trying to restore some sort of economic justice to a country where the concept has become completely alien.

I guess I'm just saying that as he tries to school a heavily propagandized nation about what he wants to do, there could have been a little moment when poor Americans, not just those on the brink or at long-term risk (and of course there are many) were formally recognized. As I've written before on DU, for millions, the crisis is already here. And for some of those millions, the crisis is all they've ever known. That's what I was getting at.

[Why Syzygy]

12. Well, he did take a slam at corporate jets.

That's part of the equation.

[Fire1]

3. You must remember also, that he was addressing EVERYONE

and Republicans don't like to talk about 'poverty,' in any way shape or form. Purely political, but that's the way he has to play it.

[JeffR]

8. Yes, there's something to that.

And I don't want to take the position that rhetorical name-checking means anything substantive, but isn't it time to start making Republicans face up to what their ideology has done? Maybe this wasn't the right venue for that and maybe that has to be done subtly and long-term. I acknowledge that political calculus has to figure into this, but when will the nation be able to cease talking about things Republicans don't like to talk about? With solid majorities in both houses of Congress, and with a remarkably smart Democratic President in office, it just seems to me that now is the time.

But again, I started this thread more from wanting to hear other opinions than trying to grind an axe of my own.

[vixengrl]

4. I think there is a stigma to the word, if not the concept, of poverty

as applies to the United States. It's just not a part of our myth: The Land of Opportunity. The American Dream. There aren't supposed to be poor people in this country. All of them should have bootstraps to pull themselves up by. I've always thought that a part of RW hostility to the idea of welfare, or addressing poverty issues was a feeling of "does not compute". They can't fit poor people in America into their world view, ergo, they are wrong and just shouldn't be.

While I think Obama is clear that poverty does effect Americans, I think that he's sensitive to the reality that the word "poverty" almost has a connotation of "leper". You can say people are "out of work" or have gone bankrupt (events, temporary conditons) or are in debt or are "low income" or "fixed income", but the idea of poverty as a condition as in "The poor are always with us" just doesn't fly with people.

[JeffR]

9. You've identified something I think deserves its own thread.

A very important subject.

[sandnsea]

5. His Vision For America

"In the next few days, I will submit a budget to Congress. So often, we have come to view these documents as simply numbers on a page or laundry lists of programs. I see this document differently. I see it as a vision for America – as a blueprint for our future...

"..History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.
�
In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.
�
We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again. That is why, even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.."

I think if we make the kinds of advances he envisions, we'll go a long way to alleviating poverty.

[JeffR]

10. It will ( or it could)

but I was interested in the rhetorical omission as much as anything.

It's hard for me to summon up much enthusiasm for President Clinton anymore, but I remember arguing with people that his particular version of "a rising tide lifts all boats" actually seemed to be successful for a while, to a point.

What concerns me is the necessity, real or imagined, for a President to not acknowledge that poverty in America simply need not be. We know it, I'm pretty certain he knows it, and yet he didn't mention it.

Please don't mistake this for one of the umpteen "Obama's a fraud" posts that pop up on DU every day, but I'm still a little disappointed.

[sandnsea]

11. I think he was focused on a specific vision

was what I meant. What should this country stand for. College education, health care for all, clean and renewable energy which also means a healthier planet. I think that if you are laying out a vision, then you would want every person hearing to believe that that vision is for them. I think that's why there was no mention of any specific group at all, not to mention Republicans are always ready to pounce about Democrats and the collection of interest groups.

I think there is more new help for the poor in the stimulus bill than I've seen since the original SCHIP bill. I'm anxious to see the specifics in the budget.

I didn't think you were posting an Obama's a fraud post, I just think maybe you missed the rhythm of the speech.

[JeffR]

13. That's an important point.

I agree with you that seeing the specifics of the budget is crucial, and until we know it, we're all dealing in the realm of spculation.

As to the rhythm of the speech, I think it's probably the best one he's given yet, and he laid out eloquently how and why a lot of Americans are hurting bad these days. I only wanted to note that I thought that rhythm could have received an extra little bit of syncopation and catchiness by including a mention of the poor.

[undeterred]

14. Yes, I am disappointed.

Obama has consistently ignored the poor and talked about main street and the middle class. He is all worried about homeowners and foreclosure, but never even acknowledges the huge population of renters who are even more vulnerable. And he talks about "families" as though everyone in the world is part of a family unit with a couple of wageearners. Well aware of the rich, he has a huge blind spot when it comes to the poor.

Having lived in Obama's south side neighborhood for many years, he certainly is not unaware but it is striking how he never mentions poverty.

[C......N......C]

15. What about the cost of the environment on the poor >