The Invisible Children, Left Out of the Obama-Romney Debate

6 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Mark says:

   October 4, 2012 at 10:37 pm

   Why ignore those children? Easy: they don’t vote.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. Confused says:

   October 5, 2012 at 5:58 am

   I don’t think either candidate wants to bring it up because Romney thinks only lazy irresponsible people who refuse to work and expect a government handout are living in poverty. He can’t afford to admit there are reasons for people ending up living in poverty that have nothing to do with being lazy.
   Obama doesn’t want to discuss it because he has allowed and helped build an entire education platform on “bad teachers” causing the problem and to admit poverty MIGHT even have any influence would make him look like he has no clue about the problems with public schools.
   Soooooooooooo……..they just ignore it!

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. Labor Lawyer says:

   October 5, 2012 at 11:02 am

   It was entirely rational for Romney and Obama to ignore poverty during the debate.

   Romney’s economic policies will increase poverty — talking about poverty would therefore cast his economic policies in a bad light.

   Obama’s economic policies would decrease poverty (at least compared to Romney’s policies). However, talking about poverty would expose Obama to the Romney/Republican attack that Obama wants to create govt-dependency/a nation of makers and takers. This attack resonates with suburban voters and working-class Reagan Democrats — the two swing groups in the swing states. To the extent that the poor — particularly the inner-city poor — vote, they are strongly supporting Obama already. For Obama to talk about poverty, he gains few inner-city votes (he has these votes already) and he risks losing many suburban/Reagan Democrat votes (the crucial swing votes still in play).

   What Obama could have done during the debate is offer a far better explanation of how his economic policies would help everyone — that is, how his policies,by rechannelling national income/assets from the non-spending rich to the spending middle-class, would significantly increase consumer spending/demand, how increased consumer spending/demand would lead rational businesses to expand inventories, expand production facilities, and start new enterprises, and how this is the key to reducing unemployment and getting the economy moving again (which would benefit everyone, particularly the poor but even the rich).

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • Lilac says:

     October 6, 2012 at 7:50 pm

     Think the reason why is obvious : he is clueless. Until the debate, I still had hope. His heavy reliance on advisors is now truly evident. With the exception of Hillary Clinton, he could not have chosen a more self serving crew.Choosing Obama is just getting on a slower sinking ship. Any violin players here?

     LikeLike

     Reply
4. Students Last says:

   October 5, 2012 at 5:22 pm

   It was the work of the Invisibility Cloak: now you seem them…. now you don’t #satire http://studentslast.blogspot.com/2012/10/invisibility-cloak-for-all-your-testing.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. Middle school teacher says:

   October 5, 2012 at 5:58 pm

   Most teachers — except those who have only worked in affluent areas — could put a face on these “invisible children”. They are the ones who come to school hungry, the ones whose clothes don’t fit and are not laundered, who have not slept well, whose teeth are rotten, who need a shower, who are desperately afraid their friends will find out they live in a shelter. Some of them will be pregnant before leaving middle school, some will join gangs, and some will die by gang violence. I will try to be the best teacher I can be for these children, but I am infuriated by people who think I can solve all their problems by being a “great teacher”. A few, a lucky few, will persevere and create a better life. It is because I have hope for every child that I go to work each day. It sure would be nice if many others in our community and nation began to lend a hand as well.

   LikeLike

   Reply