I think that's only potentially true because the opposite side of the aisle is utilizing race to begin with from the negative end. No you shouldn't ignore that

I think that's only potentially true because the opposite side of the aisle is utilizing race to begin with from the negative end. No you shouldn't ignore that it is being used that way, but by playing into the game that side is playing, you are furthering their intent. Instead, just go after the problem as if it is something that affects everyone, because it does. Even the rich are affected by poverty, just in a different way. Sure, they may not be poor, but they still have to deal with the after effects of the impoverished. This is what I mean by poverty affects all. It may be more drastic for those it affects directly, and yes we should do something about it for them more directly; but by approaching it from a wide range approach like how I suggest; you avoid the nastiness of assuming race has anything to do with it. Example: I grew up with many first nations individuals surrounding me. Many of them were impoverished. I am also partially first nations, but don't appear to be. We were just as poor as many of them, and worse off that some of them to boot if you are to compare finances without biases. If we were to approach poverty as if it only affects the first nations, then our family would have potentially been cruelly left behind. Instead, by treating poverty as something that affects all of society, no one is left behind. A rising tide lifts all boats; though sometimes some more than others to be fair. Waves are not equal after all. > You have to be able to study all the reasons for poverty in order to craft appropriate policy. Exactly my point, but without focusing too hard on any single factor.