The poor don't influence politics via campaign donations, the poor have less access to politicians.
The poor don't take advantage of what little political influence they do have--they vote less, as well.
The rich, on the other hand, use every influence at their disposal to enrich themselves.
If the poor had a tenth the willingness to go out and exploit the system the rich do, we'd see a far more equitable distribution of resources than we do.
I think that you have misread/misinterpreted what Frondo has said. Frondo said, "The X doesn't do Y, which is why they are still X." You say/interpret Frondo as saying, "The X doesn't do Y because they are X."
What's the difference? Assume that a group of people have an expected group of behaviors. If they had a different set of behaviors, they could remove themselves from the group. But if they don't have those other behaviors, they aren't able to remove themselves from the group. Are they in the group because they are in the group (as you have been saying Frondo has been saying)? Or are they in the group because they don't have a set of behaviors to remove themselves from the group (as I interpret Frondo as saying)?
In the context of poverty in the US, there are countless structural, cultural, behavioral, and just daily life practicalities of why rising above poverty is very difficult. While I don't agree that the lack of political motivation and clout are the only or primary reasons for continued poverty, I do agree they are substantial contributing factors.
And I agree, politics isn't the only place where the poor in this country fail to maximize their advantage, it's just one place where they're consistently trodden upon.
And there's that saying about democracy, the poor voting themselves free benefits, whatever, that's just so very wrong. It's just another substance-free attack on the least politically empowered group of people.
What's circular about it?
The poor don't influence politics via campaign donations, the poor have less access to politicians.
The poor don't take advantage of what little political influence they do have--they vote less, as well.
The rich, on the other hand, use every influence at their disposal to enrich themselves.
If the poor had a tenth the willingness to go out and exploit the system the rich do, we'd see a far more equitable distribution of resources than we do.