The Elusive Solution To 'Poverty'

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

 

[Edgetho]

There is no solution to poverty.

Never has been, never will be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no solution to poverty.

Never has been, never will be.

Actually, this thread will prove the very opposite.

Stay tuned....I believe you'll agree.

 

[Edgetho]

Actually, this thread will prove the very opposite.

Stay tuned....I believe you'll agree.

You can't cure a disease when the afflicted doesn't want your help.

A high percentage of America's poor just aren't interested in being anything other than poor.

It's like Janis singing, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."

Poverty is a liberating experience for these people. No responsibility, no job, no house to take care of, no husband/wife, let the existing kids wander the streets while squirting one after another out like a vending machine in hopes of hitting the 'lottery' and one of them succeeds at something -- Usually athletics (it's also how they often choose their sperm donors too).

I respect your intelligence and your ardor, but smart and well-meaning people can be wrong, too

 

[Sonny Clark]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Yes, poverty has been redefined over time. Times and circumstances change, and so do the needs of people. What may have been considered to be "poverty" 500 years ago, no longer adequately describes poverty today. But, still, the basic human needs remain constant. We all need food, water, shelter, clothing, and some may argue, but we also need health care. Poverty is basically the inability to provide the basic needs for oneself, thus needing some form of assistance.

Poverty will never be totally eliminated. We'll always have poverty, but we can greatly reduce the number living in poverty. The key to reducing poverty is providing self-supporting opportunities. Overt he past half century or so, we have greatly lessened the opportunities for citizens to be self-supporting, thus the shameful number now living in poverty.

 

[Moonglow]

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

'nuff said

 

[DGS49]

Ignoring the Constitutional point that our Federal Government has no legitimate role in the eradication of poverty...

"Ending poverty" is a seemingly worthwhile campaign that must strike a balance - and it's becoming clear that that balance is impossible as a practical matter - between (a) providing a subsistence level of support for those At The Bottom that satisfies the humanitarian desires of the productive population, while (b) making receipt of that support unpleasant enough that the beneficiaries are strongly motivated to become self-supporting.

It is not specious to observe that any activity subsidized by government will generally increase, while activities that are punished by government will generally decrease. Thus, when any "poverty" program (free government benefit) is implemented, it is quickly observed that the number of people taking advantage of it is dramatically more than the number that was projected. Because people at the margins decide that it is better to drop back to the level that gets the benefit than to maintain self-support and be a bit above those who get the benefit for free.

In the grossest case, suppose that the Federal Government mandated a minimum annual income of $25,000 for single people and $40,000 for families. Certainly, one cannot live "well" on those incomes, but how many people who are on the margins now would simply quit working and learn to live permanently at that level? How many married couples would divorce (and remain "together") take advantage of the $25k+$25k benefit, rather than settling for $40k as a couple?

This is a huge problem in the social democracies of Europe.

And while our "welfare" state is not quite so generous, we have created a situation in which a young girl can, by the simple act of having a child, create a "household" that will be forever supported by governments at various levels - and continue to be supported FOR GENERATIONS as long as the bastardy persists.

End poverty by government action? Ain't happening.

Interestingly, my wife was for many years a Trust Officer at a major bank, and she had many, many clients who had never worked a day in their lives, never planned to work, and were constantly whining about not having enough money coming in to finance one luxury or another (round the world cruise, expensive wedding, vacation home), complaining that the Trustees were not working hard enough on their behalf with their grandfather's estate. Entitlement: it is a very personally destructive thing, regardless of where it originates.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

'nuff said

Actually, that prescription was changed by the 32nd President.

It applied before his term.....and has become something very different today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Yes, poverty has been redefined over time. Times and circumstances change, and so do the needs of people. What may have been considered to be "poverty" 500 years ago, no longer adequately describes poverty today. But, still, the basic human needs remain constant. We all need food, water, shelter, clothing, and some may argue, but we also need health care. Poverty is basically the inability to provide the basic needs for oneself, thus needing some form of assistance.

Poverty will never be totally eliminated. We'll always have poverty, but we can greatly reduce the number living in poverty. The key to reducing poverty is providing self-supporting opportunities. Overt he past half century or so, we have greatly lessened the opportunities for citizens to be self-supporting, thus the shameful number now living in poverty.

"Yes, poverty has been redefined over time. Times and circumstances change, and so do the needs of people. What may have been considered to be "poverty" 500 years ago, no longer adequately describes poverty today."

No, the definition hasn't changed.

But something has.

I'll get to that.

 

[Moonglow]

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

'nuff said

Actually, that prescription was changed by the 32nd President.

It applied before his term.....and has become something very different today.

Hardly, the hand opened wider by the act of govt. chipping in also....

 

[Sonny Clark]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Yes, poverty has been redefined over time. Times and circumstances change, and so do the needs of people. What may have been considered to be "poverty" 500 years ago, no longer adequately describes poverty today. But, still, the basic human needs remain constant. We all need food, water, shelter, clothing, and some may argue, but we also need health care. Poverty is basically the inability to provide the basic needs for oneself, thus needing some form of assistance.

Poverty will never be totally eliminated. We'll always have poverty, but we can greatly reduce the number living in poverty. The key to reducing poverty is providing self-supporting opportunities. Overt he past half century or so, we have greatly lessened the opportunities for citizens to be self-supporting, thus the shameful number now living in poverty.

"Yes, poverty has been redefined over time. Times and circumstances change, and so do the needs of people. What may have been considered to be "poverty" 500 years ago, no longer adequately describes poverty today."

No, the definition hasn't changed.

But something has.

I'll get to that.

Please do, thanks.

 

[Edgetho]

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

'nuff said

Republicans are FAR more charitable than are dimocraps. That has been proven time and again; although I have NO doubt that you will dispute it, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags.

Nobody in the Republican Party that I know of has any qualms about helping those that need help. What we object to is the taking of the money BY FORCE and then, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags, taking anywhere from 30% to 80% off the top for themselves.

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

period

 

[Edgetho]

Hardly, the hand opened wider by the act of govt. chipping in also....

Stupid dimocrap logic.....

Where does the goobermint get its money?

dishonest fucking moron

 

[gipper]

1. Many consider the alleviation, the riddance of poverty, to be the raison d'être of modern government.....well, Liberal governance.

One might question whether this is possible.
But even before we get to that, let's define the term 'poverty'.
My definition, very different from that of Liberal government, is 'no home, no heat, no food.'




2. And, throughout the history of mankind.....my definition has proven accurate.
Sometimes people have had to suffer through a government school 'education'....and haven't learned the requisite history:

"The ancient world of Greece and Rome, as modern historians reconstruct it, was a world where houses had no chimneys, and rooms, heated in cold weather by a fire on a hearth or a fire-pan in the center of the room, were filled with smoke whenever a fire was started, and consequently walls, ceiling, and furniture were blackened and more or less covered by soot at all times; where light was supplied by smoky oil lamps which, like the houses in which they were used, had no chimneys; and where eye trouble as a result of all this smoke was general. Greek dwellings had no heat in winter, no adequate sanitary arrangements, and no washing facilities."
E. Parmalee Prentice, 'Hunger and History,' pp. 39-40



3. And, the most basic indication of poverty... hunger, famine, starvation.

"1235: Famine and plague in England; 20,000 persons die in London; people eat horse-flesh, bark of trees, grass, etc."
Cornelius Walford, "The Famines of the World," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, March 19, 1878, Vol. 41, p. 433


The Encyclopedia Britannica lists thirty-one major famines from ancient times down to I960...

"1005: famine in England. 1016: famine throughout Europe. 1064-72: seven years* famine in Egypt. 1148-59: eleven years' famine in India. 1344-45: great famine in India. 1396-1407: the Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 1586: famine in England giving rise to the Poor Law system. 1661: famine in India; no rain fell for two years. 1769-70: great famine in Bengal; a third of the population—10 million persons—perished. 1783: the Chalisa famine in India. 1790-92: the Deju Bara, or skull famine, in India, so called because the dead were too numerous to be buried.

And....
"In the winter of 1709, ... in France, more than a million persons, according to the figures of the time, died out of a population of 20 millions. In the eighteenth century, in fact, France suffered eight famines, culminating in the short crops of 1788, which were one of the causes of the Revolution....

... mass starvation is the most obvious and intense form of poverty,..."
"The Conquest of Poverty," Henry Hazlitt, p. 14.



Do you believe that the thread title is correct?

Compare the above to what is known as 'poverty' today.

Yes, poverty has been redefined over time. Times and circumstances change, and so do the needs of people. What may have been considered to be "poverty" 500 years ago, no longer adequately describes poverty today. But, still, the basic human needs remain constant. We all need food, water, shelter, clothing, and some may argue, but we also need health care. Poverty is basically the inability to provide the basic needs for oneself, thus needing some form of assistance.

Poverty will never be totally eliminated. We'll always have poverty, but we can greatly reduce the number living in poverty. The key to reducing poverty is providing self-supporting opportunities. Overt he past half century or so, we have greatly lessened the opportunities for citizens to be self-supporting, thus the shameful number now living in poverty.

There in lies the problem. Due to an ever expanding, terribly inefficient, and expensive corrupt central government, poverty has become a power and profit center.

 

[Moonglow]

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

'nuff said

Republicans are FAR more charitable than are dimocraps. That has been proven time and again; although I have NO doubt that you will dispute it, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags.

Nobody in the Republican Party that I know of has any qualms about helping those that need help. What we object to is the taking of the money BY FORCE and then, as is the wont of dimocrap scumbags, taking anywhere from 30% to 80% off the top for themselves.

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

period

We, the GOP hate to have to help the poor if we are forced, which means you don't give freely...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, this thread will prove the very opposite.

Stay tuned....I believe you'll agree.

You can't cure a disease when the afflicted doesn't want your help.

A high percentage of America's poor just aren't interested in being anything other than poor.

It's like Janis singing, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."

Poverty is a liberating experience for these people. No responsibility, no job, no house to take care of, no husband/wife, let the existing kids wander the streets while squirting one after another out like a vending machine in hopes of hitting the 'lottery' and one of them succeeds at something -- Usually athletics (it's also how they often choose their sperm donors too).

I respect your intelligence and your ardor, but smart and well-meaning people can be wrong, too

Well....give me a chance to convince you....

Let's get to our understanding of 'poverty.'




4. Liberalism, and its spin-off, environmentalism, pay homage to the memory and the godfather of hand-wringers, Thomas Malthus....
....and his explanation for 'poverty.'


a. Malthus originated the view that the food production of the world would increase arithmetically (1-2-3-…), while the human population would increase geometrically (1-2-4-8…). Conclusion: mass starvation and epidemics. Sounds ‘environmental’ already, doesn’t it?


b. Malthus passed on in1834- yet his view continues in the hearts and minds of Progressives, who have expanded the vision to pollution and environmental damage.


c. Strangely, Malthus has been proven wrong over and over, based on agricultural advances, and technological innovation.





5. Ya’ live and learn. Some do.But not Liberals.
.... in 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s best seller, “The Population Bomb,” predicted Malthusian mass starvation throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s.


a. Ehrlich and his pal, John Holdren, “in 1971, long before Dr. Holdren became President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.”
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/



Get that....dire predictions of the sort of 'poverty' back in the history of mankind.

 

[Moonglow]

Hardly, the hand opened wider by the act of govt. chipping in also....

Stupid dimocrap logic.....

Where does the goobermint get its money?

dishonest fucking moron

From the same place every govt. on the planet does.....

 

[Moonglow]

Actually, this thread will prove the very opposite.

Stay tuned....I believe you'll agree.

You can't cure a disease when the afflicted doesn't want your help.

A high percentage of America's poor just aren't interested in being anything other than poor.

It's like Janis singing, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."

Poverty is a liberating experience for these people. No responsibility, no job, no house to take care of, no husband/wife, let the existing kids wander the streets while squirting one after another out like a vending machine in hopes of hitting the 'lottery' and one of them succeeds at something -- Usually athletics (it's also how they often choose their sperm donors too).

I respect your intelligence and your ardor, but smart and well-meaning people can be wrong, too

Well....give me a chance to convince you....

Let's get to our understanding of 'poverty.'




4. Liberalism, and its spin-off, environmentalism, pay homage to the memory and the godfather of hand-wringers, Thomas Malthus....
....and his explanation for 'poverty.'


a. Malthus originated the view that the food production of the world would increase arithmetically (1-2-3-…), while the human population would increase geometrically (1-2-4-8…). Conclusion: mass starvation and epidemics. Sounds ‘environmental’ already, doesn’t it?


b. Malthus passed on in1834- yet his view continues in the hearts and minds of Progressives, who have expanded the vision to pollution and environmental damage.


c. Strangely, Malthus has been proven wrong over and over, based on agricultural advances, and technological innovation.





5. Ya’ live and learn. Some do.But not Liberals.
.... in 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s best seller, “The Population Bomb,” predicted Malthusian mass starvation throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s.


a. Ehrlich and his pal, John Holdren, “in 1971, long before Dr. Holdren became President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.”
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/



Get that....dire predictions of the sort of 'poverty' back in the history of mankind.

Surely you can twist the truth better than that....

 

[Edgetho]

We, the GOP hate to have to help the poor if we are forced, which means you don't give freely...

Stupid scum sucking dirtbag -- If FORCE is used, how in the FUCK can you apply the word 'freely'

You really are a scumbag troll

Somebody needs to grow a pair and ban your stupid ass

 

[Sonny Clark]

Hardly, the hand opened wider by the act of govt. chipping in also....

Stupid dimocrap logic.....

Where does the goobermint get its money?

dishonest fucking moron

Had your coffee yet? Seems maybe you didn't get enough sleep. Surely this can't be your normal attitude every morning, can it?