There will always be poverty.

[Flopper]

you can't give away a tube tv

the poor will not take them for free

Of course they don't take them. Most tube tv's won't work without a convert.

 

[rdean]

The poor aren't miserable. They have cars, color television sets, they have government provided housing and can afford to spend the food money on lap dances.

If they had a little real misery, they might get off their lazy asses and get a job doing something.

Taking a lifeline from a drowning man does make him swim. Take shelter away from the poor, they show up on the door of relatives or live on streets. Take away food, and they steal. All of which creates even more problems for the community.

Someone once said the real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations. Once people become convinced that they cannot succeed, they will not try. You have to find a way to convince people they can get off drugs, give up alcohol, go back to school, get a job, or take care of their family. Until this happens, nothing will change. This is one of the biggest problems in working with the poor.

As Florida proved, when they tried to administer drug tests to the unemployed, they weren't addicted. They weren't drinking. Many lost their jobs when government subsidized corporations moved their jobs to China.

I remember a man asking John McCain about the economy and McCain told him to get a degree and then he will get a job. The guy said, "I have a degree. I had a job. But the company moved to China. The jobs are gone." McCain looked stunned.

 

[rdean]

The poor aren't miserable. They have cars, color television sets, they have government provided housing and can afford to spend the food money on lap dances.

If they had a little real misery, they might get off their lazy asses and get a job doing something.

Believing this nonsense is why the Republican Party is shrinking. Republicans claim too much is spent on the poor and not enough on corporate subsidies because they make jobs. Only they don't make jobs. They move the jobs overseas.

And a lot of Republicans are finding out first hand how people like Mitt Romney are moving their jobs to China. They are learning what being poor and unemployed really means. And they are understanding how much of it is the fallout from disastrous Republican policies and not Obama.

Look at the Republicans here on the USMB. Even they are having a hard time saying such bullshit nonsense as "get government out of the way". Soon, only the mentally deficient will believe such nonsense.

This country cannot compete without investments in technology, education and infrastructure. You can't pay down the deficit doing nothing. Investing in nothing. No company survives standing still. Even some few nearly brain dead Republicans are starting to wake up.

 

[Mr. H.]

You sure as hell can't do anything by ramping up the deficit.

 

[squeeze berry]

you can't give away a tube tv

the poor will not take them for free

Of course they don't take them. Most tube tv's won't work without a convert.

at one time the converters were free too.

You can prolly find them for cheap as well and you can hook cable/sattelite to them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

People in this country are poor because they want to be poor.

 

[Katzndogz]

The poor aren't miserable. They have cars, color television sets, they have government provided housing and can afford to spend the food money on lap dances.

If they had a little real misery, they might get off their lazy asses and get a job doing something.

Taking a lifeline from a drowning man does make him swim. Take shelter away from the poor, they show up on the door of relatives or live on streets. Take away food, and they steal. All of which creates even more problems for the community.

Someone once said the real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations. Once people become convinced that they cannot succeed, they will not try. You have to find a way to convince people they can get off drugs, give up alcohol, go back to school, get a job, or take care of their family. Until this happens, nothing will change. This is one of the biggest problems in working with the poor.

If the "poor" worked as hard at a job as they do about being poor, they would be providing for themselves by now.

How about the "poor' homeless man the cop bought the shoes for? He had an income, he had an apartment, he could easily afford to buy shoes. He CHOSE to live barefoot on the streets. The taxpayer paid shelter sat there vacant. That's poverty in America today.

 

[editec]

remember Ben Franklin; The worst thing to do for poor people is to make them comfortable in their poverty.


but hey, it's the best way to bribe people for votes!

So that's the plan? Make people who are already misrable MORE misrable?

Any other Republicans with more of these brilliant plans? Tell us how they work again?

Ben Franklin was a Founding Father, there were no republicans back then.

But it's nice to see that you're way to dumb to grasp the ideal. Makes me not feel so bad, b/c I now understand that liberals really don't care about learning from past mistakes.

Franklin was a FEDERALIST, kiddies.

His POV was the antithesis of the Jeffersonians' POV

Trying to make him into a proto-Republican is historical revisionism at its worst.

 

[rdean]

The poor aren't miserable. They have cars, color television sets, they have government provided housing and can afford to spend the food money on lap dances.

If they had a little real misery, they might get off their lazy asses and get a job doing something.

Taking a lifeline from a drowning man does make him swim. Take shelter away from the poor, they show up on the door of relatives or live on streets. Take away food, and they steal. All of which creates even more problems for the community.

Someone once said the real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations. Once people become convinced that they cannot succeed, they will not try. You have to find a way to convince people they can get off drugs, give up alcohol, go back to school, get a job, or take care of their family. Until this happens, nothing will change. This is one of the biggest problems in working with the poor.

If the "poor" worked as hard at a job as they do about being poor, they would be providing for themselves by now.

How about the "poor' homeless man the cop bought the shoes for? He had an income, he had an apartment, he could easily afford to buy shoes. He CHOSE to live barefoot on the streets. The taxpayer paid shelter sat there vacant. That's poverty in America today.

These days "working hard" may not be as important as "qualifications". If you aren't qualifed for anything, you won't get the chance to "work hard".

 

[regent]

America has always had programs for the poor, some not so good and some a little worse, but the programs were there. Americans with jobs have usually detested the poor, urging them not to be lazy or disabled, be more like them and go to work. What is amazing in a way is when a depression/recession comes along and more Americans lose their jobs those with jobs fare even better. Prices drop, labor is cheaper and taxes usually go down. Sometimes I think it just a way for people with jobs or money to feel superior, sort of like Trump must feel all the time.

 

[Flopper]

The poor aren't miserable. They have cars, color television sets, they have government provided housing and can afford to spend the food money on lap dances.

If they had a little real misery, they might get off their lazy asses and get a job doing something.

Taking a lifeline from a drowning man does make him swim. Take shelter away from the poor, they show up on the door of relatives or live on streets. Take away food, and they steal. All of which creates even more problems for the community.

Someone once said the real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations. Once people become convinced that they cannot succeed, they will not try. You have to find a way to convince people they can get off drugs, give up alcohol, go back to school, get a job, or take care of their family. Until this happens, nothing will change. This is one of the biggest problems in working with the poor.

If the "poor" worked as hard at a job as they do about being poor, they would be providing for themselves by now.

How about the "poor' homeless man the cop bought the shoes for? He had an income, he had an apartment, he could easily afford to buy shoes. He CHOSE to live barefoot on the streets. The taxpayer paid shelter sat there vacant. That's poverty in America today.

To have an intelligent discussion about the poor, we have to agree on what being poor means. There is extreme poverty which is income without government support of less than $2/day for an individual. There is the federal definition which is about $11,000/yr for an individual. There is the definition of low income. This is 125% of the poverty guideline or $13,700 for an individual. Finally there is the working poor with an undefined income level. The level of government support varies widely depending on income level and number dependents and which state you live. Food stamps for a family of 3 can be less than a $100/mo or as much $600. You have poor people that are completely unemployable and you have poor people that have full time jobs. Eligibility for government assistance also varies widely between states. In some states, ownership of a car will have no effect on benefits, in other states it will.

So when we speak of the "poor", we're talking about people in abject poverty, people with no hope of finding work but we are also talking about people with full time jobs that can't make enough money to support the family. My point is that generalizations about the "poor" are rarely accurate and are usually based on what people believe as oppose to facts.

 

[Flopper]

America has always had programs for the poor, some not so good and some a little worse, but the programs were there. Americans with jobs have usually detested the poor, urging them not to be lazy or disabled, be more like them and go to work. What is amazing in a way is when a depression/recession comes along and more Americans lose their jobs those with jobs fare even better. Prices drop, labor is cheaper and taxes usually go down. Sometimes I think it just a way for people with jobs or money to feel superior, sort of like Trump must feel all the time.

The basis for social welfare programs is rooted more in a desire for society to protect itself from the problems that arise from unemployed, hunger, and homelessness than the desire to care for the less fortunate. You need only look at the problems that arose from poverty in 18th and 19th century. Disease, crime, riots, and rebellion know no boundary. It effects all, regardless of financial or social status.

Whenever society addresses the problems associated with poverty, there is always a backlash. Usually it revolves around the idea that the poor are responsible for their predicament, therefore it is they that must fix the problem, not society. Unfortunately that just doesn't work; the poor get poorer and pass their problems own to their children.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Neither Republicans not Democrats suggest that double-entry accounting be mandatory in the schools. But how many high school kids must take 4 years of English literature and read some Shakespeare?

How many high school graduates can explain what NET WORTH is?

I wonder how many high school valedictorians can explain what NET WORTH is?

If most of them can't then what does that say about education and poverty?

The schools are designed to produce suckers who work and get ripped off as much as possible. If kids understood accounting then how would they treat credit cards? Do bankers want everyone to understand them?

psik

 

[initforme]

I see some young people in my community working all the time for low pay. I always let them know that they are simply working hard to make their employer wealthy. I applaud their work ethic but although they are proud because they dont need govt assistance, they are wasting their time and their only hope is more education but they are afraid to take out a loan. Therefore they have zero shot to get ahead ever. EDUCATION is one's ONLY chance in this life otherwise you stay uneducated and big money has one where they want you. Its called a plutocracy and it is undeniable.

 

[Trajan]

Republicans are always wanting to end programs that benefit the poor. They insist these programs don't work because there is still poor so they look for "alternate and age old methods" that never work.

Remember Andre Bauer? Feed the poor and they will.....well, you know.

Remember Newt? Poor children have no role model? Make them janitors.

Remember "Hungry children work harder"?

Ask a USMB Republican what the "Welfare Work Requirement" is and you get a black stare. And this endless lie about illegal aliens getting food stamps. Why can't they stop telling this lie?

The truth is, there will always be poverty. The number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills. Suddenly a family is poor.

Look at what Sandy did to the East Coast. Not only were people wiped out from everything they had, even their jobs were gone. Eric Cantor's plan was no solution.

Unskilled assembly jobs being moved to China and suddenly a family is poor. The Democrat's plan for more education to prepare people for a new job isn't a handout.

And where are the Republican's "alternate plans"? How come we can't get USMB Republicans to explain what we should be doing? How is "get government out of the way" supposed to work? How is bringing immigrants with degrees here going to help Americans already here?

So USMB Republicans don't like anything the Democrats want to do. What is their plan if they have one? Isn't it time they told us or STFU?

jesus you're a moron.....


is this your 'war on poverty" apology tour?

 

[Trajan]

Taking a lifeline from a drowning man does make him swim. Take shelter away from the poor, they show up on the door of relatives or live on streets. Take away food, and they steal. All of which creates even more problems for the community.

Someone once said the real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations. Once people become convinced that they cannot succeed, they will not try. You have to find a way to convince people they can get off drugs, give up alcohol, go back to school, get a job, or take care of their family. Until this happens, nothing will change. This is one of the biggest problems in working with the poor.

If the "poor" worked as hard at a job as they do about being poor, they would be providing for themselves by now.

How about the "poor' homeless man the cop bought the shoes for? He had an income, he had an apartment, he could easily afford to buy shoes. He CHOSE to live barefoot on the streets. The taxpayer paid shelter sat there vacant. That's poverty in America today.

To have an intelligent discussion about the poor, we have to agree on what being poor means. There is extreme poverty which is income without government support of less than $2/day for an individual. There is the federal definition which is about $11,000/yr for an individual. There is the definition of low income. This is 125% of the poverty guideline or $13,700 for an individual. Finally there is the working poor with an undefined income level. The level of government support varies widely depending on income level and number dependents and which state you live. Food stamps for a family of 3 can be less than a $100/mo or as much $600. You have poor people that are completely unemployable and you have poor people that have full time jobs. Eligibility for government assistance also varies widely between states. In some states, ownership of a car will have no effect on benefits, in other states it will.

So when we speak of the "poor", we're talking about people in abject poverty, people with no hope of finding work but we are also talking about people with full time jobs that can't make enough money to support the family. My point is that generalizations about the "poor" are rarely accurate and are usually based on what people believe as oppose to facts.

uh huh, poor is relative;


Q- that guy how took the shoes from that cop is rich compared to several billions folks......

true or false?

 

[Flopper]

If the "poor" worked as hard at a job as they do about being poor, they would be providing for themselves by now.

How about the "poor' homeless man the cop bought the shoes for? He had an income, he had an apartment, he could easily afford to buy shoes. He CHOSE to live barefoot on the streets. The taxpayer paid shelter sat there vacant. That's poverty in America today.

To have an intelligent discussion about the poor, we have to agree on what being poor means. There is extreme poverty which is income without government support of less than $2/day for an individual. There is the federal definition which is about $11,000/yr for an individual. There is the definition of low income. This is 125% of the poverty guideline or $13,700 for an individual. Finally there is the working poor with an undefined income level. The level of government support varies widely depending on income level and number dependents and which state you live. Food stamps for a family of 3 can be less than a $100/mo or as much $600. You have poor people that are completely unemployable and you have poor people that have full time jobs. Eligibility for government assistance also varies widely between states. In some states, ownership of a car will have no effect on benefits, in other states it will.

So when we speak of the "poor", we're talking about people in abject poverty, people with no hope of finding work but we are also talking about people with full time jobs that can't make enough money to support the family. My point is that generalizations about the "poor" are rarely accurate and are usually based on what people believe as oppose to facts.

uh huh, poor is relative;


Q- that guy how took the shoes from that cop is rich compared to several billions folks......

true or false?

Yes, poor and rich are always relative. Although government defines it in terms of income. Your point is??