The Lazy Poor

[Lovebears65]

When people are welfare they are not just getting welfare, they are getting food stamps, they are most likely get reduction in housing based on your income, They are getting free medical . Sometimes getting an assistance in utilities. Why work when all your basic needs are paid for. That is what makes them lazy. I have seen it over and over again in my own family . Sitting on their asses while our tax dollars let them.

 

[Pete7469]

She lived in Japan for three years and returned to the U.S., moving to East St. Louis, Illinois, at twelve, at which point she says she "just joined right in" with the "anger and tension among blacks" in the area.[4] "I bought into the lie that there was nothing in America for me except institutional racism and glass ceilings that would keep me from getting promoted," she said.[4]

How did she have absent parents but live in Japan for 3 years and than go straight to the streets of East Saint Louis? thats not the typical MO.

I think its a reference to parents that aren't actively involved in their childrens lives. I can certainly relate looking back on my childhood.

I'm sure things are far worse for kids who grow up in single parent homes where the "mother" is there only physically, and the "father" is either unknown, in prison, or just doesn't give a damn.

In regards to "poverty" in this country...

IT'S BULLSHIT

Very few people in this country understand what real poverty is. Even our homeless people can take advantage of shelters and charities. There are people who try and get them off the streets.

I've been to places where orphans live in the streets. Our "poor" people all have homes, they're fed so well they're fat, they have cable TV, obozo phones, cars and enough spare money to by drugs and booze. They get free health care, schools and wear trendy clothes. Not filthy rags while beging for food outside of resturants frequented by tourists.

Our "poor" people don't even have enough gratitude for the system that keeps them alive to take advantage of their free schooling and get out of the ghettos and trailer parks. They have the gall to complain they're "kept down" by the establishment.

Eat the rich? **** that, they pay my salary. Feed the poor... to the hog farms. I'm sick of these lazy whining parasites.

 

[Newby]

If private charity worked there would be no poverty problems. Private charity is nothing more than a voluntary tax on the generous,

while the greedy get off for free.

The greedy need to be forced to help those in need.

Why? How is that not imposing your morals on those who do not share them?

 

[Pete7469]

No, but not the point. Most of the people who come for those lunches are on some kind of welfare. Welfare doesn't provide everything. One of our regulars was thrilled when they finally found him an apartment. He was almost dead by then. He'd been hit by a bus, the hospital had kicked him out and he had no where to go to heal. IMO, the bus company should have provided for him but they didn't. Another of our regulars is dead now, died a young man because he couldn't get enough help. He got sick and died in his tent, in his sleep. It's not that he wasn't willing to work, most places won't hire you if you don't have an address and how do you get an address when you are homeless?

Like I said, go work at your local food bank or soup kitchen. Meet these people you are disparaging.

It is against the law for a hospital to deny needed care based on ability to pay.

Hospitals don't keep anyone until they are completely healed anymore. They even dump them on the streets if they have to, and yes, they've been caught, but they keep doing it.

If they aren't paid, they shouldn't have to treat people at all. The rest of us pay out the ass because of all the parasites who get it for free.

 

[Pete7469]

If private charity worked there would be no poverty problems. Private charity is nothing more than a voluntary tax on the generous,

while the greedy get off for free.

The greedy need to be forced to help those in need.

Why? How is that not imposing your morals on those who do not share them?

What's incomprehensible is how stupid a person has to be in order to "think" someone who wants to keep their own money, is "greedy" or unethical, but the slob who wants to take away other people's money by force, against their will, is somehow deserving of oxygen.

That's why I have that insipid bed wetter on ignore, but I still have to be exposed to his mindless drivel when other people are astounded enough by his stupidity that they have to respond with his quotes.

It really would be better if he was ignored by everyone.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is against the law for a hospital to deny needed care based on ability to pay.

Hospitals don't keep anyone until they are completely healed anymore. They even dump them on the streets if they have to, and yes, they've been caught, but they keep doing it.

If they aren't paid, they shouldn't have to treat people at all. The rest of us pay out the ass because of all the parasites who get it for free.

A humane people will not turn away somebody who needs emergency medical care. Also, a humane people will present a bill for medical care to those they treat so that they are prevented from leaching off honest, hard working Americans. Those truly unable to pay their bill of course won't do so and will have no credit to ruin so it will be a wash. Those who are able to pay, even $10/month, should be required to do so even if they are paying that $10/month the rest of their lives. That is the way it should be everywhere.

We do people no favors by encouraging them to become dependent and therefore pawns to be used by the rich and powerful for their own interests.

 

[Pete7469]

Hospitals don't keep anyone until they are completely healed anymore. They even dump them on the streets if they have to, and yes, they've been caught, but they keep doing it.

If they aren't paid, they shouldn't have to treat people at all. The rest of us pay out the ass because of all the parasites who get it for free.

A humane people will not turn away somebody who needs emergency medical care. Also, a humane people will present a bill for medical care to those they treat so that they are prevented from leaching off honest, hard working Americans. Those truly unable to pay their bill of course won't do so and will have no credit to ruin so it will be a wash. Those who are able to pay, even $10/month, should be required to do so even if they are paying that $10/month the rest of their lives. That is the way it should be everywhere.

We do people no favors by encouraging them to become dependent and therefore pawns to be used by the rich and powerful for their own interests.

I agree, but I see absolute ZERO gratitude coming from people who do absolutely nothing for anyone, even themselves.

I'm at a point in thinking it's more humane to let them die in the streets than continue living as slaves to a system that doesn't even ALLOW them to work and enhance their standard of living. Let alone encourage or force them to work and feel the pride of achievement.

 

[DGS49]

Obviously, one cannot generalize about "The Poor" or about "The Rich." Every circumstance is different.

Having said that, however, our governments at various levels have, in the interest of being "compassionate," created a cornucopia of programs that tend to permit people to make disastrous personal choices in their lives without having to fully bear the consequences - thus perversely encouraging those disastrous choices. Most prominent among these choices - it almost goes without saying - is to bear children out of wedlock. As Star Parker attests, all she had to do was pop out a kid and the Gub-mint was going to ensure that she was provided a meager existence, at the taxpayers' expense. Cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing based on income, paid medical care, and who knows what else.

And yet the vast majority of the population understands that bearing an illegitimate child - particularly when the extended family has no surplus resources - condemns both the mother and the child to a life of poverty and want, almost regardless of what she might do after bearing the child. So it is not unreasonable to expect The Poor to recognize the reality of generational poverty and act accordingly, particularly when the means of preventing unwanted children (even assuming that periodic copulation is a fact of life) are readily available.

But the "Liberal" culture has succeeded in removing the social stigma from bastardy - indeed it is considered "normal" in many circles - when that stigma served a very important societal purpose. Is Jesse Jackson telling young Black women to STOP HAVING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN??!! Consider the lyrics of the old Supremes' Hit, "Love Child."

"No child of mine will be bearing the name of shame I've been wearing, 'love child'" (aka, "bastard").

I frankly don't get out much from my isolated suburban enclave, but the most disturbing thing I see when I do get out is not the small army of homeless people hanging around on the streets, but rather the larger army of mainly-minority adults in their 20's 30's and beyond, working menial, dead-end jobs, remembering how much I struggled when I was at that stage of life. But I know that these people don't have the intangible resources that I had to impel me to pursue an education, structure a career, and slowly accumulate the resources that make life comfortable when you get a little older. These people will, in all likelyhood, struggle for their entire adult lives, and end up with no more accumulated wealth than they started out with. It's depressing, actually. And there ain't no government program gonna help them in any significant way.

 

[Againsheila]

How did she have absent parents but live in Japan for 3 years and than go straight to the streets of East Saint Louis? thats not the typical MO.

I think its a reference to parents that aren't actively involved in their childrens lives. I can certainly relate looking back on my childhood.

I'm sure things are far worse for kids who grow up in single parent homes where the "mother" is there only physically, and the "father" is either unknown, in prison, or just doesn't give a damn.

In regards to "poverty" in this country...

IT'S BULLSHIT

Very few people in this country understand what real poverty is. Even our homeless people can take advantage of shelters and charities. There are people who try and get them off the streets.

I've been to places where orphans live in the streets. Our "poor" people all have homes, they're fed so well they're fat, they have cable TV, obozo phones, cars and enough spare money to by drugs and booze. They get free health care, schools and wear trendy clothes. Not filthy rags while beging for food outside of resturants frequented by tourists.

Our "poor" people don't even have enough gratitude for the system that keeps them alive to take advantage of their free schooling and get out of the ghettos and trailer parks. They have the gall to complain they're "kept down" by the establishment.

Eat the rich? **** that, they pay my salary. Feed the poor... to the hog farms. I'm sick of these lazy whining parasites.

I don't know what countries you've visited, but I sincerely doubt those people dressed in rags begging for money were as poor as you think. I had a professor in Mexico who's neighbor was a professional begger in Guadalajara, his neighbor made more than he did. Heck, they had women who would rent babies so they'd get more money begging.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obviously, one cannot generalize about "The Poor" or about "The Rich." Every circumstance is different.

Having said that, however, our governments at various levels have, in the interest of being "compassionate," created a cornucopia of programs that tend to permit people to make disastrous personal choices in their lives without having to fully bear the consequences - thus perversely encouraging those disastrous choices. Most prominent among these choices - it almost goes without saying - is to bear children out of wedlock. As Star Parker attests, all she had to do was pop out a kid and the Gub-mint was going to ensure that she was provided a meager existence, at the taxpayers' expense. Cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing based on income, paid medical care, and who knows what else.

And yet the vast majority of the population understands that bearing an illegitimate child - particularly when the extended family has no surplus resources - condemns both the mother and the child to a life of poverty and want, almost regardless of what she might do after bearing the child. So it is not unreasonable to expect The Poor to recognize the reality of generational poverty and act accordingly, particularly when the means of preventing unwanted children (even assuming that periodic copulation is a fact of life) are readily available.

But the "Liberal" culture has succeeded in removing the social stigma from bastardy - indeed it is considered "normal" in many circles - when that stigma served a very important societal purpose. Is Jesse Jackson telling young Black women to STOP HAVING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN??!! Consider the lyrics of the old Supremes' Hit, "Love Child."

"No child of mine will be bearing the name of shame I've been wearing, 'love child'" (aka, "bastard").

I frankly don't get out much from my isolated suburban enclave, but the most disturbing thing I see when I do get out is not the small army of homeless people hanging around on the streets, but rather the larger army of mainly-minority adults in their 20's 30's and beyond, working menial, dead-end jobs, remembering how much I struggled when I was at that stage of life. But I know that these people don't have the intangible resources that I had to impel me to pursue an education, structure a career, and slowly accumulate the resources that make life comfortable when you get a little older. These people will, in all likelyhood, struggle for their entire adult lives, and end up with no more accumulated wealth than they started out with. It's depressing, actually. And there ain't no government program gonna help them in any significant way.

Yep. The world has always had people with no personal motivation, no shame, no pride. Such people have the right to be who they are. But before the government found out they could buy votes by using the taxpayer's money to bribe people, such unmotivated people were a rare exception rather than the rule. To beg for one's dinner was the ultimate shame, and people did what they had to do to avoid it. Even the homeless back then came to the door, hat in hand, to ask for work to earn something to eat. And generally all of our parents gave them something to do--chop wood, rake leaves, trim the hedge, paint the fence--something, anything to allow them their dignity and pride. And none had to hang their heads. And they weren't sent away hungry.

Every now and then one would be offered a permanent job at the lumber yard or gravel pit or cement plant or whatever, but they usually declined. They liked being free, being mobile, not being tied down. But they expected to work for what they received and thus they could rightfully command self respect.

We are a better nation when able bodied people expect to work for what they receive and have too much self respect to allow others to support them without them doing as much as they can to merit the support.

 

[kwc57]

Which proves my point. You, as a conservative, want less of your money going to the poor, thus, you want to make them poorer.

Come on NY, you aren't THAT stoopid. My money is MY money. If I keep MY money, how am I making the poor poorer? It isn't THEIR money to begin with and I'm not taking anything away from them that they already had. I'm as charitable as the next person.....in fact more charitable tyhan many folks I know on both ends of the political spectrum......but I should be free to determine who I am charitable to. No one is entitled to my money and no one should demand that they deserve a poretion of what I earn.

I've asked this question over and over here at USMB and not a single liberal has ever answered it. If you have a spare bedroom at your house, are you OK with the government telling you that they will be placing a homeless person in that spare room? They need it and you don't. You have the whole rest of the house to yourself which is more than you need. All the government asks is that you give your "fair share". Tell me, what is the difference between the money you earn and the real estate you own? Why is the poor entitled to one and not the other?

It's mathematics. If a poor person gets $100 a month in food stamps, that person is $100 less poor.

If you want to end food stamps so you don't have to pay for them, that's fine. But don't pretend that it doesn't make the poor person poorer.

Conservatives want the poor poorer because they want their money back that goes to making the poor less poor. You can't take their taxpayer funded benefits away from them without making them poorer, and you can't give people their tax money back without taking it away from the poor.

So whether you like the description or not, you want the poor to be poorer.

I am not wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you're an idiot if you believe wht you just wrote. So tell me.......did the poor have the $100 to begin with? How did they get it? Are they entitled to it?

And please answer my question about the government assigning one of your bedrooms to a homeless person. You conveniently avoided it. I can't say as I blame you.

 

[kwc57]

If private charity worked there would be no poverty problems. Private charity is nothing more than a voluntary tax on the generous,

while the greedy get off for free.

The greedy need to be forced to help those in need.

How many homeless are you sheltering in your home?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously, one cannot generalize about "The Poor" or about "The Rich." Every circumstance is different.

Having said that, however, our governments at various levels have, in the interest of being "compassionate," created a cornucopia of in their lives without having to fully bear the consequences - thus perversely encouraging those disastrous choices. Most prominent among these choices - it almost goes without saying - is to bear children out of wedlock. As Star Parker attests, all she had to do was pop out a kid and the Gub-mint was going to ensure that she was provided a meager existence, at the taxpayers' expense. Cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing based on income, paid medical care, and who knows what else.

And yet the vast majority of the population understands that bearing an illegitimate child - particularly when the extended family has no surplus resources - condemns both the mother and the child to a life of poverty and want, almost regardless of what she might do after bearing the child. So it is not unreasonable to expect The Poor to recognize the reality of generational poverty and act accordingly, particularly when the means of preventing unwanted children (even assuming that periodic copulation is a fact of life) are readily available.

But the "Liberal" culture has succeeded in removing the social stigma from bastardy - indeed it is considered "normal" in many circles - when that stigma served a very important societal purpose. Is Jesse Jackson telling young Black women to STOP HAVING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN??!! Consider the lyrics of the old Supremes' Hit, "Love Child."

"No child of mine will be bearing the name of shame I've been wearing, 'love child'" (aka, "bastard").

I frankly don't get out much from my isolated suburban enclave, but the most disturbing thing I see when I do get out is not the small army of homeless people hanging around on the streets, but rather the larger army of mainly-minority adults in their 20's 30's and beyond, working menial, dead-end jobs, remembering how much I struggled when I was at that stage of life. But I know that these people don't have the intangible resources that I had to impel me to pursue an education, structure a career, and slowly accumulate the resources that make life comfortable when you get a little older. These people will, in all likelyhood, struggle for their entire adult lives, and end up with no more accumulated wealth than they started out with. It's depressing, actually. And there ain't no government program gonna help them in any significant way.

1."Obviously, one cannot generalize about "The Poor" or about "The Rich." Every circumstance is different."

People are certainly different, but it possible to generalize about large categories.
There are folks who fit the "lazy poor" classification....
..then there's this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/289831-a-certain-kind-of-poor-folk.html



2. "...programs that tend to permit people to make disastrous personal choices..."
Permit is the least of it.
My premise is that government programs encourage said choices.


3. "Most prominent among these choices - it almost goes without saying - is to bear children out of wedlock."
Couldn't agree more.


4. "And yet the vast majority of the population understands that bearing an illegitimate child -... condemns both the mother and the child to a life of poverty and want,..."
I wish that was the case.
Far too many see no problem with it....and many of the remaining refuse a negative comment. Charles Murray writes about in "Coming Apart."
He demands that those who know better should, as he says, "Preach what they practice."


5. " Is Jesse Jackson telling young Black women to STOP HAVING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN??!!"
No way...I'm going to construct an OP about the heroic Bill Cosby, and the abuse he took for commenting on same.


6. "...most disturbing thing I see when I do get out is not the small army of homeless people hanging around on the streets, but rather the larger army of mainly-minority adults in their 20's 30's and beyond, working menial, dead-end jobs,..."
I honor your empathy and your wisdom.
Rep on the way.

Nice job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If private charity worked there would be no poverty problems. Private charity is nothing more than a voluntary tax on the generous,

while the greedy get off for free.

The greedy need to be forced to help those in need.

Seriously, that is about the most ding dong thing I've seen posted here in a long time. It's so ridiculous it doesn't even merit an answer, because I suspect you know better.

Take your war against those who have more than you somewhere else. You have no right to force anyone to do anything. We aren't your slaves..you don't have slaves. If you want a slave, you should get ahold of some local muslims and ask them when the next auction is. They will know, and they will probably give you a ticket, if they think you have money.

Then you can buy a slave, and you can *force* your slave to do your bidding.

Otherwise, **** off.

Can you be forced to pay taxes or not? Can you refuse without penalty?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Come on NY, you aren't THAT stoopid. My money is MY money. If I keep MY money, how am I making the poor poorer? It isn't THEIR money to begin with and I'm not taking anything away from them that they already had. I'm as charitable as the next person.....in fact more charitable tyhan many folks I know on both ends of the political spectrum......but I should be free to determine who I am charitable to. No one is entitled to my money and no one should demand that they deserve a poretion of what I earn.

I've asked this question over and over here at USMB and not a single liberal has ever answered it. If you have a spare bedroom at your house, are you OK with the government telling you that they will be placing a homeless person in that spare room? They need it and you don't. You have the whole rest of the house to yourself which is more than you need. All the government asks is that you give your "fair share". Tell me, what is the difference between the money you earn and the real estate you own? Why is the poor entitled to one and not the other?

It's mathematics. If a poor person gets $100 a month in food stamps, that person is $100 less poor.

If you want to end food stamps so you don't have to pay for them, that's fine. But don't pretend that it doesn't make the poor person poorer.

Conservatives want the poor poorer because they want their money back that goes to making the poor less poor. You can't take their taxpayer funded benefits away from them without making them poorer, and you can't give people their tax money back without taking it away from the poor.

So whether you like the description or not, you want the poor to be poorer.

I am not wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you're an idiot if you believe wht you just wrote. So tell me.......did the poor have the $100 to begin with? How did they get it? Are they entitled to it?

And please answer my question about the government assigning one of your bedrooms to a homeless person. You conveniently avoided it. I can't say as I blame you.

The government drafted me into the military for 2 years.

If they could do that they could certainly force me to house a homeless person, if they had the votes to make it a law.

Don't try to tell me what the government can or can't force someone to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If private charity worked there would be no poverty problems. Private charity is nothing more than a voluntary tax on the generous,

while the greedy get off for free.

The greedy need to be forced to help those in need.

Seriously, that is about the most ding dong thing I've seen posted here in a long time. It's so ridiculous it doesn't even merit an answer, because I suspect you know better.

Take your war against those who have more than you somewhere else. You have no right to force anyone to do anything. We aren't your slaves..you don't have slaves. If you want a slave, you should get ahold of some local muslims and ask them when the next auction is. They will know, and they will probably give you a ticket, if they think you have money.

Then you can buy a slave, and you can *force* your slave to do your bidding.

Otherwise, **** off.

I have to agree. NY's statement was so over the top, even for him, I now suspect him as one of those people who is paid to derail and/or make food fights of threads like this so that the subject can't be discussed rationally and won't gain any legs in the minds of the people. Big government and those organizations that feed on it and promote it don't want any of us upsetting the status quo by promoting ideas that actually help people and make big government less necessary.

A thread starts out with a vicious attack on poor people, and I'm the villain?

lololol you're a ******* retard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did anyone get around to telling us how taking free education away from poor kids would make America better?

Did I miss those answers? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[kwc57]

Seriously, that is about the most ding dong thing I've seen posted here in a long time. It's so ridiculous it doesn't even merit an answer, because I suspect you know better.

Take your war against those who have more than you somewhere else. You have no right to force anyone to do anything. We aren't your slaves..you don't have slaves. If you want a slave, you should get ahold of some local muslims and ask them when the next auction is. They will know, and they will probably give you a ticket, if they think you have money.

Then you can buy a slave, and you can *force* your slave to do your bidding.

Otherwise, **** off.

I have to agree. NY's statement was so over the top, even for him, I now suspect him as one of those people who is paid to derail and/or make food fights of threads like this so that the subject can't be discussed rationally and won't gain any legs in the minds of the people. Big government and those organizations that feed on it and promote it don't want any of us upsetting the status quo by promoting ideas that actually help people and make big government less necessary.

A thread starts out with a vicious attack on poor people, and I'm the villain?

lololol you're a ******* retard.

You're entitled to your own opinion, no matter how ignorant it is.......but you are not entitled to your own reality. Vicious? In your mind maybe.

 

[kwc57]

It's mathematics. If a poor person gets $100 a month in food stamps, that person is $100 less poor.

If you want to end food stamps so you don't have to pay for them, that's fine. But don't pretend that it doesn't make the poor person poorer.

Conservatives want the poor poorer because they want their money back that goes to making the poor less poor. You can't take their taxpayer funded benefits away from them without making them poorer, and you can't give people their tax money back without taking it away from the poor.

So whether you like the description or not, you want the poor to be poorer.

I am not wrong.

Not only are you wrong, you're an idiot if you believe wht you just wrote. So tell me.......did the poor have the $100 to begin with? How did they get it? Are they entitled to it?

And please answer my question about the government assigning one of your bedrooms to a homeless person. You conveniently avoided it. I can't say as I blame you.

The government drafted me into the military for 2 years.

If they could do that they could certainly force me to house a homeless person, if they had the votes to make it a law.

Don't try to tell me what the government can or can't force someone to do.

Still avoiding answering questions I see. Color me surprised.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they aren't paid, they shouldn't have to treat people at all. The rest of us pay out the ass because of all the parasites who get it for free.

A humane people will not turn away somebody who needs emergency medical care. Also, a humane people will present a bill for medical care to those they treat so that they are prevented from leaching off honest, hard working Americans. Those truly unable to pay their bill of course won't do so and will have no credit to ruin so it will be a wash. Those who are able to pay, even $10/month, should be required to do so even if they are paying that $10/month the rest of their lives. That is the way it should be everywhere.

We do people no favors by encouraging them to become dependent and therefore pawns to be used by the rich and powerful for their own interests.

I agree, but I see absolute ZERO gratitude coming from people who do absolutely nothing for anyone, even themselves.

I'm at a point in thinking it's more humane to let them die in the streets than continue living as slaves to a system that doesn't even ALLOW them to work and enhance their standard of living. Let alone encourage or force them to work and feel the pride of achievement.

People who have an entitlement mentality don't feel grateful. They feel entitled. If anything, they become increasingly angry because once the entitlement mentality sets in, they feel they are being discriminated against and denied their rights because they aren't provided for better. They become like NY up there who seems to be saying that everybody (but him of course) should be forced to take care of anybody who wants to be provided for.

It does feel good to be thanked, but most of us do not do good for others in order to get thanks or any other reward. In fact, unless hands on assistance is appropriate, I would just as soon that the recipients of my charity don't know know who gave it. I think it important that they know the help came from the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities or whatever, so they will know where to repay the favor should they be moved to do so.

But good stewardship does not mean to give blindly just to absolve your conscience. True charity does good and does not harm. When the unintended negative consequences are greater than good intentions, it is time to rethink things and do it differently.

And in my opinion, it is just wrong to justify hurting people because the intentions look and/or sound good or noble.