The Lazy Poor

[paulitician]

Well, i gotta run. No one even attempted to define what being 'Poor' in America means. It seems most don't even have a clue about what the definition of the term 'Poor' is. For example, is not having that Big Screen TV considered 'Poor' in America? There are many other questions like that. I'll come back later and see if anyone attempted to expound on it. See Ya.

 

[koshergrl]

America's 'Poor' are mere pawns in an age-old Political Game. Our 'Poor' live quite comfortably compared to most of the World. So what is being 'Poor' in America these days? It seems the definition keeps changing. The goalposts keep being moved.

That's it isn't it? For some of our friends here--I use the term loosely--if the great god of government proclaims somebody 'poor', then they are. Nevermind that to millions of the world's truly poor, America's poorest would be considered blessed indeed.

And at the same time, there are people who are truly hungry and no person of compassion simply sends them on their way without something to eat.

But to pay those artifically defined as 'poor' in such a way that there is little or no incentive to become unpoor is not only dishonest, but should be 100% illegal when the money is forcibly confiscated from others to create the condition. And when those who create the condition have motive to perpetuate it in order to keep themselves in power with ability to greatly enrich themselves.

Mexicans are hip to this...they come across the border, both legally and illegally, and they live together in large groups to save $$, and they SAVE THEIR MONEY so they can buy houses and businesses and bring their relatives over. They don't consider themselves poor, they consider themselves lucky to have an opportunity to earn and save money. But they don't eat out, and they don't run to the doctor every time they have the sniffles; they eat lean and they live lean...if you want to see how the poor in our country live, look to them because they are it. And they aren't complaining or demanding more from the rich.

I'm poor, and I don't sit on my ass all day whining that rich people need to give me more money so I can enjoy something more closely resembling their lifestyle. I recognize that I made some decisions when I was young that put a serious damper on my lifelong income production ability.

So I work my ass off, and devote my life to helping my kids so they don't make the same dumb ass decisions I made..by setting an example. I work hard, I don't screw around, I do the things I'm supposed to do. And I fully expect my children to complete college, get a job, and have a nest egg BEFORE they have children.

My children will not be lit and history majors. They will pursue degrees in fields that will provide them with work for the foreseeable future.

If they fail and lose everything, then we start over.

It's not someone else's job to make sure we all do great. It's our own jobs, and we are responsible for our own failures. And if you have half a brain, you deal with what you're dealt..you don't sit and whine and piss and moan that someone did you wrong. You dust yourself off and you find a way.

I'm disgusted by Americans who think the world owes them a living. And there seem to be more and more.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, i gotta run. No one even attempted to define what being 'Poor' in America means. It seems most don't even have a clue about what the definition of the term 'Poor' is. For example, is not having that Big Screen TV considered 'Poor' in America? There are many other questions like that. I'll come back later and see if anyone attempted to expound on it. See Ya.

"Poor" in America is whatever the federal government determines it will be. And it is pretty much a one-size fits all definition which is absolutely absurd.

Consider West Virginia containing some of Appalachia's 'poorest' folks using government definitions for poverty, yet the last time I looked, West Virginia led the nation in home ownership. I spent some time with those West Virginia 'poor folks' in 1984. They didn't make much money. Some subsisted using only a barter system trading eggs for a side of pork, fresh produce for sugar and flour, etc. But most did own their own homes, however small and humble those homes might be. And almost every poor household had a garden that included canning skills, fruit trees, chickens, maybe a pig or calf fattening in the pen, and none were without heat in the winter--little or no a/c is generally necessary in those parts--none were without running water, electricity, and very few didn't have plenty to eat. And most seemed to be pleasant, happy, accommodating people.

Now compare that to an inner city resident of Washington DC who pays substantially more in rent alone than most of those West Virginians earn in a year. A coastal California resident can pay up to a million for a home that would at most cost $200 to $300k in Albuquerque and where you live in Albuquerque can affect your cost of living by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Does a one-size-fits-all defnition of poverty at the federal level really make sense?

So what is poverty? We started out in the OP defining it as not enough food, insufficient shelter, insufficient necessities of life. Does that really apply to those who have the necessities of life however humble those might be?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -

and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.

They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.

This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.

Hey....I got a note from someone who said I "shredded" you.....

Would it be OK if I addressed you as 'cole slaw' from now on?

You can address that imbecile however you wish, but cole slaw actually has a positive impact on the earth, and even if it becomes garbage it can be used for compost. NYBedwetter not only serves no positive purpose, but is stealing our oxygen and actually reducing the collective intelligence of mankind.

It's because of mindless parasites like that, I can not oppose abortion. If it wasn't for child-resistant lids on Drano, that idiot would have been yet another dead dumbass kid found under a kitchen sink.

....should I stick to 'cabbage-head'?

 

[Freemason9]

Alright, I no longer see the point of this thread. Is this about poor dark-skinned people, and how they don't deserve welfare?

And does the proposed solution involve removing all welfare assistance? Because that seems unwise.

 

[kwc57]

Alright, I no longer see the point of this thread. Is this about poor dark-skinned people, and how they don't deserve welfare?

And does the proposed solution involve removing all welfare assistance? Because that seems unwise.

No and no. Never was.

 

[Freemason9]

Alright, I no longer see the point of this thread. Is this about poor dark-skinned people, and how they don't deserve welfare?

And does the proposed solution involve removing all welfare assistance? Because that seems unwise.

No and no. Never was.

So, what is it about? And what is the proposed right-wing solution?

 

[Againsheila]

Tell me how it's changed since we have had them. If the programs were intended to lift the poor out of poverty, it hasn't worked as there are more people on assitance than ever before. If the programs were working, shouldn't they eventually eliminate themselves or be very small in comparison to the past? Do you think another federal job training program on top of the existing 48 or so is the going to be the straw that breaks poverty's back?

The problem is we are in a bad economy which means more people on assistance. Not saying their aren't people who abuse the system, just that not all of them, not even most of them abuse the system. Why is it no one complains about corporate welfare or the bank bailouts which cost us a heck of a lot more? No, they'd rather complain about people working minimum wage jobs that need food stamps and call them lazy.

You are missing the point of the OP. We aren't talking about people down on their luck trying to replace a good lost job. We are talking about those who refuse to work because they know the government will be their sugar daddy. The lazy poor. Those who are poor by choice and too lazy to fend for themselves because they know someone else will feed them while they do nothing but exist.

And when you see them on the street, how do you know the difference?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.

.

She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty.

She believes there are no poor, but wishes to recreate the poor by taking away what keeps them from being poor.

That, btw, happens to be the core belief of conservative economic policy...

...to make the poor poorer by ending or drastically reducing the aid that alleviates their poverty.

66% of conservative superhero's Paul Ryan's budget cuts were aimed at government spending for the benefit of low income Americans.

"She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty."

Actually, I go far further than that....I can prove that liberal/progressive 'welfare' increases poverty.


Watch this:

The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income,, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.

Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.

Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



Ya' feel stoooopid, now, boyyyyeeeeeeee??

If I stipulate that I understand that you want to end all government aid to the poor, will you stop repeating it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -

and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.

They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.

This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.

Hey....I got a note from someone who said I "shredded" you.....

Would it be OK if I addressed you as 'cole slaw' from now on?

An idiot endorsing what you say does not make what you say less idiotic, and keep in mind, about 98% of the props someone like you gets on a forum like this are only because you're under 80 and have a vagina.

 

[Againsheila]

No one is entitled to someone else's income. That's theft. And more & more Americans are getting fed up. Businesses don't want to pay em and Big Brother wants to steal more & more from em. What do they do? Who do they turn to? Desperate frustration is setting in amongst the masses.

The reality, though, has nothing to do with "entitlement," however you might choose to define it. The reality has much more to do with torches and pitchforks--because if you decide that feudal society, or a right wing monarchy is more "deserving" of wealth, you may find yourself facing "La Guillotine" at some point. "The masses" tend to become upset after inequality reaches a certain level.

There is nothing prohibiting the masses from finding the means (including the military or GI Bill) to get an advanced education, or starting your OWN business instead of bickering over how someone chooses to run theirs. Those who I find complain the most on a rather frequent basis, about their boss or owner, do so because they have chosen to "settle" right where they are.

Have you seen what it takes to start your own business today? It's not like setting up a lemonade stand and selling lemonade, in fact, kids can't even do that legally anymore. You have to have money to make money was never so true as it is today. Not saying it can't be done, but how many window washers can one area take? And what happens when someone reports you because you don't have the correct license? Heck, I can't even get my grandfather's clock fixed because the guy who fixes clocks is two cities over and the state has a new law that they have to have a business license in every city they do business in. It hurts the clock guy and it hurts his customers.

You want to teach the poor to fish instead of giving them a fish? It's a great idea but doesn't work today because then they have to buy a fishing license. If you don't have the money for a fish, you aren't going to have the money for a license.

 

[NYcarbineer]

America's 'Poor' are mere pawns in an age-old Political Game. Our 'Poor' live quite comfortably compared to most of the World. So what is being 'Poor' in America these days? It seems the definition keeps changing. The goalposts keep being moved.

Our poor live as they live because our government, of the People, has decided to help them.

If conservatives like you had their way, our poor would live like they do in Africa or India or any other hellhole you wish to name.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -

and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.

They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.

This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.

Hey....I got a note from someone who said I "shredded" you.....

Would it be OK if I addressed you as 'cole slaw' from now on?

You can address that imbecile however you wish, but cole slaw actually has a positive impact on the earth, and even if it becomes garbage it can be used for compost. NYBedwetter not only serves no positive purpose, but is stealing our oxygen and actually reducing the collective intelligence of mankind.

It's because of mindless parasites like that, I can not oppose abortion. If it wasn't for child-resistant lids on Drano, that idiot would have been yet another dead dumbass kid found under a kitchen sink.

Are you capable of substantively refuting anything I said?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Alright, I no longer see the point of this thread. Is this about poor dark-skinned people, and how they don't deserve welfare?

And does the proposed solution involve removing all welfare assistance? Because that seems unwise.

No and no. Never was.

So, what is it about? And what is the proposed right-wing solution?

They have no solution. I've gotten most of them to concede that they don't oppose the socialist welfare state we have,

they just don't like the fact that it's imperfect.

 

[koshergrl]

Please...did NYC just use a form of the word "substantive"?

GUFFAW! I was certain he had no idea what it meant!

carbiner...I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.

 

[Againsheila]

It doesn't count if they are homeless, heatless, and foodless by CHOICE.

We do not have families with children huddling on the streets. We do have homeless, mentally ill and drug addled and some run aways that opt to live on the street instead of living at home. It isn't because of poverty, however. It's because of dysfunction.

Actually, we do. They live out of their cars. Some of them find temporary housing. There's a church in Tacoma that provides shelter for homeless families during the winter. The congregation takes turns cooking breakfast and dinner for them and they are provided with sack lunches.

Most of these are people who had kids when they were working and supporting themselves but they lost their jobs in this terrible economy and can't find another.

Some people on this board really need to get out there and find out what they are talking about. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Here's an article I found on homeless families in Seattle:

Local News | Seattle Times Newspaper

And you have to realize, for every 1 you find out about, there are probably 10 you haven't found out about. When they counted the homeless in our city, the got on the bus at night and counted the people sleeping on the bus. How stupid. We have at least 3 tent cities in this city and they didn't visit any of them, nor did they count the people sleeping in their cars or under whatever they could find on the streets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.

.

She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty.

She believes there are no poor, but wishes to recreate the poor by taking away what keeps them from being poor.

That, btw, happens to be the core belief of conservative economic policy...

...to make the poor poorer by ending or drastically reducing the aid that alleviates their poverty.

66% of conservative superhero's Paul Ryan's budget cuts were aimed at government spending for the benefit of low income Americans.

Wow! So do we call all the lies you just told a fairy tale instead of lies?

Prove anything I said was a lie.

PC's statement that there are no poor is in this thread, so that's not a lie.

PC's desire to cut aid to the poor is common knowledge, so that's not a lie.

The figures on Paul Ryan's budget are common knowledge, so that's not a lie.

Proceed...

 

[koshergrl]

We do have a solution. Our solution is that we allow entrepreneurs, go-getters, and business owners to function reasonably unhinderered.

That means we don't shut down oil fields, or the forests, or the paper mills. That means we allow producers to PRODUCE. They in turn HIRE people, and people are able to work and improve their lot.

That's how this country was created, and it's the best system the world has ever known. It wasn't until progressive asshats started ******* with it that the jobs started to disappear.

 

[koshergrl]

It doesn't count if they are homeless, heatless, and foodless by CHOICE.

We do not have families with children huddling on the streets. We do have homeless, mentally ill and drug addled and some run aways that opt to live on the street instead of living at home. It isn't because of poverty, however. It's because of dysfunction.

Actually, we do. They live out of their cars. Some of them find temporary housing. There's a church in Tacoma that provides shelter for homeless families during the winter. The congregation takes turns cooking breakfast and dinner for them and they are provided with sack lunches.

Most of these are people who had kids when they were working and supporting themselves but they lost their jobs in this terrible economy and can't find another.

Some people on this board really need to get out there and find out what they are talking about. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Here's an article I found on homeless families in Seattle:

Local News | Seattle Times Newspaper

And you have to realize, for every 1 you find out about, there are probably 10 you haven't found out about. When they counted the homeless in our city, the got on the bus at night and counted the people sleeping on the bus. How stupid. We have at least 3 tent cities in this city and they didn't visit any of them, nor did they count the people sleeping in their cars or under whatever they could find on the streets.

How odd that I've worked in human services for decades...and my reality is completely different.

I know the numbers, and I know the reality. I've never seen one family that was homeless because one person lost a job. Ever. It's a fantasy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please...did NYC just use a form of the word "substantive"?

GUFFAW! I was certain he had no idea what it meant!

carbiner...I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.

I'll bite.