This mayor wants to publicize who’s on welfare and where they live

[David_42]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Seems valid until you take into account 2008, the trillions spent on war..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, exactly what I said. Our government doesn't select who will be poor, rich or anything in between. If government doesn't select that, then who does?

You can see no circumstance where someone might find themselves needing assistance through no fault of their own?

Only in a situation where a medical condition might be the culprit. Other than that, no, I really don't.

Most poverty is caused from bad planning which is not the fault of anybody but the individual. In many of those cases, children are involved. It takes a lot of money to raise a child today. That's why nobody should have children until they are 100% sure their financial situation is stable and worth the risk.

I envy you...living in a black or white world must be so easy.

No need to envy me. I just made better decisions in life. When I was younger, I made a decision to not have children and I never did. I didn't want the responsibility or associated costs with children.

I started working minimum wage jobs and kept trying to better myself. In those days, it was not uncommon for me to have two to three jobs with my full-time job being six days a week.

I made investments and took risks. Some worked out and some didn't. But one thing about me is I always tried.

So I cannot see anything that would prevent another American from doing the same as I did or even better provided they are physically and mentally capable.

That's right...it's black and white to you...you either succeed or you're inferior.
Such a simple and satisfying outlook on life...no need to think or empathise or consider circumstance...you're poor so you're useless/stupid/inferior/...

You are generalizing.

I'm fair in my debates, so tell me, what situation (outside of medical disabilities) would justify a person being poor being no fault of their own?

I believe poverty exists because of personal decisions, and you disagree, however, you have yet to give me any examples of why I am wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Seems valid until you take into account 2008, the trillions spent on war..

What does that have to do with the statistics that show we are not solving poverty with these social programs?

 

[David_42]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Seems valid until you take into account 2008, the trillions spent on war..

What does that have to do with the statistics that show we are not solving poverty with these social programs?

Oh, but we are, you see, poverty can never go away, but we can reduce it. (and the 2008 topic brings up the recession bud.)
Where do you think poverty would be without these programs? Much higher.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, exactly what I said. Our government doesn't select who will be poor, rich or anything in between. If government doesn't select that, then who does?

You can see no circumstance where someone might find themselves needing assistance through no fault of their own?

Only in a situation where a medical condition might be the culprit. Other than that, no, I really don't.

Most poverty is caused from bad planning which is not the fault of anybody but the individual. In many of those cases, children are involved. It takes a lot of money to raise a child today. That's why nobody should have children until they are 100% sure their financial situation is stable and worth the risk.

I envy you...living in a black or white world must be so easy.

No need to envy me. I just made better decisions in life. When I was younger, I made a decision to not have children and I never did. I didn't want the responsibility or associated costs with children.

I started working minimum wage jobs and kept trying to better myself. In those days, it was not uncommon for me to have two to three jobs with my full-time job being six days a week.

I made investments and took risks. Some worked out and some didn't. But one thing about me is I always tried.

So I cannot see anything that would prevent another American from doing the same as I did or even better provided they are physically and mentally capable.

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

 

[David_42]

You can see no circumstance where someone might find themselves needing assistance through no fault of their own?

Only in a situation where a medical condition might be the culprit. Other than that, no, I really don't.

Most poverty is caused from bad planning which is not the fault of anybody but the individual. In many of those cases, children are involved. It takes a lot of money to raise a child today. That's why nobody should have children until they are 100% sure their financial situation is stable and worth the risk.

I envy you...living in a black or white world must be so easy.

No need to envy me. I just made better decisions in life. When I was younger, I made a decision to not have children and I never did. I didn't want the responsibility or associated costs with children.

I started working minimum wage jobs and kept trying to better myself. In those days, it was not uncommon for me to have two to three jobs with my full-time job being six days a week.

I made investments and took risks. Some worked out and some didn't. But one thing about me is I always tried.

So I cannot see anything that would prevent another American from doing the same as I did or even better provided they are physically and mentally capable.

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

"You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country."

OMG.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Seems valid until you take into account 2008, the trillions spent on war..

What does that have to do with the statistics that show we are not solving poverty with these social programs?

Oh, but we are, you see, poverty can never go away, but we can reduce it. (and the 2008 topic brings up the recession bud.)
Where do you think poverty would be without these programs? Much higher.

Where do I think poverty would be without these programs? Let me answer that with a personal experience that I had when I was younger:

I got my first apartment at the age of 20. I had a fascination for birds back then, so one of my first priorities was to hang a bird feeder on my back porch.

Summer came along and I finally got to meet my new elderly neighbor. He brought up the subject of my bird feeder. He said:

"Ray, what you are doing for the birds is a nice gesture. However if you leave that feeder up all year long, the birds will use that as their main source of food and forget how to obtain food themselves. Don't get me wrong, having that feeder up in the winter is a good idea. But if you decide to move or otherwise get bored with feeding the birds, they will parish."

His wise old words didn't hit me until years later when I finally figured out that what he said didn't only apply to the birds. That's why I remembered this encounter for the rest of my life.

In the 90's, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans came out with welfare reform. Much like your assertion, liberals across the country predicted gloom and doom. They predicted a huge increase in crime--particularly theft. It never happened. What happen is that people on welfare went to work; many claiming it was the first feeling of liberty they ever had in their life.

 

[Wildman]

inbred hicks

ones like yourself ?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats interesting.
I never once had to take gov assistance although I would have qualified.
The problem nowadays is people like you have no shame so you think it's fine for others to pay your way.
Personally I wont accept charity unless I'm dying.

Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

What a fucken noob.
If you accept gov assistance you are the definition of impoverished.

You really don't get it?

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

You dumb ****!
If you are on gov assistance you are impoverished.
Without my money you'd starve.

Wrong.

Without your money, they would get a job and learn how to feed themselves.

Read what you just wrote...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let's ask each other...

First...would you ever take assiatance from the government.

If you did, would you mind if people knew ?

Simple questions.

Technically, we all get assistance from the government.
If you refer to welfare, yes, if times got bad for myself.
I wouldn't want people to know, but that's just me.

Let's pass on the first sentence.

Reasonable answers.

I would have no problem with people knowing.

They tell you when you lose your job to broadcast it so others will know you are looking....you get as many ears to the ground as possible.

I'd want people to know I was living on welfare...and trying like crazy not to.

 

[Zander]

Poor David_42 he cries himself to sleep every night. he's sensitive and stuff.....Every thread he starts is a bleeding heart tale of woe and despair.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats interesting.
I never once had to take gov assistance although I would have qualified.
The problem nowadays is people like you have no shame so you think it's fine for others to pay your way.
Personally I wont accept charity unless I'm dying.

Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

What a fucken noob.
If you accept gov assistance you are the definition of impoverished.

You really don't get it?

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

You dumb ****!
If you are on gov assistance you are impoverished.
Without my money you'd starve.

Wrong.

Without your money, they would get a job and learn how to feed themselves.

If you're on welfare you are impoverished.
You are living on the kindness of the government or in essence my generosity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only in a situation where a medical condition might be the culprit. Other than that, no, I really don't.

Most poverty is caused from bad planning which is not the fault of anybody but the individual. In many of those cases, children are involved. It takes a lot of money to raise a child today. That's why nobody should have children until they are 100% sure their financial situation is stable and worth the risk.

I envy you...living in a black or white world must be so easy.

No need to envy me. I just made better decisions in life. When I was younger, I made a decision to not have children and I never did. I didn't want the responsibility or associated costs with children.

I started working minimum wage jobs and kept trying to better myself. In those days, it was not uncommon for me to have two to three jobs with my full-time job being six days a week.

I made investments and took risks. Some worked out and some didn't. But one thing about me is I always tried.

So I cannot see anything that would prevent another American from doing the same as I did or even better provided they are physically and mentally capable.

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

"You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country."

OMG.

OMG?

Then let me ask you: If people did exactly as I did in life, would there be poverty in America today? And if so, by how much?

I'm no genius. What I did in life is not that complicated. Anybody can do what I did. In fact I believe that many here will tell you the exact same thing.

I worked many hours, eventually chose a career that always had demand for employees, saved my money, made investments and now I'm a landlord today. I still work and always will. I haven't taken a vacation since I bought this place, and that's well over 20 years. This place is my part-time job.

 

[Shrimpbox]

And he's wrong why ?

When you tie into the government....you get a lot more than you want.

He's wrong because this is an invasion of privacy, puts peoples lives in danger, and is another pathetic way to demonize the poor.

It's not an invasion of privacy.

They publish who gets speeding tickets......

Put's peoples lives in danger ? You are funny.

Demonize them ? What did he say he was going to do with the information to justify this claim ?

You loons are the ones who want people out of your lives, now you want to start tagging people on welfare so inbred hicks will have that information.

Did the mayor say that ? Inbred hicks ?

No, I'm saying we don't need tea party members knowing the location of people on welfare.

That is the most bigoted,unsubstantiated, hateful , mindless, and ignorant statement a person could make. I guess we need to know,the addresses of everyone who doesn't want to serve a gay wedding. In fact we want them on tv so they can receive hate mail and death threats. You have no clue how to treat people. My money, which I sweated and worked hard for, is going to go to complete strangers, doled out by administrations who are buying votes, but I dare to ask how,successful,this,support is to the people who are receiving it. AND, I don't even have a say in defining who is,poor, I can't even question it. 42 you are a person who would never take a vow of poverty to help the poor but you would have no qualms about putting anyone else in poverty to assuage your superficial conscience.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I envy you...living in a black or white world must be so easy.

No need to envy me. I just made better decisions in life. When I was younger, I made a decision to not have children and I never did. I didn't want the responsibility or associated costs with children.

I started working minimum wage jobs and kept trying to better myself. In those days, it was not uncommon for me to have two to three jobs with my full-time job being six days a week.

I made investments and took risks. Some worked out and some didn't. But one thing about me is I always tried.

So I cannot see anything that would prevent another American from doing the same as I did or even better provided they are physically and mentally capable.

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

"You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country."

OMG.

OMG?

Then let me ask you: If people did exactly as I did in life, would there be poverty in America today? And if so, by how much?

I'm no genius. What I did in life is not that complicated. Anybody can do what I did. In fact I believe that many here will tell you the exact same thing.

I worked many hours, eventually chose a career that always had demand for employees, saved my money, made investments and now I'm a landlord today. I still work and always will. I haven't taken a vacation since I bought this place, and that's well over 20 years. This place is my part-time job.

Keep it up.
I was dirt poor and quit high school in the tenth grade and went to work.
I then retired at 46 four years ago.
If I can do it anyone can.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

What a fucken noob.
If you accept gov assistance you are the definition of impoverished.

You really don't get it?

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

You dumb ****!
If you are on gov assistance you are impoverished.
Without my money you'd starve.

Wrong.

Without your money, they would get a job and learn how to feed themselves.

If you're on welfare you are impoverished.
You are living on the kindness of the government or in essence my generosity.

Correct, or in other words, servitude.

What is poverty? Poverty is a condition of not having enough money. What is the solution to poverty? Money. How does one obtain money? Get a job.

As one poster pointed out, it's all black and white to me. And he's correct, it is black and white to me.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No need to envy me. I just made better decisions in life. When I was younger, I made a decision to not have children and I never did. I didn't want the responsibility or associated costs with children.

I started working minimum wage jobs and kept trying to better myself. In those days, it was not uncommon for me to have two to three jobs with my full-time job being six days a week.

I made investments and took risks. Some worked out and some didn't. But one thing about me is I always tried.

So I cannot see anything that would prevent another American from doing the same as I did or even better provided they are physically and mentally capable.

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

"You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country."

OMG.

OMG?

Then let me ask you: If people did exactly as I did in life, would there be poverty in America today? And if so, by how much?

I'm no genius. What I did in life is not that complicated. Anybody can do what I did. In fact I believe that many here will tell you the exact same thing.

I worked many hours, eventually chose a career that always had demand for employees, saved my money, made investments and now I'm a landlord today. I still work and always will. I haven't taken a vacation since I bought this place, and that's well over 20 years. This place is my part-time job.

Keep it up.
I was dirt poor and quit high school in the tenth grade and went to work.
I then retired at 46 four years ago.
If I can do it anyone can.

I'm jealous.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

"You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country."

OMG.

OMG?

Then let me ask you: If people did exactly as I did in life, would there be poverty in America today? And if so, by how much?

I'm no genius. What I did in life is not that complicated. Anybody can do what I did. In fact I believe that many here will tell you the exact same thing.

I worked many hours, eventually chose a career that always had demand for employees, saved my money, made investments and now I'm a landlord today. I still work and always will. I haven't taken a vacation since I bought this place, and that's well over 20 years. This place is my part-time job.

Keep it up.
I was dirt poor and quit high school in the tenth grade and went to work.
I then retired at 46 four years ago.
If I can do it anyone can.

I'm jealous.

Hell,I was voted most likely to go to prison.
And at the time I would have agreed. Living in a house with five buddies with no power and cooking over the fireplace is a hell of a motivator....that and ice cold showers in February.
You have to get sick of being poor,the sooner the better.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No need to envy me. I just made better decisions in life. When I was younger, I made a decision to not have children and I never did. I didn't want the responsibility or associated costs with children.

I started working minimum wage jobs and kept trying to better myself. In those days, it was not uncommon for me to have two to three jobs with my full-time job being six days a week.

I made investments and took risks. Some worked out and some didn't. But one thing about me is I always tried.

So I cannot see anything that would prevent another American from doing the same as I did or even better provided they are physically and mentally capable.

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

"You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country."

OMG.

OMG?

Then let me ask you: If people did exactly as I did in life, would there be poverty in America today? And if so, by how much?

I'm no genius. What I did in life is not that complicated. Anybody can do what I did. In fact I believe that many here will tell you the exact same thing.

I worked many hours, eventually chose a career that always had demand for employees, saved my money, made investments and now I'm a landlord today. I still work and always will. I haven't taken a vacation since I bought this place, and that's well over 20 years. This place is my part-time job.

Keep it up.
I was dirt poor and quit high school in the tenth grade and went to work.
I then retired at 46 four years ago.
If I can do it anyone can.

Maybe and maybe not. But the point is that I respect effort. Even if somebody doesn't meet your level of success, as long as they try, that's what I respect.

I rent to a couple where neither have much education. He works full-time and she works part-time against her multiple medical conditions. When he gets home from his full-time job, he goes to help his wife to clean offices. They don't come home until after dark.

When he's not doing that, he scraps. He rides through neighborhoods and finds scrap metal and turns it into cash. He often finds reusable items that need minor repair such as lawnmowers, bicycles, furniture that needs minor refinishing and appliances, then he sells them on Craigslist.

They always pay their rent early, both drive new vehicles, and now they are into buying exotic birds. They never seem to take a break. They are always in search of ways to make money.

I have the utmost respect for people like that. When I read or hear of these crybabies that complain there are no opportunities, I look at these tenants of mine and lose all empathy for those complainers.

"You never really lose until you quit trying."
Mike Ditka

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Time to tear this apart and show you why suck a black and white view is blatantly wrong and makes you look quite stupid.
Better decisions? How do you define better decisions? How do you apply this to poor people across the country? Do you take into account the job availability in areas where the poor struggle? Rent costs? Financial troubles mid pregnancy? Nothing is black and white, NOTHING to do with the poor. Oh, you chose not to have children? Congratulations, how is this relevant? Some people want to raise a family, society should help them do that, after all, this is a "christian" society. Oh, you worked two to three jobs with a full time job being six days a week? Congratulations, I assume you believe everyone in poverty should have to work that much to be viewed as "trying." Single mothers? GO WORK 50 HOURS A WEEK YOU DEADBEAT. This is the stupidity of such a view. This sick idea that in the twenty first century, when productivity is surging, that poor people should simply work 50 hours a week or be called deadbeats. You don't even take into account employers hiring part time to avoid giving out benefits, stale employment in particular areas, rent prices.. Now, take into account conservative nut jobs wanting to take away the minimum wage AND the safety net, well, you should see the psychopathy by now. Congratulations, poor people don't try to stay poor on purpose, everybody tries, and if your investments didn't work out, what would've happened to you?

As I stated, not all my investments did work out. So I tried again and again.

How does me not having children relate to poverty? Because single-parent homes are directly related to poverty. In the black community, 73% of all children born are born out of wedlock.

Therefore unless you are financially secure, having children is a direct path to poverty. And no, it's not societies obligation to raise your family, it's your obligation. And no, it's not societies fault that you opted to have a family you couldn't or could barely support.

This is what I meant by better decisions.

As for working more hours, what's wrong with that? Do you believe that if you don't want to work more hours, government should fill in the gaps because you're too lazy? That seems to be the liberal mantra these days.

See, you must be a younger person. When I was younger, a lot of people worked a lot of hours. This was the norm back then. 50 hours a week? That was almost a vacation for us. Today, it's unheard of. You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country.

"You're an American. You shouldn't be expected to work more than 40 hours.

This entitlement mentality is part of what's causing poverty in our country."

OMG.

OMG?

Then let me ask you: If people did exactly as I did in life, would there be poverty in America today? And if so, by how much?

I'm no genius. What I did in life is not that complicated. Anybody can do what I did. In fact I believe that many here will tell you the exact same thing.

I worked many hours, eventually chose a career that always had demand for employees, saved my money, made investments and now I'm a landlord today. I still work and always will. I haven't taken a vacation since I bought this place, and that's well over 20 years. This place is my part-time job.

Keep it up.
I was dirt poor and quit high school in the tenth grade and went to work.
I then retired at 46 four years ago.
If I can do it anyone can.

Maybe and maybe not. But the point is that I respect effort. Even if somebody doesn't meet your level of success, as long as they try, that's what I respect.

I rent to a couple where neither have much education. He works full-time and she works part-time against her multiple medical conditions. When he gets home from his full-time job, he goes to help his wife to clean offices. They don't come home until after dark.

When he's not doing that, he scraps. He rides through neighborhoods and finds scrap metal and turns it into cash. He often finds reusable items that need minor repair such as lawnmowers, bicycles, furniture that needs minor refinishing and appliances, then he sells them on Craigslist.

They always pay their rent early, both drive new vehicles, and now they are into buying exotic birds. They never seem to take a break. They are always in search of ways to make money.

I have the utmost respect for people like that. When I read or hear of these crybabies that complain there are no opportunities, I look at these tenants of mine and lose all empathy for those complainers.

"You never really lose until you quit trying."
Mike Ditka

Exactly!!!
I wasnt an overnight success by any means.
I worked my ass off and over time I realized that wasnt going to be enough if I really wanted success.
I started dabbling in the market to supplement my income and than I met the wife and she had the same drive I had.
We didnt really hit it until about ten years before I retired and the wife will be done in a few more years and it's off to do what we please.
I credit my wife for a lot of it...ya gotta have a partner in crime so to speak.