naturegirl
Gold Member
And of course it's inconsequential if the opportunities to escape poverty are not there? If you're poor in a rural area, you're screwed. That's the way life is in reality. Not some bumper sticker you picked up at a CPAC convention or something Limbaugh dropped in your ear.So...American poor just aren't poor enough?
No. They aren't poor enough. Poverty should be a motivator to not be poor anymore. The more comfortable poverty is, the less motivation people have to get out of poverty.
That's why when immigrants come here from really poor countries, they work so hard. They don't want to experience that kind of poverty. When they find out how comfortable poverty in the US can be, they are happy to be poor.
If you're laid off in a Rust Belt town, the rest of the jobs left for China after the venture capitalists got theirs. That means not only the car plant (which Romney thinks should have folded like a Chinese road map), but the hardware store, the barber shop, the diner, the hobby shop and everything else suffers. No jobs gets amplified exponentially.
It's easy to sneer at the poor, particularly if you don't know them. With morals like these, why should I even consider Conservatism as a political philosophy?
Because you and your ilk want the easy way out, you want the government to take care of them. You want the government to ensure people in "poverty" in the US can buy cigarettes and crack cocaine. You want them to have government issued cell phones so they can keep in touch with their suppliers. I've seen a lot more malnourished, obese and undisciplined children of parents on food stamps than those I know who want to be self sustaining, without government interference.
The Food Stamp program was supposed to be temporary help, not a life style. It makes you feel better that the government is "taking care of them" so you don't have to bother!!
Last edited: