Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Tommy Tainant]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

Let me repeat the question, such as it is...

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

But those poor Mexicans deserve it for being lazy.The smarter ones move elsewhere to improve their lives and of course the RWNJ gospel approves of that , or not.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

Just to put PoliticalChic's posts into perspective here,

she has for the record admitted that she doesn't have a job.

Hmmmmm. Under rwnj rules she is not entitled to an opinion, or a vote, on any subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

Just to put PoliticalChic's posts into perspective here,

she has for the record admitted that she doesn't have a job.

Hmmmmm. Under rwnj rules she is not entitled to an opinion, or a vote, on any subject.

Exactly.

How nice for her to have such an abundance of idle time to go online and rail against the lazy poor.

 

[rightwinger]

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

No, it didn't go over my head. I'm also not in favor of the govt micromanaging our lives.

However there are certain things, like education, in which the govt is best placed on a mass scale, to carry out. However in the US the problem seems to be a nationwide attitude that is just plain wrong. Okay, some states do better than others, but still there are plenty of problems out there.

The problem is Ray, the govt ALREADY DOES THIS. So where's your liberty? It's in the hands of the rich right now. They want you to be fat, because a 36% obesity level makes a lot of rich people richer.

Now you're being silly. Nobody gives a rats ass how much I or anybody else weighs. Rich people don't get rich on seeing others get fat, rich people get rich by investing their money into making products or services the public uses.

Yeah, for the most part government is totally involved in our education, and how's that working out for us?

Then again rich people will get richer by using inferior products that are likely to cause more harm to the body, rather than use better quality in order to make a quick buck.

Your argument that because govt is involved in education and it's not great, therefore the govt shouldn't be involved in education is another example of how you compartmentalize everything in order to make bad arguments.

Education can be good. The problem in the US is that the govt in the US isn't good. A change in the way govt works is essential for the US to change this mentality that people like you have about the way things work.

Or.......maybe we should try education without government totally. Nah, that might work out too well.

It would return us to Dickensonian sweat shops with only the rich being able to afford to educate their children

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No.......helping is when people ask for help and you provide. When nobody asked for your help and you insist people accept your help anyway, that's micromanaging.

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hmmmmm. Under rwnj rules she is not entitled to an opinion, or a vote, on any subject.

Really? I thought that was leftist rule. That's why they protest and have riots for elections they lost; because the rest of the country is not supposed to have a a say-so as to who leads the country, only Democrats.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

Let me repeat the question, such as it is...

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

A better question: why is there no poverty in the USA? I guess because we've spent trillions and trillions of dollars on poverty and made such great strides?

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then why do you want to do some good things for children, but then not do other good thing?

Yes, I want them to pay EXTRA. Just like people pay EXTRA for things already. Yes, I want the govt to say what is health and to say this is worthy of being cheaper.

You don't think this is the purpose of government, I do.

an age of majority is not doing good thing for children

it provides a framework for personal responsibility.

and being healthy is already cheaper than being unhealthy.

you can't see the difference of things having differing prices in the marketplace and the government taxing things based on an arbitrary right and wrong scale?

Uh huh?

I'm not getting your logic.

It's not okay to stop kids from drinking because it's good for them, but it's okay to stop people doing stuff to instill personal responsibility?

So, why not put up sales tax on sugary items to teach people to be more personally responsible for their own bodies then?

Being healthy could be cheaper, but people have to know how to do things, and have things incentivized, and it works, as shown with Mexico and Hungary.

I just don't get why doing something good shouldn't happen, but doing it for the wrong reasons is okay. Your logic is a little twisted in my view.

I never said anything about anything being good for anyone. A legal age of majority is a concept that implies neither good or bad it designates when a member of society is considered responsible for his actions that is all it is

and since when did a drinking age stop under aged kids from drinking?

It's not up to you to "teach" people anything. People will decide what they want to learn and if they don't want to learn what you want them to learn then it's none of your business.

but then again you already agreed that people already know that fruits and vegetables are better for them than a candy bar or a tub of ice cream so you don't have to teach them that.

What you want to do is control other people's behavior to align with what YOU think they should do.

So, kids should decide what they want to learn, or don't want to learn? Again, another crazy concept from the world of keeping people stupid.

We're going around on circles on this one, there isn't much point in carrying on. I get your point, you think that society is far, far below the individual, that the individual rules supreme and that society shouldn't invest in individuals in order to make society better for everyone.

I don't get it.

Now, the funny thing is, it's the right that will tell people how they have to give up their rights for the good of society. How we have to ban Muslims from coming in because it's for the good of the country, how we should stop people taking drugs for the good of the country. And then they'll turn around and say exactly what you have said. That it's all about the individual. Gets confusing.
Where do you stand on Muslims, drugs etc?

what children learn is up to the parents not you

but you do realize any teen aged kid can learn on his own don't you? It's called the internet.

I learned how to eat well without the internet

Well I'm not the right and I'm not the left so saying the right this the left that is meaningless.

This is all about control and you want to control people's behavior by taxing things you don't think people should eat or drink or smoke or whatever

That is not and never will be acceptable

So, if parents want their kids to learn nothing at all, you think that's fair for the kids? There's a reason they introduced compulsory mass education, and there's a reason why society has progressed so much because of this.

It's basically cruel to deny people a chance to make it in life.

Yes, I realize any teen can learn on their own. I also realize that many teens prefer to play games and watch TV. The reality is you're saying "because it can be done, therefore we don't need to try", what I'm saying is that kids need to be pushed to achieve things because otherwise most just won't. That's reality. You're not living in reality.

No, it's not about control. It's about saying that sometimes pushing people towards something better is a better outcome.

Society controls in a certain way anyway. It's a society, people need to live by certain norms. People also realize that a group of people are far more powerful than individuals. We also know that we can shape our society in a manner we want. You'd say that individuals could do whatever they want, but the reality is we place laws, we tax, we do all sorts of things that change how people do things. To make adjustments to these might be seen as controlling, but without them we're controlling just as much.

Imagine if people didn't have to pay taxes. What would the US be like? Somalia, probably. That's more or less what you're advocating.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

Blaming luck for your situation is about the same as blaming some rich guy you never met

This has got to be one THE most stupid ******* things you've ever said.

A few examples. A girl down my street when I was a kid was born into a family of well to do people, but she want's born right. According to you it must be her ******* fault that she came out wrong. She can't really work well, she can't learn well, she does some program in a supermarket for people such as herself to make them feel valued in society and not just be outcasts unwanted. She could never, ever hold down a proper job, it's impossible, she wasn't born right. But again, you think it's her fault.

1/4 of people have mental problems. My family has a history of mental problems, and one person in my family doesn't work, could do the work but struggles being around people and this led to her quitting jobs, going off sick and then unable to get new jobs, because who wants a person with such a medical record, hey? But yeah, according to you it's all her ******* fault.

so now a birth defect is the same as choosing to be fat?

No one chooses to be handicapped or mentally retarded.

But we were talking about people being born unlucky. So why have you suddenly decided to change the topic of conversation to something completely different?

I assume we are talking about people of sound mind and body not the physically handicapped or mentally retarded

and FYI you're the one who brought the physically handicapped and mentally retarded into the conversation not me

and you're the one who started using the term unlucky not me..

I don't believe in luck

Well if you're going to jump into what people are saying, you might not want to make assumptions.

Yes, I know I brought this into the conversation, which is why I was wondering why you were ignoring it.

You don't believe in luck? You don't think someone being born into wealth doesn't start life with a massive head start?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

The problem is, will people help out of their own accord? No, in the modern society every person becomes an island and ignores the rest. So how do you get people to help others out?

Yes, I agree with dependency. That's why I'm talking about education a lot. The problem is that the right who want people to not be dependent, are not willing to put in the effort to change the country onto the right course. If you leave things as they are at the moment, nothing will change.

Were you talking about getting rid of some of the govt? Seems to me you were talking about getting rid of all of it. If you come out with vague sentences that appear to say what you don't want to say, don't blame me for my response not being to your liking.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

The problem is, will people help out of their own accord? No, in the modern society every person becomes an island and ignores the rest. So how do you get people to help others out?

Yes, I agree with dependency. That's why I'm talking about education a lot. The problem is that the right who want people to not be dependent, are not willing to put in the effort to change the country onto the right course. If you leave things as they are at the moment, nothing will change.

Were you talking about getting rid of some of the govt? Seems to me you were talking about getting rid of all of it. If you come out with vague sentences that appear to say what you don't want to say, don't blame me for my response not being to your liking.

Look..........the US spends more per capita on education than any other industrialized country on earth. You can't make people learn that don't want to learn. There is simply no benefit for some people. Get out of school, get an Obama phone, get a HUD house in the suburbs, and life will never be better.

Some people will not help other people out. Nothing you can do about that. That's no reason to have the federal government be a giant charity.

Of course people are less likely to help others out if they are convinced government is taking care of the problem. Why donate to the food bank? Get a SNAP's card. Why help out with medical expenses? That's what we have Medicaid for! With less government, we may be able to build a better society.

 

[BlueGin]

Look...more helpful government workers stealing from the poor.

Social Security workers among five charged in welfare-fraud scheme

Maybe we can post some stories about rich people cheating on their taxes

That's where the money is

This is how liberals help the elderly and disabled ...well the ones they don't abort and pull the plug on anyway....

Good for stealing their identities to help clients claim them illegally as dependants on their taxes.

Social Worker Pleads Guilty to Identity Theft, Tax Crimes

If nanny government bureaucrats were parents, they'd be the ones who never taught their children to fend for themselves. They make excuses for everything and never want to hold anyone accountable for their actions. When someone else suggests that the best way to cut the umbilical cord is to allow the child to learn some lessons to help them grow, they are called cruel.

What's cruel is encouraging a person to depend on others their entire lives and preach victimhood to ensure they never stop being angry long enough to think for themselves.

The left took a minor problem and turned it into a huge problem just to benefit themselves. Liberals are cruel.

Exactly why we have a whole generation of whiney,entitled professional college students and 20 something's.

Everyone's fault but the do nothing, pander to the rich New BS GOP, right, dupe?

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

Poor little whiney entitled professional students and 20 sonethings...living in mommy's basement. Boo hoo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

"Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever."

Every one due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

 

[BlueGin]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

Think your progressive activist college professors would work for free?

Somehow I think not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

A scared, hungry worker is not in a position to negotiate better wages

Republican paradise

"Union membership has plummeted in the U.S., from nearly one-third of workers 50 years ago to one in 10 American workers today."
The incredible decline of American unions, in one animated map


You Bolsheviks want to FORCE the workers of the world into unions when they don't want to be in them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

You know that Liberalism is an illness, don't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clinton was a n*****R lover...horrible.

But not Obama....


1. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...st-ground-every-single-economic#ixzz2hihAOpVl


2. (CNSNews.com) – The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double that of white Americans, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).... In the numbers released today, covering the month of June, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans age 16 and over was 10.7%, reported the BLS. The unemployment rate for white Americans in the same age group and time-frame was 5.3%, said the BLS. Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3%

3. "CHICAGO (Reuters) - Predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Chicago have seen poverty rise and services diminish even as the nation's third largest city has become less racially segregated,.... black areas are seeing economic stagnation or decline,.... mostly black areas have lost health clinics, social service agencies and other areas of support..." Exclusive: Poverty up, services diminished in Chicago's black neighborhoods - study


4. The National Urban League issued an "excellent" report card for President Obama's eight years, but highlighted numerous and important "failures," so many that they totaled 42 percent of its review.

"While we scored many of the administration's achievements with our highest rating, 'Superior,' President Obama's tenure as a whole had shortcomings due to some notable missed opportunities and outright failures, such as the economic development of urban centers, gun violence and the foreclosure rate and bank closure rate in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. On these and other issues, we rated the Obama administration 'Fair' or 'Poor,'" wrote Urban League President Marc H. Morial.

The 16-page report card reviewed eight areas of policy impacting urban areas and African Americans, and found that Obama's success to failure rate at 57.5 percent to 42.5 percent.

Morial said Obama received the "second highest" overall grade of "excellent." Urban League cites Obama 'failures' for black America in 'excellent' report card

 

[PoliticalChic]

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

Just to put PoliticalChic's posts into perspective here,

she has for the record admitted that she doesn't have a job.

Hmmmmm. Under rwnj rules she is not entitled to an opinion, or a vote, on any subject.

Link?

 

[BlueGin]

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

Just to put PoliticalChic's posts into perspective here,

she has for the record admitted that she doesn't have a job.

Hmmmmm. Under rwnj rules she is not entitled to an opinion, or a vote, on any subject.

Exactly.

How nice for her to have such an abundance of idle time to go online and rail against the lazy poor.

What's your excuse for being a slacker?

 

[rightwinger]

Of course it isn't.
Nobody forces anyone to accept anything

But our society is willing to help those who need help. It is what great societies do

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

People helping people out works when you have a small community and a family loses their house to a fire. Everyone chips in to help them

What happens when an entire community loses all its jobs? What happens when a hurricane wipes out one third of a state? Passing the hat does not work
Private charities spend a good portion of their resources just on fund raising. Government has a steady flow of revenue with funds budgeted to help the needy
Why don't people become dependent on private charities? Government offers job training, educational benefits, small business loans to help people out of poverty......charities don't