The Curse of Poverty

Im just fucking sick of these created reasons to call all poor people scum who sit arround and suck off the tit.

They are human being who are in positions that are NOT as easy as guys like this make them out to be.

This guy grew up like Most of the people who used to live in the rurual US,

It was living off the land.

The poor we have today are trapped in urban jungles and exposed to a million humiliations a day.


This guy imagines black faces in those situations so he has no respect or concern for those eight year olds.

He just imagines Reagans wealfare queen.

They are not real people to him.


For Every person who "cheats" the wefare system there are 10,000 children whos faces read like a book of our imigration history.

They are all colors and shapes and all contain beautiful little minds if we are willing to allow those little brains to see something of the spark of human kindness and the spirit of community being fostered in their world.

Guys like the poster woudl prefer these kids just flounder so he can repete that story and feel that he was the chosen poor child. The only one good enough to climb out.

He will never see the luck involved with getting out.
 
WinterBorn said:
The results basically tell us that rich people worked hard to provide for their children. Poor people did not make good decisions and did not have as much to give their children.

Are you suggesting that we use the power of the gov't to force those rich parents to support someone else's kids too?
Click to expand...

First of all this idea that rich people work so much harder is nonsense. I gave an example of Glenn Beck on another thread. He earned 25 million last year. If we take the average wage to be $50,000/yr. that means Mr. Beck worked as hard as 500 people. Does it make sense?

In many cases, in almost all cases, those who garner wealth did so through luck. How many people worked weeks and months and years doing what Bill Gates did? Nobody? Or hundreds who worked just as "hard" as he did?

Or, more down to earth, how many people made the right decision regarding housing prices? I bought two rental properties before the bubble and combined with speculators/developers moving into the area I sold them less than five years later for three times what I paid.

I didn't work for that money. I had no idea the prices would skyrocket. Who wouldn't have bought, when I did, if people knew the outcome? Why would people, those who owned those properties for 10 or 15 years and never saw a decent increase, sell them just before the value soared? And those who bought less then five years prior probably took a loss as prices were stagnant or slightly decreasing.

Remember that fella who said something about taking the bread out of the mouth of labor regarding taxes? With today's excesses and extravagance it's more like taking their throw-away caviar after a party.

All children need access and exposure to different things. Field trips provided by schools can expose children to ideas. They need that exposure to stimulate their minds.
 
Shit, It's hard work to get rich. Well let's say a lot of brain work.
Once your rich you work much less hard than a min wage burger flipper.
I work barely 60% of the calendar, doing complex (lol) accounting and analysis half the day and surfing the web the other half like all of you (the web is not going to surf itself).
 
I just dont understand how people like this guy then talk about the inheritance taxes.

He is just the kind who scream about it being a death tax.

How fucking stupid is it to call it a death tax?

The rich must have figured out a way to take their money with them now.

When you die your money doesnt go with you.

Its like a chair, someone else is sitting in it now.

Its is in NO way wrong to then tax that money as income recieved by someone else.

No one taxed the dead.

I think any kid can be alright with a 4 million tax free head start dont you?

Crying fucking crockodile tears becasue the other 10 million your kid will get comes with a tax on it is fucking insanity.

How hard did that kid work for that money?


Its time in this country for people to quit making up reasons to NOT take care of our american children, in case just decency isnt enough reason for you it is also Intragal to our ability to compete in a world market of the future.

There is NO sound reason to short change American children
 
Last edited:
evince said:
I just dont understand how people like this guy then talk about the inheritance taxes.

He is just the kind who scream about it being a death tax.

How fucking stoud is it to call it a death tax?

The rich must have figured out a way to take their money with them now.

When you die your money doesnt go with you.

Its like a chair, someone else is sitting in it now.

Its is in NO way wrong to then tax that money as income recieved by someone else.

Do one taxed the dead.

I think any kid can be alright with a 4 million tax free head start dont you?

Crying fucking crockodile tears becasue the other 10 million your kid will get comes with a tax on it is fucking insanity.

How hard did that kid work for that money?


Its time in this country for people to quit making up reasons to NOT take care of our american children, in case jsut decency isnt enough reason for you it it also Intragal to our ability to compete in a world market of the future.

There is NO sound reason to short change American children
Click to expand...

Money should not be taxed again. It was already taxed as income once.

Instead of worry about money being taxed over and over, you should worry about the globalization sending all the jobs overseas.
 
Dude we always tax money when it passes hands.

The money jyour boss paid you with he paid taxes on does thsat mean you should not pay taxes on it?

It is NEW income to the person recieving it.

fucking A wake up
 
evince said:
Dude we always tax money when it passes hands.

The money jyour boss paid you with he paid taxes on does thsat mean you should not pay taxes on it?

It is NEW income to the person recieving it.

fucking A wake up
Click to expand...

No we don't. Parents should be allowed to give their wealth to their children, tax free.

Does the government intervene to collect it's due when your baby sucks your titty? hell no. wake up, statist whore.
 
Good Luck said:
What I have a problem with is the manner in which "help" programs are designed to literally enmesh the recipients into a permanent, multi-generational trap. When a family is dependent on 3-4 different assistance programs, and each program, individually, reduces benefits by $50 when the recipient goes out and makes an extra $100, guess what the net result is? They stay home rather than try to work their way out, because they are literally PUNISHED for working harder. Somehow, I have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Many years ago, when I was collecting unemployment insurance (UI), I asked the counselor if I could take courses sponsored by the government. These were upgrade courses and offered free. Having worked on building mechanical systems new products were being developed and I wanted to stay on top of things such as automatic and remote controlled valves, etc.

Anyway, I was denied so I asked why. It was explained to me that those courses were for welfare recipients only because businesses contributed to UI and business owners were not going to pay for someone's education. Rather than obtain more knowledge and increase my chances of getting a job they'd rather pay me to sit at home. They, the business owners who contributed to UI, didn't want me to get "something for nothing". They didn't want me to benefit.

Benefit. That is the big reason behind those rules you mentioned. It's not about the government wanting people to be dependent on them. It's about not wanting someone to benefit. Assistance is begrudgingly given which negates the goal of helping.

The idea or purpose is to inspire people, to motivate them, to make them feel better about themselves. Instead, it becomes a battle. Those who are supposedly there to help are there to find ways not to help by placing obstacles and hoops for people to jump through.

One learns a lot a bit from being a slumlord.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good Luck said:
I have no problem with helping people, at least those in genuine need of help.

What I have a problem with is the manner in which "help" programs are designed to literally enmesh the recipients into a permanent, multi-generational trap. When a family is dependent on 3-4 different assistance programs, and each program, individually, reduces benefits by $50 when the recipient goes out and makes an extra $100, guess what the net result is? They stay home rather than try to work their way out, because they are literally PUNISHED for working harder. Somehow, I have a problem with that.

Also, what I do have a problem with is the current attitude that anyone below a middle-income standard of living is poverty stricken. Sorry, but having to eat cheap food, and having to put a set of bunk beds in a single bedroom for the kids is NOT poverty in my book. If you disbelieve what I am getting at, take a day and go observe the types of things purchased using food stamps, and compare the amounts of food they COULD be getting for the same, or less, if they were forced by necessity to shop smarter. I recently was behind a woman in the grocers who insisted on buying Eggland's Best eggs with her WIC voucher, at $2.98/dozen when the same store had store brand eggs on sale for 99 cents. Somehow I have a problem with that. (Good for the store, they pointed out that WIC does not allow the purchase of specialty eggs, and Eggland's Best falls in that category.)

Or look at the incredibly moronic federal regulation that states a 2 year old girl cannot sleep in the same bedroom as her 4 year old brother, so that family "needs" a 3 bedroom apartment at far greater cost to the system. Somehow, I have a problem with that.

With the system we have in place, not only do we end up with people who are literally discouraged by the assistance programs themselves to try and improve their lot in life, but we also end up with people having NO food and NO home because we spend too much time, effort, and money helping people "afford" far more than they NEED. As a society we have forgotten the difference between need and desire, so we end up breaking our economy trying to cater to desires when defining poverty.
Click to expand...
 
Amazing how Good Luck became the bad guy here because he grew up in a dirt poor environment (although because it wasn't in a city it doesn't count as much) and seemingly moved into middle class later in life.

There are two different arguments which are seemingly going right past each other. One is how do we help those who are hungry. The second being what GL described as almost an entrapment into the welfare system in which multi-generations of families are on it. Generalizing here but I think most if not close to all believe we need to help those who are hungry. But then how do we best set up a system of services that benefit the needy but do not put them in a position where they are almost punished for trying to do better.
 
cawacko said:
Amazing how Good Luck became the bad guy here because he grew up in a dirt poor environment (although because it wasn't in a city it doesn't count as much) and seemingly moved into middle class later in life.

There are two different arguments which are seemingly going right past each other. One is how do we help those who are hungry. The second being what GL described as almost an entrapment into the welfare system in which multi-generations of families are on it. Generalizing here but I think most if not close to all believe we need to help those who are hungry. But then how do we best set up a system of services that benefit the needy but do not put them in a position where they are almost punished for trying to do better.
Click to expand...

The first thing that needs to be done is offer help sooner. To stand by and watch an individual slowly slide into abject poverty starting by job loss, then loss of home, then marital discord, then family breakup.....does anyone expect to see that individual optimistically going on a job interview?

It's like all the homes under foreclosure. Instead of banks offering to re-negotiate mortgages they kick the people out, the house stays empty and falls into disrepair, value of other homes in the neighborhood decline.....just so the banks can wash their hands of the deal. Then the government loans the banks money to help cover the loss. The help should have been given to the buyers unless the government feels the economy is not going to pick up and those out of work will remain out of work. :whoa:
 
apple0154 said:
(Excerpt)Researchers at the University of Texas claim that poverty may affect how children achieve their genetic potential. Using 750 sets of twins as subjects, the team of psychologists led by assistant professor Elliot Tucker-Drob found that 50 percent of the progress wealthier children show on mental ability tests can be attributed to genetics. Children from poor families, however, showed almost no progress attributable to genetics.

Don't get too carried away with the conclusions this might suggest. Based on this study, rich kids are not genetically superior to children of poverty. They're simply provided with more opportunities to fulfill their potential.(End)
http://www.salon.com/news/psycholog...ture/2011/01/10/child_health_poverty_genetics

What will it take before people deal with financial injustice?
Click to expand...


The fact that people had to do a 'study' to realize that rich kids had more opportunities than poor kids is comical.

this 'study' goes in the 'no shit captain obvious' hall of fame.
 
Rana said:
Where's that emo, oh, never mind, FUCK YEAH!

Go out and meet some real poor people instead of believing everything you read, dumb shit.
Click to expand...

I have met poor people in third world countries and 'poor' people in the US. There is NO comparison. Our 'poor' are wealthy by comparison. Which was his point.
 
apple0154 said:
(Excerpt)Researchers at the University of Texas claim that poverty may affect how children achieve their genetic potential. Using 750 sets of twins as subjects, the team of psychologists led by assistant professor Elliot Tucker-Drob found that 50 percent of the progress wealthier children show on mental ability tests can be attributed to genetics. Children from poor families, however, showed almost no progress attributable to genetics.

Don't get too carried away with the conclusions this might suggest. Based on this study, rich kids are not genetically superior to children of poverty. They're simply provided with more opportunities to fulfill their potential.(End)
http://www.salon.com/news/psycholog...ture/2011/01/10/child_health_poverty_genetics

What will it take before people deal with financial injustice?
Click to expand...

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
 
cawacko said:
Amazing how Good Luck became the bad guy here because he grew up in a dirt poor environment (although because it wasn't in a city it doesn't count as much) and seemingly moved into middle class later in life.

There are two different arguments which are seemingly going right past each other. One is how do we help those who are hungry. The second being what GL described as almost an entrapment into the welfare system in which multi-generations of families are on it. Generalizing here but I think most if not close to all believe we need to help those who are hungry. But then how do we best set up a system of services that benefit the needy but do not put them in a position where they are almost punished for trying to do better.
Click to expand...

Nobody thinks GL is a bad guy. We do take exception to some of his comments on poverty. Example: "It sure as hell is NOT living in government subsidized housing living on government subsidized food while using government subsidized income to watch premium cable channels." This is close to the reagan fallacy of welfare queens driving Cadillacs to pick up their checks. Most poor people have not been sucking the government teat for generations.

MYTH: Welfare recipients commit a lot of fraud, at the expense of American working people.

FACT: Besides the fact that a lot of welfare recipients are American working people, a study in Massachusetts showed that vendors committed 93% of welfare fraud. This aspect of the welfare system drastically needs reform: it is harming recipients as well as taxpayers. But all of the political attention is on limiting the amount of money going to recipients.

And although the fraud by welfare vendors is terrible, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the burdens on the American taxpayer of military fraud, government waste, and corporate welfare. The Savings and Loan bailout alone cost $132 billion.

Next myth: People are poor because they are lazy. I hyperlinked this because it's too long to print. But it covers these other myths also.

Welfare rewards people for doing nothing, destroying their dignity and character.
Poverty and homelessness have grown in spite of the trillions of dollars spent since 1965 to help the poor; therefore, these programs have failed.
Supporting welfare is a burden causing financial hardship to working class Americans.
Welfare dependency is the result of the moral failings of poor people: addiction, unwillingness to work, lack of family values and sexual control.
People are poor because they are addicts or alcoholics.
Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers who have extra children so that they can get more money.

What I don't understand is the attitude that if one person suffers hardship, everybody else in the same situation should also suffer. What's wrong with getting food stamps or govt. housing if needed? Does this mean that we should raise our children in hardship if that's how we grew up, or do they get a pass and only the other guy should suffer?

The last word of the article says it for me: Whatever you believe, be sure that you are aware of your assumptions -- and that you aren't basing any of your arguments on myths.
 
Superfreak said:
The fact that people had to do a 'study' to realize that rich kids had more opportunities than poor kids is comical.

this 'study' goes in the 'no shit captain obvious' hall of fame.
Click to expand...

I suppose the study had more relevance than, say, the mating habits of alligators.

(Excerpt)Alligators display the same loyalty to their mating partners as birds reveals a study published today in Molecular Ecology. The ten-year-study by scientists from the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory reveals that up to 70% of females chose to remain with their partner, often for many years.(End)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091007081534.htm

On the other hand it does shed a whole new light on the derogatory male reference "Lounge Lizard".
 
WinterBorn said:
No, its not crap. I am not saying that is all the poor. Some have had tragedies limit their potential.

But many, many of those on gov't assistance are there because they chose to goof off in school, chose to run with a gang, or chose to do drugs. The fact that some do make it out shows the validity of that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, I was tired last night when I read your post.
 
Superfreak said:
I have met poor people in third world countries and 'poor' people in the US. There is NO comparison. Our 'poor' are wealthy by comparison. Which was his point.
Click to expand...

Our country is wealthy by comparison, also, well, in some cases, those countries (India and China) are gaining ground on us. We are only as strong as our weakest link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top