A Certain Kind of Poor Folk

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,095
60,651
1. Generally, it is believed that there is a common, universal definition to the terms we use in debate. This is not always the case. The terms 'poor,' and 'poverty' are such exceptions, and the confusion is perpetuated by the Left, as the image many have tugs at the heartstrings.

2. My definition is far more narrow than that advanced by the government welfare industry. I define 'poor' as no home, no heat, no food. This Dickensian view will reveal that this level of poverty is almost entirely illusory. Why, then is the welfare industry term conflated with this view?
So that they can continue to dun society of $1 trillion a year, with no decrease in the 'need.' The industry need clientele to continue in their jobs, and the politicians need the view to corral votes.
A $trillion? "That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three." Scribd

a. That supports a huge government bureaucracy: Robert Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, has shown that less than less than twenty cents of each dollars actually gets into the hand of the people society is trying to help. "Uncle Sam's Plantation," by Star Parker, p.5





3. Star Parker describes several kinds of poor folk. The working poor, or the 'economically challenged,' are folks we see every day: the bus boy in our favorite restaurant, the gas station attendant, gardener, theater ticket-taker, janitor in the office building, and the one who bags our groceries. These folks are getting by, but a little extra would be a big help.

a. What keeps them in their situation? More often than not, they lack confidence in a competitive environment and are therefore vulnerable to accepting a lesser position.

4. These are the folks shortchanged by the hand-in-glove government-union schools, and this makes them less competitive. It is the economically challenged who are the ones most negatively affected when the government involves itself in the affairs of the free market with legislation such as minimum wage. "Living wage" is a great sound bite on the evening news, but, in reality, narrows the opportunities in the business environment.

Small businesses on tight budgets together with government mandates means raising prices and/or lay-offs. Even those economically challenged who keep their jobs find that their soap and toothpaste cost more. The real beneficiary is government, which polishes its image, and gets more tax revenue from the higher prices.

a. In the extreme, small business in poor neighborhoods will close, leaving fewer businesses in such neighborhoods, resulting in what are called 'economic deserts.'





5. The loss of even a day's pay is a hardship. Utility company says "service will arrive between nine and five." The economically deprived have to miss an entire day of work. Who suffers?

6. Vehicle registration is about to expire. Renewal fee has increased. "You must appear at our office to reapply. Office hours, 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday. Late payments subject to penalties." The economically deprived have to miss an entire day of work. Who suffers?

7. "This letter is to inform you that condom distribution will begin at your child's junior high school. Instructions will be part of all health ed classes. Parental concerns and questions will be addressed in the school library this Wednesday morning at 10 a.m." The economically deprived have to miss an entire day of work. Who suffers?





8. We feel for these people. They try. But in our empathy, we tend to excuse their role in their plight. Yes, life has made them weary, 'what difference do my decisions make....I'll never get ahead."
Many look to religion as superstition, an excuse...e.g., "God must really be mad at me....He don't do for me like He do for you."
It excuses one from making efforts on their own behalf.

a. "Reverend Ike (June 1, 1935 — July 28, 2009[1]) was an American minister and electronic evangelist based in New York City. He was best known for the slogan "You can't lose with the stuff I use!"[2] His preaching is considered a form of prosperity theology.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverend_Ike] "He lectured on Thinkonomics (his own version of economics based on the premise that poverty, a lack of luck, poor health, etc., are the result of incorrect attitudes, a lack of confidence, a lack of faith and a failure to get in touch with the "presence of God within each of us.") and sold prayer cloth to rub on lottery tickets, betting slips; he had weekly Blessings of the Cadillacs. "
From the Novel "Red on Red," by Edward Conlon.

b. These, the weary, lack the confidence to believe that they have the ability to make their lives better. They don't understand that a small attitude readjustment could open them up to big opportunities. Rather, the problems of self-doubt make them vulnerable to politicians and social experimenters and scammers of many varieties.

9. Another factor that keeps many of the poor deluded is their misguided trust. Most of them put too much confidence in the word of elected officials. They believe so strongly that they hand over their children for the government to educate, their freedom in exchange for government mandated rent-control, their vote for pie-in-the-sky.
So sincere is this trust that they do very little personal planning for their own future.
From "Uncle Sam's Plantation," by Star Parker.




10. And, speaking of those politicians in whom the poor place their trust:

" Liberals and conservatives have thundered rhetoric at each other for years, but we finally have some facts. CNN gave the US Census rankings for cities with the most poverty and showed how long these cities have been run by Democrats:

Detroit, MI, 1961; Buffalo, NY, 1954; Cincinnati, OH, 1984; Cleveland, OH, 1989; Miami, FL, forever; St. Lewis, MO, 1949; El Paso, TX, forever; Milwaukee, WI, 1908; Philadelphia, PA, 1952; and Newark, NJ, 1907.

Five of our poorest cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years. The two other cities on the list, Miami, FL and El Paso, TX have never had Republican mayors. Not ever."
Democrat Disaster Cities | Scragged
 
The term poor has been redefined. It used to mean being cold, hungry, not having a coat in winter nor a lump of coal to cook your food.

Today, someone is poor if they only have a 40" flat screen television instead of a a 50" flat screen television.
 
The term poor has been redefined. It used to mean being cold, hungry, not having a coat in winter nor a lump of coal to cook your food.

Today, someone is poor if they only have a 40" flat screen television instead of a a 50" flat screen television.
Well that puts me in the lower middle class, mine is a 43".

I agree with OP and define poor in the same way. I am sickened by Obama's class warfare which only will slow economic growth and American self reliance.
 
The government's measure of "poverty" does NOT include noncash benefits such as food stamps, medical care, or free/subsidized housing, utilities and education. That is why "poor" kids in this country run around in $100 tennis shoes.
 
Interesting complaint, PC

Apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer.

Those selfish bastards!
 
Interesting complaint, PC

Apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer.

Those selfish bastards!




When you sober up, see how silly and disconnected to the OP your post is.
 
Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?
 
Interesting complaint, PC

Apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer.

Those selfish bastards!


wow way to ignore the point and post a talking point.....nice!!!!!! Dont be a pussy and answer the question....in fact why dont you give us a definition of poor? I'd love to hear this one....
 
Interesting complaint, PC. Apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer. Those selfish bastards!
Are you reading the same thread I am? :confused:
5. The loss of even a day's pay is a hardship. Utility company says "service will arrive between nine and five." The economically deprived have to miss an entire day of work. Who suffers?
6. Vehicle registration is about to expire. Renewal fee has increased. "You must appear at our office to reapply. Office hours, 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday. Late payments subject to penalties." The economically deprived have to miss an entire day of work. Who suffers?
7. "This letter is to inform you that condom distribution will begin at your child's junior high school. Instructions will be part of all health ed classes. Parental concerns and questions will be addressed in the school library this Wednesday morning at 10 a.m." The economically deprived have to miss an entire day of work. Who suffers?http://www.scragged.com/articles/democrat-disaster-cities
These are all valid points. While a rich person can afford to take a day off or adjust their schedule, those on the bottom end of the Economic Ladder aren't able to and suffer the most.

In fact, you could say that all the above are Punitive in Nature to a Poor Person.
 
Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?


There may be reasons why a person doesnt move up but,

Yeah, look at a job, attitude determines altitude....people with bad attitudes usally dont go anywhere and are stuck in dead en jobs, whether they are lazy, stupid, or have mental issues. It's not hard to detect someone who bitches about their boss or job, then they wander why they're not promoted.....
 
Interesting complaint, PC

Apparently the poor aren't quite poor enough to satisfy your need for them to suffer.

Those selfish bastards!

So you think our income should be taken for the benefit of people who aren't suffering?
 
as a matter of economics based on the US Goods and Services economy - the more the gov't distributes monetary values to the groups most likely to spend the proceeds the stronger the economy will expand and increase its receivables.

the problems arise in the US economy when monetary values become condensed precipitating a decline in economic transactions.

recognizing gov't expenditures to the "poor" as a stimulus to the economy to the extent of maintaining a minimum allowance for positive economic expansion would go a long way in solving not only economic downturns but socioeconomic plights as crime and ignorance as well.

redistribution of wealth at some level should be required of the gov't in maintaining a sound Goods and Services economy an enlightened society would embrace as both necessary and for the wellbeing of all its citizenry.
 
as a matter of economics based on the US Goods and Services economy - the more the gov't distributes monetary values to the groups most likely to spend the proceeds the stronger the economy will expand and increase its receivables.

the problems arise in the US economy when monetary values become condensed precipitating a decline in economic transactions.

recognizing gov't expenditures to the "poor" as a stimulus to the economy to the extent of maintaining a minimum allowance for positive economic expansion would go a long way in solving not only economic downturns but socioeconomic plights as crime and ignorance as well.

redistribution of wealth at some level should be required of the gov't in maintaining a sound Goods and Services economy an enlightened society would embrace as both necessary and for the wellbeing of all its citizenry.


Wow Keynsian economics 101.......redistribution should not be required or applauded.....people should be able to afford their own stuff....Here is the funny thing, you just said that basically business prefers govt handouts because now they can sell to more people, correct? Thereby they get richer and profits increase......That's what is funny, because if you didnt give handouts, then fewer people could afford it correct, is that what I'm hearing?
 
Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?


There may be reasons why a person doesnt move up but,

Yeah, look at a job, attitude determines altitude....people with bad attitudes usally dont go anywhere and are stuck in dead en jobs, whether they are lazy, stupid, or have mental issues. It's not hard to detect someone who bitches about their boss or job, then they wander why they're not promoted.....

"Attitude" has little or nothing to do with what jobs are available to a given person in a given area.
Some people actually take jobs irrespective of reward because it is a job that must be done.
Not every one defines "moving up" in the same way. It may surprise you to learn but it really isn't always about the money. And, no, not everyone who is barely getting by bitches about it or blames someone else.
Maybe it's just me but I have at least as much respect for teachers, soldiers, cops, EMTs etc. as I do for the wealthy CEO of a company that makes toothpaste.
 
Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?


There may be reasons why a person doesnt move up but,

Yeah, look at a job, attitude determines altitude....people with bad attitudes usally dont go anywhere and are stuck in dead en jobs, whether they are lazy, stupid, or have mental issues. It's not hard to detect someone who bitches about their boss or job, then they wander why they're not promoted.....

"Attitude" has little or nothing to do with what jobs are available to a given person in a given area.
Some people actually take jobs irrespective of reward because it is a job that must be done.
Not every one defines "moving up" in the same way. It may surprise you to learn but it really isn't always about the money. And, no, not everyone who is barely getting by bitches about it or blames someone else.
Maybe it's just me but I have at least as much respect for teachers, soldiers, cops, EMTs etc. as I do for the wealthy CEO of a company that makes toothpaste.

Except for soldiers, I don't have much respect for any of those other greedy bastards.
 
Good post PC. The term poor has definitely changed over he last 50 years. When I was a girl, there was no welfare and people who couldn't afford to raise their children put them in 'The Friendly Home.' We still have a road in Murray called 'Poor Farm Road' but no Poor Farm. The poor weren't subsidized the way they are today. Today, you can't really tell who is poor and who is not. Everyone has the same stuff only 'the poor' have more tats, cell phones, piercings, nine inch nails, and hair extensions. I have seen them in their subsidized homes and in my office on a near daily basis for 25 years. Those of us who work have to 'manage' our money and try to invest what we can to have something for retirement.
 
It amazes me that a bunch of privileged spoiled-brat wingnuts have a gall to hypothesize about the poor they way that you all are on this message board.

You know nothing about the subject.

I've worked in factories with people who have to live a support a family on minimum wage. I've lived in areas where there simply aren't enough jobs. The poor are very real. They often times have to live several families in a single room. They often cannot get heat in the winter.
They are often hungry and have to ration food between family members.

These are WORKING poor. Those on welfare usually do not live any better.

Some of the poor that I've known have college degrees, but can not find a job in their discipline.

This is not a nation that has equal opportunity, and for many there are no realistic opportunities. Hard work does not pay. Education is not a possibility for many.

Those of us who have had reasonable opportunities in life should be so quick to make up these imaginary 'wealthy' poor people and pretend that real poverty doesn't exist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top