Gun culture or parenting culture?

[BULLDOG]

I'm not terrified about guns. I'm terrified about so many idiots with guns.

Well that's your problem right there, you are terrified of the wrong people:

A newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S.

The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John Lott, notes that it is "very rare for permit holders to violate the law" and compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.

And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

"Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers," Lott writes. "Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

Yep. Good old John Lott. Putting him on the payroll was some of the most effective money the gun manufacturers and the NRA have ever spent.

Shit head...he does not take any money from the NRA or gun makers....you can email him...he will tell you himself....moron.

Right, and you can email the KKK and they will tell you they are nothing more than a civic organization.

 

[2aguy]

I'm not terrified about guns. I'm terrified about so many idiots with guns.

Well that's your problem right there, you are terrified of the wrong people:

A newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S.

The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John Lott, notes that it is "very rare for permit holders to violate the law" and compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.

And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

"Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers," Lott writes. "Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

Yep. Good old John Lott. Putting him on the payroll was some of the most effective money the gun manufacturers and the NRA have ever spent.

Shit head...he does not take any money from the NRA or gun makers....you can email him...he will tell you himself....moron.

Right, and you can email the KKK and they will tell you they are nothing more than a civic organization.

So...you were proven wrong about John Lott and his research group...now you have to pretend to make a counter point.....you have no facts, and the truth doesn't support you on anything to do with guns and crime in this country...

 

[Skull Pilot]

HTF is carrying a loaded gun endangering the public????

Get ahold of an old NRA gun safety manual from at least 20 years ago. Before their focus changed from gun safety to gun sales. That will explain it quite well.

Dumb shit.....I went through the 8 hour NRA gun safety training...two year ago.....you have no clue what the hell you are talking about......are you really this dumb....? Do you practice at being this dumb?

Did they teach you the potential dangers of a loaded gun in public, or are you just as uninformed as Ray?

the gun is only as dangerous as the person carrying it
carrying a gun doesn't make a person dangerous

No. It doesn't have to,but it quite often does.

so what?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not terrified about guns. I'm terrified about so many idiots with guns.

Well that's your problem right there, you are terrified of the wrong people:

A newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S.

The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John Lott, notes that it is "very rare for permit holders to violate the law" and compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.

And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

"Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers," Lott writes. "Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

Yep. Good old John Lott. Putting him on the payroll was some of the most effective money the gun manufacturers and the NRA have ever spent.

Shit head...he does not take any money from the NRA or gun makers....you can email him...he will tell you himself....moron.

Right, and you can email the KKK and they will tell you they are nothing more than a civic organization.

So...you were proven wrong about John Lott and his research group...now you have to pretend to make a counter point.....you have no facts, and the truth doesn't support you on anything to do with guns and crime in this country...

How did you prove me wrong about John Lott? Right wingers saying "no way" is not really acceptable proof. Telling me to email Lott and ask him is not credible proof. What else you got?

 

[2aguy]

Well that's your problem right there, you are terrified of the wrong people:

A newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S.

The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John Lott, notes that it is "very rare for permit holders to violate the law" and compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000 officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000 people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.

And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

"Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers," Lott writes. "Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there's no need to focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states."

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

Yep. Good old John Lott. Putting him on the payroll was some of the most effective money the gun manufacturers and the NRA have ever spent.

Shit head...he does not take any money from the NRA or gun makers....you can email him...he will tell you himself....moron.

Right, and you can email the KKK and they will tell you they are nothing more than a civic organization.

So...you were proven wrong about John Lott and his research group...now you have to pretend to make a counter point.....you have no facts, and the truth doesn't support you on anything to do with guns and crime in this country...

How did you prove me wrong about John Lott? Right wingers saying "no way" is not really acceptable proof. Telling me to email Lott and ask him is not credible proof. What else you got?

For one, I actually emailed him and asked him about the NRA and gun makers....he responded and stated that it isn't true and said to send anyone with questions to ask him personally.......and as Ray posted, they say the do not recieve funding.....it is posted on his website...

So now, dip shit...it is up to you to prove that he does...since you can't, you have proven once again that you are a clueless asshole, willing to lie about people to push a lie.....

 

[BULLDOG]

Yep. Good old John Lott. Putting him on the payroll was some of the most effective money the gun manufacturers and the NRA have ever spent.

Shit head...he does not take any money from the NRA or gun makers....you can email him...he will tell you himself....moron.

Right, and you can email the KKK and they will tell you they are nothing more than a civic organization.

So...you were proven wrong about John Lott and his research group...now you have to pretend to make a counter point.....you have no facts, and the truth doesn't support you on anything to do with guns and crime in this country...

How did you prove me wrong about John Lott? Right wingers saying "no way" is not really acceptable proof. Telling me to email Lott and ask him is not credible proof. What else you got?

For one, I actually emailed him and asked him about the NRA and gun makers....he responded and stated that it isn't true and said to send anyone with questions to ask him personally.......and as Ray posted, they say the do not recieve funding.....it is posted on his website...

So now, dip shit...it is up to you to prove that he does...since you can't, you have proven once again that you are a clueless asshole, willing to lie about people to push a lie.....

Right, and I emailed Santa, and he said you were a whiney bitch and would only receive a small turd under the tree this year. He also said to have you contact him personally if you didn't believe that. Now..........you prove me wrong.

 

[2aguy]

Shit head...he does not take any money from the NRA or gun makers....you can email him...he will tell you himself....moron.

Right, and you can email the KKK and they will tell you they are nothing more than a civic organization.

So...you were proven wrong about John Lott and his research group...now you have to pretend to make a counter point.....you have no facts, and the truth doesn't support you on anything to do with guns and crime in this country...

How did you prove me wrong about John Lott? Right wingers saying "no way" is not really acceptable proof. Telling me to email Lott and ask him is not credible proof. What else you got?

For one, I actually emailed him and asked him about the NRA and gun makers....he responded and stated that it isn't true and said to send anyone with questions to ask him personally.......and as Ray posted, they say the do not recieve funding.....it is posted on his website...

So now, dip shit...it is up to you to prove that he does...since you can't, you have proven once again that you are a clueless asshole, willing to lie about people to push a lie.....

Right, and I emailed Santa, and he said you were a whiney bitch and would only receive a small turd under the tree this year. He also said to have you contact him personally if you didn't believe that. Now..........you prove me wrong.

And you are shown to be talking out of your ass...so you go on the offensive........you stated a lie about John Lott, you couldn't back it up, you were shown that you were lying, you couldn't hide the lie.....and now you post that.......sad....

Dipshit....email John Lott and ask him where his funding comes from......don't be a fucking coward...

 

[BULLDOG]

Right, and you can email the KKK and they will tell you they are nothing more than a civic organization.

So...you were proven wrong about John Lott and his research group...now you have to pretend to make a counter point.....you have no facts, and the truth doesn't support you on anything to do with guns and crime in this country...

How did you prove me wrong about John Lott? Right wingers saying "no way" is not really acceptable proof. Telling me to email Lott and ask him is not credible proof. What else you got?

For one, I actually emailed him and asked him about the NRA and gun makers....he responded and stated that it isn't true and said to send anyone with questions to ask him personally.......and as Ray posted, they say the do not recieve funding.....it is posted on his website...

So now, dip shit...it is up to you to prove that he does...since you can't, you have proven once again that you are a clueless asshole, willing to lie about people to push a lie.....

Right, and I emailed Santa, and he said you were a whiney bitch and would only receive a small turd under the tree this year. He also said to have you contact him personally if you didn't believe that. Now..........you prove me wrong.

And you are shown to be talking out of your ass...so you go on the offensive........you stated a lie about John Lott, you couldn't back it up, you were shown that you were lying, you couldn't hide the lie.....and now you post that.......sad....

Dipshit....email John Lott and ask him where his funding comes from......don't be a fucking coward...

Nope. You haven't proven me wrong. You've proven you don't have the slightest idea how to even go about it.

 

[2aguy]

So...you were proven wrong about John Lott and his research group...now you have to pretend to make a counter point.....you have no facts, and the truth doesn't support you on anything to do with guns and crime in this country...

How did you prove me wrong about John Lott? Right wingers saying "no way" is not really acceptable proof. Telling me to email Lott and ask him is not credible proof. What else you got?

For one, I actually emailed him and asked him about the NRA and gun makers....he responded and stated that it isn't true and said to send anyone with questions to ask him personally.......and as Ray posted, they say the do not recieve funding.....it is posted on his website...

So now, dip shit...it is up to you to prove that he does...since you can't, you have proven once again that you are a clueless asshole, willing to lie about people to push a lie.....

Right, and I emailed Santa, and he said you were a whiney bitch and would only receive a small turd under the tree this year. He also said to have you contact him personally if you didn't believe that. Now..........you prove me wrong.

And you are shown to be talking out of your ass...so you go on the offensive........you stated a lie about John Lott, you couldn't back it up, you were shown that you were lying, you couldn't hide the lie.....and now you post that.......sad....

Dipshit....email John Lott and ask him where his funding comes from......don't be a fucking coward...

Nope. You haven't proven me wrong. You've proven you don't have the slightest idea how to even go about it.

Wow.....did you start drinking already......? You should really get help.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How did you prove me wrong about John Lott? Right wingers saying "no way" is not really acceptable proof.

And acceptable proof is just making something up with nothing to back your claim?

After I made the post, it only took you a few minutes to come out with the nonsense he got his money from the NRA, so I assumed you found a link to it or something. Turns out you had no evidence at all. Plus I'm willing to bet you never even heard of the man.

Clearly what's happening here is you just made it up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right, that's why so many are trying to sneak into this disastrous place.

A lot of people don't want society to improve? Not by the force of government we don't.

People want to get into the US because it's a rich country. You look at countries where you're going to earn $300 a month, then people see the US and think it'll get them $1,500 a month, or something like that.

That doesn't tell you whether a country is on the way up or the way down though.

A lot of people use smaller govt as an excuse not to improve things.

You are completely wrong. People move here because of opportunities that they didn't have in their country. In many of these places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will be the rest of your life because of no opportunities.

Here, a poor person can advance themselves very easily. Work long and hard, don't spend money on unnecessary things, and invest most if not all of your disposable income. That's it!

People from other countries save every dollar and open up their own business or buy into a franchise. Do you think that foreigners are given a 7-11 when the come here? No. But unlike many Americans, they know that it's possible.

The Indian guy that owns the beverage store I go to is a good example. He and his wife opened up the store, and because of their personalities, they drew a lot of customers. During that time, they bought rental property. Now I understand they bought a hotel in a small town outside of Cleveland.

These people from India found the American dream, but it didn't come without a cost. They are open every day including Christmas, Thanksgiving, New years day and New years eve trying to attract even more customers. It's a lot of hard work, but they reap the rewards. His wife quit working at the store so she could manage the hotel they just bought.

That's why people come to America.

Yes, that's basically what I said, they go for the MONEY. If you're born poor, you stay poor... but in the US they can earn more than in their home country. It's all about money. And again, in the US you can make a lot of money.

However, again, this doesn't comment on the state of the way the US is going. Things were good in the 1960s, they're good now, but will they be good in 50 years time? I'm going to say the US will be much poorer in 50 years time than 50 years ago.

I would guess it all depends on the leadership. If we continue to allow people to sit home and live off of taxpayers, then you are correct, because, Democrats want to see poverty expanded. If we start restricting access to these programs and only use them for those who have no choice but to be on them, that influences people to work harder and make more responsible decisions in life.

Working people can pass down wealth and property to their children making their lives better. You can't pass down your food stamp card to your children.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, it would depend on the leadership. And currently it seems the leadership is intent of continuing to mess things up. It's not just about letting people get money for no reason, that's part of it, but other things like seeing large parts of society that feel like they're not a part of the country because they're born into poverty and for most of them, there isn't a way out.

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

 

[frigidweirdo]

People want to get into the US because it's a rich country. You look at countries where you're going to earn $300 a month, then people see the US and think it'll get them $1,500 a month, or something like that.

That doesn't tell you whether a country is on the way up or the way down though.

A lot of people use smaller govt as an excuse not to improve things.

You are completely wrong. People move here because of opportunities that they didn't have in their country. In many of these places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will be the rest of your life because of no opportunities.

Here, a poor person can advance themselves very easily. Work long and hard, don't spend money on unnecessary things, and invest most if not all of your disposable income. That's it!

People from other countries save every dollar and open up their own business or buy into a franchise. Do you think that foreigners are given a 7-11 when the come here? No. But unlike many Americans, they know that it's possible.

The Indian guy that owns the beverage store I go to is a good example. He and his wife opened up the store, and because of their personalities, they drew a lot of customers. During that time, they bought rental property. Now I understand they bought a hotel in a small town outside of Cleveland.

These people from India found the American dream, but it didn't come without a cost. They are open every day including Christmas, Thanksgiving, New years day and New years eve trying to attract even more customers. It's a lot of hard work, but they reap the rewards. His wife quit working at the store so she could manage the hotel they just bought.

That's why people come to America.

Yes, that's basically what I said, they go for the MONEY. If you're born poor, you stay poor... but in the US they can earn more than in their home country. It's all about money. And again, in the US you can make a lot of money.

However, again, this doesn't comment on the state of the way the US is going. Things were good in the 1960s, they're good now, but will they be good in 50 years time? I'm going to say the US will be much poorer in 50 years time than 50 years ago.

I would guess it all depends on the leadership. If we continue to allow people to sit home and live off of taxpayers, then you are correct, because, Democrats want to see poverty expanded. If we start restricting access to these programs and only use them for those who have no choice but to be on them, that influences people to work harder and make more responsible decisions in life.

Working people can pass down wealth and property to their children making their lives better. You can't pass down your food stamp card to your children.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, it would depend on the leadership. And currently it seems the leadership is intent of continuing to mess things up. It's not just about letting people get money for no reason, that's part of it, but other things like seeing large parts of society that feel like they're not a part of the country because they're born into poverty and for most of them, there isn't a way out.

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are completely wrong. People move here because of opportunities that they didn't have in their country. In many of these places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will be the rest of your life because of no opportunities.

Here, a poor person can advance themselves very easily. Work long and hard, don't spend money on unnecessary things, and invest most if not all of your disposable income. That's it!

People from other countries save every dollar and open up their own business or buy into a franchise. Do you think that foreigners are given a 7-11 when the come here? No. But unlike many Americans, they know that it's possible.

The Indian guy that owns the beverage store I go to is a good example. He and his wife opened up the store, and because of their personalities, they drew a lot of customers. During that time, they bought rental property. Now I understand they bought a hotel in a small town outside of Cleveland.

These people from India found the American dream, but it didn't come without a cost. They are open every day including Christmas, Thanksgiving, New years day and New years eve trying to attract even more customers. It's a lot of hard work, but they reap the rewards. His wife quit working at the store so she could manage the hotel they just bought.

That's why people come to America.

Yes, that's basically what I said, they go for the MONEY. If you're born poor, you stay poor... but in the US they can earn more than in their home country. It's all about money. And again, in the US you can make a lot of money.

However, again, this doesn't comment on the state of the way the US is going. Things were good in the 1960s, they're good now, but will they be good in 50 years time? I'm going to say the US will be much poorer in 50 years time than 50 years ago.

I would guess it all depends on the leadership. If we continue to allow people to sit home and live off of taxpayers, then you are correct, because, Democrats want to see poverty expanded. If we start restricting access to these programs and only use them for those who have no choice but to be on them, that influences people to work harder and make more responsible decisions in life.

Working people can pass down wealth and property to their children making their lives better. You can't pass down your food stamp card to your children.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, it would depend on the leadership. And currently it seems the leadership is intent of continuing to mess things up. It's not just about letting people get money for no reason, that's part of it, but other things like seeing large parts of society that feel like they're not a part of the country because they're born into poverty and for most of them, there isn't a way out.

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

My fathers situation is no different than many foreigners who come here, go to school, work hard and save, then open up their own business.

Poverty is not the reason people can't find their way out of it. Government is the reason people can't find their way out of it. You give people the option to stay home and collect money, or go to work and collect money, then a percentage of people will choose to sit home. They may be in poverty the rest of their lives, but they don't have many pressures that working people have such as where are you going to live? How will you eat? What temperature can you afford to have your home at in the winter and summer? What kind of medical coverage do you have?

Poor people don't have to deal with any of those problems. We give them a house or apartment to live; sometimes in the suburbs, we pay for their heat and electricity, they have Medicaid for themselves and their family, their SNAP's card is more than enough to live on including junk food, the more kids they have that they can't afford, the bigger the government handout. So what's to worry about? Being considered poor?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, that's basically what I said, they go for the MONEY. If you're born poor, you stay poor... but in the US they can earn more than in their home country. It's all about money. And again, in the US you can make a lot of money.

However, again, this doesn't comment on the state of the way the US is going. Things were good in the 1960s, they're good now, but will they be good in 50 years time? I'm going to say the US will be much poorer in 50 years time than 50 years ago.

I would guess it all depends on the leadership. If we continue to allow people to sit home and live off of taxpayers, then you are correct, because, Democrats want to see poverty expanded. If we start restricting access to these programs and only use them for those who have no choice but to be on them, that influences people to work harder and make more responsible decisions in life.

Working people can pass down wealth and property to their children making their lives better. You can't pass down your food stamp card to your children.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, it would depend on the leadership. And currently it seems the leadership is intent of continuing to mess things up. It's not just about letting people get money for no reason, that's part of it, but other things like seeing large parts of society that feel like they're not a part of the country because they're born into poverty and for most of them, there isn't a way out.

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

My fathers situation is no different than many foreigners who come here, go to school, work hard and save, then open up their own business.

Poverty is not the reason people can't find their way out of it. Government is the reason people can't find their way out of it. You give people the option to stay home and collect money, or go to work and collect money, then a percentage of people will choose to sit home. They may be in poverty the rest of their lives, but they don't have many pressures that working people have such as where are you going to live? How will you eat? What temperature can you afford to have your home at in the winter and summer? What kind of medical coverage do you have?

Poor people don't have to deal with any of those problems. We give them a house or apartment to live; sometimes in the suburbs, we pay for their heat and electricity, they have Medicaid for themselves and their family, their SNAP's card is more than enough to live on including junk food, the more kids they have that they can't afford, the bigger the government handout. So what's to worry about? Being considered poor?

There's a difference in attitude. Many foreigners enter the US with the thought that they can make it. Many in inner cities have the thought that they can't. What they see around them tells them that this is the case.

The question is how do you change such a situation? Well, you start by getting people out and then the cycle can stop. But when you too many single parent families unable to bring up their children then you have a problem already. No, the answer isn't the throw money at the parents, but the answer is in education.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would guess it all depends on the leadership. If we continue to allow people to sit home and live off of taxpayers, then you are correct, because, Democrats want to see poverty expanded. If we start restricting access to these programs and only use them for those who have no choice but to be on them, that influences people to work harder and make more responsible decisions in life.

Working people can pass down wealth and property to their children making their lives better. You can't pass down your food stamp card to your children.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, it would depend on the leadership. And currently it seems the leadership is intent of continuing to mess things up. It's not just about letting people get money for no reason, that's part of it, but other things like seeing large parts of society that feel like they're not a part of the country because they're born into poverty and for most of them, there isn't a way out.

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

My fathers situation is no different than many foreigners who come here, go to school, work hard and save, then open up their own business.

Poverty is not the reason people can't find their way out of it. Government is the reason people can't find their way out of it. You give people the option to stay home and collect money, or go to work and collect money, then a percentage of people will choose to sit home. They may be in poverty the rest of their lives, but they don't have many pressures that working people have such as where are you going to live? How will you eat? What temperature can you afford to have your home at in the winter and summer? What kind of medical coverage do you have?

Poor people don't have to deal with any of those problems. We give them a house or apartment to live; sometimes in the suburbs, we pay for their heat and electricity, they have Medicaid for themselves and their family, their SNAP's card is more than enough to live on including junk food, the more kids they have that they can't afford, the bigger the government handout. So what's to worry about? Being considered poor?

There's a difference in attitude. Many foreigners enter the US with the thought that they can make it. Many in inner cities have the thought that they can't. What they see around them tells them that this is the case.

The question is how do you change such a situation? Well, you start by getting people out and then the cycle can stop. But when you too many single parent families unable to bring up their children then you have a problem already. No, the answer isn't the throw money at the parents, but the answer is in education.

The biggest difference between situations like my father, foreigners who come here, and our poor is that they didn't have government pandering to their situation. The hungrier you are, the harder you will work to eat. My father joined the military just so he could have breakfast, lunch and dinner. He didn't have that at home, so it was worth going to Korea and fight for a year.

When he married my mother, he promised her that the one thing he would never allow to happen-even if it meant his life, was that his family would ever go hungry like he did. His childhood impacted his life so dramatically. In fact growing up, every Sunday was steak day. As kids, we were so sick of steak we didn't eat it very much when we got older.

Don't tell me children who have cable television, internet access, plus school, really believe there is no way out of poverty. They know there are ways out of poverty, but why learn about them? Mom does pretty good! We eat well, live in the suburbs, mom stays home and talks on her Obama phone with her friends. We eat bags of Cheetoes in front of the big screen all summer in the air conditioning. Why work to get out of that?

If you want to reduce poverty, cut down on government aid. Make a law that states if you want any government assistance, you have to be fixed first male or female. No more having kids while on the dole.

That will reduce poverty, but nobody has the guts to actually do those things because the liberals would cry bloody murder.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, it would depend on the leadership. And currently it seems the leadership is intent of continuing to mess things up. It's not just about letting people get money for no reason, that's part of it, but other things like seeing large parts of society that feel like they're not a part of the country because they're born into poverty and for most of them, there isn't a way out.

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

My fathers situation is no different than many foreigners who come here, go to school, work hard and save, then open up their own business.

Poverty is not the reason people can't find their way out of it. Government is the reason people can't find their way out of it. You give people the option to stay home and collect money, or go to work and collect money, then a percentage of people will choose to sit home. They may be in poverty the rest of their lives, but they don't have many pressures that working people have such as where are you going to live? How will you eat? What temperature can you afford to have your home at in the winter and summer? What kind of medical coverage do you have?

Poor people don't have to deal with any of those problems. We give them a house or apartment to live; sometimes in the suburbs, we pay for their heat and electricity, they have Medicaid for themselves and their family, their SNAP's card is more than enough to live on including junk food, the more kids they have that they can't afford, the bigger the government handout. So what's to worry about? Being considered poor?

There's a difference in attitude. Many foreigners enter the US with the thought that they can make it. Many in inner cities have the thought that they can't. What they see around them tells them that this is the case.

The question is how do you change such a situation? Well, you start by getting people out and then the cycle can stop. But when you too many single parent families unable to bring up their children then you have a problem already. No, the answer isn't the throw money at the parents, but the answer is in education.

The biggest difference between situations like my father, foreigners who come here, and our poor is that they didn't have government pandering to their situation. The hungrier you are, the harder you will work to eat. My father joined the military just so he could have breakfast, lunch and dinner. He didn't have that at home, so it was worth going to Korea and fight for a year.

When he married my mother, he promised her that the one thing he would never allow to happen-even if it meant his life, was that his family would ever go hungry like he did. His childhood impacted his life so dramatically. In fact growing up, every Sunday was steak day. As kids, we were so sick of steak we didn't eat it very much when we got older.

Don't tell me children who have cable television, internet access, plus school, really believe there is no way out of poverty. They know there are ways out of poverty, but why learn about them? Mom does pretty good! We eat well, live in the suburbs, mom stays home and talks on her Obama phone with her friends. We eat bags of Cheetoes in front of the big screen all summer in the air conditioning. Why work to get out of that?

If you want to reduce poverty, cut down on government aid. Make a law that states if you want any government assistance, you have to be fixed first male or female. No more having kids while on the dole.

That will reduce poverty, but nobody has the guts to actually do those things because the liberals would cry bloody murder.

Of course, but the problem is that you have a society which isn't willing to simply let everyone go, and fight it out for themselves. A hard detox could create more problems than it solves. There are ways to change this without going there. Yes, welfare should be changed, but also education to be more logical to the needs of society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

My fathers situation is no different than many foreigners who come here, go to school, work hard and save, then open up their own business.

Poverty is not the reason people can't find their way out of it. Government is the reason people can't find their way out of it. You give people the option to stay home and collect money, or go to work and collect money, then a percentage of people will choose to sit home. They may be in poverty the rest of their lives, but they don't have many pressures that working people have such as where are you going to live? How will you eat? What temperature can you afford to have your home at in the winter and summer? What kind of medical coverage do you have?

Poor people don't have to deal with any of those problems. We give them a house or apartment to live; sometimes in the suburbs, we pay for their heat and electricity, they have Medicaid for themselves and their family, their SNAP's card is more than enough to live on including junk food, the more kids they have that they can't afford, the bigger the government handout. So what's to worry about? Being considered poor?

There's a difference in attitude. Many foreigners enter the US with the thought that they can make it. Many in inner cities have the thought that they can't. What they see around them tells them that this is the case.

The question is how do you change such a situation? Well, you start by getting people out and then the cycle can stop. But when you too many single parent families unable to bring up their children then you have a problem already. No, the answer isn't the throw money at the parents, but the answer is in education.

The biggest difference between situations like my father, foreigners who come here, and our poor is that they didn't have government pandering to their situation. The hungrier you are, the harder you will work to eat. My father joined the military just so he could have breakfast, lunch and dinner. He didn't have that at home, so it was worth going to Korea and fight for a year.

When he married my mother, he promised her that the one thing he would never allow to happen-even if it meant his life, was that his family would ever go hungry like he did. His childhood impacted his life so dramatically. In fact growing up, every Sunday was steak day. As kids, we were so sick of steak we didn't eat it very much when we got older.

Don't tell me children who have cable television, internet access, plus school, really believe there is no way out of poverty. They know there are ways out of poverty, but why learn about them? Mom does pretty good! We eat well, live in the suburbs, mom stays home and talks on her Obama phone with her friends. We eat bags of Cheetoes in front of the big screen all summer in the air conditioning. Why work to get out of that?

If you want to reduce poverty, cut down on government aid. Make a law that states if you want any government assistance, you have to be fixed first male or female. No more having kids while on the dole.

That will reduce poverty, but nobody has the guts to actually do those things because the liberals would cry bloody murder.

Of course, but the problem is that you have a society which isn't willing to simply let everyone go, and fight it out for themselves. A hard detox could create more problems than it solves. There are ways to change this without going there. Yes, welfare should be changed, but also education to be more logical to the needs of society.

Yes, it would create a lot of problems at first, but like with any other problem, people look for solutions. If you already have a solution to your problem, then there is no need to look for another solution. The problem has to address you, not the other way around.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

My fathers situation is no different than many foreigners who come here, go to school, work hard and save, then open up their own business.

Poverty is not the reason people can't find their way out of it. Government is the reason people can't find their way out of it. You give people the option to stay home and collect money, or go to work and collect money, then a percentage of people will choose to sit home. They may be in poverty the rest of their lives, but they don't have many pressures that working people have such as where are you going to live? How will you eat? What temperature can you afford to have your home at in the winter and summer? What kind of medical coverage do you have?

Poor people don't have to deal with any of those problems. We give them a house or apartment to live; sometimes in the suburbs, we pay for their heat and electricity, they have Medicaid for themselves and their family, their SNAP's card is more than enough to live on including junk food, the more kids they have that they can't afford, the bigger the government handout. So what's to worry about? Being considered poor?

There's a difference in attitude. Many foreigners enter the US with the thought that they can make it. Many in inner cities have the thought that they can't. What they see around them tells them that this is the case.

The question is how do you change such a situation? Well, you start by getting people out and then the cycle can stop. But when you too many single parent families unable to bring up their children then you have a problem already. No, the answer isn't the throw money at the parents, but the answer is in education.

The biggest difference between situations like my father, foreigners who come here, and our poor is that they didn't have government pandering to their situation. The hungrier you are, the harder you will work to eat. My father joined the military just so he could have breakfast, lunch and dinner. He didn't have that at home, so it was worth going to Korea and fight for a year.

When he married my mother, he promised her that the one thing he would never allow to happen-even if it meant his life, was that his family would ever go hungry like he did. His childhood impacted his life so dramatically. In fact growing up, every Sunday was steak day. As kids, we were so sick of steak we didn't eat it very much when we got older.

Don't tell me children who have cable television, internet access, plus school, really believe there is no way out of poverty. They know there are ways out of poverty, but why learn about them? Mom does pretty good! We eat well, live in the suburbs, mom stays home and talks on her Obama phone with her friends. We eat bags of Cheetoes in front of the big screen all summer in the air conditioning. Why work to get out of that?

If you want to reduce poverty, cut down on government aid. Make a law that states if you want any government assistance, you have to be fixed first male or female. No more having kids while on the dole.

That will reduce poverty, but nobody has the guts to actually do those things because the liberals would cry bloody murder.

Of course, but the problem is that you have a society which isn't willing to simply let everyone go, and fight it out for themselves. A hard detox could create more problems than it solves. There are ways to change this without going there. Yes, welfare should be changed, but also education to be more logical to the needs of society.

Yes, it would create a lot of problems at first, but like with any other problem, people look for solutions. If you already have a solution to your problem, then there is no need to look for another solution. The problem has to address you, not the other way around.

So, you have two choices, you can try and solve the problem without creating loads more problems, or you can just go create more. Which is better?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My fathers situation is no different than many foreigners who come here, go to school, work hard and save, then open up their own business.

Poverty is not the reason people can't find their way out of it. Government is the reason people can't find their way out of it. You give people the option to stay home and collect money, or go to work and collect money, then a percentage of people will choose to sit home. They may be in poverty the rest of their lives, but they don't have many pressures that working people have such as where are you going to live? How will you eat? What temperature can you afford to have your home at in the winter and summer? What kind of medical coverage do you have?

Poor people don't have to deal with any of those problems. We give them a house or apartment to live; sometimes in the suburbs, we pay for their heat and electricity, they have Medicaid for themselves and their family, their SNAP's card is more than enough to live on including junk food, the more kids they have that they can't afford, the bigger the government handout. So what's to worry about? Being considered poor?

There's a difference in attitude. Many foreigners enter the US with the thought that they can make it. Many in inner cities have the thought that they can't. What they see around them tells them that this is the case.

The question is how do you change such a situation? Well, you start by getting people out and then the cycle can stop. But when you too many single parent families unable to bring up their children then you have a problem already. No, the answer isn't the throw money at the parents, but the answer is in education.

The biggest difference between situations like my father, foreigners who come here, and our poor is that they didn't have government pandering to their situation. The hungrier you are, the harder you will work to eat. My father joined the military just so he could have breakfast, lunch and dinner. He didn't have that at home, so it was worth going to Korea and fight for a year.

When he married my mother, he promised her that the one thing he would never allow to happen-even if it meant his life, was that his family would ever go hungry like he did. His childhood impacted his life so dramatically. In fact growing up, every Sunday was steak day. As kids, we were so sick of steak we didn't eat it very much when we got older.

Don't tell me children who have cable television, internet access, plus school, really believe there is no way out of poverty. They know there are ways out of poverty, but why learn about them? Mom does pretty good! We eat well, live in the suburbs, mom stays home and talks on her Obama phone with her friends. We eat bags of Cheetoes in front of the big screen all summer in the air conditioning. Why work to get out of that?

If you want to reduce poverty, cut down on government aid. Make a law that states if you want any government assistance, you have to be fixed first male or female. No more having kids while on the dole.

That will reduce poverty, but nobody has the guts to actually do those things because the liberals would cry bloody murder.

Of course, but the problem is that you have a society which isn't willing to simply let everyone go, and fight it out for themselves. A hard detox could create more problems than it solves. There are ways to change this without going there. Yes, welfare should be changed, but also education to be more logical to the needs of society.

Yes, it would create a lot of problems at first, but like with any other problem, people look for solutions. If you already have a solution to your problem, then there is no need to look for another solution. The problem has to address you, not the other way around.

So, you have two choices, you can try and solve the problem without creating loads more problems, or you can just go create more. Which is better?

How do you solve a problem by ignoring what caused the problem in the first place?

Look, we've had a war on poverty for over 50 years now. Statistics show that there has been very little change with the poor in over 50 years. Why? Because we tried to solve the problem without creating more problems. It didn't work in the past and will never work in the future.

Okay, so we tried that and it didn't work. So what's the solution, to keep trying? The one thing we never tried is tough love. Our politicians don't have the heart for it, the public doesn't have the heart for it, and the media will certainly never have the heart for it. Oh, don't get me wrong, we came close. It was called the Welfare Reform act and was quite successful. But instead of focusing on the success, we abandoned it and decided to go back to the status quo.

So let's do it your way and see what happens in another 50 years.

 

[2aguy]

You are completely wrong. People move here because of opportunities that they didn't have in their country. In many of these places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will be the rest of your life because of no opportunities.

Here, a poor person can advance themselves very easily. Work long and hard, don't spend money on unnecessary things, and invest most if not all of your disposable income. That's it!

People from other countries save every dollar and open up their own business or buy into a franchise. Do you think that foreigners are given a 7-11 when the come here? No. But unlike many Americans, they know that it's possible.

The Indian guy that owns the beverage store I go to is a good example. He and his wife opened up the store, and because of their personalities, they drew a lot of customers. During that time, they bought rental property. Now I understand they bought a hotel in a small town outside of Cleveland.

These people from India found the American dream, but it didn't come without a cost. They are open every day including Christmas, Thanksgiving, New years day and New years eve trying to attract even more customers. It's a lot of hard work, but they reap the rewards. His wife quit working at the store so she could manage the hotel they just bought.

That's why people come to America.

Yes, that's basically what I said, they go for the MONEY. If you're born poor, you stay poor... but in the US they can earn more than in their home country. It's all about money. And again, in the US you can make a lot of money.

However, again, this doesn't comment on the state of the way the US is going. Things were good in the 1960s, they're good now, but will they be good in 50 years time? I'm going to say the US will be much poorer in 50 years time than 50 years ago.

I would guess it all depends on the leadership. If we continue to allow people to sit home and live off of taxpayers, then you are correct, because, Democrats want to see poverty expanded. If we start restricting access to these programs and only use them for those who have no choice but to be on them, that influences people to work harder and make more responsible decisions in life.

Working people can pass down wealth and property to their children making their lives better. You can't pass down your food stamp card to your children.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, it would depend on the leadership. And currently it seems the leadership is intent of continuing to mess things up. It's not just about letting people get money for no reason, that's part of it, but other things like seeing large parts of society that feel like they're not a part of the country because they're born into poverty and for most of them, there isn't a way out.

There is always a way out if you're willing to try. If not, then there is no way out.

People who come here from other countries were so poor where they lived it makes our poor look wealthy.

My father was born very poor. He and his six siblings lived in a house the size of a three car garage. The house didn't have any plumbing so they had an outhouse in the backyard.

They were on welfare, but welfare back then meant pulling your wagon to the fire station five miles away, and they would fill it up with fruits and vegetables.

My father nor any of his siblings have ever been in trouble with the law. Three of my Uncles had their own business: one a carpenter, one a remodeler, and the other a beauty salon. They all worked hard and did well for themselves.

So I never accepted the argument that once you're poor, that's the only excuse you need to be a failure the rest of your life, because many have been poorer and did just fine.

Poverty is the situation of not having any or enough money.
The solution to poverty is money.
One gets money by working and not spending on anything but the necessities.
If one still does not make enough money, then work more hours or get an additional job.

Now which one of these three things can a person in poverty not do?

The problem goes beyond a simple anecdote. The point goes to a mentality which pervades areas of society where they feel that everything is against them. Where crime, or sport, are the only ways out of the mess.

The cycle exists and it exists for a reason, having your anecdotes about your father doesn't change any of the facts, it just appears to be an excuse to not do anything. Your father's situation was almost certainly a lot different to other situations.

The question is, do people want to change the cycle of poverty? In Europe such cycles are far less likely to happen. Yes there are areas of big cities with certain problems, but nowhere near like in the US. Why? Because in Europe (except maybe Paris) they actually try and solve the situation.

And the democrat party who tells them everything is against them, and then sabotages the public education system to make sure they can't actually get the education they need to get out of democrat controlled voting districts.....

No...Europe doesn't have to spend any money for their own military so they can spend more money on hand outs......also, their culture used to be respectful of central authority....so crime was very low even in poor areas.....now....their social welfare system has outstripped their culture's ability to civilize young males....and they are seeing lots more violence there....