The Lazy Poor

[NYcarbineer]

I asked you for examples, you have none. You want to switch to a system that has no evidence of success in the history of humankind.

Not a good idea.

Here is what you liberals don't understand: the "choice" to accept free public education, initiative, hard work, determination, the ability to learn from your failures, and taking personal responsibility for the decisions you make (whether these personal decisions were good or bad) are the keys to "working" [key word] your way out of poverty.

Some may recall, there was a time when hobos were frowned upon by those who stood by strong work ethics. A time where it had been considered more honorable to find some form of work (no matter how labor intensive), because of the obligation one had to support and care for their family. It was considered a sign of real "character" to never accept the easier, more convenient road. They also desired to leave a stronger set of values to their kids, CHOOSING the labor intensive sacrifice in order to leave behind the chance to discover better opportunities. They were determined to work hard, so their kids could remember the sacrifices they had made, to provide THEM with more education towards an even better way of life. Today we simply give them cell phones, a government taxpayer check, and make excuses for them.



Btw NYcarbineer, where are those facts and statistics that proves government has been successful at reducing the poverty rate? I'm sure you are quite familiar with President Lyndon Baines Johnson's all out "war on poverty". Can you show us how successful and effective it has been, after all these BILLIONS of dollars government has thrown at the issue? Free cell phones, free minutes, I mean they really spared no expense. In what way exactly has Ben Franklin otherwise been proven wrong, when it comes to the issue of poverty? Are you capable of at least defending your side of the argument or not? ...... or is avoidance going to be your only answer? (as I know I'm not the only one who has asked this of you)

Once you acknowledge that there has never been a society that has cured its poverty problems by ignoring the poor, then I might address your questions to me.

Admit it. Admit that the conservative 'plan' has never worked.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one wants to ignore the poor. It's the definition of poor. Some poor would benefit by being ignored.

 

[kwc57]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

OK TDM, you must have a reading comprehension problem. You haven't heard anyone here on USMB say they want to end aid to those capable of helping themselves who won't simply because the government will keep feeding them if they do nothing? Really? I have no problem with assitance to the truely indigant. Giving 1 in 5 Anericans food stamps......I have a problem with.

If conservatives had had their way, none of these programs would even EXIST. Conservatives were against every one of them when they were created.

I guess you're admitting that conservatism has had to acknowledge that Democrats were right to get these programs established,

and that conservatives now acknowledge that the liberal welfare state is a good thing...

...but simply, as you point out, not perfect.

Okay. Good point. lol

Stoopidity is NOT a virtue. Work on that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wait, I think I might actually see what P.C. is driving at . . . and I might actually agree with some of it.

I'm not a "liberal" in the classic sense, by the way--but I'm sure as fuck not a modern American "conservative." Those are largely uneducated, socially inept idiots. Having said that,

I do NOT support welfare payments. I believe that income should ONLY COME FROM LABOR. That applies to everyone. Now, the trick is to create an economic climate that provides full employment.

I happen to believe the right wing aristocracy that controls the "conservative" Republican Party enjoys power by maintaining a social and economic underclass; this is why they obstruct all efforts to stimulate the economy into a full employment circumstance. After all, if the impoverished masses were to disappear, we would like to see a more democratic sort of governance. The right wing always stands opposed to that.

1. There is no aristocracy in America.

2. There are no impoverished masses.

3. The French Revolution is in no way related to the American Revolution, or to America.

4. There exists no permanent underclass.

5. A careful consideration of your posts suggests that you may be one of the most fundamentally ignorant folks around.

There are no impoverished masses because the very programs you would END serve to alleviate poverty.

That's the irony of your points of view, taken together...

...we must end the programs that bring people out of the worst of poverty because those people, NOW, because of those programs, really aren't that poor.

lol, that's funny. That sounds like something from a political satire.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait, I think I might actually see what P.C. is driving at . . . and I might actually agree with some of it.

I'm not a "liberal" in the classic sense, by the way--but I'm sure as fuck not a modern American "conservative." Those are largely uneducated, socially inept idiots. Having said that,

I do NOT support welfare payments. I believe that income should ONLY COME FROM LABOR. That applies to everyone. Now, the trick is to create an economic climate that provides full employment.

I happen to believe the right wing aristocracy that controls the "conservative" Republican Party enjoys power by maintaining a social and economic underclass; this is why they obstruct all efforts to stimulate the economy into a full employment circumstance. After all, if the impoverished masses were to disappear, we would like to see a more democratic sort of governance. The right wing always stands opposed to that.

1. There is no aristocracy in America.

2. There are no impoverished masses.

3. The French Revolution is in no way related to the American Revolution, or to America.

4. There exists no permanent underclass.

5. A careful consideration of your posts suggests that you may be one of the most fundamentally ignorant folks around.

There are no impoverished masses because the very programs you would END serve to alleviate poverty.

That's the irony of your points of view, taken together...

...we must end the programs that bring people out of the worst of poverty because those people, NOW, because of those programs, really aren't that poor.

lol, that's funny. That sounds like something from a political satire.

I seem to have missed your post wherein you admit that you are a bottom-feeding, lying, boor...

..based in this:




No, you liar....this is what you said:

"Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly."

I have never claimed that there is "NO real poverty..."




Would you mind re-posting your confession?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK TDM, you must have a reading comprehension problem. You haven't heard anyone here on USMB say they want to end aid to those capable of helping themselves who won't simply because the government will keep feeding them if they do nothing? Really? I have no problem with assitance to the truely indigant. Giving 1 in 5 Anericans food stamps......I have a problem with.

If conservatives had had their way, none of these programs would even EXIST. Conservatives were against every one of them when they were created.

I guess you're admitting that conservatism has had to acknowledge that Democrats were right to get these programs established,

and that conservatives now acknowledge that the liberal welfare state is a good thing...

...but simply, as you point out, not perfect.

Okay. Good point. lol

Stoopidity is NOT a virtue. Work on that.

Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

 

[Truthmatters]

You sure did lie about not saying peopel are not good.

Ill go get the links

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/291099-people-good-damn-it.html


here you claimed you did not say it then I proved you did say it.

you just continue to lie about that

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. There is no aristocracy in America.

2. There are no impoverished masses.

3. The French Revolution is in no way related to the American Revolution, or to America.

4. There exists no permanent underclass.

5. A careful consideration of your posts suggests that you may be one of the most fundamentally ignorant folks around.

There are no impoverished masses because the very programs you would END serve to alleviate poverty.

That's the irony of your points of view, taken together...

...we must end the programs that bring people out of the worst of poverty because those people, NOW, because of those programs, really aren't that poor.

lol, that's funny. That sounds like something from a political satire.

I seem to have missed your post wherein you admit that you are a bottom-feeding, lying, boor...

..based in this:




No, you liar....this is what you said:

"Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly."

I have never claimed that there is "NO real poverty..."




Would you mind re-posting your confession?

Let's post your definition of 'poor' and work from there:

2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Now, using your own definition of 'poor' and given that there are very very very very few Americans who fall under your definition of poor,

do you still wish to deny that you claim there is no real poverty in America?

 

[koshergrl]

It doesn't count if they are homeless, heatless, and foodless by CHOICE.

We do not have families with children huddling on the streets. We do have homeless, mentally ill and drug addled and some run aways that opt to live on the street instead of living at home. It isn't because of poverty, however. It's because of dysfunction.

 

[koshergrl]

Though, being lefties, I'm sure you would opt to remove all choice and just store them in warehouses...

Or kill them. Cuz everybody knows, it's better to be dead than uncomfortable.

 

[Truthmatters]

the right jsut hates people


they see no onw they are willing to help.

Jesus would be really proud of them huh

 

[Truthmatters]

anyone who tries to talk you out of helping your fellow man is a sociopath

 

[koshergrl]

I help plenty of people.

You don't help people...you try to force OTHERS to help them, in the way that YOU decide.

So fuck you. I don't agree that you're helping them. I think you're hurting them.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no real poverty in America.

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

Even that great yardstick of hunger has been redefined as "food insecurity". Hunger might be a swollen belly and not having eaten for three days. Not now. Hunger is food insecurity which is defined as not having what you want to eat, when you want to eat it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are no impoverished masses because the very programs you would END serve to alleviate poverty.

That's the irony of your points of view, taken together...

...we must end the programs that bring people out of the worst of poverty because those people, NOW, because of those programs, really aren't that poor.

lol, that's funny. That sounds like something from a political satire.

I seem to have missed your post wherein you admit that you are a bottom-feeding, lying, boor...

..based in this:




No, you liar....this is what you said:

"Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly."

I have never claimed that there is "NO real poverty..."




Would you mind re-posting your confession?

Let's post your definition of 'poor' and work from there:

2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Now, using your own definition of 'poor' and given that there are very very very very few Americans who fall under your definition of poor,

do you still wish to deny that you claim there is no real poverty in America?

Well, at least you haven't denied that you are a bottom-feeding, lying, boor...


Good start.

 

[kwc57]

If conservatives had had their way, none of these programs would even EXIST. Conservatives were against every one of them when they were created.

I guess you're admitting that conservatism has had to acknowledge that Democrats were right to get these programs established,

and that conservatives now acknowledge that the liberal welfare state is a good thing...

...but simply, as you point out, not perfect.

Okay. Good point. lol

Stoopidity is NOT a virtue. Work on that.

Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

 

[kwc57]

the right jsut hates people


they see no onw they are willing to help.

Jesus would be really proud of them huh

We only hate adults who can't spell.

 

[g5000]

PoliticalChic cracks me up.

We feed, clothe, and house our poor and then she comes along and says, "I see no people without food, clothing, or shelter, so there are no poor in America!"

 

[kwc57]

anyone who tries to talk you out of helping your fellow man is a sociopath

What help do you provide personally? Insisting that the government tax people with more than you to give it to others in your name doesn't count. What do you personally do to help your fellow man?