Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In an absolute sense, that is true. But it can also be true for a rare few in a relative sense. Billionaires can afford to pay cash for these things without really hurting themselves, financially speaking.
If you can't afford car repairs, you can't afford a car. If you can't afford to insure against uninsured motorists (or pay for everything out of pocket), you can't afford a car either.
Whatever happened to living within your means?
One reason we cannot afford to allow people to live in this country illegally.
Without illegal immigration, it would be easier for millions to live within their means.
For the price of one of our last two wars we could have thrown them a nice financial life ring, and grown the economy to boot.
Let's say we took the trillion dollars that some people say we spent on the war in Iraq (I have no idea if the number is correct), and divided it among the 100 million least fortunate Americans in some way. That's $10,000 a person. How would you distribute it (tax cut, welfare check, educational voucher, whatever) and what do you think the long-term consequences would be?
I'm not saying that it would or would not help, I'm just wondering what you'd do with the money. It's easier to talk about helping people than to do it.
Time and time again I keep reading articles by Billionaires telling us to live modestly and donate to charity. They tell the middle class don't live beyond their means and that keeping up with the Jones is what will get you in trouble. Then I read all the cool toys like mansions, yachts, fast cars, and stuff these rich keep buying while telling us not to emulate them. I really hope the pitch forks show up at their country club and mansions. The rich has the world under their control far far too long and all this rhetoric they keep talking is just to tell the poor and the middle class not to compete with them or get jealous of their lifestyles.
It's good advice. If you don't have the money they have you shouldn't try to emulate them. You'll end up in bankruptcy. Why do you think this isn't good advice? They're telling you not to spend money you don't have. That has nothing to do with them spending money THEY DO HAVE.
Telling someone to live within their means is good advice no matter what their means are. What they are telling people is that trying to live like them without the income they have is a dangerous road to go down and it is. Living beyond your means at any level leads to bankruptcy. Far better to buy what you can and save what you can so you can maintain your lifestyle.
It's good advice. "Others" should be grateful. Good advice is the best handout.
A penny saved is a penny earned. Live within your means. Without frugality none can be rich, and with it very few would be poor. Rather go to bed without dinner than to rise in debt. Money won't create success, the freedom to make it will. A man in debt is so far a slave. It is a waste of money to help those who show no desire to help themselves.
Let's say we took the trillion dollars that some people say we spent on the war in Iraq (I have no idea if the number is correct), and divided it among the 100 million least fortunate Americans in some way. That's $10,000 a person. How would you distribute it (tax cut, welfare check, educational voucher, whatever) and what do you think the long-term consequences would be?
I'm not saying that it would or would not help, I'm just wondering what you'd do with the money. It's easier to talk about helping people than to do it.
Pay people to get education/training by making grants available, for starters. This should include large incentives for employers to train new employees, in an attempt to solve the "can't get a job without experience and can't get experience without a job" problem. The first priority for the grants should be people who were disabled for 6 months or more, or who have cared for a family member with a disability for 6 months or more.
Give employers tax credits in proportion to their employees/profit ratio to incentivize hiring.
Finally, crack down on employers who won't hire someone because they don't own a car. This is actually illegal, IIRC, but virtually never enforced.
Finally, crack down on employers who won't hire someone because they don't own a car. This is actually illegal, IIRC, but virtually never enforced.
I will not hire anyone without a car.
Where there is no mass-transit......I have to know how they will get to work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
