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.
Yes, I can because I am that immigrant :-). I came here with nothing, to pursue education, and lived off a very small research stipend for 3.5 years. Then I pursued more training, altogether a total of 15 years of postgraduate education and training - very poorly paid during that time. Then worked in places where no Americans with same qualifications wanted to work, and earned a lot over about 10 years. Did not have kids, none at all. Never received any financial assistance. Lived in rented apartments for 17 years, then bought the first condo at the age of 40, then two more at 48, then was able to partly retire at 49 (was able to fully retire, but continued working part time to keep professional skills). What is not clear?
Hat is off to you Sir
Same here. Parents came with nothing.
Zero public assistance. Both me and sister been working since teens.
We both own homes. Kids go to nyc schools.
Hard to believe but education and some hard work paid off.
Same here. Parents came with nothing.
Zero public assistance. Both me and sister been working since teens.
We both own homes. Kids go to nyc schools.
Hard to believe but education and some hard work paid off.
Congratulations to you too, Sir (I would take the hat off if I wore it. I am actually a woman :-). But, education and hard work DO tend to pay off much more often than not.
Gee, nobody has suggested roasting and eating the poor on holidays. I am surprised.
Not suggesting that... but, I didn't have any kids because I did not feel I had resources to bring them up decently. If, after that, a welfare baby momma comes to me demanding my tax money, as her natural right, so she can raise next generation of welfare-seekers, I am certainly prepared to respond with a verbal equivalent of spitting in her face.
Kirsten Gillibrand answers this problem with the affect the war on drugs has had in communities of color and how that alone makes their situation extremely different. Lots if white People do drugs but are not locked up in prison for it.
When stop and frisk locked up lots of people of color for marijuana possession, those people left behind children. There was no to raise these children with the parents locked up.
Kirsten Gillibrand answers this problem with the affect the war on drugs has had in communities of color and how that alone makes their situation extremely different. Lots of white People do drugs but are not locked up in prison for it.
Kirsten Gillibrand answers this problem with the affect the war on drugs has had in communities of color and how that alone makes their situation extremely different. Lots if white People do drugs but are not locked up in prison for it.
When stop and frisk locked up lots of people of color for marijuana possession, those people left behind children. There was no to raise these children with the parents locked up.
Kirsten Gillibrand answers this problem with the affect the war on drugs has had in communities of color and how that alone makes their situation extremely different. Lots of white People do drugs but are not locked up in prison for it.
Please stop implicating "people of color" in anything and everything. I was not talking about any color, but about irresponsible behavior of turfing one's kids to taxpayers. Incidence of having kids that parents cannot/do not want to raise is rampant among people of white color in West Virginia too, who are not stopped and frisked for anything.
You are citing yet another irrelevant excuse for irresponsible parental behavior. Plenty of men abandon their kids automatically, regardless of any other circumstance. Somehow I don't think that going to jail makes anyone forget that they have kids, unless they decide to forget about them (or never show any interest in raising them to start with). The point is that one should not be having kids one cannot raise, period. It is something that should be criminalized, people should be going to jail for THAT rather than for marijuana. Drugs or no drugs, people who produce kids knowing that they cannot raise them (or who aren't even interested in knowing anything about them) are beneath contempt, and that behavior should not be condoned, certainly not incentivized by giving out more welfare money for additional kids created without ability or intention to care for them.
It doesn't interest me who sells or takes drugs or why. A market demand and supply for that kind of thing obviously exists, so I would decriminalize all drugs (including heroin), and tax the profits of drug trade the same way nicotine and alcohol are taxed. The proceeds of that taxation could be used for treatment of drug addiction in those addicts who are truly determined to get out of it - I would not provide funds for that treatment from general health insurance pool, because insurance is for unavoidable illnesses/injuries, not for the widely known effects of substances that someone CHOSE to take.
Also, Mr. Educator, please learn the correct meanings of common words. An "effect" is a consequence, "to affect" means to influence, an "affect" (noun) means a mood or emotion. It is not a good form for someone with a Master's in Education from Columbia Univ (of which degree we have heard several milion times, in every possible relevant or irrelevant context) to not have a good command of some basic vocabulary. Gillibrand surely did not mean that war on drugs had any affect, but an EFFECT (although her argument looks specious to me... but a specious "argument" from a politician is thoroughly unsurprising.).
Anyway, I reacted tangentially to this thread only because it triggered in me a vomiting reflex at all the "proposals" to keep steering the once grand city into being an even worse cesspool than it already is, until it is suitable only for products of abortion. I keep still ocassionally reading this forum because I will need to make the final decision over the next few years whether I do or don't want to live in NYC... the negative arguments are growing stronger every day...
Please stop implicating "people of color" in anything and everything. I was not talking about any color, but about irresponsible behavior of turfing one's kids to taxpayers. Incidence of having kids that parents cannot/do not want to raise is rampant among people of white color in West Virginia too, who are not stopped and frisked for anything.
You are citing yet another irrelevant excuse for irresponsible parental behavior. Plenty of men abandon their kids automatically, regardless of any other circumstance. Somehow I don't think that going to jail makes anyone forget that they have kids, unless they decide to forget about them (or never show any interest in raising them to start with). The point is that one should not be having kids one cannot raise, period. It is something that should be criminalized, people should be going to jail for THAT rather than for marijuana. Drugs or no drugs, people who produce kids knowing that they cannot raise them (or who aren't even interested in knowing anything about them) are beneath contempt, and that behavior should not be condoned, certainly not incentivized by giving out more welfare money for additional kids created without ability or intention to care for them.
It doesn't interest me who sells or takes drugs or why. A market demand and supply for that kind of thing obviously exists, so I would decriminalize all drugs (including heroin), and tax the profits of drug trade the same way nicotine and alcohol are taxed. The proceeds of that taxation could be used for treatment of drug addiction in those addicts who are truly determined to get out of it - I would not provide funds for that treatment from general health insurance pool, because insurance is for unavoidable illnesses/injuries, not for the widely known effects of substances that someone CHOSE to take.
Also, Mr. Educator, please learn the correct meanings of common words. An "effect" is a consequence, "to affect" means to influence, an "affect" (noun) means a mood or emotion. It is not a good form for someone with a Master's in Education from Columbia Univ (of which degree we have heard several milion times, in every possible relevant or irrelevant context) to not have a good command of some basic vocabulary. Gillibrand surely did not mean that war on drugs had any affect, but an EFFECT (although her argument looks specious to me... but a specious "argument" from a politician is thoroughly unsurprising.).
Anyway, I reacted tangentially to this thread only because it triggered in me a vomiting reflex at all the "proposals" to keep steering the once grand city into being even a worse cesspool than it already is, until it is suitable only for products of abortion. I keep still ocassionally reading this forum because I will need to make the final decision over the next few years whether I do or don't want to live in NYC... the negative arguments are growing stronger every day...
As long as the national anthem of the USA is to make money (after all that's the primary reason you came here, as you yourself was once a broke immigrant), you will always have the haves and the have nots, and you will always have people who scam the system for their own benefit. Sometimes its NYCHA residents. Sometimes its Kiryas Joel residents. Sometimes its municipal workers. I think you get the point. Maybe Europe is best for your retirement.
The irony is that if every 18 year old in the USA hypothetically were to enroll in college this September, there may not even be enough seats for them all...
Don't take offense please, but your views reek of this transplant behavior. It is just like the stereotype of college kids moving here from the Midwest and being shocked and appalled at the ills of the largest city in the country and wanting to change everything to suit only your needs. It won't work, and homogenous communities suit your kind best because you refuse to "put the shoe on the other foot." If you took time to understand why things are the way they are, you would be more comfortable living in NYC (and might even be in a position to make some type of positive change), but you refuse to show empathy. Instead you just tell everybody to "go to school!" LoL! How unrealistic.
Does Parkchester have a board or something? Why not be a part of that and try to make some change in your own community. NYCHA should be the last thought on your mind!
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
As long as the national anthem of the USA is to make money (after all that's the primary reason you came here, as you yourself was once a broke immigrant), you will always have the haves and the have nots, and you will always have people who scam the system for their own benefit. Sometimes its NYCHA residents. Sometimes its Kiryas Joel residents. Sometimes its municipal workers. I think you get the point. Maybe Europe is best for your retirement.
The irony is that if every 18 year old in the USA hypothetically were to enroll in college this September, there may not even be enough seats for them all...
Don't take offense please, but your views reek of this transplant behavior. It is just like the stereotype of college kids moving here from the Midwest and being shocked and appalled at the ills of the largest city in the country and wanting to change everything to suit only your needs. It won't work, and homogenous communities suit your kind best because you refuse to "put the shoe on the other foot." If you took time to understand why things are the way they are, you would be more comfortable living in NYC (and might even be in a position to make some type of positive change), but you refuse to show empathy. Instead you just tell everybody to "go to school!" LoL! How unrealistic.
Does Parkchester have a board or something? Why not be a part of that and try to make some change in your own community. NYCHA should be the last thought on your mind!
Actually, I did not come to the US for money, but because a civil war was about to start in my native country (where I was most recently in 1986, without intention to visit again), and my entire family was driven out by death threats. My primary interest was in staying alive, my close second interest was in learning. Money was nowhere on my radar, it still does not interest me too much (on the Retirement forum, I am mostly known for NOT trying to maximize money, ie, as somebody who structured the retirement from her self-employment primarily in low-yield annuities, rather than real investments - because I want to totally minimize dealing with money). Some money has logically followed my professional interests, but I was pursuing a desire to be useful, not a desire for money.
Also, please note that I am not "telling everybody to go to school". I am saying that the primary (and essentially the only) reason for poverty is having kids that a person cannot support. If I had come to this country very poor, and my immediate goal had been only to have kids, I would have still been poor, and all of my kids and grandkids would be been poor now. That is a recipe for creating poverty.
The recipe for creating material comfort is matching the size of population to the size of resources. If there is a job to do for every member of the society, and all the members of the society are willing to do all those jobs, then there is almost no poverty.
You do not get rid of poverty by financially supporting the cause which caused poverty in the first place, ie, giving financial incentives to unemployed people to have more kids. You don't give them free (or near-free) housing, you give them free contraception.
What you refuse to do is acknowledge that New York City has not always been the way it is now, that historically it has been built and developed to its true fame and glory by enterprising immigrants, who were and still are totally opposite of what you seem to consider a "true New Yorker". Historically, a true New Yorker was more often than not a newcomer who wanted to continue the NYC tradition of invention and enterprise at the highest level. Are you telling me that Edison (born in Ohio, gave to New York City electricity and a lot more - the utility company that literally runs the city still bears his name) had no business of being in NYC, while the only people deserving of NYC, who are shaping the true character of NYC, are those who are fourth-generation NYCHA dwellers?
Minor curiosity: one of Edison's sons, a physicist here at MIT across the river from Boston, was the president of a society for preventing population growth, and he himself did not have any kids.
Actually, I did not come to the US for money, but because a civil war was about to start in my native country (where I was most recently in 1986, without intention to visit again), and my entire family was driven out by death threats. My primary interest was in staying alive, my close second interest was in learning. Money was nowhere on my radar, it still does not interest me too much (on the Retirement forum, I am mostly known for NOT trying to maximize money, ie, as somebody who structured the retirement from her self-employment primarily in low-yield annuities, rather than real investments - because I want to totally minimize dealing with money). Some money has logically followed my professional interests, but I was pursuing a desire to be useful, not a desire for money.
Also, please note that I am not "telling everybody to go to school". I am saying that the primary (and essentially the only) reason for poverty is having kids that a person cannot support. If I had come to this country very poor, and my immediate goal had been only to have kids, I would have still been poor, and all of my kids and grandkids would be been poor now. That is a recipe for creating poverty.
The recipe for creating material comfort is matching the size of population to the size of resources. If there is a job to do for every member of the society, and tge members of the society are willing to do all those jobs, then there is almost no poverty.
You do not get rid of poverty by financially supporting the cause which caused poverty in the first place, ie, giving financial incentives to unemployed people to have more kids. You don't give them free (or near-free) housing, you give them free contraception.
What you refuse to do is acknowledge that New York City was not always the way it is now, that historically it has been built and developed to its true fame and glory by enterprising immigrants, who were and still are totally opposite of what you seem to consider a "true New Yorker". Historically, a true New Yorker was more often than not a newcomer who wanted to continue the NYC tradition of invention and enterprise at the highest level. Are you telling me that Edison (born in Ohio, gave to New York City electricity and a lot more - the utility company that literally runs the city still bears his name) had no business of being in NYC, while the only people deserving of NYC, who are shaping the true character of NYC, are those who are fourth-generation NYCHA dwellers?
Minor curiosity: one of Edison's sons, a physicist here at MIT across the river from Boston, was the president of a society for preventing populatuon growth, and he himself did not have any kids.
Meh
Let's not be naive
You could have chosen the United Kingdom and stayed in Europe if that was the case, everybody comes to the USA to make money, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sorry to be personal, but why would a person need 3 condos in 3 separate cities? Is that not an attempt at maximizing wealth? It's certainly not living a pauper's lifestyle! There is nothing wrong with making money as long as its done morally and legally, so no need to discredit yourself.
But you are exhibiting transplant tendencies by blaming NYC's high tax rates and such on NYCHA and poor people having babies. You're actually the one refusing to acknowledge why things in NYC are the way they are.
Read this. This is to show you how incessantly irresponsible it is of you to single out a demographic. And you continuously do it.
You could have chosen the United Kingdom and stayed in Europe if that was the case, everybody comes to the USA to make money, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sorry to be personal, but why would a person need 3 condos in 3 separate cities? Is that not an attempt at maximizing wealth? It's certainly not living a pauper's lifestyle! There is nothing wrong with making money as long as its done morally and legally, so no need to discredit yourself.
But you are exhibiting transplant tendencies by blaming NYC's high tax rates and such on NYCHA and poor people having babies. You're actually the one refusing to acknowledge why things in NYC are the way they are.
Read this. This is to show you how incessantly irresponsible it is of you to single out a demographic. And you continuously do it.
No, sorry, everybody does not come to the USA to make money. A lot of people come to the USA to escape persecution, and there is nothing naive about it as I am speaking from direct experience. My preference actually WAS to go to the UK, but the UK had much more restrictive visa requirements (as I was not from a British Commonwealth country). You can't just show up in the UK, and say that you want to study/live there.
My 3 condos are all tiny studios, ie, my entire real-estate property amounts to three rooms. It is my own business whether I want my second and third room to be in the same building or on a different coast. I also do not own a car, and I DO NOT HAVE KIDS. But, most importantly, I have earned my own right to organize my life any way I want, and am not asking anyone to support me OR MY KIDS. I did not have kids because I could not support them (hint: a 300 sq ft condo in San Francisco costs incomparably less than raising a child). The issue is not what I have because I earned it by my own work (and by my decision not to have kids) - the issue is what some people are trying to have by automatically claiming the money that other people earned.
It is irresponsible of me to single out a demographic? What???? I have specifically said that the problem of having unsupportable kids is NOT limited to a single demographic, and is as bad among the white rural West Virginians as is among NYCHA dwellers (who might be predominantly non-white, but I don't even know whether that is the case any more). Obviously, the case of the extreme Jewish sect to which you posted a link is equally appaling as NYCHA - I do not see them as any different, and do not support tax handouts to that kind of people just the same as I do not support NYCHA. There is no demographic in which I would support breeding like rats while not being able to earn even one's own keep, let alone earn resources for raising kids.
No, sorry, everybody does not come to the USA to make money. A lot of people come to the USA to escape persecution, and there is nothing naive about it as I am speaking from direct experience. My preference actually WAS to go to the UK, but the UK had much more restrictive visa requirements (as I was not from a British Commonwealth country). You can't just show up in the UK, and say that you want to study/live there.
That's my point - the USA was created to make money. Thats it! Money only! Once slavery was abolished, henceforth came Ellis Island to replace the free labor! There is no coincidence therefore, that its less restrictive to come here - so that the USA could get cheap labor. It's all about money. To believe anything else shows a sever lack of knowledge on your part of this country's history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
My 3 condos are all tiny studios, ie, my entire real-estate property amounts to three rooms. It is my own business whether I want my second and third room to be in the same building or on a different coast. I also do not own a car, and I DO NOT HAVE KIDS. But, most importantly, I have earned my own right to organize my life any way I want, and am not asking anyone to support me OR MY KIDS. I did not have kids because I could not support them (hint: a 300 sq ft condo in San Francisco costs incomparably less than raising a child). The issue is not what I have because I earned it by my own work (and by my decision not to have kids) - the issue is what some people are trying to have by automatically claiming the money that other people earned.
The size of the properties are irrelevant. Don't tell me that you own three properties, and you don't consider that maximizing one's wealth, that's preposterous....for Christ sake, they're not even on the same coasts.....let's be brutally honest here, that's downright elite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
It is irresponsible of me to single out a demographic? What???? I have specifically said that the problem of having unsupportable kids is NOT limited to a single demographic, and is as bad among the white rural West Virginians as is among NYCHA dwellers (who might be predominantly non-white, but I don't even know whether that is the case any more). Obviously, the case of the extreme Jewish sect to which you posted a link is equally appaling as NYCHA - I do not see them as any different, and do not support tax handouts to that kind of people just the same as I do not support NYCHA. There is no demographic in which I would support breeding like rats while not being able to earn even one's own keep, let alone earn resources for raising kids.
It's easier to point a finger at a certain group of individuals, rather than questioning the system that clearly allows for these situations to be created and to fester! I've never seen you question the system, but then again, why would you? America has treated you well!
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
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.
