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.
Lets summarize claims made in this thread:
1) Conservatives seem unhappy that the poor aren't really as poor as they hoped. They should have been poorer. For example, the poor in India, Mexico etc. are poorer. We should take example from these countries.
2) In these people's opinion, being poor is a moral or personal flaw. They are poor because they must enjoy it. A good person cannot and will not be poor!
3) The minimal wage should be kept low or eliminated all together, so the poor are payed even less. At the same time, conservatives ask: why are these people poor? A: because they aren't making enough money.
4) Conservatives also object the government helping the so called "poor" (who aren't poor) in any way or form.
5) To keep our economy running, employers (private and government) should cut as many jobs as possible. There is no connection (in these folks minds) between high unemployment, low wages and increased welfare spending.
6) Many remain unemployed because available jobs pay very little. The poor (and the unemployed) should accept these low paying jobs. At the same time, the poor should not settle on low paying jobs (that keep the economy healthy).
7) Employers should only hire young, healthy, motivated, skilled and experienced workers. No people above certain age or with past issues are welcome. (Some as health insurers should only accept the young, healthy, those who aren't overweight, do not smoke, do not drink, do not use drugs, eat healthy and practice daily. The old, or people with existing problems should not apply). At a time when life expectancy is about 80, people above 45-50 should retire. But during their limited employment years, they should save millions for retirement (from the low paying jobs that are good for our economy). More importantly, these retires should not need any help in the 30+ years they remain idle. And, as I mentioned, there is no connection between millions of additional retirees and more medicare/medicaid spending.
So what?
I really don't understand the point of these threads (and yes, we've had at least three with this same topic).
Do you begrudge these people the few comforts that they have?
Do you want the poor in this country to live like the poor in Mexico or Brazil or elsewhere?
Do you not believe that they are poor?
Is it their fault that our standard of living is what it is?
Do you want a return to the days when the poor did live in tenements and shared bathrooms and had no kitchens?
Does it not make you glad that you live in a country where most of the poor are not treated worse than animals?
Or should every poor neighborhood be like the Navajo or Pine Ridge Reservations - little running water, no central heating...?
Exactly, most of the poor are the working poor. If they are able to earn so little, and still afford housing and a TV, why is anyone begrudging them that. Why would anyone resent what the poor are able to achieve on so little income?
Exactly, most of the poor are the working poor. If they are able to earn so little, and still afford housing and a TV, why is anyone begrudging them that. Why would anyone resent what the poor are able to achieve on so little income?
What I want to know is why some people mock the poor by claiming they have seven televisions and a BMW...
Exactly, most of the poor are the working poor. If they are able to earn so little, and still afford housing and a TV, why is anyone begrudging them that. Why would anyone resent what the poor are able to achieve on so little income?
Darned if I know. There are millions of people struggling to make their house or rent payment, buy food, clothe themselves, or more likely their children, and try to give their families as normal an existence as possible.
It seems that many in this thread would have them branded or at minimum forced to wear a giant "P" on their clothes so people know that they aren't deserving of having a roof over their heads.
the bum at the corner near the bus station i'm at 5 days a week seems to be pretty poor. i wonder where he sleeps? guy wears the same clothes everyday, seemingly surviving off of change from passing motorists, and their mcdonalds scraps.
the bum at the corner near the bus station i'm at 5 days a week seems to be pretty poor. i wonder where he sleeps? guy wears the same clothes everyday, seemingly surviving off of change from passing motorists, and their mcdonalds scraps.
Lets summarize claims made in this thread:
1) Conservatives seem unhappy that the poor aren't really as poor as they hoped. They should have been poorer. For example, the poor in India, Mexico etc. are poorer. We should take example from these countries.
2) In these people's opinion, being poor is a moral or personal flaw. They are poor because they must enjoy it. A good person cannot and will not be poor!
3) The minimal wage should be kept low or eliminated all together, so the poor are payed even less. At the same time, conservatives ask: why are these people poor? A: because they aren't making enough money.
4) Conservatives also object the government helping the so called "poor" (who aren't poor) in any way or form.
5) To keep our economy running, employers (private and government) should cut as many jobs as possible. There is no connection (in these folks minds) between high unemployment, low wages and increased welfare spending.
6) Many remain unemployed because available jobs pay very little. The poor (and the unemployed) should accept these low paying jobs. At the same time, the poor should not settle on low paying jobs (that keep the economy healthy).
7) Employers should only hire young, healthy, motivated, skilled and experienced workers. No people above certain age or with past issues are welcome. (Some as health insurers should only accept the young, healthy, those who aren't overweight, do not smoke, do not drink, do not use drugs, eat healthy and practice daily. The old, or people with existing problems should not apply). At a time when life expectancy is about 80, people above 45-50 should retire. But during their limited employment years, they should save millions for retirement (from the low paying jobs that are good for our economy). More importantly, these retires should not need any help in the 30+ years they remain idle. And, as I mentioned, there is no connection between millions of additional retirees and more medicare/medicaid spending.
Overall, a uniquely American world vision.
Well done. I don't know if it's uniquely American, but it is certainly unique when compared to other wealthy nations. The mix of selfishness, a serious lack of empathy and a generous dash of evangelical Prosperity Doctrine has created this completely illogical and defeatist attitude towards poverty and upward mobility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Overall, a uniquely childish post.
And what an insightful analysis from you. Overall I'd say the above captures whatever spiteful point(s) you were trying to make with this thread.
And what an insightful analysis from you. Overall I'd say the above captures whatever spiteful point(s) you were trying to make with this thread.
Actually, there were no spiteful points. Read the OP. There is nothing spiteful in it at all. Just some observations.
So the "analysis" is no analysis at all. It's a just a silly Dem post that tries to redefine the OP to meet your spiteful agenda.
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.