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.
Okay, would you then deport everybody (even the native tribes, who immigrated into the Americas from Asia 15,000 to 30,000 years ago)? Should the continent just be populated by buffalo and squirels (and the deer and the antelope)?
The issue is not where one immigrates from where, but what one does for the country in which one has been given the privilege of immigration. Preventing a smart, responsible person from leaving the place where they want to kill him/her, and from finding a refuge in the US (where he/she can do something to continue building the society) will not magically turn all the US high school dropouts into high-level professionals.
Of course not. The huge difference is... is that even 75 years ago, the world's human population was a lot smaller. America has enough people now, perhaps even too many. Why? Because there isn't enough middle class paying jobs to go around. And in any successful metro area, there isn't enough affordable housing.
And it is the poor and undereducated people that are having the most children. Surveys show that the more educated a person is, the fewer children they produce, if at all. And trying to educate the poor's children are costing taxpayers too much money, plus having to feed those children breakfast and lunch while they are in grade schools. It's ridiculous that I have to pay to support the poor's children like this.
Then add to that, the poor have terrible eating habits and buy junk food and soda with their food stamps. A new scientific study shows that pregnant women who drink soda and sugary drinks produce children with overweight issues. And that makes complete sense to me that a pregnant women's high blood sugar levels would affect their fetus that way. No wonder there are so many fat children and adults now versus when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, all of my friends were skinny. And it's because our parents weren't hooked on sodas and sweet drinks like they are now. Next, they will find out that high caffeine levels in pregnant women cause ADHD in their children... so pregnant women really need to eat healthy and drink only water, and that's not at all what they do, especially the poor women.
I've mentioned before that I had a time of poverty in my life. I won't recap the whole deal now. Thing is, I also mentioned how there were a few private orgs that did a whole lot more to actually help me, than the "welfare" system did at the time. But the problem is that one reason that a certain organization did SO MUCH GOOD for me, was they had a woman who was a sort of case worker, but she actually came to my home, she met with me and counseled me, she knew me and knew my situation. So when what I needed was diapers, I got diapers, when what I needed was a ride to the doctor's office or someone to watch my baby so I could interview for a job, I got exactly that. If I'd been faking my problems somehow to take advantage, she would have easily known. I got what I needed. I did not get a bunch of extraneous freebies. And that was awesome.
But extrapolating that out to the greater poor community... Providing that level of service to poor families, while it might be the solution that makes all the difference in the long run, you run face-first into the fact that it would instantly cost more. More man hours, more investment in these families. I do not see how a publicly funded program could adapt to meet that need. As for private organizations...those do not reliably exist like that everywhere. In fact, I think the one that helped me was a rarity. Although I do hear that our local welfare services do a lot more to put people on better paths, than they ever did in the past when I was living that life. I think that some of the reforms have probably worked better than anyone realizes.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a perfect solution. If you do the most compassionate thing, you'll still have poor. Some people are seriously damaged individuals one way or another. Some are veterans with severe mental health problems, some are drug addicts, some can be helped, some end up staying on the bottom. If you do the least compassionate thing and cut off help, you wind up with the poor living like they do in third world countries. Shack cities and contaminated water and skeletal children scrounging and stealing and running drugs. Being all hardcore and heartless doesn't lead to people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, it just leads to worse levels of ugliness in the poor communities.
Maybe we're doing the best we can here? Or close to it?
I've mentioned before that I had a time of poverty in my life. I won't recap the whole deal now. Thing is, I also mentioned how there were a few private orgs that did a whole lot more to actually help me, than the "welfare" system did at the time. But the problem is that one reason that a certain organization did SO MUCH GOOD for me, was they had a woman who was a sort of case worker, but she actually came to my home, she met with me and counseled me, she knew me and knew my situation. So when what I needed was diapers, I got diapers, when what I needed was a ride to the doctor's office or someone to watch my baby so I could interview for a job, I got exactly that. If I'd been faking my problems somehow to take advantage, she would have easily known. I got what I needed. I did not get a bunch of extraneous freebies. And that was awesome.
But extrapolating that out to the greater poor community... Providing that level of service to poor families, while it might be the solution that makes all the difference in the long run, you run face-first into the fact that it would instantly cost more. More man hours, more investment in these families. I do not see how a publicly funded program could adapt to meet that need. As for private organizations...those do not reliably exist like that everywhere. In fact, I think the one that helped me was a rarity. Although I do hear that our local welfare services do a lot more to put people on better paths, than they ever did in the past when I was living that life. I think that some of the reforms have probably worked better than anyone realizes.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a perfect solution. If you do the most compassionate thing, you'll still have poor. Some people are seriously damaged individuals one way or another. Some are veterans with severe mental health problems, some are drug addicts, some can be helped, some end up staying on the bottom. If you do the least compassionate thing and cut off help, you wind up with the poor living like they do in third world countries. Shack cities and contaminated water and skeletal children scrounging and stealing and running drugs. Being all hardcore and heartless doesn't lead to people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, it just leads to worse levels of ugliness in the poor communities.
Maybe we're doing the best we can here? Or close to it?
Thanks for providing some relevant and useful insight from your own living experience, all too often we hear the brashness of those who tell us of their overcoming their financial woes as an example of what they expect the poor to do. The initial idea of public "assistance" was to help, assist, and not to provide a life in full. Economic pressures and technology have altered the living conditions of those in poverty, making them a more permanent class of people than was initially expected.
I think we are doing as well as one can expect, poverty is the result of a very real form of classicism, one that isolates the poor from those mechanical aspects of upward economic mobility. But the myth of the loafer, cheater, no good for nothing citizen, continues to reduce the velocity of real change, after all, who, in their right mind, would support such people? Education is key to understanding our dilemma, having real valid pathways to walk out of poverty is a must, but a hot meal and a warm home doesn't hurt that process either. And yes, compassion IS also key to the process, it is the motivation, the foundation, of all things pertaining to the general welfare of a nation.
It's ridiculous that I have to pay to support the poor's children like this.
I think it's ridiculous that I have to pay taxes to support anyone's kids, since I don't have any myself. And while we're at it, let's make it mandatory that parents alone pay for the schools their kids go to instead of all of us having to pay taxes for free public schools. Maybe if parents - ALL parents - had to pay for the education their kids get instead of letting the government take care of that, people would be more responsible in having kids. See what I did there?
Quote:
Then add to that, the poor have terrible eating habits and buy junk food and soda with their food stamps.
No, the poor don't have terrible eating habits. Let's see you eat healthy on $194/month of food stamps. Let's see you shop at different stores to take advantage of the sales if you live in the city where there are few stores and didn't have a car and there was little to no public transportation. Let's see how often you eat in when you live in a place where rats, mice and cockroaches crawl around in your cupboards and the landlord doesn't do anything to get rid of them. Let's see you cook healthy meals after you've finished working 60 to 80 hours a week. Let's see how well you even cook if you're living on the street or in a motel room where there isn't a stove or any refrigeration.
Let me put this in a way you can understand.
Boxed macaroni and cheese: $1/box. You can get 2 to 3 servings from that one box
Frozen blueberries: $12/bag. You can get about 7 to 8 servings from that. The difference is about $1.50/serving for the blueberries vs 50¢/serving for the macaroni and cheese. Do you get it now?
Besides that, you have to fight all those wonderful people out there who think those on food stamps should only be allowed to buy Ramen and rice. Like that's a healthy meal.
And when was the last time someone gave you an earful about buying beer and hot dogs for Fourth of July?
If you're asking what to do with the poor, what about cutting all welfare and food stamps out and giving every adult in the country over 18 who makes under $100,000 annually a yearly wage of $25,000? Period. No strings. No work requirements.
Seems to me that would be a win/win. People will have to use that money to feed and shelter themselves and while doing it, will be circulating that money in society. We are, after all, a capitalistic society and we depend on keeping the money moving to keep the economy moving. Even if everyone is rich, our economy tanks if all that money is stuffed under mattresses and not being spent.
Meantime, if people want more money coming in, they could work for it while the ones who didn't want to work don't have to. I'm sure some people would still have their Arbeit macht frei attitude going so they had someone to look down on, but on the whole, it sounds like a good idea to me.
If you're asking what to do with the poor, what about cutting all welfare and food stamps out and giving every adult in the country over 18 who makes under $100,000 annually a yearly wage of $25,000? Period. No strings. No work requirements.
Seems to me that would be a win/win. People will have to use that money to feed and shelter themselves and while doing it, will be circulating that money in society. We are, after all, a capitalistic society and we depend on keeping the money moving to keep the economy moving. Even if everyone is rich, our economy tanks if all that money is stuffed under mattresses and not being spent.
Meantime, if people want more money coming in, they could work for it while the ones who didn't want to work don't have to. I'm sure some people would still have their Arbeit macht frei attitude going so they had someone to look down on, but on the whole, it sounds like a good idea to me.
There are about 250,000,000 adults in the U.S. and about 4/5 of them make under $100K. So that's 200 million people receiving $25K each for a total bill of $6.25 trillion. That is about 34% of the GDP of the country, which of course would go down because any group of four adults could make $100K a year just sitting around instead of doing the hard work it takes to make yourself worth that much. Hmmm.
There are about 250,000,000 adults in the U.S. and about 4/5 of them make under $100K. So that's 200 million people receiving $25K each for a total bill of $6.25 trillion. That is about 34% of the GDP of the country, which of course would go down because any group of four adults could make $100K a year just sitting around instead of doing the hard work it takes to make yourself worth that much. Hmmm.
All you wealthy and big business bashers need to look at this chart. The working class pays hardly any tax and the middle class does not pay that much either. Check it out> » Who Pays Income Taxes? The Rich, Mostly
I would like to point out the Democratic party has a hand in this game. Entitlement payments are handed out to those who will vote for the hand that feeds them.
TBF, Republicans have been just as much as bastards as them. They represent the large corporations that allow them to $#@ over customers, produce products that are harmful to the environment and the populace via repealing laws that prohibited such practices, and other anti-consumer practices. They don't represent America. Hell, they don't even represent much of the Republican party either. The lawmaker group is happy so long as they get their cutbacks.
There's nothing "wrong" with doing the things I said - it's just the difference in how the rich and the poor look at life. Take your shoes, for instance.
Could you, would you live only owning one pair of shoes? If you never have to, you'll be lucky. But could you? I'm guessing the answer is no, and when you get right down to the nub of things, it's not that you can't, it's that you won't. Even if you are short of money, it's my guess that you are going to go out and buy a new pair of shoes if your old ones just get a little raggy, instead of waiting to buy new ones only when the old ones wear out completely.
I'm saying there's nothing wrong in having all those shoes, but you don't NEED all those shoes and you could have saved the money you spent on them for an emergency you might have someday. And if that does happen, my point here was no one at all is going to say you made bad decisions by buying all those shoes. Yet if a poor person smokes, all of a sudden, it's a bad decision. Why? The poor person certainly doesn't need his smokes, but you certainly don't need all those shoes, either. But who is going to get labeled as making bad decisions about what they buy when they are scrutinized?
In other words, you'll spend money you don't have to spare on something you don't need and no one says boo. But if you're a poor person, you'll be flayed from here to there and back again if you spend one penny more on stuff that people think you don't need.
I honestly don't know if I could. Nope, I've never been in that situation. As far as hypotheticals go, I don't know if I'd willing to take a bullet for a beloved family member, eat a human corpse to stay alive, or kill a child if it meant saving the lives of 3 people who are still in their prime. It's not something you can REALLY know until the scenario is forced onto you.
I do know that your situation you described go hand in hand... If I couldn't afford shoes, or more than one, then that is how it is. It's likely b/c I lost my job and am in such dire straits.
However, since I DO have a job that expects a certain level of dress code, buying a $30 to $50 pair of dress shoes (I honestly can't remember how much I paid for them... I've had them for 5 to 10 years, it's been THAT long ago) has more than paid for itself. It was a no brainer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
You know, there's not a lot of difference between someone who is poor and someone who isn't. They may both be short of money. But the better off person has more material things, and because of that, people respect him and think he's made good decisions by being able to get all those things.
I can't speak for all the poor, but I'd reckon your typical poor person doesn't save $1200 to $2000 per month into a savings account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
I'm not saying I was right and they were wrong, it's just how things are in this society. But because of that, I think it's very important to watch out how we label people. People love to build themselves up and think because they have a ton of material things, that makes them better than anyone else. That's not necessarily true. If you are middle class, I'm sure you don't think someone is better than you because you live in a suburban house and they live in a mansion. Why, then, do people who live in suburban houses all think they're better than the poor, who sometimes don't live in a house at all? It's the same old story: the rich look down on the middle class, who think they're as good as the rich, but the middle class then look down on the poor and think they're better.
In general this seems to be true. I have anecdotal observations to suggest otherwise..
1) my father had his 60th birthday a while back. 60th isn't just a yearly thing, "the 10s" are huge. He held a large b-day party at his house where I was able to talk with a wide variety of folks... some were getting by. One guy was so wealthy that he could afford to buy new, high end Mercedes Benz every 3 years (trading in the current one. He got money for the trade in of course, but it's still 'worse' than continue driving the same, perfectly fine car). They all agreed that having a large house and possessions aren't cracked up all they are to be. In the end, having good friends is king.
2) Plenty of rich people end up miserable
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
By the way, I do only own one pair of shoes and I've owned them for the last 5 years and worn them all the time. They now have holes on the toe, but the soles are still good, so I still wear them when I have to go out in public. Mainly because up to a couple weeks ago, I couldn't afford a new pair. People actually live like this and when you (generally, not you personally, Ackmondual) want to say "the poor should do this" and "the poor should do that", until you actually know how the poor really live and why they live like that, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to deciding what you're going to do with them.
Well, I find it ironic that you're assertion is I don't know what poor is. That isn't actually untrue, so fair enough. OTOH, you seem to be judging both actual poor and those close to that threshold them yourself [shrug]
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.
