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.
The schools are crap because they raise crap humans. Stop paying people to reproduce and we will eliminate a bunch of the pos kids and bottom feeder class. It would eliminate a bunch of dem voters but if they care about people as they claim they would be ok with it.
So crappy humans only exist in poor neighborhoods?
Crappy parents are ok to reproduce as long as they are in wealthy tiers. Poor we should weed them out of existence by prevention of having children?
Sounds like eugenics...
If this sounds like I am accusing you of stereotyping and being bigoted towards a particular demographic, I certainly saying it does sound like it.
1931 poor: fourth floor walk-up, shared bathroom with other tenants, heat only between 6 pm and 10 pm, one small radio the entire family shared, chicken wing and watered-down soup for dinner, walk six blocks to get the ice to save the one penny extra for delivery, and lodger sleeping on the sofa
2021 poor: apartment with heat and a/c, Apple IPhones, private bathroom, big-screen color TVs, food stamps to provide food, Medicaid for health care, free lunches and breakfasts for the kids, and subsidized housing
I'd be happy to reduce welfare if it also came in conjunction with opportunities for those to get out of poverty.... Now what is "opportunities" mean? That's a big discussion.. very big discussion...
My thoughts regarding you comment.
1) Just like many here, they define "poor" in terms of mainly financial (and their possessions). It goes well beyond that... the issues here in the US go much more deeply than poverty wages.
2) We do treat poor much better than some countries. However, we don't give them the means out. So we perpetuate the sustaining in poverty we perpetuate it.
3) When an employer under pays employees to the point they need welfare to sustain a healthy, ready to work, clothed, cleaned, groomed, presentable individual as an employee, the employer is subsidizing the cost of their labor to the tax payer. So implying the situation you observe is solely a problem with the poor is misguided... it is also a situation perpetuated by the employers. Some of these employers are extremely wealthy.. like Walmart. They knowingly work the system (offering just under 40 hour weeks, underpaying and encouraging welfare applications) to offset the cost of labor to the tax payer for their own bottom line.
I'm generally in the middle politically.. most of those that know me I lean slightly left on social issues...
However, here's the more conservative side of me now talking and I'll add my 2 cents to the top:
We cannot sustain educating the children of illegal families... it is a huge strain on the system. My wife sees the ramifications in the poor districts that have a large percentage of undocumented children of illegal families. It leads to overcrowded classrooms and underfunding. As much as i want to provide for these children who are here through no decision of their own, it takes away from the children that belong in those classrooms. A disproportionate number of these school districts supporting undocumented children are poor districts.
I'd be happy to reduce welfare if it also came in conjunction with opportunities for those to get out of poverty.... Now what is "opportunities" mean? That's a big discussion.. very big discussion...
My two thoughts regarding you comment.
1) Just like many here, they define "poor" in terms of mainly financially. It goes well beyond that... the issues here in the US go much more deeply than poverty wages.
2) We do treat poor much better than some countries. However, we don't give them the means out. So we perpetuate the sustaining in poverty we perpetuate it.
Yes we DO give them the means to get out: free vocational training, or community college, after high school. That will be sufficient to get to the working class, at a minimum.
So crappy humans only exist in poor neighborhoods?
Crappy parents are ok to reproduce as long as they are in wealthy tiers. Poor we should weed them out of existence by prevention of having children?
Sounds like eugenics...
If this sounds like I am accusing you of stereotyping and being bigoted towards a particular demographic, I certainly saying it does sound like it.
If they pay for their ****ty kids then yes they can reproduce and we should also punish those ****ty kids when they do ****ty things. Thats another thing demtards don't want done. Easiest way to fix this country would be to stop losers from reproducing at the expense of functional people and next we stop decriminalizing theft.
Yes we DO give them the means to get out: free vocational training, or community college, after high school. That will be sufficient to get to the working class, at a minimum.
They suffer for the same reason that the public school systems suffer. In many states the free training and college after high school is only extended in the county of primary residence. Its really no difference than being stuck in a poor district of school... your access to school and quality of program is governed by the area you live in.
I have access to one of the best vocational schools in NJ and a very good community college.. if necessary they are available to my children. However, it is not a coincidence that I also live in one of the wealthiest counties in NJ. I could probably afford a much better house in a cheaper elsewhere but we decided the opportunities this area offers our children is too great to pass up.
If you are fortunate to afford some college, your admittance to said schools is limited by the fact you are from a low ranking high school. Being #1 in a low ranking school doesn't guarantee you'll be a shoe in to top tier college/university for example.
I agree with you only if our system of education was purely a merit based one. It is not.
Has anyone here even established the distinction between "rich" and "poor" in an era where the middle class has been shrinking for years?
I literally live in one of the most dangerous cities in the Northeast in part because I can't afford to "keep up with the Jones" in nearby suburbs based on my level of income. But I've never taken a handout either and I live a very self-sufficient lifestyle.
Reading this thread, it seems "poor" refers to a degenerate lifestyle that results in perpetual poverty rather than not meeting the fiscal standards to be considered "middle class" which is the technical definition of the term.
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.
most of their parents are low income as is their children. None have had access to college.
