- I B Hankering
- 06-22-2011, 11:01 AM
Oh! What an evil place we live in when those aspire can achieve their dreams. Which one of these two ran only one mile of the three-mile race?
- I B Hankering
- 06-22-2011, 11:02 AM
If this young lady can make it, anybody can.
- I B Hankering
- 06-22-2011, 11:03 AM
A poor person has no money, has no marketable skills and has no ability to learn any, furthermore they will live in a place where nobody gives a fuc about them or the country is so poor that nobody can do anything for them. Originally Posted by WTFYou’re out of sync. Haven’t you heard the new message?
"If anyone ever tells you that you shouldn't or you can't, then I want you to say with one voice - the voice of a generation - you tell them, 'yes, we can." – Michelle Obama, June 21, 2011
Will you be voting for Bachman in 2012? After all, Michele Bachmann and her husband put their money where their mouth is: they have taken in 23 foster children. But you’re probably still not satisfied, and you’ll follow Joy Behar lead, like the rest of the libs, and fault Bachman for her human kindness.
- Guest050715-1
- 06-22-2011, 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by Marshall [IMG]file:///C:/Users/JANEGR%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
You must need my attention because you intentionally mistate the conservative position.....the issue is: WHO should do charity for the poor, government or private individuals and organizations.......conservati ve people put their money where their mouth is and actually help the truly poor, liberals don't.....liberals are happy to give other people's money to the poor and faux-poor and feel sactimonious about their faux-goodness......
(I couldn’t find the original post so I had to copy it from a post the WTF quoted Marshall.)
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of conservative vs liberal people. I rather think of it as charitable vs. non-charitable people. Branding oneself and carrying on with the dogma of being a conservative or liberal, depending on one’s point of view, doesn’t make one a good or bad person; rather, it makes them myopic.
Poor isn’t hard to define especially if you’ve ever been poor. Trust me; I know.
Snubbing people because they are poor is the American way. Unfortunately, much of American philosophy on wealth and work comes from the Protestant Work Ethic. As it was the Puritan’s belief, it has formed the bedrock of the American psyche that being poor is bad. If you work hard, and you should by the way, you will be rewarded. If you do not, you will be punished with poverty. And therefore people feel just in looking down their noses at their fellow man in poverty.
For someone to be rich, someone has to be poor and the bell curve in the middle. That’s just the way it is. The question is not is being poor good or bad, but rather the question is how does one treat those in poverty. Do you treat them with dignity and as a fellow human being? Or do you look down on them? Do you condemn them for their lot in life? Poverty is something that one is born into not something that one achieves generally.
Each and every one of us could have been born into. How hard would each of us be willing to struggle to break the chains of poverty? Imagine how hard it would be to overcome the everyday things we take for granted. All of us here are well spoken. I assume, we all have good table manners. Even if we come from dysfunctional families, we have collective middle-class morals, experiences and expectations. People born and condemned to the Projects don’t have these basics that we so easily take for granted.
You must need my attention because you intentionally mistate the conservative position.....the issue is: WHO should do charity for the poor, government or private individuals and organizations.......conservati ve people put their money where their mouth is and actually help the truly poor, liberals don't.....liberals are happy to give other people's money to the poor and faux-poor and feel sactimonious about their faux-goodness......
(I couldn’t find the original post so I had to copy it from a post the WTF quoted Marshall.)
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of conservative vs liberal people. I rather think of it as charitable vs. non-charitable people. Branding oneself and carrying on with the dogma of being a conservative or liberal, depending on one’s point of view, doesn’t make one a good or bad person; rather, it makes them myopic.
Poor isn’t hard to define especially if you’ve ever been poor. Trust me; I know.
Snubbing people because they are poor is the American way. Unfortunately, much of American philosophy on wealth and work comes from the Protestant Work Ethic. As it was the Puritan’s belief, it has formed the bedrock of the American psyche that being poor is bad. If you work hard, and you should by the way, you will be rewarded. If you do not, you will be punished with poverty. And therefore people feel just in looking down their noses at their fellow man in poverty.
For someone to be rich, someone has to be poor and the bell curve in the middle. That’s just the way it is. The question is not is being poor good or bad, but rather the question is how does one treat those in poverty. Do you treat them with dignity and as a fellow human being? Or do you look down on them? Do you condemn them for their lot in life? Poverty is something that one is born into not something that one achieves generally.
Each and every one of us could have been born into. How hard would each of us be willing to struggle to break the chains of poverty? Imagine how hard it would be to overcome the everyday things we take for granted. All of us here are well spoken. I assume, we all have good table manners. Even if we come from dysfunctional families, we have collective middle-class morals, experiences and expectations. People born and condemned to the Projects don’t have these basics that we so easily take for granted.
- pjorourke
- 06-22-2011, 11:42 AM
- Doove
- 06-22-2011, 12:08 PM
For someone to be rich, someone has to be poor and the bell curve in the middle. That’s just the way it is. The question is not is being poor good or bad, but rather the question is how does one treat those in poverty. Originally Posted by OliviaHowardOlivia, stop it! You keep talking like that and i might have to start liking you.
- Can I Play Too???
- 06-22-2011, 12:49 PM
To answer the OP's post:
A report from the Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...rty-in-america
"*The typical American defined as “poor” by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a micro wave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficent funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work, high numbers of single-parent families, and low skill levels of incoming immigrants. By increasing work and marriage, reducing illegal immigration, and by improving the skill level of future legal immigrants, our nation can, over time, virtually eliminate remaining child poverty."
*******
However, the report fails to explain the massive amounts of debt owed from leased cars, rent to own stuff (furniture, electronics appliances, etc.), and rental/mortgage housing costs. They are renting these things until they can no longer afford the payments.
A report from the Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...rty-in-america
"*The typical American defined as “poor” by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a micro wave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficent funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work, high numbers of single-parent families, and low skill levels of incoming immigrants. By increasing work and marriage, reducing illegal immigration, and by improving the skill level of future legal immigrants, our nation can, over time, virtually eliminate remaining child poverty."
*******
However, the report fails to explain the massive amounts of debt owed from leased cars, rent to own stuff (furniture, electronics appliances, etc.), and rental/mortgage housing costs. They are renting these things until they can no longer afford the payments.
- WTF
- 06-22-2011, 01:42 PM
- JONBALLS
- 06-22-2011, 07:30 PM
- JONBALLS
- 06-22-2011, 07:35 PM
JOHN BULL , I realized awhile back that I had started this thread and didnt even read what Diamonds and Tuxedos was about, and after I read it , really knew I was in the wrong place .LOL....thanks for the move and to all..fantastic replies, I figured maybe about two people would respond and wow! thats cool...
- DFW5Traveler
- 06-22-2011, 10:52 PM
Poor is when you would rather blame your station on somene else rather than putting forth the effort to improve your personal situation.
- WTF
- 06-23-2011, 07:04 AM
Poor is when you would rather blame your station on somene else rather than putting forth the effort to improve your personal situation. Originally Posted by DFW5TravelerYou are mistaking poor with stupid.
The poor need not be vilified but the stupid is a whole 'nother story. It is why I make fun of you Reagonites.
- JONBALLS
- 06-23-2011, 06:05 PM
People born and condemned to the Projects don’t have these basics that we so easily take for granted. Originally Posted by OliviaHowardare we speaking of the government fostering and all but encouraging young females to have children and recieve a substantial subsidy for at least the next 18 yrs?all without a male in the picture, in fact making the male obsolete except for conception has condemed generations with the government in large part being responsible for this behavior and creating a very large voter block.
- JONBALLS
- 06-24-2011, 02:25 AM
are we speaking of the government fostering and all but encouraging young females to have children and recieve a substantial subsidy for at least the next 18 yrs?all without a male in the picture, in fact making the male obsolete except for conception has condemed generations with the government in large part being responsible for this behavior and creating a very large voter block. Originally Posted by JONBALLSand this little experiment worked soo well they figured why stop there, well try it on the middle class, inject some heroin with allowing almost 3 yrs of extended unemployment and food stamps FOR ALL!!. ..."step right up and WIN SOME CRAP!!".LOL!!lets ALL, "win the future" TOGETHOR!!!! YYYAAAAAAYYY!!! say it all togethor USA!USA!!USA!!USA!!USSAR!, umm....ooops...USA!USA!USA! yue.ahh..s.....yay..
- Can I Play Too???
- 06-24-2011, 06:48 AM
and this little experiment worked soo well they figured why stop there, well try it on the middle class, inject some heroin with allowing almost 3 yrs of extended unemployment and food stamps FOR ALL!!. ..."step right up and WIN SOME CRAP!!".LOL!!lets ALL, "win the future" TOGETHOR!!!! YYYAAAAAAYYY!!! say it all togethor USA!USA!!USA!!USA!!USSAR!, umm....ooops...USA!USA!USA! yue.ahh..s.....yay.. Originally Posted by JONBALLSHow do you get 3 years out of 99 weeks? Hint: There are 52 weeks in a year.