Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'Shhh, don't say 'poverty''

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Get a real job ya bums!!!


no seriously, most of the lower class have the option to do better. they just choose not to. They would rather the government hand them money then for them to have to get off their fat as* and work, or maybe get a student loan for school.

Why should I have to pay for bums?




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Get a real job ya bums!!!



Why should I have to pay for bums?


Denied Ignorance, obviously you have not been around hard working families that the government and society has forgoten.


A child does not chose to be born into poverty, and does not chose to go hungry either.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
the "bums" aren't the ones society it telling to go hungry!!!
they are working people, some earning over $10.00/hr!!!



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Why should the government have to help them? It isn't their job to help them. It never should be their job to help them.

Yes' members of my family are in the lower class. You know what,,,, they get help help from the rest of the family when they need it. They are to proud to take hand outs from the government.

I know my above thread was a bit blunt, but c'mon people. Why should my government steal my money to pay for these people? I worked hard to get where I am today, even racked up a large debt (from borrowing money).

But I was smart about it, and worked hard. Guess what, anyone can succeed if they really want to. The problem is some people just don't want to. Why should I have to work even harder to carry the load of someone else? I'll help family and friends when they need it.

I even donate to numerous charities. I just don't think the government should get involved with this at all.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Here we go with the fact that every Republican is way above and smarter and richer....right.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
People talk about our economy being good, but I really don't think it is. They use "indicators" and "rates" among other sources.

Capitalism is going well when people have enough food to eat and even me making over 100k while struggling just to live and work.

We need not keep taking money to give back to people. We need to take less, because in that rehashing process most gets wasted or misused.

So are we really helping anyone? I don't think so. Free up business (note: I didn't say let them do as they please in any regard) to do what it does, and people to keep the money they make.

This country is already very generous, but it would certainly be more so if we didn't have to think about next months mortgage payment.

There are a lot of problems in the US. They can not be attributed to "Right wing greed" across the board, so we really need not demonize either side.

The way to change it is to be honest about the situation rather than partisan.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
dgtempe,

Do you get docked for one liners like that?

You are obviously an open minded liberal.


That was laid thick with sarcasm if you didn't get it.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
But I was smart about it, and worked hard. Guess what, anyone can succeed if they really want to. The problem is some people just don't want to.


To an extent, you are correct. But if everyone wanted to succeed, everyone would not. Even if there were enough "good paying jobs" for everyone, there would still be those living in poverty as the cost of living increases to cover the cost of these jobs. But in reality, the job simply are not there.


While I disagree with dawnstar's bashing of conservatives, he was accurate when he said it was the cost of living that was to blame for poverty in this country. While having an income is important, it is more important for that income to be viable. But as I said, simply increasing the size of the income will not make it viable.

A good long look needs to taken concerning lowering the cost of living if one wants to reduce poverty. Some of these items may even seem a bit strange to certain politcal leanings.

For example:

Eliminating corporate taxes: Let's be serious, the corporations do not bear the burden of these taxes. They pass them on to the people by increasing prices of goods and services. Removing these taxes would allow the prices of goods and service to drop. Now, I am a realist and understand corporate greed so I admit there would have to be an audit system and strong fines to prevent this extra revenue from going into the corporate coffers. But, it is things like this that are required to reduce the cost of living thus decreasing poverty.



[edit on 27-11-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
okay, forgive me for the conservative bashing, but it seems to be that side of the fence that are so eager to label the uninsured and the hungry as "lazy", or in positions that "even a monkey can do".....These phrases do seem to come from people who tend to be conservative in my book.

In contrast, the liberals seem to claim them as "the working poors, or disabled", or whatever. I don't believe that either description fits the groups that are in actuality hungry or uninsured....not unless they are also homeless, in which case, we've got a pretty big problem on our hands. Although I admit, there are probably a small portion who are just, I hesitate to use the word proud, even, unwilling to ask the government for help for one reason or another. I think alot of them are working, earning just a little more than those guidelines that I posted above. How much more, I have no idea.
So, should we raise those guidelines yet again, to meet their needs, when in fact, I do believe it will just cause the need to raise in the long run.

And, well, imagine for a second just what would happen if the government just happened to decide to drop the medicaid/medicare (and related probrams, they would probably lose 25%-50% or their patients. They have already budgeting that money into their working b udgets for the next 10 to 20 years of so. They've taken out mortgages and loans for bigger and better office buildings, factored high wages into the salary budgets for the doctors, and other trained staff....many with 6 figure or more incomes. And, these doctor and other trained staff have factored that high wage into the home mortgages, their car payments, ect.....and they are all just skimming by, like the rest of of probably...
Is pulling the safety net on the poor an option to begin with, or will it just case a banking crisis, housing crisis, a crisis in the healthcare industries, and well, right across the board, reallly.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
No, as it stands right now, there is a marginal safety net in place. You can not just yank the social programs; otherwise you could have anything from revolt to crime, hard to say really.

You would need to lessen the acidic conditions in this country first by lowering, drastically, or eliminating. That is the second step after fixing the spending in a major way.

This will never happen though, although I believe it to be key in any serious move to correct our problems rather than just slapping on Band-Aids.

Take the last election for example. People talked about almost everything except for the inner workings of the government. If they did talk about it, it was outweighed by gay marriage (which is really a fluff issue), abortion, Iraq, etc.

Social Security got a bit of attention, but people can't think of how to fix it so we don't need it, so we just keep it, throw more money on and "move on".

Same with Education. The education system does not need more money. At this point, they will continue to decline regardless of the money.

Math and Science do not make good workers, and a good portion of them get little to no training or education in credit, credit scores, mortgages, etc.

So we get people like my brother-in-law who has a 21% interest rate on his car loan, and keeps pumping money into a depreciating asset with none of his money making money, only losing.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I would have to agree with one poster a page and some change back, that some that are in poverty manage to survive due to either education and/or ingeniuity. I hit hard times a couple years ago, had zero electricity during a couple of months in the wintertime, with the luck of having an all electric kitchen. How did I get through that? There were these push lamps that ran on AA batteries that happened to be bright enough to read by for a few hours being sold for 50 cents. I knew of a place that sold batteries dirt cheap (10 cents a cell). (luck again). The cooking situation was solved by using tealight candles. 4 are enough to cook a pot of stuffing. 3 is enough to cook raman. I I did not have a vehicle at the time so there no worries about gas money, but the cold walks to work made me quite productive lol.

Unfortionately IQ's are not necessarily distributed uniformly. I cannot fathom how others who don't have an HS Diploma, minimum wage job, and kids (luckily again, I didn't have any) are still breathing.

If you want to end welfare and rely on charity, then end corporate welfare as well! If you want the U.S. to have an astronomical GDP again, discourage or flat out stop occupational outsourcing! It is far wiser to keep gov't sponsered welfare secular in nature, however grant *all* spiritual institutions the ability to be charitable.

Side question to ponder on for now.. will be a thread soon.. so please don't go too off topic...
Why are Buddist, Shinto, Pagan, or Hindi Universities non-existant in the U.S.?



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
These ignorant conservatives which throw around this "pay or starve" idea as something they are proud of.

We know you want to get into power, and getting into power means keeping people poor and stupid while maximizing what you have to run over everyone.

So your conservatives claim that people who go hungry are automatically lazy bums. It seems to me that the conservative viewpoint centers around the idea that everyone living in poverty is somehow lazy.

People have more ability than others, not everyone can truly achieve what everyone else can. The conservatives base success on competition, they would never be satisified with the idea that everyone lived a good standard of living. Everything to them has to be competitive rather than cooperative.

They say nearly half (or more) of Americnas lack sufficient healthcare.. so it means that half the population is too lazy to find providers? In reality the providers do not exist for everyone. I am for socialized heath care programs... I was at the dentist earlier getting some work done and when I saw the list of prices it truly scares me to see how some have to pay huge sums of money out of pocket. And many of these practices do not offer long-term payment plans.. so basically you either have the money or you have to suffer and possibly die.

Sure people abuse the system but the majority do not, I am not really concerned or paranoid over the idea that people are able to live a decent life off the taxes I pay... I am quite happy to see a system which ensures that everyone can live decently.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Bah, socialism is dead man. It will never work in the U.S.A., the intelligent people would never let it happen. You should come down here and check out reality with me.


What happened to you that you have such a... cynical mind? Did your mom not hug you enough as a child?

Keeping people poor so we can control them? What crap have you been brainwashed by?

Maybe we should have people so dependent on their government they can be controlled that way? Sounds to me like that's what you want.

This country was built by hard workers. Socialism promotes lazyness and sloth.

Why work hard? the government gives me what I need.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I see that alot of people feel that the "poor" are to blame. well I'm not rich, never have been, but I have been very lucky,and there are times that I see why someone who has never had to do with out would think that it is something that I wanted. and times I my self say that the "bums" on the street are there cause they don't want to work. for some that may be the case. but there are people that are unable to work, and what about the 75 year old that will spend the rest of his life working just to buy food and meds wheres the health care? wheres all the money that he put in to ssi? it's helping ones that could careless if we where even there much of them do not even want us there, so why even be there?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine

It would be wonderful if college were free to any u.s. citizen.


It wouldn't be difficult either! However, the ordinary people like you and me have no way to change the system by voting. The electoral process is the largest organized fraud in american society. Voting literally changes NOTHING. At least nothing important, because those you elect have no real power to change the status quo. Go to Sweden and see how people live. Free education and free health care to all. This is because Sweden is a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, where people are put before profit. Hey, if I have to pay 40% tax to make sure that the guy next door isn't going hungry, and that his family will get health care when they need it and his kids will get to go to university, its a VERY small price to pay.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by General Zapata
It wouldn't be difficult either! However, the ordinary people like you and me have no way to change the system by voting. The electoral process is the largest organized fraud in american society. Voting literally changes NOTHING


We all know...

Why even bother?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join