Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

10 Poverty Myths, Busted

page: 2
80
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





10. Handouts are bankrupting us. In 2012, total welfare funding was 0.47 percent of the federal budget.


Hmmmm meanwhile the USA has the highest military budget in the world.




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Star and flag. Total truth.


Poverty is a lot more complicated than people seem to realize. Going to college and working hard doesn't mean you will get anywhere. It's all about knowing the right people, having the right networks, ect.


Very true! However, I want to elaborate on some things you have said. Going to college is not necessary to get somewhere. It helps in a lot of fields and may be required for some, but there are a lot of good blue-collar jobs that pay more than many white collar jobs (plumber, electrician, etc.). The key is, you can't just lay there and expect some miracle to pick you up and give a life with money. If you screwed around in school and can't spell or do basic math, you NEED to fix that. You cannot sit there without the skills needed by the higher paying jobs and blame the world if you have not done what it takes to make yourself skilled. Hard work IS a must if you want to get somewhere and aren't born into it and sometimes that work is on yourself.

There are several things that can be done for free that will help improve one's chances for getting ahead. Some may disagree, but there are unwritten rules for things as simple as haircuts that can significantly lower you chances of having a good job if you choose no to follow them.

Here is my short list. Like it or not, these things will affect your chances and are choices, not big corporate america keeping you down.

1. Can't read/do math/didn't pay attention in school. Fix it. Anyone can learn anything on their own. A single misspelling in a resume can get it tossed.

2. Learn a trade or tradeable skill. All kinds of trades out there only require the will to learn and steady hands. Others may require learning to use Microsoft office instead of just Facebook
. The point is, you may have to work for it, but there are always new skills to be had. Even if you are currently just a receptionist or lower-tier employee, if you show you have the skills to do more and take the initiative to do more, you will find more opportunities.

3. Don't smoke. It's your choice, but the minute you smell up the office during your interview, it can be over. You are stacking the deck against you.

4. Piercings, weird hair, "cool " clothes/hats/shoes. Again, it is your choice, but the person who shows up wearing neat clothes, no crap stuck in their face, etc. will generally pass you by in any higher paying career. If you just have to have that neck tattoo, remember it is a choice that helps keep you in the "lower" class. Nothing is absolute, it just stacks the deck.

5. If you have money for coffee/data plan/tattoos/cable tv/xbox/new rims/quad/guns/cigs/beer/the movies (you get the point), then you HAVE money for rent, car insurance, good food, clothes for your kid, maybe money for college. If you smoke and can't afford clothes for your kid, you are just a bad parent who chooses some crap over their kid. Lots of people spend $100/mo or more on cigarettes or booze. You can't claim poor when you would have had $1200 in your hands at Christmas.

Those are just a few things that can stack the deck against you. I know lots of people will say "I should be able to wear what I want and do what I want". You are right, you can. It is is a choice. Just can't claim that there is no way to get ahead unless you work hard to get the obstacles out of your way first. There are no guarantees, and some people just have hard lives, but you can't just fall down and lay there without trying to get back up.

I sincerely hope nobody felt like I was ranting about poor people. I have worked my way from nothing to a college degree/respectable income and career, so I know the process and I know what decisions I made that hurt and helped. I think some people just get stuck and lose the will to unstack the deck or even try, but that is still a choice.




edit on 27-3-2014 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


With all due respect to Mother Jones, I have to question many of those statistics.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 





Then after 5 years they are single or if in a relationship to not the original father, and then the new man if he leaves her the laws are set up so she can take his assets because governments prefer that system than paying them social security.


There is a reason for that as the women work, take care of the house, like a handy man, keep everything stocked, his gut filled AND looks after the looser dude's rotten children till their 18, then that's when the other looser leaves for someone younger, hotter, & IF said looser can get away with it, richer so he can sit on his lazy bottom believing he deserves this..........THAT is why the Governments give the woman at least a very tiny, barely noticeable, recompense that would be used on other women, drugs & or alcohol.... you NEED to look at BOTH sides cause if the dude is charged that tini amount he barely notices, HE HAS DONE wrong by said woman & try,
0 - 2.7% in a FULL year ya b.s er! SIMF!!! Check your dam n facts _--------- _!!!
( You're like spam ) Take it however you want....



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


This. Not to mention that many charities and private organizations that have any resources or success rates get some form of government assistance/support. Cutting off all government welfare would cause charities a major nightmare. In my experience, charities supplement and take up the slack from where government assistance lacks or is non-existent.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Only 9% have been single throughout their child's first five years ... why are we only measuring the first five years?

Because you only get money for your child for the first 5 years.If the child is not disabled and you aren't,then you must get off the system.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 





We are spent $3.7 trillion over the last 5 years.

*Source: Analysis by Dr. Laura Tach at Cornell University.


Seriously? Pfft! Every one of your statements twisted the fact right into Hypocracy!



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   


10. Handouts are bankrupting us. In 2012, total welfare funding was 0.47 percent of the federal budget. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


BULLSNIP.

For some odd reason the only program that gets called 'welfare' is 'weflare'.

They never figure in the money spent on Social Security because that is a WELFARE program.

They never figure in the money spent on Medicare because other people like employers, and people who hold investments get hit to cover the difference on the money received.

They never figure in Section 8 housing.

They never figure in stuff like 'student loans' that have skyrocketed to over 1 trillion dollars.

And the sure the hell don't figure in Medicaid.

If you are robbing from one group of people to give to another group of people that is welfare.

BIg oil subsidies isn't counted either.

From the Scotus:



Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.


www.cato.org...

And just for snips and giggles:



The American republic has endured for well over two centuries, but over the past 50 years, the apparatus of American governance has undergone a radical transformation. In some basic respects—its scale, its preoccupations, even many of its purposes—the U.S. government today would be scarcely recognizable to Franklin D. Roosevelt, much less to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.




What is monumentally new about the American state today is the vast empire of entitlement payments that it protects, manages and finances. Within living memory, the federal government has become an entitlements machine. As a day-to-day operation, it devotes more attention and resources to the public transfer of money, goods and services to individual citizens than to any other objective, spending more than for all other ends combined.




In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.


online.wsj.com...

That was back in 2010 and has MASSIVELY GROWN during the last 6 years.

One more for the road.

www.usdebtclock.org...

Over 128 trillion dollars owed because of 'promises' made that can never be paid for.

Ater 70 years of the 'war on poverty'

Someone explain to me why more people are out of work, working part time, and MORE dependent on government than ever before in this ENTIRE nations history.

Oh, and if your going to sit there, and blame 'corporations' that dog ain't gonna hunt.

Because everyone who is paying attention who is not blinded by political bigotry can clearly see.

The more you go after them evil corporations there has been, for over 70 YEARS, acorresponding rise in the WELFARE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

People are not better off, and for those who ARE paying attention.

Know this fundmental truth.

The better off someone is they sure the EFF don't need that 'benevolent' government to give them things they can't get on their own.

And for the RECORD.

HANDOUTS ARE BANKRUPTING US.

That is a FACT.
edit on 27-3-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

LDragonFire
reply to post by soficrow
 


The truth will not matter to the media induced propaganda machine that wishes to hurt and destroy the poor and underclass.

What side is ATS on?


There does seem to be quiet a lot of corporate ads here...



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Visitor2012

LDragonFire
reply to post by soficrow
 


The truth will not matter to the media induced propaganda machine that wishes to hurt and destroy the poor and underclass.

What side is ATS on?


There does seem to be quiet a lot of corporate ads here...



The side ATS is on is it takes money to keep, and maintain this site.

Hell it costs nothing to join.

And why in the hell would anyone answer that since it is clearly hyperbole.

For centuries 'humans' have the ability to adapt to the environment. Since it has continually changed.

How 'we humans' became top of the food chain is by EVOLVING.

What that article in the op, and others are selling is snakeoil.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


God bless these words. Open your eyes people.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 







I don't believe that is physically possible to be the case. The only way it can be shown is by cooking the books, changing the rules by which such a judgment is made. So if that factual statistic is not trustworthy, than none on that list are.


Hypocritical much? It's because since WW11, women each year are taking on more & more of male roles b/c they HAVE to as the males find their work more & more unsatisfactory or just decide to give up trying for anything better, it is shameful to see pot bellied 40-50 year old men working ( More like giving orders so they can try picking up chicks off a, call it dating service ) while their wives work 8-12 hour shifts in professional jobs such as Nursing, A Lawyer, Dr. , Lab Techs, Computer Techs, Police Women, CO's, Environmental CO's, Fire Women, Female Mechanics, etc. Are YOU born in the Country you now live in? Cause if so, you SHOULD already know this.....



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

This was in an email I received quoting the CATO institute; I have not vetted the info; my desire to care is running very low...




THE WORK ETHIC WE INHERITED GROWING UP HAS FALLEN PREY TO THE 'WELFARE' SYSTEM

The Cato Institute released an updated 2013 study (original study in 1955) showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 states and the District of Columbia . Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour in 13 states. According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home than it is to earn an honest day’s pay.
Hawaii is the biggest offender, where welfare recipients earn $29.13 per hour, or a $60,590 yearly salary, all for doing nothing.
Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:

1. Hawaii : $60,590
2. District of Columbia : $50,820
3. Massachusetts : $50,540
4. Connecticut : $44,370
5. New York : $43,700
6. New Jersey : $43,450
7. Rhode Island : $43,330
8. Vermont : $42,350
9. New Hampshire : $39,750
10. Maryland : $38,160
11. California : $37,160
12. Oregon : $34,300
13. Wyoming : $32,620
14. Nevada : $29,820
15. Minnesota : $29,350
16. Delaware : $29,220
17. Washington : $28,840
18. North Dakota : $28,830
19. Pennsylvania : $28,670
20. New Mexico : $27,900
21. Montana : $26,930
22. South Dakota : $26,610
23. Kansas : $26,490
24. Michigan : $26,430
25. Alaska : $26,400
26. Ohio : $26,200
27. North Carolina : $25,760
28. West Virginia : $24,900
29. Alabama : $23,310
30. Indiana : $22,900
31. Missouri : $22,800
32. Oklahoma : $22,480
33. Louisiana : $22,250
34. South Carolina : $21,910

As a point of reference the average Middle Class annual income today is $50,000, down from $54,000 at the beginning of the latest Great Recession. Hawaii, DC, and Massachusetts pay more in welfare than the average working folks earn there. Is it any wonder that they stay home rather than look for a job.

Salary of retired US Presidents
$180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate....$174,000 FOR LIFE
This is stupid.
Salary of Speaker of the House ....$223,500
FOR LIFE!
This is really stupid.
Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,400
FOR LIFE!
Ditto last line.
Average Salary of a teacher .. $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN
AFGHANISTAN .. $38,000

Think about this.
Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person at $174,000 Dollars a year for LIFE.
She has retired as SPEAKER at $223,500 a year.
PLUS she will receive an additional $193,400 a year as Minority Leader.

That's $803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical which is not available to us ...

If most of those numbers are true why would some/many work if the can get on the welfare train ?
If the figures for Nancy are true and we disregard the millions her husband will make from selling government property (post offices) it is hard to believe she is capable of feeling your pain, No ?


+11 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Just curious why handouts to the poor piss you off more than handouts to the rich? It's a proven fact that corporate welfare costs American tax payers more money. So why do you and all the other folks on ATS who think uncle sam is dipping into YOUR pocket to feed the poor not care about it?

And before you say you care about corporate welfare too, maybe you should save your vitriol for the predators before you use it all on their victims?

If you're so pissed off about how many of your tax dollars go to the poor why not make a charitable donation so you can write it off instead? You know, like the rest of the wealthy do. That way you can look like you have altruistic motives while simultaneously saving yourself some money for some trinket you "earned" that poor people haven't?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

LDragonFire

AthlonSavage
reply to post by soficrow
 





1. Single moms are the problem. Only 9 percent of low-income, urban moms have been single throughout their child's first five years. Thirty-five percent were married to, or in a relationship with, the child's father for that entire time.* - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...



Then after 5 years they are single or if in a relationship to not the original father, and then the new man if he leaves her the laws are set up so she can take his assets because governments prefer that system than paying them social security.


Can you prove this or are you just repeating what rush, fox news, and hannity assert?
edit on 27-3-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)




my ex did this to me and blew the money on drugs and she is now back on the dole



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterOfTheDamned
 





All I see here is, nearly 2/3 of all poor mothers are not with their child's father for a minimum of 5 years after the child is born.
Which raises the question as to how many of those 2/3 of absent fathers pay child support. With these numbers I would say society needs to change the way they view having children, you should at least be in a stable relationship first.


Really? Care to state YOUR active position in relationships & work ethics? If in a relationship, who's the proverbial bread winner? Do YOU have children? With whom, 1 or more women? Are YOU paying child/maintenance support? If you were married with children, had a lower paying job despite educational levels, & your wife left you AND your children, or you took your children & walked, what EXACTLY would you expect & from whom?
OR have you not heard of couples together for 5-10 years before having children & divorcing or splitting 10-15 years after children?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Thanks for this information. I can speak for increasing poverty of elderly women. Some lost wealth in the crash of 2008 at just the wrong time, some lose their wealth to catastrophic illnesses, some go into instant poverty when their husband's die, some were stay at home mom's or worked for low wages and get the smallest amount of soc sec..
edit on 27-3-2014 by MOMof3 because: grammar



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by StormyStars
 


Stormy, let's not make this issue about male vs female. If you really want to go there, I know many stories of men getting shafted by the system (and I have been through it) simply because they are men. As a man, if you split up with your partner you are pretty much doomed if you have kids and you can't afford a good lawyer. It really doesn't matter how #&*$tty a mother your child has, she will get custody, and you will be on the hook for child support. It does not work the other way around, and men have to fight tooth and nail for their kids (and usually lose). The only hope you have as a man fighting for custody is that your ex is such a train wreck that she signs custody over to you for crack money. That or you have enough money to buy a team of lawyers. It really is that bad. So lets not turn a poverty issue into a battle of the sexes.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Halfswede
[If you screwed around in school and can't spell or do basic math, you NEED to fix that. You cannot sit there without the skills needed by the higher paying jobs and blame the world if you have not done what it takes to make yourself skilled. Hard work IS a must if you want to get somewhere and aren't born into it and sometimes that work is on yourself.


Your post is degrading to most people receiving aid. You don't understand and do not read the studies.

Most people have done NOTHING wrong in life.

It's the your fault your poor people like the Koch brothers have been pushing even though there are plenty of studies to prove them wrong.

Didn't you read the OP's most. Many have Bachelor's degrees - so basic math skills are covered.

There are so few jobs out there. There's just not enough jobs for everyone.

Most jobs do go to people with connections.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 





Hmmmm meanwhile the USA has the highest military budget in the world.
Exactly! Thank you. Not to mention Governments now want to control birth rates AND no longer give fixed old age security at 65 years anymore, it is 67 years now as a subjective biased study shows more people living past 100 years which is only a partial truth....





new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join