Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 54 times

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:48 AM by haarvik

reply to post by shushu

If it is anything like where I used to live, you see them buying food with food stamps, then go get into an Acura or Lexus and drive away.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:51 AM by Alxandro

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Alxandro

Yes, because we all know one person is perfectly capable of representing an entire demographic. Which is why all white people like genocide, all black people like to steal, and all Asians have robot slaves.

Are you confirming there is truth in stereotypes?

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:52 AM by vkey08

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Those are not "poor" people, those are homeless people. The vast majority of them are either mentally ill in some way, or criminal in nature. Blast me all you want, but I have worked closely with the homeless for years as well. It is very rare to see a family just down on their luck, it is much, much more common to see alcholics/drug addicts, criminals, and mentally ill.

As a former social worker from the northeast, I have to totally disagree with you on your assumptions, I wonder what homeless you worked with that it was rare to see a family down on it's luck, I saw many of them, not criminals, not mentally ill, but both parents working, couldn't pay the rent and got booted and ended up in shelter or street with their family. Figures: it was approximately 1 out of 5 that I had that was a family just trying to keep safe from the elements, still working etc.

Also to the OP's article, does that article mention how many of these people became impoverished after the fact, that had decent lifestyles and it all fell out from underneath them? No it doesn't, in fact all it does is mention the fact that there are people that have these things that are NOW poor, not that they were when they acquired said things.

It's a very biased and not very well researched article.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:54 AM by cenpuppie

reply to post by dolphinfan

Whut? Subsidies don't pay of any of things! Those monies have to have been gotten some other way. The only thing Gov covers is housing (section 8), food (ebt), and medical (medicare). That's it. If your gettin something else, then you have to do some homework.

And to be classified as "poor" your grossly income has to come within a certain range. What kind of poor are you talking about? Do you mean homeless and poor or do you mean employed and poor where you don't have enough money to cover your bills (like if a car breaks down, or needed surgery).. because that's who uncle sam is talking about.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:54 AM by Maxmars

from: www.nationalreview.com...

National Review (NR) is a biweekly magazine founded by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

The source is the e-version.

from: Wiki

While I respect the publication, there is no doubt that it is intended as political fodder for a debate in which the current flavor of 'conservative' traditionally postures themselves by vilifying the poor as 'pampered' and 'disproportionately' rewarded.

I have always wondered how the logic of characterizing the poor as well-off enough not to be entitled to anything outside what they already have comes about.

The objections are always emanating from the discussion that a poor person is not poor unless they live in a dirt-floor shack and eat local rodents and wild plants for sustenance. They must have no power, no communications devices, be devoid of any means to access public information and must immediate sell any marketable item they get for cash to eat. The prevailing meme includes that the poor must be stupid, lazy, probably fat, drunk, or on drugs, and either be a promiscuous sloppy lot, or somehow criminal.

Sad, sad, sad.

"When my nephew made a gift of his old X-box to my son, I didn't know we were no longer poor.... funny that."

"Poverty" should not be about possessions, but the inability to save and eventually improve one's future.

But since we a re all programmed for materialistic consumerism, it's not surprising that this meme took hold, after all ... the media says so.

edit on 19-7-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:56 AM by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by strafgod

Don't look for small businesses to add "extra shifts" anytime soon. All you social entitlement proponents who were all over the new healthcare law are to thank for this. They will work the hell out of what they have so they don't have to hire new and face the new taxes that come with the new law.

I'm so sick and tired of the have-nots whining about spreading the wealth. Tough s**t! Make your OWN money and leave mine alone! Why should I work hard, pay for my own education so I can make more just so some lazy ass can demand they are entitled to some of it because they are too lazy to do the same? Sorry, but that dog don't hunt! You can call me whatever you want, but I earn my money and I intend to keep it! I don't give to charity unless 100% goes to the intended recipient. I have bought food for homeless people because giving them cash promotes drug/alcohol consumption and NOT nutrition. You want the state to take care of you then move to another country like Cuba and have at it!

I'd bet the have-nots are sick and tired of the haves whining about go leave mine alone.

You sound like one of the selfish people who would say something like, "During my years of football we didn't wear helmets and lost all our teeth. Why should this new generation get to keep their teeth?

That's called being selfish and sore loser. Yeah sometimes you're too early for change that will benefit everyone else. You just gotta suck it up and move on. NOT WISH THAT everyone suffer as much as YOU...that's selfish and childish.

It comes down to rather you desire to live in a society or live every man for themselves. Our society is making decisions to benefit everyone (once we get rid of the corruption). And you benefit greatly from society, you did nothing completely on your own. If you're a business owner, if not for the employees you would be stuck with a great idea but no way to manufacture it.

If it was offered that you get to keep all of your money, but you can't utilize nothing provided or supported by society would you accept. That means every time you drive somewhere you have to pay a fee. I can't even begin to go into what you would pay for everyday if you were allowed to opt out of society and deny any debt to it. Not many would accept that opt out.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:57 AM by Cuervo

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by shushu

If it is anything like where I used to live, you see them buying food with food stamps, then go get into an Acura or Lexus and drive away.

Because people should sell their cars before accepting food assistance? That person obviously has good credit so most likely has been contributing to society (thus taxes) for many years. Just because you see them accept some of their tax money back doesn't mean you have the right to be bitter.

We have high unemployment rates right now. This means we have several people who just recently entered the fabulous world of poverty. Those people should not sell all their crap (for about 1/10th their investment) just because you might judge them.

You don't know the world. Quit making judgements on your fellow Americans and focus on the common problem. I can tell you that real welfare cases make far more than you and I put together.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:58 AM by shushu

reply to post by haarvik

Then the vehicle must be in someone else's name. Where I come from there is a limit on the value of your car before you can qualify.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:59 AM by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by shushu

If it is anything like where I used to live, you see them buying food with food stamps, then go get into an Acura or Lexus and drive away.

Lies spread by people such as Reagan and hammered into helpless victims by people such as Hannity and Rush.

Even if they were getting into a Acura or Lexus....is it theirs? If it is, perhaps, just perhaps, they weren't always poor?

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 10:59 AM by Janky Red

Originally posted by dolphinfan
. Depite the news reports of America's poor living in shanty towns and tent cities, the reality is far different.

Its time to call what the current debate is all about and that is about redistributionism and socialism. Is it any wonder that the minority of folks who pay the taxes in this country don't want to pay more?

Its about time we had an honest discussion about what the objectives of our social policy are really all about because the current one, the one we have employeed since the Great Society in the 60s has been plain old socialism. The debate today is all about how far we want to extend it.

How can we have an honest debate, if you claim to intimately understand the motives of people who hold
different veiws than you, before engaging in debate?

You guys don't want debate, you do not want to understand or learn, you want to win your way by stressing out
and scaring one another into voting the way you want.

I think the debate is how far do you guys want to contract it, you guys are the ones who are in a twist.

Transposing your sentiment and drive on other people should be your first attempt at awareness..

How far do you want to contract it?

Will a dog food and tarp standard for poor people make you feel better?

Those poor people are too comfortable, they need to be more miserable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should learn about the way of Jesus

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:01 AM by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by Maxmars
from: www.nationalreview.com...

National Review (NR) is a biweekly magazine founded by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

The source is the e-version.

from: Wiki

While I respect the publication, there is no doubt that it is intended as political fodder for a debate in which the current flavor of 'conservative' traditionally postures themselves by vilifying the poor as 'pampered' and 'disproportionately' rewarded.

I have always wondered how the logic of characterizing the poor as well-off enough not to be entitled to anything outside what they already have comes about.

The objections are always emanating from the discussion that a poor person is not poor unless they live n a dirt-floor shack and eat local rodents and wild plants for sustenance. They must have no power, no communications devices, be devoid of any means to access public information and must immediate sell any marketable item they get for cash to eat. The prevailing meme includes that the poor must be stupid, lazy, probably fat, drunk, or on drugs, and either be a promiscuous sloppy lot, or somehow criminal.

Sad, sad, sad.

"When my nephew made a gift of his old X-box to my son, I didn't know we were no longer poor.... funny that."

"Poverty" should not be about possessions, but the inability to save and eventually improve one's future.

But since we a re all programmed for materialistic consumerism, it's not surprising that this meme took hold, after all ... the media says so.
edit on 19-7-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

Well written!

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:02 AM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by dolphinfan

While I do get your point, people fall into poverty pretty quickly and they are able to have some of the stuff they had prior to their poverty. Poverty is a bit difficult to identify based on appearances. I receive a free cell phone with free minutes from a non profit organization, because I could not afford one realistically without assistance. I receive discounted cable and phone services because my income level cannot afford it. My coffee maker is 3 years old and of a cheap caliber. My TV is 10 years old and is only 27". My internet connection is paid with financial aid. My rent paid with unemployment. My food paid with food stamps. I do have a video game system that is second hand and purchased years ago when times were good.

Having things does not mean you are well off. I am surviving thanks to the help of organizations and assistance from the government. Cut these things off I will be homeless. I will have to place my child in foster care, and live on the streets. Just because I was able to hang onto some items and am able to participate to a very limited degree in the economy does not mean I am not poor. I am. Nobody is going to buy my coffee maker or TV.

Now I am greatful I live in a country which I have worked and contributed to society every day of my life, and when I fall on my face there are programs to make sure I do not live like in a third world country. I am ashamed that my fellow Americans would turn their back on the poor in this economy. It could just as easily have been you or your family and I would have stood up and done everything I could to have helped.

Entitlement programs are a drain there is no doubt on that. But the programs in themselves are not designed correctly in my opinion. They could be much more efficient and require much less drain on others. Having for the first time in my life participated in a public assistance program I appreciate its purpose. However, I also recognize its design gives the appearance of helping the poor. When mainly it helps corporations profit. There is a residual benefit to poor people in that they get to enjoy some meager luxuries, but all that money is handed directly to grocery stores, utility companies, and other corporations at for profit rates. My bet is that if you made these service mandatory to corporations to provide at no profit rates when government monies are being used, corporations would have a fit. Right now they receive a benefit from all government monies distributed to the poor.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:09 AM by haarvik

F**k Jesus. He doesn't pay my bills, I do. And yes, I know what it is to be poor. My mother was on food stamps and we were in section 8 housing way back in the late 60's early 70's when welfare actually worked. I know what it's like to miss a meal and go hungry. I know what it's like to have Xmas without presents So don't try to throw your leftist bulls**t on me.

I scratched my way to what I have now. No one handed it to me. I started my first HVAC business with $400 and an old beat up ford van. I didn't even have a garage! Poor are poor because they are not willing to sacrifice and do what needs to be done to make more of themselves. True, that is a stereotype but by and large it is the truth, like it or not. I have traveled from coast to coast in previous jobs and it is the same wherever you go. You can whine and insult me all you want. I know where I came from and what it took to get where I am today. I did it, it was not handed to me.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:12 AM by shushu

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Thank you... well said.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:17 AM by dolphinfan

reply to post by cenpuppie

The thread in my earlier post which lists those programs available to people below the poverty line is from the federal government website.

My entire point is two-fold. That these things have value and as such should be factored into the description of what is considered poor. We define poor as simply a dollar amount of annual income and the left purposefully neglects to state those programs which the poor can take advantage of. Logically, were you to have a government handout of $100K in cash a year but only made $20K/year on your own would you be considered poor? The same logic applies here as well. It is no different that the executive who has access to the company jet. Is that not compensation? Of course it is and should be considered as such.

The second point is that, as you can see in this thread, there is no qualification of poor. If someone has a nice car, but can't sell it without losing money on it that justifies his not selling it, either to buy a cheaper car or take public transit. Now he can get access to all of the government programs despite the fact that he's driving around a car that has a value greater than the poverty level. Somehow folks think thats OK. I don't. I think he should sell his ride.

I also don't think that the folks in line in the supermarket with me should be buying raspberrys and grapes and nice cuts of fish with food stamps when I'm buying pasta and ground beef to feed my family, but thats just me

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:22 AM by Janky Red

Originally posted by haarvik
And yes, I know what it is to be poor. My mother was on food stamps and we were in section 8 housing way back in the late 60's early 70's when welfare actually worked. I know what it's like to miss a meal and go hungry. I know what it's like to have Xmas without presents So don't try to throw your leftist bulls**t on me.

I scratched my way to what I have now. No one handed it to me. I started my first HVAC business with $400 and an old beat up ford van. I didn't even have a garage! Poor are poor because they are not willing to sacrifice and do what needs to be done to make more of themselves. True, that is a stereotype but by and large it is the truth, like it or not. I have traveled from coast to coast in previous jobs and it is the same wherever you go. You can whine and insult me all you want. I know where I came from and what it took to get where I am today. I did it, it was not handed to me.

Jesus is usually not considered Leftist Bullshat, that's a first

I am glad you made it happen... People are poor for many reasons, some people get cancer and lose their jobs,
some have accidents, some are lazy, some are crooked...

The problem with righty bull$hit is that you can't help but demonize the whole lot because you are programmed
to minimalize things you dislike. I like how everyone is poor for the same lack of will...

It appears you are doing well, I am glad your family got help and that you are now a financial success.

I am poor and I work, it was not handed to me, I take nothing... what does this prove again???

Oh, that you are puffing your chest and that you desire that more people struggle 'cause you had to

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:23 AM by ghondon

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by LoneGunMan

Making assumptions and basing policy on those assumptions is an extremely slippery slope. All rich folks were not crooks in the same manner that all great atheletes are not taking juice.

Improve laws that root out corruption if thats the issue, but based on the Obama class warfare schemes, the rich are not folks like Warren Buffett or the Kennedys. The rich are folks like Joe Blow who owns the plumbing supply store down the street and declares all of his business income as personal income.

Go ahead and take all the money from everyone who has more than $500M and see where your at. Not too hard to find that place because its where you are right now.

The problem is institutionalized entitlement. Lets all realize that many of the "poor" folks with the video games get:

Free medical care via Medicaid
Free or subsidized housing
Subsizided utilities including internet in some places
Free job training
Free schooling
Free mass transit passes
Food stamps and WIC cash

All of these things being paid for by others and they still have more than 1 TV and a cell phone? At least be honest. You don't like the fact that there are really rich folks and you want to take their money away. You want to define "fair". Thats cool, just be honest about it.

I know a family that pretty much has every single one of these and you need to knock off free job training. These worthless bums want nothing to do with free job training LOLOLOLOLOL..... Why would they ever go to work when they can sit at home smoke PoT, cigs, enjoy there DVR TV have block BBQs every weekend with other welfare abusers. They have a 47inch LCD 720p tv a nice computer with a 19 inch flat screen. A nice 2006 car limited edition. 2 airconditioners. To top it all off they grow marijuana and have the state pay there electricity to grow it. All the while selling there marijuana making 20k a year on there own plus the free 1400 in cash/foodstamps they get a month. Free medical care which they both use to get narcotics left and right. there whole neighboorhood is like this almost every last one of them about 100 plus people. Then they sit around and bitch about the government and how everything is someone elses fault and no one gave them an oppurtunity. They hate the police hate any sense of government the very own government that feeds them and allows to them to chill and play World of Warcraft all day, and watch DVR all day. They have 2 kids who they are breeding to be welfare abusers. They went and took the GeD tests failed and instead of using there free classes just got high some more.
These leechers i feel are far more common then the ones who need welfare and activly try to get off welfare. This family has been at this for over 3 years all the while making money on the side and not reporting a dime. Here i sit struggling for a job every day unable to play the video games i want to play because i dont have time and i cant afford them. I guess im just ranting some and venting. But its infuriating I peronal feel its time for some social hygene in this country.....The tippy top people and the bottome leeches need to be told this is not ok anymore give us our money back and go to some island with the rest of your greedy kind. I personaly feel the welfare abuser are just as bad as the super rich. All they think about is themselves and how they can take advantage of other hard working humans.

The amount of money my state spends on social services every day is disgusting ill give you a hint we are the state that is in the absolute worst debt in the nation......

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:27 AM by shushu

reply to post by dolphinfan

How much do you spend a month on food? Perhaps you need to read some of our survival threads and learn how to eat healthier for less money.

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:28 AM by Janky Red

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by cenpuppie

The thread in my earlier post which lists those programs available to people below the poverty line is from the federal government website.

My entire point is two-fold. That these things have value and as such should be factored into the description of what is considered poor. We define poor as simply a dollar amount of annual income and the left purposefully neglects to state those programs which the poor can take advantage of. Logically, were you to have a government handout of $100K in cash a year but only made $20K/year on your own would you be considered poor? The same logic applies here as well. It is no different that the executive who has access to the company jet. Is that not compensation? Of course it is and should be considered as such.

The second point is that, as you can see in this thread, there is no qualification of poor. If someone has a nice car, but can't sell it without losing money on it that justifies his not selling it, either to buy a cheaper car or take public transit. Now he can get access to all of the government programs despite the fact that he's driving around a car that has a value greater than the poverty level. Somehow folks think thats OK. I don't. I think he should sell his ride.

I also don't think that the folks in line in the supermarket with me should be buying raspberrys and grapes and nice cuts of fish with food stamps when I'm buying pasta and ground beef to feed my family, but thats just me

So what do you want???

Spit it out

will Mexico poverty standard make the US better or India???

you think a shanty towns in some section of each city will impove your quality of life?

What do you want?

reply posted on 19-7-2011 @ 11:30 AM by ghondon

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by dolphinfan

What a ridiculous article. The obvious intent (from Heritage Foundation, no less) is to make "haaaard wurkin' non-welfare" people think that all of these people are leaching off the government and are not working.

Almost all of those people are hardworking and half the people that will get steamed towards the "poor" people reading this are poor themselves and just don't know it. Poverty line for a single person is $35,000 by most standards. There are a lot of "poor" people who don't even know they are poor. It's not their fault that people like Heritage Foundation are whining on their behalf.

It detracts from the very real problem of a large portion of American society who truly does struggle day to day in order to pay electricity and feed their families. This article is a work of obvious propaganda to foster a class-war. Disgusting.
edit on 19-7-2011 by Cuervo because: deleted long quote