Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.

:confused:
I hope you are being sarcastic.
I would not use any of those adjectives for the poor in general.

Maybe some poor people hate being poor too?

I don't believe in sending food to poor nations, or using resources in the wrong way, like just handing food out food in shelters. That is only a disguise, and it does not actually help the poor advance.

I mean, why would we need people who make 6 dollars an hour, and work 12 hours a day anyway? WHO WOULD THAT BENNEFIT? Does it bennefit the poor? Does that help the poor... if not, then who does it help?

We need to start thinking of how we can prevent this social problem. And to not create even more poor people; for that would only increase our crime rates and instability of society.

We should also look at what makes poor people, and not be narrow minded enough to think that they are all just lazy. Just as it is very wrong to believe that a lot of rich people are cold-blooded individuals.

Maybe a whole lot of reading would help, from numerous perspectives, and thus numerous suggestions and theories will be found to help produce the BEST way to prevent there being poor people.

So I half-agree with you. I don't hate the poor, but I hate there being poverty.

:) Thanks for your post. I think a lot more people should focus on this issue.

The poor are a problem. It is interesting. I was working on the Forbes 400 issue of Forbes magazine this morning. One article addressed the Forbes One Billion, the billion poorest people on earth. Forbes wants to look at constructive solutions to the problem. Finding workable ones would benefit all.

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.
Are you freakin serious?

Maybe some poor people hate being poor too?

I don't believe in sending food to poor nations, or using resources in the wrong way, like just handing food out food in shelters. That is only a disguise, and it does not actually help the poor advance.

I mean, why would we need people who make 6 dollars an hour, and work 12 hours a day anyway? WHO WOULD THAT BENNEFIT? Does it bennefit the poor? Does that help the poor... if not, then who does it help?

We need to start thinking of how we can prevent this social problem. And to not create even more poor people; for that would only increase our crime rates and instability of society.

We should also look at what makes poor people, and not be narrow minded enough to think that they are all just lazy. Just as it is very wrong to believe that a lot of rich people are cold-blooded individuals.

Maybe a whole lot of reading would help, from numerous perspectives, and thus numerous suggestions and theories will be found to help produce the BEST way to prevent there being poor people.

So I half-agree with you. I don't hate the poor, but I hate there being poverty.

:) Thanks for your post. I think a lot more people should focus on this issue.
There are far too many people who have nothing to lose. They go through generations with no decent jobs, no decent education, and no prospect of anything better. Is it any wonder they lack motivation and self worth.

Who created the urban ghettos, maybe that is the place to start?

The poor are a problem. It is interesting. I was working on the Forbes 400 issue of Forbes magazine this morning. One article addressed the Forbes One Billion, the billion poorest people on earth. Forbes wants to look at constructive solutions to the problem. Finding workable ones would benefit all.
I don’t believe that there is a universal answer, but certainly in America we ought to be able to reduce the number greatly. In a capitalist society there will always be poor people.

I believe that there is a certain class of people who completely ignore the poor politically and believe that caring for the poor in strictly a charitable issue. That is, government in helping the poor is simply a matter of government theft.

I don’t believe that there is a universal answer, but certainly in America we ought to be able to reduce the number greatly. In a capitalist society there will always be poor people.

I believe that there is a certain class of people who completely ignore the poor politically and believe that caring for the poor in strictly a charitable issue. That is, government in helping the poor is simply a matter of government theft.

Your initial statement was more harsh than I think you were meaning.

I think we (the US, government) need to stop spreading ourselves so thin and getting invovled in every fight in the world and focus much more of our attention on issues raised within our borders. We are a young but strong country and need to create a foundation for ourselves in order to stay the course. That starts at home in the poverty stricken areas, with medical care, with immigration, etc

[QUOTE=Dark_crow] They go through generations with no decent jobs, no decent education, and no prospect of anything better. Is it any wonder they lack motivation and self worth.

QUOTE]

I have to take some offense at this.

I have my Bachelor's Degree and am currently working on two Masters simultaneously. I work as a teacher, because that's where I feel I'm supposed to be.

I have a family of 5, and due to a whole slew of reasons, my wife does not work outside our home.

However, I have tremendous self-worth (most of the time), and am highly motivated.

Yet there are times when we've had to borrow money just to eat, and the way I see it, that makes us rather poor. We don't live beyond our means, but our means are rather meager.

Yet I've chosen this career path, not out of a desire to be wealthy, but rather out of a desire to touch the lives of our children in a positive and meaningful way.

So what would you have them do with me?

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.

I hate people who are unmotivated and expect the world to bow to their every need. I hate people who have a false sense of entitlement. I hate people who place no value on themselves, their self-worth, or their accomplishments. Am I describing poor people? What about Paris Hilton, she's not poor and she fits the bill pretty well.

There are poor people who are poor because they refuse to work. I don't care much for them. There are poor people who are poor because of life circumstances which are beyond their control. Those are the people who need help.

I worked with the poor for six years when I was a social worker, and they really are a pain in the rear end to people with good solid middle class values! I had all I could take years ago! All the depression and ignorance and self defeating behavior of the poor! They couldn't make plans and follow through! Just endless suffering which was they modeled for their children. Drugs, alcohol, whoring, crime, malnutrition, hopelessness, depression...

But, your question begs the question... what is the meaning of *decency*. Who is "decent"? I know American politicians, especially the fascists in the White House, are not decent human beings. Are religionists who subtlely send a hate message decent? Are corporate heads decent? And so on!

First, define poor? What is the income of the poor? What level of assets?

Second, do I find poor people to be a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


Depends. Are they?

There are some poor people who are working HARD to be independent, and there are others who are professional couch potatoes.

The farmer who is up at 3am milking the cows and plowing the fields and goes to sleep at 10 pm after a hrd days work of providing for his family has NOTHING BUT MY RESPECT. The urban father working three jobs to put food on the table for his family deserves respect and, where possible, help.

The professional welfare recipient who's not interested in getting a job because the gubment covers all his expenses? The welfare mommy who has more babies for no other reason than so that her welfare benefits will increase... that's a whole other story.

And "poor people" are not a threat to national security. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are a threat to national security, by force of the fact that we don't know who or where they are or what their intentions are in being in this country illegally. The fact that most illegal immigrants are poor doesn't make poor people the threat.

Finally, in most cases it is not the poor that are causing the problems. In most cases it is those who are trying to "fix" things that are the cause of the problem. Usually by creating more poor and by creating an environment in which those who are poor have no desire to make themselves a better life.

In short, it isn't poor people who are the threat. It's LIBERALS who are "a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?"

Now... as for what can be done to rid the country of this abomination of "liberalism"... try voting.

Elliot

[QUOTE=Dark_crow] They go through generations with no decent jobs, no decent education, and no prospect of anything better. Is it any wonder they lack motivation and self worth.

QUOTE]

I have to take some offense at this.

I have my Bachelor's Degree and am currently working on two Masters simultaneously. I work as a teacher, because that's where I feel I'm supposed to be.

I have a family of 5, and due to a whole slew of reasons, my wife does not work outside our home.

However, I have tremendous self-worth (most of the time), and am highly motivated.

Yet there are times when we've had to borrow money just to eat, and the way I see it, that makes us rather poor. We don't live beyond our means, but our means are rather meager.

Yet I've chosen this career path, not out of a desire to be wealthy, but rather out of a desire to touch the lives of our children in a positive and meaningful way.

So what would you have them do with me?

I find it interesting that so often people only relate to the world through their own personal experience.

I hate people who are unmotivated and expect the world to bow to their every need. I hate people who have a false sense of entitlement. I hate people who place no value on themselves, their self-worth, or their accomplishments. Am I describing poor people? What about Paris Hilton, she's not poor and she fits the bill pretty well.

There are poor people who are poor because they refuse to work. I don't care much for them. There are poor people who are poor because of life circumstances which are beyond their control. Those are the people who need help.
Why does someone refuse to work, isn’t that what people on a union strike do. Has it ever occurred to you that ‘Something” in their life may have influenced them…like their upbringing and schooling?

I find it interesting that so often people only relate to the world through their own personal experience.

Not at all. For the last few years, I've been working in a school district where the poverty level is about 75%, give or take accounting for varying definitions of the poverty line.

For several years before that, I worked for a non-profit agency that dealt exclusively with the impoverished.

As I told Choux, I read a book that sort of opened my eyes to the way the poor see the world, which is very different than the way the middle class (whoever THEY are) see it, which is different still than the way the upper class sees the world. It's by Ruby Payne, and it's called "A Framework for Understanding Poverty." It's one of the few I've read that actually had anything constructive, beneficial, and useful to it. It leaves out the stinkin' politics of the whole thing and focuses on the different worldviews. Give it a read sometime, I think you'll like it. It's easy to read, and very enlightening.

First, define poor? What is the income of the poor? What level of assets?

Second, do I find poor people to be a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


Depends. Are they?

There are some poor people who are working HARD to be independent, and there are others who are professional couch potatos.

The farmer who is up at 3am milking the cows and plowing the fields and goes to sleep at 10 pm after a hrd days work of providing for his family has NOTHING BUT MY RESPECT. The urban father working three jobs to put food on the table for his family deserves respect and, where possible, help.

The professional welfare recipient who's not interested in getting a job because the gubment covers all his expenses? The welfare mommy who has more babies for no other reason than so that her welfare benefits will increase... that's a whole other story.

And "poor people" are not a threat to national security. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are a threat to national security, by dint of the fact that we don't know who or where they are or what their intentions are in being in this country illegally. The fact that most illegal immigrants are poor doesn't make poor people the threat.

Finally, in most cases it is not the poor that are causing the problems. In most cases it is those who are trying to "fix" things that are the cause of the problem. Usually by creating more poor and by creating an environment in which those who are poor have no desire to make themselves a better life.

In short, it isn't poor people who are the threat. It's LIBERALS who are "a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?"

Now... as for what can be done to rid the country of this abomination of "liberalism"... try voting.

Elliot
Like Wittgenstein, I don’t have to define anything, just hop in your car and drive to the nearest urban Ghetto… for you I guess that may be Harlem.

The poor that are reliant on governmental systems are a class that will not easily be corrected. That is truly a problem but not one that needs focus on. We need to focus on providing for the people trying to make a difference. Up the requirements of welfare, shroter the time allowed on welfare, create a system to catch the offenders of the system, etc. We should be putting more of our resources into strengthening the middle class that will very shortly not exist. They are hardworking and dependable but are not rightly compensated. They fall into many "grey" areas for assistance and/or cannot get health care because they are choosing food and shelter over pricey health care. We need to abolish poverty that exists due to mental illness or extenuating circumstances. We should not have elderly or young children in houses that have no food or heat, not in this country that spends trillions of dollars on aid to foreign country (not that that is wrong) or on national defense or on building a freakin wall across the Mexico border!!

Not at all. For the last few years, I've been working in a school district where the poverty level is about 75%, give or take accounting for varying definitions of the poverty line.

For several years before that, I worked for a non-profit agency that dealt exclusively with the impoverished.

As I told Choux, I read a book that sort of opened my eyes to the way the poor see the world, which is very different than the way the middle class (whoever THEY are) see it, which is different still than the way the upper class sees the world. It's by Ruby Payne, and it's called "A Framework for Understanding Poverty." It's one of the few I've read that actually had anything constructive, beneficial, and useful to it. It leaves out the stinkin' politics of the whole thing and focuses on the different worldviews. Give it a read sometime, I think you'll like it. It's easy to read, and very enlightening.
I make my distinction between the working class and the underclass (poor). I prefer a world in which everybody is given a fair chance to make something of themselves. Where everybody has got something to lose. The poor can never be the engine of their own social change because they have nothing to lose. They never have been, they never will be. Only the rich can be the engine of social change.

Seems to me, with that kind of attitude, Dark_ Crow may be the poorest person of all. I am amazed at the number of times the word "hate" is in this post.

The poor can never be the engine of their own social change because they have nothing to lose. Only the rich can be the engine of social change.

If the poor is as large a percentage of the population as many say, think of the tremendous power in their hands if they all simply register to vote and DO IT. That in itself could be tremendously constructive.

On the flip side, if we handed them all copies of some Karl Marx reading material...

Why does someone refuse to work, isn’t that what people on a union strike do. Has it ever occurred to you that ‘Something” in their life may have influenced them…like their upbringing and schooling?

Pardon me, I didn't know I had to make an allowance for every single possibility for the reason someone might be poor or not working. Forgive my ignorance for thinking you would see beyond the obvious distinctions between someone who is striking because of unfair labor conditions and someone who's sense of entitlement gets in the way of actually achieving something. I must be some sort of dumb@ss. :rolleyes:

Of course the "something" can be lack of education and lack of opportunity, which would be something that was beyond their control. I believe I said those are the people I want to help. YUP! Sure did!

I think America should become a full communist society where everyone is equal (accept your leaders of course) and stop draining other countries of their natural resources. That would end your poor problem as well.

Because communism has worked so well for other countries, Greg?

I am one of the poorer people in the USA and live in the hood. I have four grown kids and we lived on less than $1,000. A month when they were little and I am not doing much better now. I KNOW what you mean as far as like what jillb said the lazy ones that act like they are owed everything and waste what they do get (especially on drugs), BUT there are people like me that work really hard and try to get their goal of getting ahead and getting out of the hood and even helping others. It seems though the harder I try the farther behind I get and I have very little help to NO help with much of anything.

Yes, Greg. It's true. Poverty doesn't seem like such a problem when EVERYONE is poor. Just ask any immigrant who grew up in the Soviet Union during the period of 1920-1990 what it was like and how effective it was at fighting poverty. And of course the Soviets never invaded any other country in oder to steal their natural resources...

Elliot

I think America should become a full communist society where everyone is equal (accept your leaders of course) and stop draining other countries of their natural resources. That would end your poor problem as well.
No type of Government can run an economy efficiently; the Soviet Union showed that, it left a lot to be desired. On the other hand the grinding poverty and the disenchantment and misery it generates show just as clearly that a capitalist alternative is no Utopia. That is precisely why I advocate a free market.:)

Pardon me, I didn't know I had to make an allowance for every single possibility for the reason someone might be poor or not working. Forgive my ignorance for thinking you would see beyond the obvious distinctions between someone who is striking because of unfair labor conditions and someone who's sense of entitlement gets in the way of actually achieving something. I must be some sort of dumb@ss. :rolleyes:

Of course the "something" can be lack of education and lack of opportunity, which would be something that was beyond their control. I believe I said those are the people I want to help. YUP! Sure did!
I said what I did in hopes of showing how naïve it is to refer to those people who do not want to work…how do you separate them from someone who wants to work…on what basis can you make that judgment?

I said what I did in hopes of showing how naive it is to refer to those people who do not want to work…how do you separate them from someone who wants to work…on what basis can you make that judgment?

DC, I know why you made the statement. And surely you are intelligent enough to know that I was not referring to someone who WANTS to work and cannot but rather someone who CHOOSES not to work. By "chooses" I mean, "I can't work at McDonald's! It's McDonald's!" or, "Nah, the gubment will send me more money if I get pregnant again, I don't need a job" or, "Why should I work? The gubment has lots of money, they OWE me" I made a quick, broadbased post. I did not take the time to spell out my "plan" because I assumed those reading my post would be able to infer the differences mentioned above. I am not putting out a campaign speech, so why must I make every single post a thorough as possible and assume I am talking to someone who can't make logical assumptions?

I am one of the poorer people in the USA and live in the hood. I have four grown kids and we lived on less than $1,000. a month when they were little and I am not doing much better now. I KNOW what you mean as far as like what jillb said the lazy ones that act like they are owed everything and waste what they do get (especially on drugs), BUT there are people like me that work really hard and try to get their goal of getting ahead and getting out of the hood and even helping others. It seems though the harder I try the farther behind I get and I have very little help to NO help with much of anything.
So from that I can only conclude that something is awfully wrong with the system of government intervention. When a person can work hard for a lifetime and not get ahead something must be terribly wrong with the system of economics. Your situation is not unique, you are not an aberration, and you are like 40% of the population. Just who is taking from whom?:) :)

[QUOTE=Dark_crow]... something is awfully wrong with the system of government intervention. QUOTE]

Could it be that the government is intervening incorrectly? I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't, that's a whole different discussion. But since they are intervening, are they doing it properly?

[QUOTE=Dark_crow]...something is awfully wrong with the system of government intervention. QUOTE]

Could it be that the government is intervening incorrectly? I'm not saying whether they should or shouldn't, that's a whole different discussion. But since they are intervening, are they doing it properly?
Welfare is a complete disaster; a form of government intervention. Conservatives today like to blame it on the liberals, but the truth of the matter is that intervention is what I term a “New conservative” policy. The ‘Old conservative’ was not interested in government intervention; they wanted to conserve only two things… liberty and free trade. They believed in the free market as a creative mechanism to improve society which presupposes that people prefer life to death, health to sickness … abundance to poverty. That is one reason why I cannot adopt the theory that there are a great many people who do not want to work. So yes, they are not only wrong to begin with, but doing it wrong too.

I said what I did in hopes of showing how naive it is to refer to those people who do not want to work…how do you separate them from someone who wants to work…on what basis can you make that judgment?


Basically there lifestyle! While I am trying to make money and get ahead and doing right by my family I look around me and watch the other single moms staying home and selling drugs to buy their own drugs. Selling their foodstamps to buy even more drugs. Then expecting other naighbors to feed and cloth their kids. They scream at their kids and don't know how to treat them. They have a new boyfriend every other month. When they do work it is long enough to get some Earned Income Credit then they quit. They act like everybody owes them and what they ARE given they waste. Have no direction, ambition or goals, etc...

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.


1] no, from a Christian point of view, Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats.

2] if you look at the census statistics
PROMOTE TRADITIONAL Marriage
To go along with this - get your education,high school at the very least
- don't have children before 20
- don't get married before 20

Family-Unfriendly Policies - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mzuckerman/2007/10/05/editorial.html)

3] are the "poor" really poor?
They can get medicaid, subsidized housing, childcare, education grants etc.
There is no incentive to work a min wage job if you lose these 'benefits'

Can the working middle class get these?

4] get deadbeats to pay for their children -last I look the support rate was only 50%.
And have this money go directly to housing, utilities, school, health ins premiums
Rather than to the custodial parents bank acoount.

There should be equality of opportunity , but it is up to the individual to work hard for the results.







Grace and Peace

[QUOTE=kindj]
Welfare is a complete disaster; a form of government intervention. Conservatives today like to blame it on the liberals, but the truth of the matter is that intervention is what I term a “New conservative” policy. The ‘Old conservative’ was not interested in government intervention; they wanted to conserve only two things… liberty and free trade. They believed in the free market as a creative mechanism to improve society which presupposes that people prefer life to death, health to sickness … abundance to poverty. That is one reason why I cannot adopt the theory that there are a great many people who do not want to work. So yes, they are not only wrong to begin with, but doing it wrong too.


I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but it sounds like you've given this some thought.

If you had the ability to change it, what would you do?

(Seriously asking, not sarcasm)

Basically there lifestyle! while I am trying to make money and get ahead and doing right by my family I look around me and watch the other single moms staying home and selling drugs to buy their own drugs. Selling their foodstamps to buy even more drugs. Then expecting other naighbors to feed and cloth their kids. They scream at their kids and don't know how to treat them. They have a new boyfriend every other month. When they do work it is long enough to get some Earned Income Credit then they quit. They act like everybody owes them and what they ARE given they waste. Have no direction, ambition or goals, etc...
When you enter a drug addicted person into the equation you enter something outside the norm of what constitutes someone who does not want to work. That is much closer to using the mentally ill as a norm.

[QUOTE=Dark_crow]


I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but it sounds like you've given this some thought.

If you had the ability to change it, what would you do?

(Seriously asking, not sarcasm)
In spite of what’s been said I think one good thing that is now being done, at least where I live, and that is a single mom with a child over 7 must get a job. If they don’t get a job they must go to the welfare office and spend the day applying for work and show proof of applications. They must spend 40 hours a week doing this and they are sent to work part of the time with agencies selected by the welfare department who pays them minimum wage. At one time for each dollar earned one dollar was deducted from the welfare income of a recipient. That only made the recipient work for less. However now for one dollar earned only 50 cents is withheld from welfare income. There in now an incentive to work and a time frame for the recipient to get ahead.

Kindj, I would not know where to start frankly…I’m afraid my hindsight is much better than my foresight. :) :)

I hate the rich. I just cannot wait for total anarchy so we can bar-b-que the bastards and eat them. You know they must be tender and tasty. I'll eat their livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti. Paris Hilton is too skinny to eat. Make jerky out of her.

a single mom with a child over 7 must get a job.

What if the child is handicapped? What is the mother is handicapped? What if it's a single dad? What about people who don't have kids? What about when there are no jobs the person is qualified for?

Just bustin' your you-know-whats! :p :D

I was being a little sarcastic in my post. But I would like to think a semi communist star-Trek type of western society could be possible one day. Of course that is just a dream... Also I am a geek, and it's not very likely the way things are going, maybe I should wait for god and government?

I am sorry, but I can't believe I have just read such a spitfull nasty point ov view, How about people who hate rich people! Maybe this would be a better topic!!

I hate the rich. I just cannot wait for total anarchy so we can bar-b-que the bastards and eat them. You know they must be tender and tasty. I'll eat their livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti. Paris Hilton is too skinny to eat. Make jerky out of her.

Some of the riches started as poor then they work really hard to achieve their wealth so don't judge them based on their income level. You never know,maybe those rich do charity helping others and have a lot of responsibility for his/her family. Not all riches are materialistic, some of them live frugally, and sending money to their family relatives who need it more than she does. :)
I hate the rich who don't work hard, like the spoiled rich kids, who don't understand the dollar value of money.

Even the so-called "idle rich" give value added to society.

The Hiltons are a perfect example. If not for their wealth, for their family's hotel empire, how many people would be unemployed in the hotel services industry? The Hilton companies have tens of thousands of employees. Take away the Hilton companies, and tens of thousands of people go unemployed. Plus think of all the others that are supported by the Hilton companies: outside contactors that do repairs and maintenance to the hotels that the in-house staff can't, elevator companies, computer providers, internet companies, telecom providers and maintenance people, restaurants, electricians, lighbulb manufacturers, glass and window companies, food wholesalers, toiletries manufacturers, key-card manufacturers, etc.

Being angry at or hating the rich is unproductive. The rich are the ones who provide jobs to everyone else. Not to mention the fact that they foot 80%+ of the tax bill of the US government.

Elliot

Even the so-called "idle rich" give value added to society.

The Hiltons are a perfect example. If not for their wealth, for their family's hotel empire, how many people would be unemployed in the hotel services industry? The Hilton companies have tens of thousands of employees. Take away the Hilton companies, and tens of thousands of people go unemployed. Plus think of all the others that are supported by the Hilton companies: outside contactors that do repairs and maintenance to the hotels that the in-house staff can't, elevator companies, computer providers, internet companies, telecom providers and maintenance people, restaurants, electricians, lighbulb manufacturers, glass and window companies, food wholesalers, toiletries manufacturers, key-card manufacturers, etc.

Being angry at or hating the rich is unproductive. The rich are the ones who provide jobs to everyone else. Not to mention the fact that they foot 80%+ of the tax bill of the US government.

Elliot
That's a terrible argument, Elliot; supply and demand would have provided the hotel space needed. Instead of one owner there may have been been its place twenty or thirty separate owners, whatever the case, demand for hotel space would have been supplied by someone.

I wonder who would gather the food if not for the poor?

DC,

By who? If thee were no rich people to buy the space, develop the hotel and run the hotel, who would provide the hotel space? Yeah, their names may have been Smith, Jones and Williams instead of Hilton. Yeah, none of them may have been quite as big as hilton. But they would still be rich from operating the business, and they would still need to have capital (investment wealth) to start the business, and continued cash-flow (available income) in order to run the business. They would still be the ones employing thousands of people. And they would still be rich. You can't escape wealth in a capitalist society. Being angry at rich people for being rich is pointless.

Tell me... how many people are supported by jobs created by the poor? That's not a reason to dislike the poor. But we need to understand where jobs to help the poor come from.

Elliot

DC,

By who? If thee were no rich people to buy the space, develop the hotel and run the hotel, who would provide the hotel space? Yeah, their names may have been Smith, Jones and Williams instead of Hilton. Yeah, none of them may have been quite as big as hilton. But they would still be rich from operating the business, and they would still need to have capital (investment wealth) to start the business, and continued cash-flow (available income) in order to run the business. They would still be the ones employing thousands of people. And they would still be rich. You can't escape wealth in a capitalist society. Being angry at rich people for being rich is pointless.

Tell me... how many people are supported by jobs created by the poor? That's not a reason to dislike the poor. But we need to understand where jobs to help the poor come from.

Elliot
There are not just two classes of people, Elliot. There are all sorts of adjectives you can place in front of each of those nouns. What you have said here does not change the terrible argument in the previous post…now come on…:rolleyes:

My post stating that I hate the rich was simply an illustration to show how very moronic it is to pick any scocio-economic class and choose to hate them. To hate anyone is really a useless, nonproductive endeavor. Especially when one should be utilizing one's time building wealth or dumpster diving. Take your choice because it really is YOUR choice.

There are not just two classes of people, Elliot. There are all sorts of adjectives you can place in front of each of those nouns. What you have said here does not change the terrible argument in the previous post…now come on…:rolleyes:

Don't you see, DC, in a world where anyone earning more than $80,000 is considered "rich" and anyone earning less than $40,000 is considered poor, there's no room for a middle class. In that scenario, which is the one presented by the liberals, there really is only a two-class system of "rich" and "poor".

The point is that rich people create jobs. Poor people do not. Eliminate some of the rich, and they will indeed be replaced by others who will also be rich. But if you eliminate the entire rich class, the result will not be more people who become rich. The result will instead be a single class of unemployed poor people.

So the so-called "idle rich" who own the businesses are the majo source of jobs in this country. Period. There is no denying that fact. Eliminating them will eliminate those jobs they created. Ergo, we need the rich. Railing against them is pointless and detrimental.

Elliot

Ahhh yes but, if Hilary creates a socialistic health care system, thousands of politicians and bureaucrats will become rich. Now that's spreading it around or, the trickle down effect.

Don't you see, DC, in a world where anyone earning more than $80,000 is considered "rich" and anyone earning less than $40,000 is considered poor, there's no room for a middle class. In that scenario, which is the one presented by the liberals, there really is only a two-class system of "rich" and "poor".

The point is that rich people create jobs. Poor people do not. Eliminate some of the rich, and they will indeed be replaced by others who will also be rich. But if you eliminate the entire rich class, the result will not be more people who become rich. The result will instead be a single class of unemployed poor people.

So the so-called "idle rich" who own the businesses are the majo source of jobs in this country. Period. There is no denying that fact. Eliminating them will eliminate those jobs they created. Ergo, we need the rich. Railing against them is pointless and detrimental.

Elliot
Poor and rich are relative terms and to make a distinction between them as you have negates the whole history surrounding the meaning of the terms.
Anatole France, one of my favorite authors, wrote in the Red Lily:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
There is an example of poor and $40,000 a year requires no begging in the streets, stealing bread or sleeping under bridges.
And an income of $80,000 won’t get you into your own home in most places in the U.S.
The idle rich is not a requirement for providing employment; supply and demand in a free market is what creates jobs…period. :)

The fact that this debate is allowed on this forum has absolutely floored me. This is utterly disgusting. If you look at the original post, it looks like that of a white supremest from 60 years ago. The fact that after all these years people are still putting a value on everyone else, whether it be their race, size, or how big their wallet is. You should be completely ashamed of yourselves for being so narrow-minded as to classify one group of people and hate them and want to abolish them. For the ones that feel the same way as the original poster, I hope with everything in me you were born in a ghetto, broke free of all temptations of the easy ways out, and are now a multi-millionaire. If not, may God, Allah, or whatever you believe, have mercy on your soul for being so cruel. Hasn't anyone ever told you that it doesn't matter how much money someone makes or how big their house is, truly bad people exist in every part of the world, in every social status. And being poor does not make some one bad. I'm glad to see that none of you have ever made a choice or mistake that lead you down the wrong path in your life, because you should feel very lucky. I'm sure it's very easy to sit behind your computer and feel like a big person by bringing others down. I have read a lot of these posts and frankly, I hope those of you (you know who you are) who sit there and quarrel over how bad society is with people on the internet, that when you finally log off, you actually go down to your local homeless shelter or battered women's center and spend the rest of your days there. I hope you find that those people made choices that you easily could have made. You could be sitting right there with them. And you should not feel better or smarter than them, you should count your blessings and help them with everything you can. Pretty much what I'm saying here is get off your arrogant arses and actually do something with all this energy you waste on complaining. After all, no matter how rich or well off you are, when you die, you can't take any of it with you. The only thing you can take is your pride in knowing that YOU helped make the world a better place.

Dark_crow disagrees: You obviously have not read enough of the post…go back to go and start again
No, kind Sir, I read everything. Even the horrible things that come out of your head.

There are far too many people who have nothing to lose. They go through generations with no decent jobs, no decent education, and no prospect of anything better. Is it any wonder they lack motivation and self worth.

Who created the urban ghettos, maybe that is the place to start?
Yes, and there are far too many people like you who like to put themselves on a pedestal because they have excessive self worth.

I make my distinction between the working class and the underclass (poor). I prefer a world in which everybody is given a fair chance to make something of themselves. Where everybody has got something to lose. The poor can never be the engine of their own social change because they have nothing to lose. They never have been, they never will be. Only the rich can be the engine of social change.
Do you feel this way because the only thing you think you can lose is material things? Do you think poor people never felt the heartache of losing a loved-one? Do you feel that losing your car or house causes the same feelings as losing a person you care about?
I'm not sure how to solve your problem that you have with poor people. Maybe you should move to Antarctica. I hear there are no poor people there.

No, kind Sir, I read everything. Even the horrible things that come out of your head.

Yes, and there are far too many people like you who like to put themselves on a pedestal because they have excessive self worth.

Do you feel this way because the only thing you think you can lose is material things? Do you think poor people never felt the heartache of losing a loved-one? Do you feel that losing your car or house causes the same feelings as losing a person you care about?
I'm not sure how to solve your problem that you have with poor people. Maybe you should move to Antarctica. I hear there are no poor people there.
Look who dropped in and started attacking who; you're the one climbing up a pedestal and ripped into me. My position has been that there should not be a poor person in America, and if you had bothered to find out anything about me you would know that. You just began making assumptions without even so much as asking me for clarification on points you felt were somehow 'Bad' in your mind.

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those that have much: it is whether we provide enough to those who have too little.
Franklin D Roosevelt

If the poor is as large a percentage of the population as many say, think of the tremendous power in their hands if they all simply register to vote and DO IT. That in itself could be tremendously constructive.

On the flip side, if we handed them all copies of some Karl Marx reading material.....
You’ve taken us to the larger problem and that is ‘Illiteracy’; so many of the poor are just plain illiterate, to illiterate to vote.

As I have said before, I am surrounded by poor day in and day out and no matter how messed up they are I have only known 3 illiterate people in my life.
It is not a problem of being illiterate as much as being dumbed down by the schools.
Have you ever watched Jay Leno's Jay walking? He asks questions that anybody with an education should be able to answer and they can't! AND they DO NOT even look like poor America!
I AM poor and more intelligent than most of the middle to upper class that can't even tell you whether the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the West Coast or what state the Golden Gate Bridge is in.

You’ve taken us to the larger problem and that is ‘Illiteracy’; so many of the poor are just plain illiterate, to illiterate to vote.

Not sure about the stats on that, but there are other reasons the poor don't vote. Americans don't value their right to vote - we treat it like a chore. I have several South African friends who get so angry at election time that people don't go vote. In SA people would literally walk for miles (uphill, both ways!) and stand in long lines for the opportunity to vote. One of the most political people at my last job wasn't even registered (he was in his 40's). Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count, or that it doesn't make a difference. Also, because of the education and governmental experiences many poor people have had, they think the govt is too big to take on, there's a sense of defeat. That's one problem that plagues much of Africa as to why the govts in most of the countries are so screwed up - for generations you are taught you can't make a difference, they have power, you don't. You don't think or realize you can TAKE that power from someone and GIVE it to someone else.

As I have said before, I am surrounded by poor day in and day out and no matter how messed up they are I have only known 3 illiterate people in my life.
It is not a problem of being illiterate as much as being dumbed down by the schools.
Have you ever watched Jay Leno's Jay walking? He asks questions that anybody with an education should be able to answer and they can't! AND they DO NOT even look like poor America!
I AM poor and more intelligent than most of the middle to upper class that can't even tell you whether the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the West Coast or what state the Golden Gate Bridge is in.
You're probably going by the 'read and write' definition of Illiteracy and that is not the definition I'm using. “There are various definitions of literacy. Governments may label individuals who can read a couple of thousand simple words they learned by sight in the first four grades in school as literate. But the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government proves that such adults are functionally illiterate--they cannot read well enough to hold a good job. Several studies have shown that millions of Americans never read another book after leaving school.”

Literacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiterate)


I didn't imply nor mean Illiteracy' was the only reason people don't vote, some probably do.

Jillian I believe a case could be made that the percentages of eligible voters exercising the franchise began to decline as the right to the franchise increased.

Voter turnout in the presidential election of 1916 was 61.9 percent. Then, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving the vote to women. Voter turnout in that year's presidential election was 49.2 percent. The Voting Rights Act, ensuring access to the polls for blacks, was passed in 1965. Voter turnout went from 63.3 percent in 1964 to 62.5 percent in 1968. And after the voting age was lowered to 18, in 1971, voter turnout took a further dip, to 56.4 percent in the 1972 presidential election.

"Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count"

In a dem. State that I live in,with Chicago votes(and Springfield for that matter)How much does my piddly vote really count?

I am in the remote areas,"We" are few,THEY are many,Please explain my motivation to go vote for someone who isn't going to make office,and I still have to put up with the Dem,thought processes.

Help Me If You Can,

Ken

"Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count"

In a dem. state that I live in,with Chicago votes(and Springfield for that matter)How much does my piddly vote really count?

I am in the remote areas,"We" are few,THEY are many,Please explain my motivation to go vote for someone who isn't going to make office,and I still have to put up with the Dem,thought processes.

Help Me If You Can,

Ken
If the republicans (you, I presume) don’t vote it will always remain a Democrat controlled environment…why isn’t that an incentive to vote.:)

"Additionally, many people think their vote doesn't count"

In a dem. state that I live in,with Chicago votes(and Springfield for that matter)How much does my piddly vote really count?

I am in the remote areas,"We" are few,THEY are many,Please explain my motivation to go vote for someone who isn't going to make office,and I still have to put up with the Dem,thought processes.

Help Me If You Can,

Ken

As tom said in his agree to you; start at the local level. Most people only vote in the presidential elections, that has very little effect on your daily life in your state when compared to your state and local leaders. For example, the federal govt is not doing anything about the issue of illegal immigration. My state is not doing much in the way about it either. But my LOCAL govt is trying to pass legislation which will make an impact. That affects my daily life. If my county rep moves up the ladder, eventually I can see a difference made in the areas I value.

Further, what if all the people who have your political views (republican, I guess) have your same attitude? "Too many liberals, no point in voting" Well if you never put up a fight, of course the liberals will win! But again, if you want to see small changes, start on the local level.

I live in Virginia. We are consistently red. But amazingly, we have a democratic governor. How did it happen? Liberals went and voted.

If the republicans (you, I presume) don’t vote it will always remain a Democrat controlled environment…why isn’t that an incentive to vote.:)
I do vote,in ALL elections(just to clear that up)

But for the people who don't write(or want to be labeled even in here)I brought the question to light.

My big hang-up is the 'friends'I have whether they be dems,or republicans,are at a loss to explain what their incentive really is to go and vote.

WE ALL KNOW THIS IS NOT JUST A LOCAL THING,ITS VERY MUCH NATIONWIDE!

Do the poor,uneducated people in society really have a reason to vote?Is a change in office really going to impact their lives,YES? Try telling them that.

What they hear is what we all hear,the hype spilled out over the same airwaves(TV etc) as we do,Just the perspective and lack of true education in the 'big picture'

How would Hillery make My LIFE better than Fred?

How did Bill make my business prosper when George Killed it entirely?

This is the big picture,for my world.

Does educating,incarcerating,or belittling the vast majority of the USA's society make the people in office do anything different?HE** NO. They are going to do whatever they feel like doing,regardless of the people that voted them in(OH yeah,we can vote them out,Right?) And then a new revised form of crooked leader arises in their absence.

Again,why do we vote? What's the point? To wait for a state rep. to advance through the ranks till he(or she) is also corrupt?

Even at the local levels it is all too prevalent,News of Money Laundering/Mishandling,, etc

And then the next idea,"If you don't like it,run for office yourself,change the system if its so broken,Quit complaining if you are not going to fix it"

I am ranting I know,too much info B4 dinner,I'll post more later(when I have settled down some)

Ken

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.
I am poor because I grew up in the foster care system. I work 2 jobs to pay my rent. I work over 60 hours every week and am barely scraping by. There are people who are lazy and choose to be poor, but there are many, many more people who work hard to make ends meet, while still below a certain income bracket. Not everyone who is poor is lacking motivation. I am teaching myself spanish while working at one job (where I have a lot of free time) so that someday I can get a job as a translator. I can't afford to go to college. When I turned 18, I was on my own. I lived with a friend until I saved enough for an apartment. Even then, I had to pay by the week because I had no one to co-sign for me. I may be poor, but I am an intellegent, hard working, decent woman with big dreams. I don't care how hard I have to work to get where I want to be, I know I can do it. You should consider volunteering at a local charity for a week, like a homeless shelter, food pantry, etc. If you talk to the people you meet there, I think you will find that most of them are very decent, they are just having a hard time at the moment. It is easy to generalize groups of people. You must remember that every poor person has a story and everyone is different. Not everyone fits inside the "lazy" box. I hope you will consider that not everyone who is struggling financially is a piece of crap. Someone else in history referred to groups of people as an abomination-Hitler.

Now that things have slowed down on this question,I have been a subscriber to this thread since it appeared and wonder if it is appropriate to start threads with such a bold semi-clear sarcasm? I understand the point of trying to add shock value, and boost the discussion with a little unnecessary controversy, but what if someone were to do the same type of opening with other sensitive topics? Example: I hate black people...
Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?
What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind. I'm not trying to start a war, as I have been enjoying this thread and have looked at all of the posts. It is just something that I think could go too far if more people were to do it.

KBC you make some good points about people not voting because they think the system is too corrupt and both parites just makes things worse. I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about that except for MORE people going and voting the sleezy scumbags out of office. I think if the general public knew how important voting is, and the politicians knew that if they screw up they get the boot, maybe things would change. Probably not quickly, and the gubment will never be free of corruption, but it could certainly have a lot less! To me it's all about education. There are so many problems which could be fixed/lessened with proper education to our general public and in particular, our youths. Miss South Carolina was right, we need more maps for the Iraq and South Africa and such as. After watching the View a few weeks ago I think we need more globes too... :)

Now that things have slowed down on this question,I have been a a subscriber to this thread since it appeared and wonder if it is appropriate to start threads with such a bold semi-clear sarcasm? I understand the point of trying to add shock value, and boost the discussion with a little unnecessary controversy, but what if someone were to do the same type of opening with other sensitive topics? Example: I hate black people... I'm not trying to start a war, as I have been enjoying this thread and have looked at all of the posts. It is just something that I think could go too far if more people were to do it.
It would be a category mistake to compare the two questions.

Would you define the poor as a people?

The term 'Black people' is an objective term. The term 'poor people' is a subjective term….a different category of reasoning.

Not realizing that difference could get a person on the 'slippery slope' you allude to.

The term 'Black people' is an objective term. The term 'poor people' is a subjective term….a different category of reasoning.

Not realizing that difference could get a person on the 'slippery slope' you allude to.


I'm sorry but GregQuin is correct. Darkcrow, you are not being logical here, but only giving an illusion of logic by purposely misinterpreting what GregQuin has said.

That "black people" can be VIEWED subjectively, just as poor people can be viewed subjectively! So what you wrote above is actually attacking a distorted version of Greg's argument! Now let's take a look at what Greg was saying:


I understand the point of trying to add shock value, and boost the discussion with a little unnecessary controversy, but what if someone were to do the same type of opening with other sensitive topics? Example: I hate black people... I'm not trying to start a war, as I have been enjoying this thread and have looked at all of the posts. It is just something that I think could go too far if more people were to do it.

See? Greg Quinn made an excellent point, but you've decided to use a strawman fallacy instead of thanking him. You're choosing to ignore the actual position of Greg's argument by misrepresenting it and distorting the message. Too bad...

I'm sorry but GregQuin is correct. Darkcrow, you are not being logical here, but only giving an illusion of logic by purposely misinterpreting what GregQuin has said.

The fact of the matter is that "black people" can be VIEWED subjectively, just as poor people can be viewed subjectively! So what you wrote above is actually attacking a distorted version of Greg's argument! Now let's take a look at what Greg was saying:



See? Greg Quinn made an excellent point, but you've decided to use a strawman fallacy instead of thanking him. You're choosing to ignore the actual position of Greg's argument by misrepresenting it and distorting the message. Too bad...
Everything can be viewed subjectively, in the sense that our thoughts are our own and therefore subjective. Even though 'Black Race' is a social construct it is one that has been written into the laws of this country, try and tell the NAACP, or argue in a Court of Law in a discrimination case, that being Black is purely subjective.

I could use a thousand sensitive examples that would still be deemed inappropriate used as your topic. Objective, subjective. It doesn't matter. You can pick at straws all you want, it really is just a very simple observation that I thought I would share. I can think of the poor as a social construct, I also think the deaf and hard of hearing are as well. And so you know there are a lot of laws pertaining to the poor as well, I guess they are a social construct. But, that is really just leading it all away from the point, ethics on ask me help desk

I could use a thousand sensitive examples that would still be deemed inappropriate used as your topic. Objective, subjective. It doesn't matter. You can pick at straws all you want, it really is just a very simple observation that I thought I would share. I can think of the poor as a social construct, I also think the deaf and hard of hearing are as well. And so you know there are a lot of laws pertaining to the poor as well, I guess they are a social construct. But, that is really just leading it all away from the point, ethics on ask me help desk
Tell the deaf their inability to hear is just a social construction and not a, ‘state of being’…:)... never-mind, they really can’t hear you in spite of what you think.

Tell the deaf their inability to hear is just a social construction and not a, ‘state of being’…:) ...never-mind, they really can’t hear you in spite of what you think.

The students of Gauladet, who tend to be deaf activists, would take exception to your statement, DC. They believe that deafness is indeed a "state of being" imposed on them by society, and that the rest of the world should accommodate them by learning to sign, rather than them learning to speak and read lips. The fact that they have a "disability" is imposed on them by a hearing society, and if society just would cater to them by becoming sign-proficient and stop being so "hearing-centric", they wouldn't be disabled at all.

I happen to think they're nuts, but the point is that "subjectivity" is subjective. The idea that something that you see as an objective situation may be seen by others as subjective.

I have another friend who is deaf who never learned to sign. He reads lips very well and speaks with a distinct slur in his speech, but is generally understandable. He does everything you do, and probably more. He has a black belt in Karate, works as a successful architect, dives, is married with a wife and perfectly normal hearing kids, and doesn't sign. Is he disabled? He doesn't think so. So we have another deaf person who doesn't see things with the same objectivity that you do, but rather sees deafness as a subjective thing. He comes to the same conclusion as the Gauladet activists, but for exactly the opposite reasons. (PS: his sister, who is also deaf, is in the same boat. Married with 5 kids, she's a dental hygenist, graduated from her college suma laud, despite the fact that she's deaf, and she never learned to sign. So his is not an isolated case.)

So you see that what you see as an objective state is not necessarily so. People can interpret it subjectively. Just as "blackness" and "poverty" are subjective issues.

Elliot

The students of Gauladet, who tend to be deaf activists, would take exception to your statement, DC. They believe that deafness is indeed a "state of being" imposed on them by society, and that the rest of the world should accomodate them by learning to sign, rather than them learning to speak and read lips. The fact that they have a "disability" is imposed on them by a hearing society, and if society just would cater to them by becoming sign-proficient and stop being so "hearing-centric", they wouldn't be disabled at all.

I happen to think they're nuts, but the point is that "subjectivity" is subjective. The idea that something that you see as an objective situation may be seen by others as subjective.

I have another friend who is deaf who never learned to sign. He reads lips very well and speaks with a distinct slur in his speech, but is generally understandable. He does everything you do, and probably more. He has a black belt in Karate, works as a successful architect, dives, is married with a wife and perfectly normal hearing kids, and doesn't sign. Is he disabled? He doesn't think so. So we have another deaf person who doesn't see things with the same objectivity that you do, but rather sees deafness as a subjective thing. He comes to the same conclusion as the Gauladet activists, but for exactly the opposite reasons. (PS: his sister, who is also deaf, is in the exact same boat. Married with 5 kids, she's a dental hygenist, graduated from her college suma laud, despite the fact that she's deaf, and she never learned to sign. So his is not an isolated case.)

So you see that what you see as an objective state is not necessarily so. People can interpret it subjectively. Just as "blackness" and "poverty" are subjective issues.

Elliot
Well isn't this a twist of events; you speaking philosophically.:) Yes, color is subjective, and guess what, reality coming to the retina's is upside down and fragmented, so it can be said that reality is completely subjective. But that the Black Caucus in congress has no problem distinguishing Black.

Rep. Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Rep. Cohen's complaint about not admitting whites:

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

I have shown my friend your thread and the argument, she says that dark crow has taken an economics course and has decided to go berserk. I said " I know" and it is really sad that he can't use his powers for good and not just his only silly defence.


Dark_Crow--Tell the deaf their inability to hear is just a social construction and not a, 'state of being'…... never-mind, they really can't hear you in spite of what you think
I underlined it for you, I never said just. .

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?


What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.
You were obviously born with a silver spoon in your mouth!! Eveyones entitled to their own opinion of course but try looking at it from there point of view before calling them "cancer"!!

>Thread Closed<