Poverty - the greatest evil?

But this one is so easy to derail....BOOM!

 

Not living in poverty is pretty easy.

1) Work hard at every job you have.
2) Don't have children outside of marriage or before you financially able.
3) Don't do drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
4) Don't break the law.
5) Take care of your health.
6) Get married.

Anyone have a few to add? If you live in poverty, it's because you made some poor decisions along the way. Sure there are some people out there who are just unlucky, but those are the exception to the rule.

And if break any of the first four above, you shouldn't get anything from the government. You should not receive one cent of aid.

 

7) Don't buy anything you can't afford.
Be wary of buying anything you don't actually need.
9) Avoid using credit.

 

10) Live below your means and save money.

 

Yep - no problemo with that - almost. Demanding by law (such as tax code architecture or whatever other coercive mechanisms are available) that SOMEONE ELSE always does the helping out isn't such a wonderful approach of taking the moral high ground. If I point a gun at you and say, "Give me your money so I can help the poor", you just might not be all that happy to oblige - especially if you suspect that due to past performance, I'm also secretly thinking to myself, "... and then they will like me and vote for me so I can be rich and powerful and enjoy life and feel good about myself for being so wonderfully generous". You would probably suspect that I might not actually be as moral a person as I pretend to be.

 

11) Time is the most limited resource you have. Be careful how you use it and don't waste it.

 

Well, true but I think the point of heritages list, and yes it's biased, is to point out that poverty in America is not what a lot of people on the left try to make it. They try to paint a picture of people going without food and clothing, when that isn't what's going on here. A poor person in America is rich by most third world standards.

I won't begrudge them most of those things -- if both parents are working (or a single parent) doesn't have a lot of time to cook, a microwave is a good investment. I'd rather mom microwave a few meals and spend time with the kids than spend 45 minutes cooking. One or two entertainment devices aren't aweful either, I can get a used gamecube for about $50, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper than taking the kids to the movies, and for that matter, a TV isn't evil either as once again, a lot of activities are more expensive than watching TV. Cheap TV: $100, go to the movies 5 times: $140. At some point you have to realize that the alternatives aren't free either.

And a car in most cities is a necessity. Buses and trains don't go everywhere that you need to go, especially since most decent jobs are in the 'burbs. So if you land a nice job at the suburban mall or something, the bus won't get you there, and it would cost more to get a cab.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*), I don't follow that one at all.

 

The facts were crystal clear, you dismissed them because you don't like them, and you don't like the source. Did you disprove the facts?

And you missed the purpose of the Heritage article:

But there is a wide chasm between the public’s concept of poverty and “poverty” as it is defined by the Census Bureau.

The public generally thinks of poverty as substantial material hardship such as homelessness, or malnutrition and chronic hunger. In reality, the vast majority of those identified as poor by the annual census report did not experience significant material deprivation. ​

The article is correct. To most of the world, living in a house with air conditioning and a tv, with a car, and having food is not poverty.

World Vision is a Christian organization which has been around for almost 60 years. If you look at their financial statements, you will see that their finances are remarkably stable, roughly 80% comes from private donations. This is from World Visions financial statement:

World Vision’s objective for financial liquidity and reserves is to operate within a prudent range of stability, while recognizing the imperative of distributing maximum funds to mission as quickly as possible. World Vision U.S. remains financially strong, with sufficient liquid assets to discharge ongoing ministry commitments and other obligations.​

Is the govt that fiscally responsible? The govt has overspent for decades and hasn't even been able to create a budget for the past 3 years.

The people in World Vision see their work as a calling from God, and it shows. From the CEO to the worker in Africa, everyone knows that a penny wasted is a penny less of food or medication for people.

Does the govt care about people? No, for them its a job and politics, its not their money.


The rest of your comments are political propaganda. Not being rude, but you are 18, you live a sheltered life, what do you really know about these things? How many rich people do you know, how many business owners, how many doctors? What do you know about running a business, particularly "mega corporations"?

I'll bet all you know comes from the media. There are 28 million companies in the US, and 7 million have employees. The few that make it into the media spotlight are typically the bad apples (thats why they catch the media attention) and are not representative.

Get some first hand knowledge. People are much better than you think, they don't need the govt to force them to be charitable.

If you check, you will find that Americans donate over $300 Billion a year to charitable orgs. The govt spends about $191 Billion on programs that help the poor - and not all of that actually goes to the poor.

 

Before this economic crisis, I say poverty don't really exist in America. People stayed in poverty, because they are lazy and can't take hardship.

I came to America with just a little saving long ago, I found a job immediately right after my arrival, I had no transportation, I stayed the place I worked, but I work hard, six days a week, 12 hours a day, four months later, I had my first car, not a good car, but a used car and I rent a room, got my own place. Those are hard years and I tough it up. Now, I have a better car, paid it off, built my credit, brought my own house and have a new career. I tell you, many Americans are lazy and can't take hardship, plus, they don't know how to save, they buy many things that are not necessary, they have no discipline, they have no plan, they rely on the government. What people say about lazy Americans is true too. But I certainly not saying all Americans, I met many of them are hardworkers too.

But of course, I also have God's blessings, I don't take all the credit on my own, God help people that help themselves.

In those days, I don't believe in poverty in America, I wouldn't understand why people don't have a car for years. Cars can be very cheap in America, basically, like any foreign students come here, working a summer job, they can get a car, and they can get a better job in further distant. The people who still taking buses, I say, they choose to.

 

No offense, but this is total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). There are too many rags to riches examples in this country that completely invalidate the victim notion that you're born into your destiny. If you'd like, I can give you countless examples of people who have come from nothing and risen to tremendously wealthy status through their own blood, sweat, and tears. I think the problem is that too many people today think that getting rich is supposed to be easy. Or at least just getting by should require minimal effort. Everybody isn't born into the same circumstances. Some people start off a lot worse than others. Some people have to work harder than others. But the formula is the same no matter whether you come from the suburbs or the streets. And it should be common sense. I find it sad that feeling sorry for oneself has become so popular that people no longer understand the fundamental principle that hard work = success. Every excuse you can dream up to try to justify why you can't get ahead is time and effort wasted that you could be applying to figuring out how to get ahead in the circumstances that you've been dealt. Ultimately, this is the ONLY thing that seperates a success from a failure. The successful person doesn't dissect everything looking for reasons why he can't get ahead. He's too busy finding ways to advance himself.

It never ceases to amaze me how the people who are the strongest believers in darwinism have the hardest time accepting it when they see it in action. The strong, the smart, and the willing will survive because they refuse to accept any less. The rest will be weeded out because they are unwilling to do what it takes to get to where they want to be.

I'm going to repost a video I posted in a thread the other day to address this very topic.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiAR0IiwMwc"]The WILLS and the WILL NOTS - YouTube[/ame]

This is Larry Winget. He grew up dirt poor, worked his way to a fortune and became a self-made millionaire, then went broke, and then worked his way back to a millionaire again. So he has gone from rags to riches TWICE in his life. Unless you have done the same thing, I'd like you to listen to what he has to say about why people fail. I think you'll find that it's consistent with what I've said here. That everyone is able but most people are simply not willing.

 

That's actually very good advice. But that's so complicated. Just working all the time is actually a big waste of time. If we leave it up to corporations with their combination of profit motive and no sympathy for human beings, everybody is working for a corporation as much as is humanly possible. Which is a lot of the time. But corporate profit that doesn't find its way to a lot of human beings in the form of necessities like medicine and education is a waste of time.

Poverty is an evil because it's inflicted. I've heard some republican repeat over and over again on this forum that the threat of poverty is necessary to keep the masses motivated. We choose to organize ourselves in such a way as to keep some portion of the population unemployed, because we honestly believe that we're better off this way (there are reasonable arguments), but then we also choose to punish the victims of our economic adjustments.

I think we can either choose not to have poor people, and figure out some other way of motivating people to do whatever it is that needs to be done -- maybe even let people choose for themselves -- or we can condemn some percentage of our population to relative poverty, which sucks no matter how many Big Macs you can still technically afford, and have the decency to at least get these people to the doctor when they need it. I don't see any other moral options.

 

That is admittedly impressive. I respect his force of will. But how does that actually change anybody's responsibilities? Just because this guy can do things that other people can't, even if it's because they won't, that doesn't mean that suddenly everyone else becomes less important.

 

So what? Of course life for the poor is "inconvenient". This is how we judge poverty in the first world now? By how "inconvenient" the lives of the menial have become????

What a crock.

If Poverty is measured by how convenient one's lifestyle has become, then we as a civilization are truly (*)(*)(*)(*)ed!!!

Just because one can't "keep up with the Joneses", that doesn't mean one is in poverty by any sane measure of the standard.

If "particpation in the surrounding culture" means materially possessing all that one's neighbor possesses, even if it takes a Government grant to do so, and that defines poverty. Then we might as well just pack it in, we're helpless and hopeless!

 

Dude, you’re missing the point. Everybody CAN do that. You’re no different than him. Neither am I. Neither is anyone. But 99% of the people will do what the OP is doing here (even if he's only doing it by proxy through someone else's words) and conjure up a world of excuses to feel better about why they can't get ahead rather than put their noses to the grindstone and actually do what is necessary to get ahead.

That's why he makes the point about how most people are 100% satisfied with their lives. Because if they weren't satisfied, they'd be doing something to change them. And let's be honest, most people who hate their lot in life aren't doing a whole lot to improve it. They are sitting around complaining about why it isn't fair and waiting for someone else (i.e. the government) to do something about it.

 

Well see, right wingers (especially rich right wingers) place a higher value on themselves than all those "other people". Therefore, in their warped minds, when we send poor people to die, nobody's really losing anything much. It's not them or theirs, and they're better than them. They think they're doing them a favor.

Providing food or shelter isn't profitable, so, they see it as wrong. Sad...but THAT IS the upper class white, right wing mentality (which is why I take every opportunity to remind everyone that the upper income, white middle class republican voting blockheads, aren't worth snot).

 

You know the best that accusing of lazyness to the poverty. That the elites always have done that. If you read some kind of texts of the XIX century, you will see that workers and poors confronted exactly the same argumentation from the Capitalists, right, Conservative... and all that.

The problem is that all the groups that I previously mentioned they don't want to change because they know that with poverty they can become more powerful and have enslaved a great part of the poblation.

 

I disagree, especially when you have an economy that makes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness too inconvenient.

Okay, I can agree with that part.

But that first part? I disagree. Our civilization should be judged by how inconvenient it is to be civilized by it. If it's just getting in the way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then what is the point, again?

 

Maybe so. But do we want everybody doing what is necessary to get ahead?

There are some people -- children, the elderly, the disabled -- that should not have to do what is necessary to get ahead. Besides, "what is necessary" is relative to the culture and civilization we create, so we're still responsible.

I disagree with this part. You ever known anybody who was sick and full of pain? And lot of people are working very hard and scrambling and just aren't doing whatever it is that would make them wealthier -- that doesn't mean they aren't doing something that it's very important for them to do. Think moms.

 

You make way too much sense for Fox viewers. I hope you don't take their mentality seriously...oh..here..you'll need it when engaging the right wing poo peddlers...>>>>>

 

Sorry, I am going to have to disagree with you here. Not everyone is capable of doing what this guy did. There are a myriad of reasons as to why, some of which are the fault of the person themselves, some of them the fault of family or the community, some the fault of corporations and other people that interfered indirectly.

And those poor people are greedy too, just the same as the corporations. Just like the corporations, they want more without having to work harder for it. And thus the tug of war between the employer and the employee lives on. Currently, the employer has the major advantage, though this may change when the poor get angry enough to fight back.

The point is, Not everyone is capable of improving themselves, or chooses to. But those people are still going to want to live, and will do whatever they can do in their power to do so. As their situation grows worse, they will do more desperate things to maintain their lifestyles.

So either compromise with the poor now to placate them while still getting something out of it. Or kill them off before they become a real threat. But to do nothing and let them suffer is going to make things worse down the road, In my opinion.

Thank you for your time.

 

If you're ever going to master the English language, you need to begin by focusing on "juuuuuust a few more words". I'm happy you learned to spell "blah" though...it's a good start but (psssst...you probably shouldn't expect one word repeated over and over to become a paragraph...just a thought).