jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (154 posts)

Why there are THOSE among many Americans who ADAMANTLY REFUSE to

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8265018_f520.jpg
    realize, recognize, and acknowledge that there are SOME PEOPLE who simply refuse to better themselves, expecting for others to rescue them from their dire socioeconomic situation?  There are people who maintain that such people are victims of the dominant sociocultural majority who are oppressing the former.  When will people come to the realization that many people are in dire and less than positive socioeconomic stuations because of THE CHOICES they make?  Let's discuss this.
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8265036_f248.jpg

    1. 83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      GREAT POINT!

      Here's one example:

      I work at a school.  I overheard one of our classified staff (no degree) say something during the election.  She said, "I sure hope Obama wins.  I don't want to have to go back to school.  I'm so burned out."  She elaborated.  You see, she's on public assistance, and she was worried that without the liberal policies of Obama, she might lose that assistance.  Yes, she has a job, but she doesn't want to better herself by going back to school.  She simply feels that the government owes assistance to her, because she doesn't earn much; this is why she voted for President Obama.  There is something inherently wrong with a system that encourages people to stagnate and not work towards bettering themselves.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Totally concur with this.  I have seen this among the working poor.  They complain about how they are struggling yet they refuse to further their education or to take jobs with greater responsibility.  OH NO, they feel that such would be a GREAT INCONVENIENCE and HEADACHE.   Well, how do people become more affluent and successful?  They further their education and make sacrifices; also, they are in highly responsible positions.  Responsible positions often PAYS MORE because of what it entails.  It is so SAD that many poor people REFUSE TO realize this reality.   Hard work=success + wealth.

        It is a FACT that wealthier people work longer and harder than the poor.  Look at celebrities, they are among the hardest working people.  It is not unusual for wealthier people to work 60-80 hours per week.  Many poor people complain working NORMAL work hours.  This is a SAD world we live in when people hate the successful but are QUITE LOATHE to make the sacrifices in order to be successful.  They would rather live 'THE EASY LIFE", complaining to those who would listen.  To paraphrase, many people want to get to heaven but do not want to die.  Well the same applies to those who want all the accolades of success but refuse to work towards it, they want to be affluent and successful by proxy. Well, IT DOES NOT work THAT WAY! The WAY some people "THINK."  As I have said before, many poor people in America WANT to be that way.

      2. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How do you ensure efforts to encourage the shirkers into self-reliance, don't penalise those people who are hard-working and want to succeed but (for whatever reason) are struggling financially and need some assistance. How do you distinguish between those two groups?

        And if part of the problem stems from people making "bad choices", then rather than condeming people after the fact, wouldn't it be more useful to identify those most at risk of making such bad choices, become a role-model, and help them to make better ones?

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          One can educate such people all they wish to but many of them refuse to become enlightened and are entrenched in their particular pathology.  Many poor people have a different modus operandi than the middle, upper middle, and upper classes.  They have an extremely fatalistic, passive, and victim mentality and approach to life.  They have to help themselves if they wish to get out of poverty!

          1. 83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's a good point.  You certainly aren't going to get into the middle class by waiting for the government to do it for you.  When the government provides financial assistance, it often results in complacency and diminished motivation to improve one's life by attaining further education or training.  Then, so many people complain about capitalism and how it results in a polarization of classes, how poor people never get out of their financial plight.  Maybe they don't get out of their financial plight, because they are satisfied after receiving financial aid.  It's kind of like paying farmers not to farm.  We're quite literally paying people not to further their own marketability in the job market.  It's no wonder that few poor people ever reach the middle class, and when they do, they are a big success story.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There seems to be a difference to me between a hand up and a handout. Because of the recession there have been many who have been forced into financial difficulty who were not there before.

              1. 83
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I want to be clear here.  I have no problem with helping people who are struggling, people who probably don't want the help and would do anything possible to get off of assistance.  The problem is that many people don't feel that way.  Many people feel that the government owes assistance to them, because they have not attained marketable skills for whatever reason.  I know people who struggled and worked their way off of assistance, and I know people who will always be on assistance.  There is a difference.

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You have made the differentation, and it is clear, thanks.

                2. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How do you distinguish between these groups? How do you ensure measures to reduce the number of those who want a hand-out, don't penalise those who need a hand-up?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It is indeed a problem, and a big one - one that we've made nearly no real effort to solve and one that is the cause of much anger and disgust towards those truly in need.

                    One answer might be to give the low level welfare dept. workers some responsibility and authority to make judgement calls.  Extremely difficult as every single person denied the funds they are "entitled" to will scream to high heaven, but it could be done.

                    Another might be to require that everyone receiving benefits work for them.  Make work jobs if need be, but work a normal work week with benefits tied to how much they earn.

                    It CAN be done, but only at the cost of politicians losing votes, and is not PC at all.  It is, after all, demeaning to do simple labor.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Why not make real jobs with real pay for the unemployed?

                  2. 83
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Honestly, I wish I had the answer.  I see the problem, but I don't profess to have the answer.

                    Here's one thought that comes to mind.  Instead of helping with perpetual assistance, maybe we could help with education, training, and even relocation costs.  I'm not real fond of this idea, but it beats giving money with absolutely no return on our investment.  That's exactly what public assistance should be, an investment in helping somebody get out of poverty and not a support system for people who have become complacent.

                    1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      There are many programs to do this, both at the federal and state level.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

      Why are there THOSE among many Americans who CONSTANTLY HARP upon the subject of POOR people making bad CHOICES.  These Americans ADAMANTLY REFUSE to acknowledge that this small subset of the underprivileged is not representative of the typical person who lives in poverty, but INSTEAD want to WAG THEIR FINGERS and TSK TSK about those "lazy freeloaders."  WHY do these Americans FEEL the need to PASS JUDGMENT upon others?  Perhaps it is a way to PAT THEMSELVES on the BACK while REFUSING to acknowledge that they can take SOME BUT NOT ALL of the credit, as well some but not all of the BLAME, for the circumstances of their own lives.

      roll

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Many poor people DO make bad choices, believe it or not! That is ALL I have to say!

        1. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And many rich people do too, but they are fortunate enough to have a cushion to protect against those bad choices.  Look at Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton, Robert Downey, Jr., Lindsay Lohan, Elvis Presley, ad nauseum.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, Grace, I have to support Pretty Panther's on this line of reasoning. Being lazy is not an exclusive character trait of the poor, but alas being lazy will cost them far more.The cushion that the affluent  receive is not necessarily from the benifit of hard work on their part.
            I am an eternal optimist who believe that most people down on their luck are working for a solution and not sitting around waiting for a handout.

            EA makes the short sighted politically bigoted observation assuming Obama is all about handouts based on a comment he heard from one person.

          2. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What a very good point.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How many?

          1. 83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            37.4%, exactly.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Okay. Now define what bad choices represent that number.

        3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, many people make bad choices. You can see that anywhere. As a shrink, I have seen millionaires who have made terrible choices and have lost everything....physicians becoming addicts, stock brokers making crazy bets, business people who rob the store in order to gamble in Vegas.

          Just a  thought.....but you can see people make bad choices right here if you look close enough. It's kind of a human trait to not always get in right in an environment that is constantly changing.

      2. Lisa HW profile image83
        Lisa HWposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        1. 83
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why do some Americans do that?  Frustration is the answer.  It's frustrating to go to work each day, struggle to make ends meet, cut costs, make the tough decisions on what luxuries your children can and can't have, and then watch as some people sit on a couch each day collecting government checks off of our hard-earned taxes.  While these people typically don't live in luxury and they certainly usually struggle too, it's frustrating to see them live life off of our hard work.  If they worked and paid taxes too, we might not have to pay as much. 

          It's all very frustrating, and in the teaching profession, I see it all the time.  It KILLS me to see what this does to those children whose parents do nothing but collect checks.  These poor kids have little chance of escaping generational poverty.  They often have no desire to do well in school, as they don't really see themselves succeeding in life.  They have no consistency, because their parents are moving from government housing to government housing every few months.  Now, I know that you might think this is uncommon, but unfortunately, it's quite common in many areas of our country.  I work at a poor school, and it's prevalent here, very prevalent.

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!

      3. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 3 years ago

        why is wealth so important to you?

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wealth is very important to me.  Wealth is the difference between living like a human being, being in charge of one's life and destiny and constantly worrying about one's existence, living from hand to mouth.  No  person who truly respects and love himself/herself  WANTS to be POOR at the behest of others and being at the mercy of others.  It is so sad to see that to many people, wealth is a bad word.  Well, it is NOT! Wealth is greatness and good!  It's GOOD not to struggle , BEING ABLE to LIVE WELL!  POVERTY, not WEALTH, is the aberrant social disease!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image87
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Compassion will cure more sins than condemnation."--Henry Ward Beecher

            The roots of systemic poverty are varied and intertwined.  Your focus on one small aspect of human character while simultaneously dismissing well-researched and documented social, cultural, historical, and economic factors is disturbing.  Your intentional disregard for the complexity of the issue reveals a shallowness of thought that could easily be labeled a social disease.

            1. 83
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              True compassion is helping people get out of their impoverished circumstances.  Perpetual handouts that are often generational do little to encourage many to better themselves and actually escape into the middle class.  Welfare should be a hand up rather than a perpetual suspension of lateral mobility.  Helping people actually get out of their dire economic circumstances permanently and without future government assistance would be true compassion.  What we have right now fails to do that for many and actually encourages many to continue down the road they have already been traveling.  That's not true compassion.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Agree.  I wonder what gm is doing to help, besides judge the character of the poor on internet forums? 

                I agree that there are systemic problems that exacerbate generational poverty.

                1. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The BEST way to help a person is for HIM/HER to HELP and LIFT UP himself/herself.  That is ALL I have to say on the subject.  We have been giving monies and implementing poverty programs in America; the end result is the welfare malaise this great nation is in.  Helping many poor people only makes them LAZIER and MORE ENTITLED.  Well, NO ONE owes  YOU anything as an ABLE-BODIED adult!

              2. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                +1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!  The Lord helps those who help themselves. To teach a person to fish plays ma$$ive dividends as opposed to giving him/her fish!

          2. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Why does it have to be WEALTH? What is wrong with just living at a comfortable level with all of your needs met and a few luxuries.

            Wanting anything more than that is reprehensible to me and is considered GREED in my book.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Needs - food, shelter and clothing.  1,800 calories per day, a tent and one change of clothing.  Or did you mean a little more?

              The point is that those "needs" have continued to grow to include what were considered absolute luxuries a few decades ago and still are in most of the world.  What we now consider a "few simple luxuries" was rich beyond dreams of avarice not long ago.

              So who decides what a "need" is and which "luxuries" are reasonable and which are greed?  Is it greedy to have a cell phone, computer, TV (with satellite) and steak?  Is it greedy to take in a movie once a month?  Once a week?  Are we greedy for discarding clothing that is quite serviceable but not stylish any more?

              No two people will agree - I know a woman that raised cain with the cable company because it took several days to get cable into her house - she had four children and it was an absolute necessity (which has been dropped now in favor of a YMCA family membership smile ).

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I see. To you it's ok to be greedy. Anyone who truly has thier priorities straight will KNOW what greed is and what isn't.

                You just want an exuse to be greedy and have more than your fair share. The majority of people do. That's the main reason the world is so fucked up.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, Janesix, I live more simply than the large majority of Americans, and I'm quite happy with it.  A computer, TV (with satellite) and a tracphone, yes, but that's about all.  An old RV that I love to go camping in - camping has been the only vacation I've ever taken in my 63 years.  Clothes are good until holey and hang the fashion industry.

                  But I doubt that YOU would be happy living my life - few people would be.  They need fancy designer clothes somehow, and a hair stylist and manicure every month.  They need something more than a decade old car that runs fine but doesn't look fancy and new.  They need a whole lot of things that just don't exist in my life and most of all they need to keep up with the Joneses.  None of which appeals to me in the slightest.

                  I also find that very few people aren't greedy in that they want more than bare necessities (that food, shelter and clothing idea).  We ALL want more, it's just that some of us can afford more than others and to others that somehow makes them greedy.  Because they can buy what you want but can't afford.

                  And that's the reason the world is so fucked up - that people aren't satisfied with what they have but always want something someone else has worked for and can afford but they can't afford themselves.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Odd how necessities change, isn't it?  I grew up in a 3 bedroom home that was literally a trash pit before Dad remodeled with his own two hands.  One bath, 3 bedrooms for two adults and 3 kids.  80% of our groceries came from canning our garden (that we all helped work) produce and Dad's hunting of deer and elk.  One telephone, one old car.  A motorola radio, no TV.  Entertainment was an evening Scrabble game - no movies.  I don't think I had a store bought pair of pants until I left home although I DID have a bicycle purchased with money from my paper route.

                      And we weren't poor - we were well fed (better than most families today), warm and with a roof.  We just didn't have the dozens of expensive luxuries that are now considered survival necessities.

                  2. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, I think that you exaggerate a bit. The economic crisis and the effects are upon people who cannot pay the rent, put food on their tables, etc. I had nothing to do with manicures. I am sure that many, myself, included would not find your life so spartan. At least you know that you are going to eat and have a roof over your head. I am sure that the vast majority of those without would be pleased with these basic provisions.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      All true.  The crisis has hurt, and hurt badly.  It is improving, though, and would be even better for those that won't work if they would step up and take a job.  Any job that will feed their families whether it is beneath their dignity or not.

                      And many would find my life not so spartan; I DID use the term "majority", not 100%.  I do maintain, though, that I am in a small minority with what I'm happy with - while you insinuate that there are huge numbers of starving, homeless people in the US it isn't true.  I have never even heard of someone dying from starvation in this country; the distended bellies in all the UNICEF ads aren't seen here.  Homeless; absolutely, but there are few that are that way for long unless they wish to be (and quite a few do).

                      1. Credence2 profile image85
                        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                        I hear you, Wilderness, my point is that there are fewer of there interminably lazy than what society would have us believe. There has been plenty of downsizing stories with tales of people laid off  and taking jobs at a fraction of their previous salary to support themselves and their families. That is the far more common reality. There has been a structural change in the economy that is responsible for so much that the powers that be are reluctant for the public to have reminders as to how we got here.



                        I  think that because of the economy, the number people who no longer have the luxury to continue chasing after 'things' is growing. I do not say that there are huge numbers of starving people, but there are many more that are hungry to the point of nutritional deficiencies, which is catastrophic for the young.

                        You guys that live in the mountain west have got it made, you get to trap or catch your dinner and have the clear blue skies as your roof.

                      2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                        Hello Wilderness. Good to chat with you tonight.

                        Credence2 make a valid point. Because you do not see children with swollen bellies, you believe there are no children going hungry in this country. WRONG! “In 2010, 17.2 million households in the USA, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States.” {1}

                        What does “food insecure” mean, you ask?

                        There is a reason why we do not hear about “hunger” and “starvation” any more. In 2006, definitions in the US were revised to eliminate references to hunger. Starving to death is now described as various categories of “food insecurity.” Therefore, Wilderness, starvation still exists in this country but under a new name.

                        What was called “food insecurity with hunger” prior to 2006 is now called “very low food insecurity.” {2}

                        This means the food intake of household members was reduced because of a lack of money and other resources for food. In short, people in the US are feeling hungry, “the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food,” for days each year. {3}

                        Are huge numbers starving in the USA?

                        I would say food intake below levels considered adequate is “starving to death.” Would you agree Wilderness? Well, during 2010, one percent of households with children had at least one child who “experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers.” That works out to 390,000 starving children.

                        I believe you, Wilderness, when you say, “I have never even heard of someone dying from starvation in this country.” However, hundreds of thousands of Americans, both adults and children, suffering from malnutrition are slowly starving every day in this country, but when they die from a multitude of illnesses associated with poor nutrition, “starvation” is never entered on the death certificate.
                        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                        {1}  http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea … _facts.htm
                        {2} Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, Steven Carlson. 2009. " Household Food Security in the United States, 2008." United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. ERR-49. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR83/ERR83.pdf. p. iii-iv
                        {3} Oxford English Dictionary 1971

              2. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In total and utter agreement, Wilderness!

      4. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

        From a Forbes 2012 article.
        I have posted link.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewo … e-percent/

        Americans haven’t seen a disparity this wide since before the Great Depression — and it keeps growing...
        Why do I doubt that anyone here was around during the Depression???


        The Fallacy of Hard Work

        It’s a common belief in America that all people have the same opportunity for success as the top 1 percent. Most people consider success to be a by-product of hard work, and hard work is something that Americans are extremely familiar with. In fact, Americans have increased productivity by 80 percent since 1979; unfortunately, their income hasn’t risen accordingly, if at all.

        The average worker in an American company makes substantially less than supervisors and executives. In fact, corporate executives make 62 times more money than an average worker in bonuses alone, not counting the executive’s actual salary. For every corporate bonus, the company could have paid 62 employees. In fact, incentive pay actually rose 30 percent from years before the recession.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Clearly the CEO who chats with his friends in his office is working 62x harder than the guy who loads several-hundred-pound crates into his trucks. Clearly.

          1. 83
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree that the CEO doesn't work as hard, physically.  I also have nothing but respect for the people who do the real work.  Further, no CEO is worth the millions of dollars they "earn."  Still, it is true that a good CEO can make decisions that earn or save millions or even billions of dollars. There are more people who can do the labor than there are people who can make those crucial decisions that save millions and millions of dollars. That has to have some value, as most of us can't do that sort of thing.  I guess what I'm saying is there is an argument for both sides.  Still, no CEO is worth 20 million dollars when their average employee is earning 30 thousand dollars, to totally make up a few statistics.  Something is just wrong with that kind of thinking.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am pleasantly surprised to hear this line of reasoning from you EA. I agree completely. You're slippin, the left is rubbing off on you.........

              1. 83
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                LOL 

                Are you trying to talk me out of it?  Actually, I really mean what I said.  I do have a profound respect for the people who do the real work.

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Mighty Mom, I read the Forbes link through, this is powerful stuff from a respected business publication. What say the rightwinger in the face of such a damning confession?  As I suspected all along, the President is correct and the fatcats-bougeoisie, whatever, are handing us all a red herring. This article is very important as to the information it imparts combined with coming from a messenger no one is going to argue with.

          Thanks

      5. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

        Sanctimonious libertarian friend of mine:  "I worked HARD for everything I have; I deserve everything I have because I EARNED it all on my own."f

        Sanctimonious libertarian friend's college education was fully paid for by her parents.  Her living expenses were also fully paid by her parents until after she received her graduate degree at the age of 26.  Now, she still lives with her parents and at the age of 32 believes all of that savings she socks away every month because she doesn't pay for her own housing and food she fully earned solely through her own hard work.  Oh, and her chronic health problems are paid for by the health insurance she gets from her government job.

        Yet, she gripes about a coworker who grew up with a drug-addicted Mom until she was put in foster care at 16 and has so far managed to get two years of college under her belt through a government program.  Coworker is studying while working full time.  Yet, coworker is a parasite because she dares to receive assistance that has helped her move from poverty to lower middle class. 

        Many conservatives and libertarians suffer the delusion that they are spectacularly self-sufficient and have worked for everything they have.  Sanctimonious, hypocritical bull-hockey.  Very few people can legitimately claim to have earned their riches, however modest, all on their own.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see that attitude as unusual.  It's a part of why so many college students are highly liberal.

          As long as someone is taking, not giving, it is quite all right.  As soon as they are forced to give instead, and the shoe is on the other foot, it's not OK at all.  Friend is taking from one source while giving to another - the one is fine but the another is abhorrent.  Sanctimonious indeed.

      6. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

        What will be the probability for a single mother living in the project to make it on her own? The government owes assistance to the people living in poverty. Oil companies have privileges and people don't? I want my share of taxes to go to an impoverished family versus to nourish the fantasies of my government to wage another war in the middle east.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If the government owes the poor money, they must have done something to earn it.  What might that have been?  To exist?

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sure Paris Hilton has done a lot to earn her fame and fortune.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Good answer.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question, but I'm sure it's a good answer to some question somewhere.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Simple, to allow others to be rich.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I doubt that the poor "allowed" any such thing.  They therefore aren't "owed" money for something they didn't do and even if they did allow it that is no reason for others (represented by government) to pay them for something of no value.

              Try again?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But only by being poor or unemployed do they allow the wealthy to be rich.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  First, that some people are rich does not mean that some must be poor.  Poverty has many reasons, and only one of them is that someone else has stolen their belongings.

                  Secondly, even if it were true, that some are rich and some are poor has nothing to do with me.  Why then do you figure that my government, using [/i]my[/i] property (money), owes the poor anything at all?  I am not responsible for the laziness of the poor, the poor decisions they've made, their inability to learn or produce or the bad luck they've found themselves in.  So how do I (through my government) owe them anything?

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          " I want my share of taxes to go to an impoverished family versus to nourish the fantasies of my government to wage another war in the middle east.'
          Max,
          A true humanitarian has come this way!

      7. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago

        Malnutrition reduces life expectancy.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So how do you stop malnutrition?
          By giving them food? Or by giving them money?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As we've tried both and neither works, a different solution needs to be found. 

            Perhaps giving them money, but ONLY in return for a 40 hour week of make-work thus encouraging people to find better jobs?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That displaces current workers, and so all you've done is switch the unemployment line around.

              Way to go?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                To some degree it does.  However, it takes 50 people with shovels to match the output of 1 person with a backhoe - you lose one good worker but gain experience in working for 50 more.

                There are also jobs that simply aren't being done well, if at all, today.  Put brooms in 10,000 unemployed hands and put them in the streets.  It doesn't have to be a job that needs doing, just one the forces 40 hours of low quality time and effort to receive the pittance necessary to live.

                Costly, yes, but if it encourages just a few to end their dependence on charity in favor of getting a real job it is money well spent.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You forget that the system is designed to need a large pool of unemployed.
                  And who would actually pay for these 10,000 unemployed with brooms in their hands?

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But they already pay for them to not look for work so what's the difference of putting a broom in their hands or sending them off to be educated?

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      The difference is that Wilderness believes that it would stir all those lazy blighter's into getting a "real" job.

                      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                        Oh I see where you are coming from John and would agree with you to a point. It may instil a work ethic in a few but I doubt it will stir the lazy bones to anything except hone their skiving skills.
                        I still believe a compulsory education program would be the best thing.

            2. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why would it have to be work, why not further education?
              Give a man a fish it will feed him for a day teach him how to fish and he could feed himself for a lifetime.

              This would also create more employment by creating more places in education.

              Educated people drive a nation forward.

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I would be very quick to include additional education in the "work" class, but...there are problems to be addressed.

                If going to school is classified as "work" does every student get welfare?  How do you stop the inevitable abuse as students-to-be sit at home for a time, working the welfare system, and then go to school, keeping their welfare as they do so?  Fix that problem (without simply supporting any and all students) and you'd get my immediate support. I'm a very firm believer in increasing marketable skills as one way out of poverty.

      8. 0
        delleaposted 3 years ago

        There are people who continually make stupid choices and in turn expect people who have continually made smart choices to bail them out of their troubles, but this is not the case for everybody that you might label as poor or lazy.

        The simple fact that most of America's manufacturing and other key self-sustaining industries have all been outsourced to foreign countries, with thanks to all of the over-educated and overpaid CEO's and big government politicians. As long as these leeches keep having their pockets padded, they couldn't give a flipping damn about anybody else or the consequences of the narcissistic decisions that they make.

        People cannot work if the jobs that they do have qualifications for are not available because people in India, China, and other countries have been handed said jobs on a big silver platter!

        Obviously, where degrees are concerned, some people who are smart enough to get degrees are the ones that constantly whine about the people who aren't smart enough to get them... but just because someone isn't smart enough to have a mile-long resume full of educational milestones doesn't mean that they are not smart, period. There are endless examples here. Someone without a degree who is smart enough to tear apart a car engine and rebuild it blindfolded isn't stupid, it just means that they have a different area of expertise than someone who as wasted endless years on piling up degrees in their resume only to become a whining, smart-ass know-it-all.

        In context... if the degree-less person who can rebuild car engines cannot work for a mechanic because they don't have a piece of paper, they are screwed, and it's not fair for many reasons. Not only is that engine expert out of work, but their expertise and their abilities are wasted (maybe they end up flipping burgers), and some wealthy over-educated moron somewhere also loses the benefit of that person's expert high quality handy-work on their broken down Lexus or Mercedes!

        Let's face the facts... degrees aren't everything! In my line of work, I've encountered rich, over-educated morons who can't even brew a pot of coffee on their own if it's their maid's day off, coffee grounds and water all over the place! In fact, there is a local selectman in a neighboring town with a big fat resume who thinks he knows it all, and he's totally destroyed the reputation of his town... his town is constantly in the newspapers because of the never-ending stupid mistakes he's made as a selectman, and the taxpayers and voters in that town have been footing the bills for all of his mistakes, all because of his idiotic, over-educated narcissism! Sometimes people with too many degrees under their belt are too big for their britches!

        All said, it's quite apparent that even those with degrees up the ying-yang are capable of making stupid choices!

      9. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

        The problems we have...
        are of our own making.

             Every problem is a chance to increase our awareness of ourselves and life.  To not face our problems head on is to avoid becoming stronger and wiser. It is important to embrace problems with bravery and determination. To do so, builds our inner strength.

        Unless you like being a spiritual cream puff.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Totally agree! People must learn to be accountable and take responsibility for their lives. The only person who can take a poor person out of poverty is him/her individual self, no one else!

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Blaming others will
                                                  Get You No Where.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Further thoughts and creative writing regarding the matter at hand posted by Gm:

              Regarding the human condition: Independence and liberty bring forth happiness. 

              (In fact, I have finally accepted the fact that depending on anyone else or others for happiness will not bring about the desired result.
              Also... contrary to popular beliefs, happiness is not a" warm puppy" or a" warm gun."
              Or even being married to the "right person."
              Or even having the Government and/or Others (through taxes) provide for the survival of its citizens.

              Instead, True happiness comes from somewhere within us... somewhere in our own minds.
              Therefore, It's possible to be happy for no reason at all.)

              Furthermore...True happiness will bring forth enthusiasm and personal industry with the joy of doing,
              of success,
              of working with others,
              of being alive.

              And It starts with the child. Encouragement and inspiration is what we must provide every child. Not force. Forcing is taboo and ultimately causes the psychological condition of laziness. Lazy people are NOT happy.
              (And I abhor summer being cut short in favor of an earlier start date for public school. Bah.)

              Just meanderin' by to elucidate...

      10. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

        Hope is another powerful motivator of happiness.. If you buy a house, you have the joyful hope of owning it someday. This house meanwhile gives you and your family individual freedom. You do not have a landlord. You are king and queen in your own little kingdom. Yes you give to Caesar what is Caesar's... but no you don't have to deal directly with him.

      11. Mark Lees profile image86
        Mark Leesposted 3 years ago

        Ownership of property is the basis of capitalism. The example of the car is an example of one transaction which still requires that the manufacturer was compensated originally and the manufacturer would have made the car with an uneven distribution of labour/reward.

        The second example is outside capitalism because it does not effect others- although the notion of him them building a second home and controlling who lives there is capitalist in nature, even without knowledge of money.

        Ownership of property is not, of itself, capitalism but as soon as you encourage ownership of property beyond what is necessary you are opening the door to the uneven distribution of labour and influence that are the hallmarks of capitalism.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But the example was purely the transaction between myself and my daughter, nothing before or after affected that.



          Agreed, though some seem to struggle with that concept.

       
      working