Poor are Poor because they want to be Poor

[Belly35]

Poor are Poor because they want to be Poor

I still contend that this is a true statement. Everyone is given the opportunity to achieve in America and the choice made in life determines our personal success. How an individual handles the opportunities and the effort put forth to reach those goals are self inspired determination some have it and some blow it.
I’m seeing a “New Poor” developing now in American society. Not those that has made the bad decision, over extended themselves, uneducated, drug depended, lazy and just plain stupid behavior individual. But educated individuals, once driven people, inspiring to achieve people, hard working, dedicated to working, saving/banking account drawing low and heart broken family men and women whose dreams and spirit is fading from their future.
Some of you are now in this situation and some of you graduating will find this to be a reality.

http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/americas_new_needy

Obama … ….create JOBS. Great words of wisdom from someone who has never had to meet payroll, owned a business or created anything on his own.

Three Questions: Answer anyone of the two.
1. What needs to happen to reverse this “New Poor…. New Needy” situation?
2. Is this Administration capable of creating private sector jobs?

As a business owner of two business sale are down 25% in one and 41% in the other to save the business I have to make cuts ……… (sad and heart broken)
One business a small business loan is not the answer …. kick starting the building market but even that would take nine months to a year to alter any sales for me to rehire anyone.
Second business a SBA loan $150,000/200,000 would be very helpful to push our new product line but it will not create any new jobs for maybe a year out or more.

[derek bomar]

Three Questions: Answer anyone of the three.
1. What needs to happen to reverse this “New Poor…. New Needy” situation?
2. Is this Administration capable of creating private sector jobs?

...umm where's #3?

[CinciX12]

One could have just went to college to for something that there will always be a need for.

I truly feel sorry for you if you are going to school for business right now. You obviously don't have very much common sense, or are determined to prove people wrong.

[queencitybuckeye]

...umm where's #3?


Why is the sky blue?

[fan_from_texas]

One could have just went to college to for something that there will always be a need for.

I truly feel sorry for you if you are going to school for business right now. You obviously don't have very much common sense, or are determined to prove people wrong.


I think the business students will be in better shape the the social workers, theatre majors, etc.

[CinciX12]

One could have just went to college to for something that there will always be a need for.

I truly feel sorry for you if you are going to school for business right now. You obviously don't have very much common sense, or are determined to prove people wrong.


I think the business students will be in better shape the the social workers, theatre majors, etc.


Those people have always been dumb though, they don't count.

[bigmanbt]

Majoring in business is still a worthwhile adventure, especially if you don't mind being part of a global corporation (sad huh, we have to move to other countries to find the good jobs). And knowing about money, how to manage it, how to invest it, and how to invest IN it are huge advantages over the common people.

[friendfromlowry]

Those people have always been dumb though, they don't count.


I lol'd

[derek bomar]

Yea...I would say a business degree isn't any more or less valuable than it has been in the past. There are some generic majors I'd stay away from in undergrad (marketing and management) and those I would focus on (finance and accounting, or transportation and logistics).

[fan_from_texas]

Those people have always been dumb though, they don't count.


I lol'd


Me, too.

[Belly35]

Three Questions: Answer anyone of the three.
1. What needs to happen to reverse this “New Poor…. New Needy” situation?
2. Is this Administration capable of creating private sector jobs?

...umm where's #3?



There was three





This is your warning on personal attacks. 1 more time and it's a forum ban. -LJ

[CinciX12]

Three Questions: Answer anyone of the three.
1. What needs to happen to reverse this “New Poor…. New Needy” situation?
2. Is this Administration capable of creating private sector jobs?

...umm where's #3?



There was three





This is your warning on personal attacks. 1 more time and it's a forum ban.


Sir, yes sir.

There was 2.

[CinciX12]

Yea...I would say a business degree isn't any more or less valuable than it has been in the past. There are some generic majors I'd stay away from in undergrad (marketing and management) and those I would focus on (finance and accounting, or transportation and logistics).


A business degree hasn't lost any value, it will just be difficult to get a job if you have any reservations about going to where the job is.

[derek bomar]

Three Questions: Answer anyone of the three.
1. What needs to happen to reverse this “New Poor…. New Needy” situation?
2. Is this Administration capable of creating private sector jobs?

...umm where's #3?



There was three





This is your warning on personal attacks. 1 more time and it's a forum ban.


Sir, yes sir.

There was 2.


Im confused

[Pick6]

I truly feel sorry for you if you are going to school for business right now. You obviously don't have very much common sense, or are determined to prove people wrong.


thats pretty much it for me

[FatHobbit]

Three Questions: Answer anyone of the three.
1. What needs to happen to reverse this “New Poor…. New Needy” situation?
2. Is this Administration capable of creating private sector jobs?

...umm where's #3?



There was three





This is your warning on personal attacks. 1 more time and it's a forum ban.


Sir, yes sir.

There was 2.


Im confused


Seems to me there were 3, and either he removed #3 or someone else did. Not there are only two. :)

[LJ]

Seems to me there were 3, and either he removed #3 or someone else did. Not there are only two. :)


He is the only one that has edited the first post. I edited the post people are quoting because he threw out a personal insult at another poster.

[FatHobbit]

Poor are Poor because they want to be Poor

I still contend that this is a true statement. Everyone is given the opportunity to achieve in America and the choice made in life determines our personal success. How an individual handles the opportunities and the effort put forth to reach those goals are self inspired determination some have it and some blow it.



I’m seeing a “New Poor” developing now in American society. Not those that has made the bad decision, over extended themselves, uneducated, drug depended, lazy and just plain stupid behavior individual. But educated individuals, once driven people, inspiring to achieve people, hard working, dedicated to working, saving/banking account drawing low and heart broken family men and women whose dreams and spirit is fading from their future.
Some of you are now in this situation and some of you graduating will find this to be a reality.


Those two statements contradict each other.

[HitsRus]

Majoring in business is still a worthwhile adventure, especially if you don't mind being part of a global corporation (sad huh, we have to move to other countries to find the good jobs). And knowing about money, how to manage it, how to invest it, and how to invest IN it are huge advantages over the common people.


spot on.

Anybody coming out of college these days needs to position themselves for a global market. Being fluent in a foreign language is HUGE....especially Asian languages.

[friendfromlowry]

Anybody coming out of college these days needs to position themselves for a global market. Being fluent in a foreign language is HUGE....especially Asian languages.


You just described my roommate spot on. He'll graduate in the Spring (most likely) with degree in international business and a minor in Chinese.

[dwccrew]

Poor are Poor because they want to be Poor

I still contend that this is a true statement. Everyone is given the opportunity to achieve in America and the choice made in life determines our personal success. How an individual handles the opportunities and the effort put forth to reach those goals are self inspired determination some have it and some blow it.
I’m seeing a “New Poor” developing now in American society. Not those that has made the bad decision, over extended themselves, uneducated, drug depended, lazy and just plain stupid behavior individual. But educated individuals, once driven people, inspiring to achieve people, hard working, dedicated to working, saving/banking account drawing low and heart broken family men and women whose dreams and spirit is fading from their future.
Some of you are now in this situation and some of you graduating will find this to be a reality.

http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/americas_new_needy

Obama … ….create JOBS. Great words of wisdom from someone who has never had to meet payroll, owned a business or created anything on his own.

Three Questions: Answer anyone of the two.
1. What needs to happen to reverse this “New Poor…. New Needy” situation?
2. Is this Administration capable of creating private sector jobs?

As a business owner of two business sale are down 25% in one and 41% in the other to save the business I have to make cuts ……… (sad and heart broken)
One business a small business loan is not the answer …. kick starting the building market but even that would take nine months to a year to alter any sales for me to rehire anyone.
Second business a SBA loan $150,000/200,000 would be very helpful to push our new product line but it will not create any new jobs for maybe a year out or more.


This post is one big contradiction of itself. You just stated as a business owner that you have to make cuts when sales are down. So if some other business owners also have to make cuts, doesn't that mean they may have to reduce their labor force?But I'm sure those people want to lose their job because poor want to be poor, right?

Also, you state we all have opportunities in this country. Not ture at all. I have never had the same opportunity as someone like George W. Bush to run multi-million dollar companies that are handed to me (not meant to be a knock on Bush, using him as an example). Some people make the most with the opportunities presented to them and still never get out of poverty.

In a capitalistic society, there will always be a poverty class and a wealthy class because without the poverty, there can not be the extremely rich IMO.

Not all poor people choose to be poor, although some do nothing to change it, that I will agree with. But it is not a black and white issue as you portray it in your original post.

[CinciX12]

I truly feel sorry for you if you are going to school for business right now. You obviously don't have very much common sense, or are determined to prove people wrong.


thats pretty much it for me


More power to you. I bet thats what separates the people who do get jobs and the ones that are unemployed.

[BCSbunk]

Poor are Poor because they want to be Poor

I still contend that this is a true statement. Everyone is given the opportunity to achieve in America and the choice made in life determines our personal success. How an individual handles the opportunities and the effort put forth to reach those goals are self inspired determination some have it and some blow it.
I’m seeing a “New Poor” developing now in American society. Not those that has made the bad decision, over extended themselves, uneducated, drug depended, lazy and just plain stupid behavior individual. But educated individuals, once driven people, inspiring to achieve people, hard working, dedicated to working, saving/banking account drawing low and heart broken family men and women whose dreams and spirit is fading from their future.
Some of you are now in this situation and some of you graduating will find this to be a reality.



Please prove this assertion. Please prove that the poor want to be poor. So far it is a baseless assertion.

[chs71]

Some people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control; mental illness, abandonment, something else. Some people are poor because of unwise decisions they have made. Both groups need help,

[BCSbunk]

Some people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control; mental illness, abandonment, something else. Some people are poor because of unwise decisions they have made. Both groups need help,


You are suggesting altruism. How dare you. We know that the conservatives in this country are against altruism. That is a failed system only selfishism works.

[majorspark]

Some people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control; mental illness, abandonment, something else. Some people are poor because of unwise decisions they have made. Both groups need help,


You are suggesting altruism. How dare you. We know that the conservatives in this country are against altruism. That is a failed system only selfishism works.


This statement could not be more false. Perhaps you were just sarcastically using a false statement to make a point.

[I Wear Pants]

Yea...I would say a business degree isn't any more or less valuable than it has been in the past. There are some generic majors I'd stay away from in undergrad (marketing and management) and those I would focus on (finance and accounting, or transportation and logistics).

People cannot buy a product or service without knowing about it.

[I Wear Pants]

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.

[chs71]

You are suggesting altruism. How dare you. We know that the conservatives in this country are against altruism. That is a failed system only selfishism works.


It is a fact that conservatives give more money, and a higher percentage of their income, to charities than do liberals.

[chs71]

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.


People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.

[queencitybuckeye]

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.


People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.


Exactly, not to mention financial decisions. "Choose to" is probably more accurate than "want to".

[fan_from_texas]

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.


People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.


Exactly. I recall reading that if people finish high school and don't get pregnant or father a baby, their chances of living in poverty are very, very small. Those two things seem to be fairly controllable.

[Strapping Young Lad]

There are plenty of factors that go into the probability of someone actually finishing high school and not having a teen pregnancy though. And a big factor is wealth and education of the parents so it's a never-ending cycle.

It sounds simple to you and I to just graduate high school and not knock someone up. And even I, being white, middle class, from an educated home had friends w/ the same home situation knock girls up. The difference is that does not necessarily end their future plans of college, etc b/c their parents have the money and care to support a teen prgnancy.

However, if your homelife is terrible, your parents don't work and don't give a shit about you, then you have a teen pregnancy your odds of finishing high school goes down.

To say just finish high school and don't get pregnant sounds simple to most of us but we may not know what it's like to have the life that many get stuck with, so I think that's is over simpliying the matter.

[dwccrew]

There are plenty of factors that go into the probability of someone actually finishing high school and not having a teen pregnancy though. And a big factor is wealth and education of the parents so it's a never-ending cycle.

It sounds simple to you and I to just graduate high school and not knock someone up. And even I, being white, middle class, from an educated home had friends w/ the same home situation knock girls up. The difference is that does not necessarily end their future plans of college, etc b/c their parents have the money and care to support a teen prgnancy.

However, if your homelife is terrible, your parents don't work and don't give a shit about you, then you have a teen pregnancy your odds of finishing high school goes down.

To say just finish high school and don't get pregnant sounds simple to most of us but we may not know what it's like to have the life that many get stuck with, so I think that's is over simpliying the matter.


+1. Excellent post

[derek bomar]

Yea...I would say a business degree isn't any more or less valuable than it has been in the past. There are some generic majors I'd stay away from in undergrad (marketing and management) and those I would focus on (finance and accounting, or transportation and logistics).

People cannot buy a product or service without knowing about it.


and right now I don't think you're going to have as easy of a time finding a job with a marketing undergrad as you would with finance or accounting

[I Wear Pants]

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.


People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.

[dwccrew]

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.


People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.


Exactly. That's like saying since someone chose to join the military and then was killed, they wanted to die, because they chose a job that is dangerous.

I agree completely with you Pants.

[ManO'War]

Quit making excuses for people. I grew up with a single mom, who made minimum wage, didn't accept any government assistance, but somehow I managed to stay in school and not knock anyone up. As did many of my friends. My best friend had it as hard as you possibly can growing up, yet he went to the service, then went to college, and is now doing well with a wife and a child.

Make excuses for people that had something bad happen to them that was out of their control, not for bad choices.

[Strapping Young Lad]

Did your mom care what happened to you???? Some kids may as well have no parents as far as that goes. Going w/out money is one thing, having parents who have no interest in you and no money is another.

I don't necessarily feel the need to explore the topic in depth, but like I said many many factors act in one's abiltiy to "make it in life", from home life to nutrition. I don't necessarily believe that I need to make excuses for someone else' s situation but I also won't judge them. You may have had it rough, but IMO it's not your place or mine to determine how far someone else should go in life w/out understanding how they've had to live....

If it was so easy to escape poverty, why do so many suffer in it???

[majorspark]

I don't necessarily feel the need to explore the topic in depth, but like I said many many factors act in one's abiltiy to "make it in life", from home life to nutrition. I don't necessarily believe that I need to make excuses for someone else' s situation but I also won't judge them. You may have had it rough, but IMO it's not your place or mine to determine how far someone else should go in life w/out understanding how they've had to live....

One thing to point out. When someone elses money is taken from them and given to someone who for whatever reason is in need of assistance, they should be judged as to how they are going to use the assistance. Is it merely going to subsidize their drug habbit? Or will having children out of wedlock just bring in more cash? If they are of the character that they are not going to change their activities that help facilitate their own poverty, then we by all means should make judgments on this and act accordingly.

[fan_from_texas]

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .


Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.

There's a difference between helping people (which is good) and enabling them (which isn't). Despite the trillions (with a T) of dollars spent on social services since LBJ declared war on poverty, it doesn't seem like we've whipped it. In fact, if you'd believe the social service numbers released, poverty is growing at an ever-increasing rate despite (or because of?) our increased funding. What we're doing now clearly isn't working--at this point, we can say that we've taken trillions from hardworking producers and given it to second-handers. This doesn't make the poor better off, but it does keep them generationally dependent on the gub'ment for a handout. Who benefits from that, other than politicians wanting to buy votes and wealthy white suburbanites wanting to assuage their guilt?

As I've said before, social policies should be designed to limit generational dependency. When we spend trillions of dollars on something but don't see a change, perhaps the problem isn't a lack of funding as much as it is the misguided nature of the programs.

[I Wear Pants]

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .


Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.

I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.

[chs71]

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.


So if I consider my best option to be to drop out of school, have a child without being married, and smoke crack then I am not choosing to do something wrong? That it's just bad luck if I end up poor?

I thought that I went to college, didn't have kids without being married, and don't use illegal drugs, had something to do with my economic success. Boy was I stupid. It's just a matter of luck! I should have dropped out and turned on long ago. I was a sucker.

[fan_from_texas]

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .


Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.

I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.


I have no idea how many people are "tickled" to live off welfare. I'm simply noting my agreement with what you stated earlier, namely, that incentives matter, which isn't a particularly controversial claim. These incentives make a difference in the marginal case, not the typical case, and these should be what drives policy.

To make an analogy, if tomorrow Ford announced an additional $1,000 rebate, most people wouldn't care and wouldn't buy a car. Many who would otherwise have bought a car still will. But some percentage of people--the marginal buyers--who wouldn't have otherwise bought a car will. Even though they're a tiny minority of the overall potential buyers, the rebate will be the tipping point for them and affect their decision-making. It can significantly affect marginal action while having absolutely no impact on the vast, vast majority of people.

Pointing out that an incentive doesn't affect the typical person doesn't really speak to whether that incentive will have an effect.

[derek bomar]

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.


So if I consider my best option to be to drop out of school, have a child without being married, and smoke crack then I am not choosing to do something wrong? That it's just bad luck if I end up poor?

I thought that I went to college, didn't have kids without being married, and don't use illegal drugs, had something to do with my economic success. Boy was I stupid. It's just a matter of luck! I should have dropped out and turned on long ago. I was a sucker.


I don't think someone who smokes crack has a logical thought process

[majorspark]

I don't think someone who smokes crack has a logical thought process


And that is why I would not want to turn money over to them until they straighten themselves out.

[derek bomar]

I don't think someone who smokes crack has a logical thought process


And that is why I would not want to turn money over to them until they straighten themselves out.


good luck finding out the % of your dollars going to crackheads vs. non-crackheads, and then making it stop so that only non-crackheads receive your $

[I Wear Pants]

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.


So if I consider my best option to be to drop out of school, have a child without being married, and smoke crack then I am not choosing to do something wrong? That it's just bad luck if I end up poor?

I thought that I went to college, didn't have kids without being married, and don't use illegal drugs, had something to do with my economic success. Boy was I stupid. It's just a matter of luck! I should have dropped out and turned on long ago. I was a sucker.

Way to take things to the extreme. But yeah, I guess you're right, everyone who is poor is poor because they're big dumb pieces of shit crackheads who had kids when they were fifteen and dropped out of school.

[majorspark]

I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.


There were some studies during the welfare reform debate back in the mid 90's. Not sure how or if this has changed in 15 years. There could be a more recent study out there.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-027.html

From the study. Single mother of 2 benefits.

The authors of the Cato study concluded that the combined value of the full package of welfare benefits actually provides beneficiaries with incomes above the poverty level in every jurisdiction. Because the attractiveness of welfare differs widely among jurisdictions, when the value of the total package of benefits was equated to the value of a job providing the same after-tax income, that pretax value ranged from a high of over $36,000 in Hawaii to a low of $11,500 in Mississippi. In eight jurisdictions--Hawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--welfare pays at least the equivalent of a $25,000 per year job

[I Wear Pants]

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .


Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.

I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.


I have no idea how many people are "tickled" to live off welfare. I'm simply noting my agreement with what you stated earlier, namely, that incentives matter, which isn't a particularly controversial claim. These incentives make a difference in the marginal case, not the typical case, and these should be what drives policy.

To make an analogy, if tomorrow Ford announced an additional $1,000 rebate, most people wouldn't care and wouldn't buy a car. Many who would otherwise have bought a car still will. But some percentage of people--the marginal buyers--who wouldn't have otherwise bought a car will. Even though they're a tiny minority of the overall potential buyers, the rebate will be the tipping point for them and affect their decision-making. It can significantly affect marginal action while having absolutely no impact on the vast, vast majority of people.

Pointing out that an incentive doesn't affect the typical person doesn't really speak to whether that incentive will have an effect.

I clearly misunderstood what you were saying then. My bad, I'm retarded.

[Strapping Young Lad]

A. People who smoke crack can be logical and very intelligent.

B. Just the fact that some of you are talking about how you're in college then go on to imply you have no idea how someone can piss their life away shows me you have no clue how others have it. There are pre-teen kids out there who will not even come anywhere close to having the chance to go to college b/c of how shitty their lives are. They wouldn't even know where to start to attempt it.

So for some college educated, middle class know it all to act like he's got a grasp on poverty and it's effects on the ppl. who live it just shows the naivity.

[majorspark]

I don't think someone who smokes crack has a logical thought process


And that is why I would not want to turn money over to them until they straighten themselves out.


good luck finding out the % of your dollars going to crackheads vs. non-crackheads, and then making it stop so that only non-crackheads receive your $


That is why I am against the federal government being in involved in welfare. It should be a state and local or private issue. Granted there is no way to assure no crackhead gets cash, but the smaller the group pooling their resources the less chance of it happening as there would be better oversight. Plus you have hundreds of different solutions (I bet you quite a few that are successful) as apposed to one for all.

[O-Trap]

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.


I think "want," or even "choose," is too strong a word. Those are both volitional. What I think it really boils down to is apathy.

There ARE many people who are on welfare because they recognize that getting out of it will be the more difficult road to travel, and they honestly don't care enough about getting out to put that extra burden on themselves.

I live in a neighborhood where there is a LOT of poverty. I work with dozens and dozens of kids who live in households (can't call many of them "families" because of how they function ... or don't function) that are below the welfare line.

Some of the parents are working, but they are extremely limited in their own marketability because they did get pregnant (or get a girl pregnant) while in high school. While that is absolutely a choice, it is the choice of a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old child, who in many cases was never told about the repercussions of such actions. Hell, their parents don't care. Most of their teachers don't care. So they don't even learn to think ahead far enough to take their careers into consideration.

And as was stated earlier, there are cases of white, middle- or upper-class kids who knock up their girlfriends or get knocked up themselves as well (Bristol?). Their parents simply have the assets to help overcome that.

Many of the adults in my neighborhood would do things differently if they could go back and finish high school and/or go to college, because now they see the ramifications of their actions as middle teens. However, because nobody cared enough to TELL them about those ramifications WHILE they were middle teens, they didn't act with those consequences in mind while they were younger.

There are a lot of them who have simply reserved themselves to the idea that those actions they made earlier have determined where they are now ... that they are set in stone ... and thus, they don't even consider the notion of getting out of poverty as a reality.


People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.


Ask your average fifteen-year-old what they think about school. MOST don't want to be there, whether they are a suburbanite whose parents love and are able to take care of them or they are an urbanite whose father is gone and whose mother spends more nights at her boyfriend's house than she does at home with her teen or preteen kids, who basically live on their own while she's gone. I know I didn't want to be there.

However, I had parents who made sure I went. They made sure to explain to me why I had to go. They watched, and cared about, the grades I got.

It's a good thing, too. I was fifteen. I didn't give two piss squirts about most of those things.

Now, if I'd had parents who didn't care whether or not I went to school, never told me why it was important, and never spurred me to get good grades, what motivation would I have had to graduate with honors ... or even at all?

Maturity level needs to come into play when discussing this issue. Were the mistakes made while the person was young and immature, but the person has since developed a necessary work ethic and desire to climb out of their bad circumstances? If so, SOMEONE needs to help them get on their feet.

However, if the person is perpetuating their state, they should not be aided, as they are callously and ungratefully using other people's money to fund their own lazy lifestyle.

To paint "the poor" with a single brush ... or even a couple brushes ... though, is foolish, and would only be done by someone who doesn't know enough about the spectrum of the poor in society.

[majorspark]

So for some college educated, middle class know it all to act like he's got a grasp on poverty and it's effects on the ppl. who live it just shows the naivity.


You make one hell of a case here as to why big government should should not be involved when it come to helping those in need.

[tk421]

So for some college educated, middle class know it all to act like he's got a grasp on poverty and it's effects on the ppl. who live it just shows the naivity.


You make one hell of a case here as to why big government should should not be involved when it come to helping those in need.


+1000000000000000000

[Strapping Young Lad]

I definately believe there are people that need assistance, though I don't care to discuss it. But some random hero with wealthy parents, a computer and a college education: "It's so easy to graduate high school and go to college.....what's so hard about that? Look at me. My dad even bought me a Prius to get back and forth and put beer and food money directly into my account. What's so hard about it?"

I'm just saying there's so much more that goes into it. Shit I would have never even considered, hadn't someone taught it to me. It's just naive. The system is set up for people to fail and then we resent them when they do.

If you can't see that society is deformed, then I can't help you there.

[bigmanbt]

^^^^ And then there are those of us who have had to take out loans and work OURSELVES through college, rather than wait for the government to hand a college education to us. Please don't lecture about being naive, because you are completely ignorant to most college students who go in massive debt to better their lives. Not everyone who goes to college had a privileged life either.

[Strapping Young Lad]

That's not even remotely close to what I'm talking about....

[dwccrew]

I don't necessarily feel the need to explore the topic in depth, but like I said many many factors act in one's abiltiy to "make it in life", from home life to nutrition. I don't necessarily believe that I need to make excuses for someone else' s situation but I also won't judge them. You may have had it rough, but IMO it's not your place or mine to determine how far someone else should go in life w/out understanding how they've had to live....

One thing to point out. When someone elses money is taken from them and given to someone who for whatever reason is in need of assistance, they should be judged as to how they are going to use the assistance. Is it merely going to subsidize their drug habbit? Or will having children out of wedlock just bring in more cash? If they are of the character that they are not going to change their activities that help facilitate their own poverty, then we by all means should make judgments on this and act accordingly.


You are categorizing many by the actions of some. Not all people that are on assistance are drug users or lazy. Some are, yes, but not every single one of them.

This is why I believe that the government should not use tax money for a welfare system. I believe that if we weren't taxed as much, we would set up assistance programs privately. The US is a very generous country. I also believe that if social assistance was privatized, it would be much more efficient and that the deserving people would get the deserving accomodations. Single mothers on minimum wage would get what they need through private organizations and drug addicts would get the help they need through private organizations. The government is not needed in such a large role IMO.





That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.


So if I consider my best option to be to drop out of school, have a child without being married, and smoke crack then I am not choosing to do something wrong? That it's just bad luck if I end up poor?

I thought that I went to college, didn't have kids without being married, and don't use illegal drugs, had something to do with my economic success. Boy was I stupid. It's just a matter of luck! I should have dropped out and turned on long ago. I was a sucker.


I fail to see how not going to college and having kids out of wedlock makes someone any more or any less likely to be successful or not successful. I know many people who have had kids out of wedlock and are very successful. Same goes for people that haven't gone to college. I also know people who went to college and who had children in a marriage and are not successful. It all depends on the person.

Now I am not saying going to school doesn't increase a person's chances of being successful, but it is not a certainty. The children thing is irrelevant to the fullest.

[I Wear Pants]

^^^^ And then there are those of us who have had to take out loans and work OURSELVES through college, rather than wait for the government to hand a college education to us. Please don't lecture about being naive, because you are completely ignorant to most college students who go in massive debt to better their lives. Not everyone who goes to college had a privileged life either.

I'm pretty sure without Mr. Evil Government I wouldn't be able to afford school.

[IggyPride00]

I'm pretty sure without Mr. Evil Government I wouldn't be able to afford school.

Yeah, if it wasn't for the government backstopping and subsidizing student loans, there would a non-existent education loan market right now.

In alot of ways it is no different than Fannie and Freddy. The government makes the cost of higher education artificially low by distorting the student loan market in favor of more people getting loans than could ever dream of in a true free market. In fact, I would venture a guess that many of the people who have channeled their outrage towards those 2 financial institutions probably obtained a student loan at some point in their life, which is the educational equivalent of a sub-prime loan made possible by Uncle Sam and the Government's decision that school is good.

Any and all true free market conservatives should be advocates of banishing all government subsidies to banks to encourage them to make student loans, as it distorts the value of an education by making credit free to all like Fanny and Freddy did to home ownership. Giving anyone who wants a loan for school leads to education tuition inflation (just like the housing bubble) and will eventually create a similar bubble in our universities that will eventually burst.

Now I think student loan subsidies are good, but I just wanted to point that out to anyone patting themselves on the back for getting through school on the back of government assistance (loans) who in turn looks down on others that may be using government assistance of a different kind to help get them back on their feet who otherwise might now be able to without the help of the government program.

[O-Trap]

^^^^ And then there are those of us who have had to take out loans and work OURSELVES through college, rather than wait for the government to hand a college education to us. Please don't lecture about being naive, because you are completely ignorant to most college students who go in massive debt to better their lives. Not everyone who goes to college had a privileged life either.


You're missing the point, and this is coming from someone who currently owes over $50K in school bills because he put himself through college.

It's not entirely that they can't. In many cases, it is that they haven't been told/taught/shown why they should. You easily make the connection: better education = better shot at a well-paying, stable career.

However, you were taught that by someone if you adopted it as a truth before you actually went to college.

Many in urban areas are never shown the importance of education. Why would they care about going to college? Their deadbeat parents never instilled the value of a good education in them. The school doesn't give two shits what happens to them BEFORE they graduate, let alone after.

Nobody is going to pick himself up by his own bootstraps until he sees merit in it. If these kids are never shown the benefits of a continued education, they will have no motivation to get one ... and honestly, there is no logical reason to blame them for such an outlook.





^^^^ And then there are those of us who have had to take out loans and work OURSELVES through college, rather than wait for the government to hand a college education to us. Please don't lecture about being naive, because you are completely ignorant to most college students who go in massive debt to better their lives. Not everyone who goes to college had a privileged life either.

I'm pretty sure without Mr. Evil Government I wouldn't be able to afford school.


Interesting point, and a good one. I don't think I would have been able to go either if it wasn't for Mr. Stafford and Mr. Perkins.

[majorspark]

One thing to point out. When someone elses money is taken from them and given to someone who for whatever reason is in need of assistance, they should be judged as to how they are going to use the assistance. Is it merely going to subsidize their drug habbit? Or will having children out of wedlock just bring in more cash? If they are of the character that they are not going to change their activities that help facilitate their own poverty, then we by all means should make judgments on this and act accordingly.


You are categorizing many by the actions of some. Not all people that are on assistance are drug users or lazy. Some are, yes, but not every single one of them.

I was speaking in context of the comments made concerning crackheads. I agree that not all those in need are. Thus my opinion that social issuues must be solved closest to the problem. Thats why I disagree with federal broad brush solutions. They are too far from the problems to have any lasting solutions. Also the constitution gives them no authority to enforce their solutions on all the citezenry of the Union. That is left to the states and the people under the 10th amendment.



This is why I believe that the government should not use tax money for a welfare system. I believe that if we weren't taxed as much, we would set up assistance programs privately. The US is a very generous country. I also believe that if social assistance was privatized, it would be much more efficient and that the deserving people would get the deserving accomodations. Single mothers on minimum wage would get what they need through private organizations and drug addicts would get the help they need through private organizations. The government is not needed in such a large role IMO.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. You are 100% correct. This is the ideal solution to the social problems we face. If the federal government would get out the way and trust the citizenry to take care of themselves, the social strifes we face would be limited. This is how the founders envisioned it. Trusting the people to tend to their own needs, not have them dictated by far away Washington for all 300 million of its citizens. The vast majority of politicians in the federal government today will not allow this trust to be given to the people, not without it being pried from their cold dead fingers.

[Strapping Young Lad]

I work on a semi-regular basis with high-school kids and there are just those kids who ARE NOT going to college. They just have no clue. You see these kids and they are poor and they will remain poor for life. They'll live on the same poor street in the same neighborhood. That's it for them.

They have resource at school but they probably do not have the IQ and they certainly never had a parent to explain what people do after high school because their parents did nothing after school.

It sounds simple for you and I to go to college etc. but for these kids they might as well try to go to the moon. It's just not realistic for them. It's sad but it's really the truth and there's no denying that certain kids simply do not have the opportunities that you and I have.....

Part of the reason I'm choosing to ultimately work with kids in Jr. HS is so that maybe I can get to them before there so far past the point of no return, but I'm not banking on changing the world but I'm going to try to beat it into as many heads as I can that there is a way out.

However, I realize that the reason many ppl. work with kids is to make a difference, but ultimatley the system is a failure and ppl. eventually become disillusioned and things don't change. That's America for you.....

Holy shit it's 3 am!!!! Peace!

[queencitybuckeye]

^^^^ And then there are those of us who have had to take out loans and work OURSELVES through college, rather than wait for the government to hand a college education to us. Please don't lecture about being naive, because you are completely ignorant to most college students who go in massive debt to better their lives. Not everyone who goes to college had a privileged life either.

I'm pretty sure without Mr. Evil Government I wouldn't be able to afford school.


Actually, without the massive amount of student loans given out like candy, we wouldn't have hyper-inflation in that marketplace, and school would be more affordable to the many, not less.

[fan_from_texas]

They have resource at school but they probably do not have the IQ and they certainly never had a parent to explain what people do after high school because their parents did nothing after school.

It sounds simple for you and I to go to college etc. but for these kids they might as well try to go to the moon. It's just not realistic for them. It's sad but it's really the truth and there's no denying that certain kids simply do not have the opportunities that you and I have.....


Right, so what do you propose? As callous as it may sound, some people are cut out to dig ditches. Because genetics aren't fair, opportunities won't be fair, and there's nothing the gov't can do about that, short of handicapping some of us (starts sound familiar).

[ManO'War]

I find nothing wrong with ditch digging (if that's really a job anymore), or garbage man, or fast food worker....just WORK, have a job...get up in the morning with a purpose.

I wish the government would realize that not everyone is cut of for college, then instead they could have more trade schools, instead of wasting time and money sending kids off to "school" who shouldn't be there in the first place.

Realisitically, I'd say maybe 25% of the people in college should be there, the rest are just filling time. But since college became a big business, this will never change.
It is sort of like the governement wanting everyone to own a house, but some people can't even take care of themselves, let alone a house.

[chs71]

Way to take things to the extreme. But yeah, I guess you're right, everyone who is poor is poor because they're big dumb pieces of shit crackheads who had kids when they were fifteen and dropped out of school.

But that is exactly the point. The largest number of poor in the United States lack a high school education, live in single parent homes, and illegal drugs are present. Those people probably wish they were rich, but they chose to do things which have caused their poverty.

[Strapping Young Lad]

They have resource at school but they probably do not have the IQ and they certainly never had a parent to explain what people do after high school because their parents did nothing after school.

It sounds simple for you and I to go to college etc. but for these kids they might as well try to go to the moon. It's just not realistic for them. It's sad but it's really the truth and there's no denying that certain kids simply do not have the opportunities that you and I have.....


Right, so what do you propose? As callous as it may sound, some people are cut out to dig ditches. Because genetics aren't fair, opportunities won't be fair, and there's nothing the gov't can do about that, short of handicapping some of us (starts sound familiar).



What I propose is not resenting the poor and not claiming they are poor because they want to be poor.....

Of course, not everyone has to go to college, nor can go. There are plenty of jobs that don't require an education that society needs people to have. That's not the point.

The original claim is that the poor want to be poor, but that's not necessarily true. They theoretically can move from one class to another, but that's not realistic for many....

[Strapping Young Lad]

But that is exactly the point. The largest number of poor in the United States lack a high school education, live in single parent homes, and illegal drugs are present. Those people probably wish they were rich, but they chose to do things which have caused their poverty.


I don't think they necessarily choose to have one parent. They don't choose to have an uneducated parent. They don't choose to be exposed to drugs. These things, whether you want to belive it or not, have an effect on a child.

If you grow up in that environment, you will do the same thing because that's what you understand.

[cbus4life]

Way to take things to the extreme. But yeah, I guess you're right, everyone who is poor is poor because they're big dumb pieces of shit crackheads who had kids when they were fifteen and dropped out of school.

But that is exactly the point. The largest number of poor in the United States lack a high school education, live in single parent homes, and illegal drugs are present. Those people probably wish they were rich, but they chose to do things which have caused their poverty.


How exactly does a child have a choice, on whether both parents will be present, whether he'll live in a nice neighborhood?

Unless you're Stewie from Family Guy, i doubt a child is going to choose to live in a single-parent home.

[LJ]

Unsubstantiated data removed from thread.

[Gblock]

I have been teaching in innercity schools for 12 years. my first school was smack dab in the middle of the first housing project in the US...i had many assumptions about poor people and inner city life, many of those have changed drastically. I can remember times where i was so frustrated with a child and i would become very upset and berate them..when the parents wouldnt answer or return phone calls i would have the student removed until they came back with a parent.....well after meeting the parent i found myself apologizing to the student and wanting to just give them a hug. After that i changed how i treated and handled problem students and I could tell stories all day about students who have been to over 20 schools by the sixth grade....whose mother moves every three months cause thats about how long it takes to get evicted....who are abused and underfed etc.....its not always the childs fault some kids dont know better.

[fan_from_texas]

What I propose is not resenting the poor and not claiming they are poor because they want to be poor.....

The original claim is that the poor want to be poor, but that's not necessarily true. They theoretically can move from one class to another, but that's not realistic for many....


I don't resent the poor. I do resent the poor who resent the successful for working hard and being successful, and act as though the hard work of the successful has somehow resulted in their [the impoverished's] poverty.

I think of people like Ben Carson, Condie Rice, Bill Clinton, Oprah . . . these are people who had limited opportunities but rose to the highest positions of power. My concern (as someone who is scratching and clawing up from a solidly blue-collar background) is that any "mandatory benevolence" from the rich is going to inhibit intergenerational mobility in the future.

[Strapping Young Lad]

I can't imagine 80% of poor are becoming unpoor in their lifetime. And I also cannot imagine 80% of kids who grow up poor are escaping that too.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what those stats are saying....

Bill Clinton and Oprah obviously have a high enough IQ to escape poverty. Many don't so they don't make it. Then they live off welfare like their parents did and everyone resents that fact. I'm not sure but seems like IQ is something that plays a big factor in what a person ends up doing with their life and whether or not they can move out of poverty.

[Manhattan Buckeye]

"I can't imagine 80% of poor are becoming unpoor in their lifetime. And I also cannot imagine 80% of kids who grow up poor are escaping that too."

It depends on what the barriers are, when many Americans think of the "poor" they automatically assume inner city minority, notwithstanding there are millions of "poor" people in more rural/agricultural areas. One of the biggest issues for the former group is the awful inner city public school systems that are prevalent, whereas even in some of the "poorer" rural systems the school systems aren't THAT bad and in fact can be a rallying center for the community. I wouldn't go far to say a majority of my classmates but pretty close to a majority were on free or reduced lunch and breakfast plans, and some of my friends definitely did not have a lot of advantages, but most of them have turned out pretty well. The military helps a lot since so many of my classmates joined the army or national guard, which at least provides some stability and training.

[dwccrew]

I find nothing wrong with ditch digging (if that's really a job anymore), or garbage man, or fast food worker....just WORK, have a job...get up in the morning with a purpose.

I wish the government would realize that not everyone is cut of for college, then instead they could have more trade schools, instead of wasting time and money sending kids off to "school" who shouldn't be there in the first place.

Realisitically, I'd say maybe 25% of the people in college should be there, the rest are just filling time. But since college became a big business, this will never change.
It is sort of like the governement wanting everyone to own a house, but some people can't even take care of themselves, let alone a house.


I think this is a very good post. Especially the part I highlighted.

I really believe that instead of sending children through the same curiculum,they should test kids, see what their strengths are and give them the option to go to a trade school. Not everyone is going to work the same job, so they shouldn't teach kids the same things.

One could argue that when kids graduate high school they have the choice to go off to different schools, but often by then they have given up on school. I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO

[Footwedge]

I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO


Skilled trade jobs? Not in America you won't. Globalization has taken most of the trade skill jobs.

[dwccrew]

I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO


Skilled trade jobs? Not in America you won't. Globalization has taken most of the trade skill jobs.


What? I think you confused skilled trade jobs for non-skilled jobs. Pipefitters, Ironworkers, Masons, even mechanics, etc. are jobs that you must learn as a skill and normally go through an apprenticeship. These are jobs that are not effected by globalization, you can't outsource these jobs like you can assembly line work. Globalization has effected the NON-skilled trade jobs such as assembly line work.

[Footwedge]

I think if we introduce this idea to them while they are still minors and forced to be in school, many more people would have a better chance at getting a skilled trades job. JMO


Skilled trade jobs? Not in America you won't. Globalization has taken most of the trade skill jobs.


What? I think you confused skilled trade jobs for non-skilled jobs. Pipefitters, Ironworkers, Masons, even mechanics, etc. are jobs that you must learn as a skill and normally go through an apprenticeship. These are jobs that are not effected by globalization, you can't outsource these jobs like you can assembly line work. Globalization has effected the NON-skilled trade jobs such as assembly line work.


No I'm not confusing anything. Skilled jobs are very much being reduced through globalization. Manufacturing plants were loaded with skilled laborers. Not saying all of them are leaving, but a high percentage of them are.

Steel mills, rubber plants, aluminum plants....all loaded with pipefitters, ironworkers, boilermakers, millwrights and masons. When the smokiestacks shut down, so did a high number of skilled jobs.

Good paying blue collar jobs have dwindled down the shitter. And now the white collared jobs are following close behind.

If we want less poor people, then we need to re-examine why the private sector has "left the building". Without the growth of the private sector here in America, the standard of living has to go down. Simple economics, really.

[Sage]

I am poor because I want to be poor. In fact, I enjoy going to the Super Market and acting like I'm putting a mortgage down on a house. SMH.

[chs71]

"To admit that inputs affect outputs, whether in education, in the economy or in other areas, would be to undermine the vision and agenda of the left, and deprive those who believe in that vision of a moral melodrama, starring themselves as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil. Redistribution of material resources has a very poor track record when it comes to actually helping those who are lagging, whether in education, in the economy or elsewhere. What they need are the attitudes, priorities and behavior which produce the outcomes desired. But changing anyone's attitudes, priorities and behavior is a lot harder than taking a stance as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil. "

economist Thomas Sowell

[BoatShoes]

"... What they need are the attitudes, priorities and behavior which produce the outcomes desired. But changing anyone's attitudes, priorities and behavior is a lot harder than taking a stance as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil. "

economist Thomas Sowell


Thomas Sowell is undoubtedly one of the greatest conservative minds we have today. Unfortunately people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck lead the cause instead of someone like him.

But if we look at what he said...don't conservatives and liberals agree with Sowell's essential point???

Poor people are not poor because they desire, crave, or want to be poor...they do not want to live uncomfortably or without financial security or without peace of mind...

I think a rational conservative or liberal would both agree that humans, so long as they lack the attitudes, behaviors and priorities to escape poverty...a person will not escape poverty. Throwing money at someone who doesn't have the requisite attitude, behavior and priority to use it in an efficient manner to lay the foundation toward financial independence will not achieve the desired outcome of a society with more financially secure and self-reliant adults.

The fact of the matter is...there are a lot of children who are thrust into the world by no choice of their own, who's gray matter in their skulls somehow has a consciousness attached to it that allows there to be a person who has feelings and sentience and can experience pleasure and pain....who arrive into situations through no economic choice of their own wherein....because they were created by insufficiently self-reliant adults who are now parents, in areas with insufficient property tax revenue to support school districts that will attract good teachers, etc. etc. etc. They are unlikely; really, if we don't focus on the outliers and call a spade a spade, to have desirable amounts of attitude, desire and behavior nor the tools to implement these things in a positive way to achieve meaningful self-reliance.

We all agree that at its most basic level It comes down to intrinsic motivation...and creating intrinsic motivation and tools through which that intrinsic motivation can work are the key. We just disagree on how this might happen.

The Conservative says: If you give him a tool, he'll just expect more tools in the future...if you give a mouse a cookie he'll want a glass of milk...you're not going to encourage him to be self-reliant, you're encouraging dependence on mommy government's teet.

The liberal says: If you let him fend for himself he'll have the inital boost he needs...we can indeed teach a guy to fish and not make him think we're going to teach him everything in the future...If we lift the guy up off the ground he will go on walking on his own two feet.

As Sowell points out, liberals have had a poor track record with the tools they've tried to create...but nonetheless, I think that the goal of contemporary liberalism is ultimately that; to help people achieve the attitudes and behavior that leads to successful self-reliance and independence...

To me Conservatives want the same thing for people....it's just that the modern conservative looks at this as an individual problem and it ought to be solved on an individual basis with society bearing no moral obligation to help make it happen...the harms to individual liberty are too great... whereas the modern liberal sees this as a moral obligation and that the individual liberty retained is largely meaningless for many when so many, based purely on our experience of the world, will undoubtedly lack the requisite attitudes, beliefs and behaviors to use that freedom effectively.

[majorspark]

Thomas Sowell is undoubtedly one of the greatest conservative minds we have today. Unfortunately people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck lead the cause instead of someone like him.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman... Some of the greatest conservative/libertarian minds in modern times IMO. Your assertion that Limbaugh and Beck are leading the cause is based on what facts? Do you have any statistics to support your assertion?



But if we look at what he said...don't conservatives and liberals agree with Sowell's essential point???

Poor people are not poor because they desire, crave, or want to be poor...they do not want to live uncomfortably or without financial security or without peace of mind...

I agree anyone with sanity would desire financial security.



I think a rational conservative or liberal would both agree that humans, so long as they lack the attitudes, behaviors and priorities to escape poverty...a person will not escape poverty. Throwing money at someone who doesn't have the requisite attitude, behavior and priority to use it in an efficient manner to lay the foundation toward financial independence will not achieve the desired outcome of a society with more financially secure and self-reliant adults.

You are 100% correct here. Throwing money at a problem is not going to solve anything.



The fact of the matter is...there are a lot of children who are thrust into the world by no choice of their own, who's gray matter in their skulls somehow has a consciousness attached to it that allows there to be a person who has feelings and sentience and can experience pleasure and pain....who arrive into situations through no economic choice of their own wherein....because they were created by insufficiently self-reliant adults who are now parents, in areas with insufficient property tax revenue to support school districts that will attract good teachers, etc. etc. etc. They are unlikely; really, if we don't focus on the outliers and call a spade a spade, to have desirable amounts of attitude, desire and behavior nor the tools to implement these things in a positive way to achieve meaningful self-reliance.

We all agree that at its most basic level It comes down to intrinsic motivation...and creating intrinsic motivation and tools through which that intrinsic motivation can work are the key. We just disagree on how this might happen.

The Conservative says: If you give him a tool, he'll just expect more tools in the future...if you give a mouse a cookie he'll want a glass of milk...you're not going to encourage him to be self-reliant, you're encouraging dependence on mommy government's teet.

The liberal says: If you let him fend for himself he'll have the inital boost he needs...we can indeed teach a guy to fish and not make him think we're going to teach him everything in the future...If we lift the guy up off the ground he will go on walking on his own two feet.

As Sowell points out, liberals have had a poor track record with the tools they've tried to create...but nonetheless, I think that the goal of contemporary liberalism is ultimately that; to help people achieve the attitudes and behavior that leads to successful self-reliance and independence...

To me Conservatives want the same thing for people....it's just that the modern conservative looks at this as an individual problem and it ought to be solved on an individual basis with society bearing no moral obligation to help make it happen...the harms to individual liberty are too great... whereas the modern liberal sees this as a moral obligation and that the individual liberty retained is largely meaningless for many when so many, based purely on our experience of the world, will undoubtedly lack the requisite attitudes, beliefs and behaviors to use that freedom effectively.


I do not think society bears no moral obligation to help those in need. My and other conservative's disagreement is on what level of governance should be instituted to assure these needs are met. I believe that solutions to these problems are best achieved closest to the problem.

There is no way a bureaucrat in Washington can discern the diverse needs of this vast nation. Whether it is poverty in the inner city, appalachia, rural south, or the farthest eskimo in Alaska. Think about it who is more able to discern the true miscreants, officials governed by Washington or those governed by the locality.

The main difference between liberal and conservatives on this issue is liberals don't trust small government or individuals to solve their own problems. Their all knowing solutions should be enforced on the whole nation via the Federal goverment. They invest their trust in big government.

[BoatShoes]

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman... Some of the greatest conservative/libertarian minds in modern times IMO. Your assertion that Limbaugh and Beck are leading the cause is based on what facts? Do you have any statistics to support your assertion?



The fact that they have radio and/or television programs that reach millions of viewers....the fact that at tea party rallies you could see signs that said "thank you Glenn Beck" or "God bless you Glenn Beck"...and if I had to bet on it, most of those people would have no idea who this fancy pants, economist from staaaaanford is. People were debating earlier last year whether or not Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party.

I mean, I don't know why you want to debate this point with me...do you really believe more conservatives have been riled up by the works of Sowell as opposed to Beck and Limbaugh? C'mon man.

I'm sure that's not you, or perhaps the other conservatives on this board because, I mean, we're the kind of people that will debate politics on a message board...seems like it's fair to say we're a little less apathetic than others.

[Belly35]

I think he has a colume in the Townhall and Jewish World Review
Thomas Sowell is a great American but very few know his work and views.
Marxist to Capitalist ..... I enjoy reading online and hearing some of his interviews on line.

I could never understand why he has not gotten more camera and ink time or interviews.even on GB or RL programs. Not to sure ABC. NBC or CBS would what to hear his answers to some question about this Obama Administration and the Dismantling of America

[cbus4life]

Would be a much better place if the likes of Olbermann, Beck, Maddow, Hannity, etc., retired to vans down by the river and men like Sowell stepped into their place.

[majorspark]

The fact that they have radio and/or television programs that reach millions of viewers....the fact that at tea party rallies you could see signs that said "thank you Glenn Beck" or "God bless you Glenn Beck"...and if I had to bet on it, most of those people would have no idea who this fancy pants, economist from staaaaanford is. People were debating earlier last year whether or not Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party.

You are making generalizations about what drives and motivates a conservative. Its just your observation based on what you see in the media. Just because something is debated in the media does not make it fact. Your generalization is no different than the one made about liberals on the 7 things about libs thread.


I mean, I don't know why you want to debate this point with me...do you really believe more conservatives have been riled up by the works of Sowell as opposed to Beck and Limbaugh? C'mon man.

Maybe. I think you may be suprised as to what riles up a conservative. I think to you under estimate the influence of media on the internet. You may also be suprised at the number of conservatives that are aware of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. If you want to use Rush's show as an example, he has on many occasions metioned the works of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. Williams if one of my favorite subs for Rush.


I'm sure that's not you, or perhaps the other conservatives on this board because, I mean, we're the kind of people that will debate politics on a message board...seems like it's fair to say we're a little less apathetic than others.

True. But I have been suprised by how many "average" people use the internet to seek out information and political commentary. They are not all mind numbed robots having their information spoon fed by Limbaugh, Beck, or the mainstream media.

[I Wear Pants]

The fact that they have radio and/or television programs that reach millions of viewers....the fact that at tea party rallies you could see signs that said "thank you Glenn Beck" or "God bless you Glenn Beck"...and if I had to bet on it, most of those people would have no idea who this fancy pants, economist from staaaaanford is. People were debating earlier last year whether or not Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party.

You are making generalizations about what drives and motivates a conservative. Its just your observation based on what you see in the media. Just because something is debated in the media does not make it fact. Your generalization is no different than the one made about liberals on the 7 things about libs thread.


I mean, I don't know why you want to debate this point with me...do you really believe more conservatives have been riled up by the works of Sowell as opposed to Beck and Limbaugh? C'mon man.

Maybe. I think you may be suprised as to what riles up a conservative. I think to you under estimate the influence of media on the internet. You may also be suprised at the number of conservatives that are aware of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. If you want to use Rush's show as an example, he has on many occasions metioned the works of Sowell, Williams, and Friedman. Williams if one of my favorite subs for Rush.


I'm sure that's not you, or perhaps the other conservatives on this board because, I mean, we're the kind of people that will debate politics on a message board...seems like it's fair to say we're a little less apathetic than others.

True. But I have been suprised by how many "average" people use the internet to seek out information and political commentary. They are not all mind numbed robots having their information spoon fed by Limbaugh, Beck, or the mainstream media.
I think you greatly overestimate the intelligence of most people with internet access.

Most people who are aligned to the right or attend tea party rallies probably have no idea who Sowell is. I have no statistics based on that but I guarantee you that it's true.

Just like most people who are crazy leftists probably listen to Olberman way more than any real liberal thinker.

[pmoney25]

Just to play devils advocate here. Many, not all Conservatives are religous. Most are Christians or claim to be. In all reality if you truly believe in the scripture, isn't it wrong to call out the poor and have so much disdain for them.

I am not talking about the government taking care of the poor, just the overall attitude that some of you seem to have towards those less fortunate amazes me.

[majorspark]

I think you greatly overestimate the intelligence of most people with internet access.

Most people who are aligned to the right or attend tea party rallies probably have no idea who Sowell is. I have no statistics based on that but I guarantee you that it's true.

Just like most people who are crazy leftists probably listen to Olberman way more than any real liberal thinker.


You and boatshoes may very well be correct. Maybe I am more of an optimist. Without any reliable study or statistics, we only have our own personal experience and what is portrayed to us in the media.

Take the town hall or tea party rallies. Unless you have been a part of them and were able to mingle and discuss amongst the attendees their motives, you only have what is portrayed to you in the media. In either of these events I could find several intellegent informed attendees as well as several numb skulls. Depending on which set of attendees I place in my news clip, I can create two separate impressions of those attending.

[majorspark]

Just to play devils advocate here. Many, not all Conservatives are religous. Most are Christians or claim to be. In all reality if you truly believe in the scripture, isn't it wrong to call out the poor and have so much disdain for them.

I am not talking about the government taking care of the poor, just the overall attitude that some of you seem to have towards those less fortunate amazes me.


I don't think people are calling out the poor for being in need. Only the lazy and those that may use assistance to facilitate a drug habbit or engage in risky sexual behavior. If you read the scriptures they make note of the slothful. The scriptures say if one does not provide for his own house he is worse than an infidel. Obviously this is not in reference to those with the inability based on a physical or temporary economic need, but those by choice of their own actions be it laziness or risky behavior endager the needs of their own family.

In fact in the old testement at harvest time the land owners were instructed to leave a portion of the field unharvested for the poor to glean from. They did not harvest and give it to those in need without any effort from the poor. Rather it was left for them to harvest for themselves.

As noted in previous posts it takes discernment to separate those in true need from those that are lazy, seeking to take advantage, or those with nefarious intentions. There is no way a far away government in Washington can make these distinctions. They must be made closest to the problem with local governance private and public. Supplimental funds from the state governments (not the feds) could be helpful as long as local governance is maintained. But their is a danger in this, that people always spend other peoples money differently that their own. The farther people are from the spenders of their money the greater this danger is.

[Footwedge]

Actually, without the massive amount of student loans given out like candy, we wouldn't have hyper-inflation in that marketplace, and school would be more affordable to the many, not less.


How exactly would college be more affordable with less access to loans?

I understand the inflation part of the equation....but I would never classify it as hyperinflation.