Why do you hate the poor?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"If they wanted to "round us all up and deport us"....who would be left?"

Not very many, that's the point!

The whole reasoning behind the numerous different arguments associated with deportation and illegal immigration is hypocritical.

Obviously borders are a requirement and necessity, but retarding the migration of people into an area that they obviously desire to be in is never going to work because they simply wont stop coming.

a reply to: Bankaikiller

Thats because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Humanity is a failing because of the lack of equality and the fact the 1% of our race controls 70% of our wealth while everyone else fight over whats left.

originally posted by: wantsome
There seems to be a lot of hate directed at the poor in America. As in if you can't make it in this country without help it's your own fault. You would think we would all work together to make things better for everyone. Instead we have a society where everyone is afraid someones going to take something away from them. Everywhere I look there is hate and resentment.

My income is less then $11k a year but I have no problem giving a dollar or two to the homeless man on the corner. My thinking has always been I'm better off then he is at least I have somewhere warm to be.

I know people that make $60k a year and every week when they get paid they look at their paycheck and complain how bad they get screwed on taxes. When I was making $40k a year I never once looked at my paycheck and thought that. Not once did I ever look at a paycheck and think the government was screwing me over. Nor did I ever hold resentment toward poor people or social programs.

Some of the attitudes I see are one step short from rounding people up and gassing them. Capitalism can be rewarding for some but it also seems to foster greed. For some people what they have is never enough. Capitalism has given some people opportunities to get ahead but some think they don't need contribute anything back to society.

Why should anyone have to contribute anything back to society? Because helping our own makes America great.

As I have been "poor" my entire life, I consider some people to use it to exalt themselves... just as some people bully people for no reason. Basically people like to blow out others' candles to make their own brighter. It doesn't hurt me anymore, I regretfully wish they are legitimately scared of death and it is the scariest thing for them.

originally posted by: andy06shake


Obviously borders are a requirement and necessity, but retarding the migration of people into an area that they obviously desire to be in is never going to work because they simply wont stop coming.

There is nothing to argue about in that statement

I hate the poor because I was poor. Grew up in poverty. Worked two jobs in high school, worked my way through college, and now I'm not poor. There's no secret to it. You just have motivation and work hard. I know what it takes because I did it. I can see most of the "poor" around me live comfortably, try to scam the system as much as possible, and don't want to work. My taxes pay for that.

I think you're confusing people hating the waste of their hard earned tax dollars going to people who don't want to work. I don't hate any actual people. But I hate the generic population that I know doesn't want to work and gets my tax money to sit around and be lazy.

a reply to: wantsome

There's nothing wrong with being poor. If you choose to be poor, that's on you. I'll help you out, like I would anyone else but you're not going to get a bunch of sympathy because of your life choices. Those are on you, not me. I don't wish you harm nor hard times.

To break above poverty level is a very low bar: Graduate high school, wait until you're >21 (if you're a male) to get married, and don't have kids before married. Do those things and your chances of living a life in poverty are nearly non-existent. That's why I say being poor is a choice.

Honestly, I think you've misdirected the anger from the policy makers to the poor.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Wow.

That is the height of arrogance. You know what you have to have as well as gumption to get by? Luck. Heaping piles of it. Just so you know, it is incredibly UNCOMMON, to hear of anyone making an honest living, JUST from working hard. If you THINK thats how you got where you are, you did not. You got where you are because apart from any sweating you did for it, you are also fantastically lucky. You are just going to have to accept, because it is not up for debate, that there are people out there working harder than you ever have or will in your life, and getting less reward by a long chalk, and that applies no matter how hard you graft.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think ascribing accomplishment economically to luck demotes humans to passengers in the vehicle of their own life.


Sure, the benefit of luck helps. The benefit of opportunity helps, too. Assuming you are in an environment beyond inner city ghetto's, you will hve ample amounts of both. But you still have to drive up the street to take advantage of it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If it was as easy as some people make out, only a tiny, statistically irrelevant number of people would EVER fall on hard times BFFT.

As it is, people fall by the wayside all the time, through no fault of their own, and without the tools to do a damned thing about it, despite all the best intentions, the most obscene, inhuman efforts to avert disaster. Simply put, if you fail to accept that without luck, all the work in the world means nothing in terms of how well it might serve your future, then you fail to accept the obvious reality of life. You do NOT always get back what you put in, that IS rare, it is NOT common, so given that the results are so varied when the efforts are comparable (which they are more often than not by a big margin) luck must be a significant factor.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I've done all three things on your list. Yet my income is below the poverty line. Care to explain why?

I have only got halfway through this thread so far and I noticed that many are slating single mothers with kids for abusing the system, but not one word in condemnation of the runaway/absent parent to those kids who just buggered off and abandoned their responsibilities to leave their family in poverty-stricken circumstances in the first place. Stop making it so easy for absent parents to abandon their families with no support.

I don't resent people being wealthy and having way more than they need, I just don't understand why they have to take so much of what there is. They wouldn't be satisfied if they had it all, they'd still want more.

I agree that laziness and lack of motivation is a problem with some people who live in poverty, and that needs to be addressed. But there is also the other end of the scale that also needs addressing, the hoarding habits of the extremely rich that is keeping the majority of wealth out of circulation. If having nothing is a bad thing, then having obscene wealth must also be a bad thing. Poverty is created because wealth is hoarded.

And what about this 'minimum-wage' con? It gives an impression that MW is a starting pay point, when in actual reality the minimum pay is also your maximum pay. The rise of employment agencies that 'corral' all the unskilled jobs so the majority have to be employed thru them instead of the company they 'll be doing the work for, taking upwards of £14 per hour per employee from the company and passing on less than half of that to the people that actually do the work, keeping the difference to themselves for doing absolutely nothing. Take a cut yes, but to take half or more of what someone else has earned for doing nothing is legalized extortion plain and simple.

And how come companies have a nukey-meltdown at the mere suggestion of raising the NMW by a measly quid, but happily pay agencies up to double NMW per hour for those same workers? Crazy.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I don't hate the poor, but......



Everyone who's post was structured like that in some way. News flash, you hate the poor.



What ratio would people feel happy about social wellfare? Is it only worthwhile when 100% of it is used for its true purposes? If 20% of recipients are defrauding the system, does that invalidate the other 80% who need help and are getting it?

The common argument that you just don't want 'feeders and other malcontents' to take advantage of the system is thinly veiled attempt to hide your hatred.

Sorry...but that is simply bull#! You can not hate the poor but hate what the poor do. You can love your child but hate what they do. If you are so blind to reality and want to play with words...first make sure you are intelligent enough to do so. You are not.

Second...realize that your definition of words may be skewed compared to others. You may consider the "poor" anyone below a certain economic level. Others consider (in this discussion) those of the poor that rape the system for their personal benefit.

But again...unless you are smart enough to understand the difference...stop spewing ignorant comments of no value.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If it was as easy as some people make out, only a tiny, statistically irrelevant number of people would EVER fall on hard times BFFT.

As it is, people fall by the wayside all the time, through no fault of their own, and without the tools to do a damned thing about it, despite all the best intentions, the most obscene, inhuman efforts to avert disaster. Simply put, if you fail to accept that without luck, all the work in the world means nothing in terms of how well it might serve your future, then you fail to accept the obvious reality of life. You do NOT always get back what you put in, that IS rare, it is NOT common, so given that the results are so varied when the efforts are comparable (which they are more often than not by a big margin) luck must be a significant factor.

We have to keep in mind something that is uncomfortable to talk about:

The worlds rules were made by smart people to take advantage of dumb people. Thus, poor people don't tend to be poor because they are brilliant. And im not calling poor people dumb (i used that term out of covenience, not accuracy). What I am saying is that poor people tend to exhibit behaviors that help keep them poor: poor impulse control, unable to delay gratification, poisoned logic, etc.

The world is designed to milk people like this in one way or another. Because a lack of intelligence is one of those things that I don't think will ever be taboo to ridicule. Its a safe bet that unintelligent people will be easier to extract money from, and easier to set up to farm as a source of future cash.

Then there are people who turn their back on success and instead find quality of life. ONe of the brightest and most capable people who ever worked for me was an insanely attractive yet insanely intelligent young woman who now refuses to work beyond selling simple crafts for subsistance. She almost died during preeclampsia when she had her only child, and shifted her priorities because of that. When her organs functioned again, she was a changed woman.

But those are the exceptions. The rule is, people fall on hard times because they exhibit behaviors that create that scenario.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Respectfully, I disagree. The world's rules don't tend to favor the intelligent, they tend to favor the unscrupulous. We have a system built by sociopaths for sociopaths which is why, when you get up to the upper echelons of any social construct you get an exponentially higher concentration of those sociopaths. A higher intelligence is not reflected, but a higher propensity to ping on all three sides of the dark triad certainly is.

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Respectfully, I disagree. The world's rules don't tend to favor the intelligent, they tend to favor the unscrupulous. We have a system built by sociopaths for sociopaths which is why, when you get up to the upper echelons of any social construct you get an exponentially higher concentration of those sociopaths. A higher intelligence is not reflected, but a higher propensity to ping on all three sides of the dark triad certainly is.

I know quite a few folks who are fairly wealthy, and have done so in a very scrupulous manner.

If you are able to make money for people who have money, you will do quite well. Intellectually unprepared people tend to not do so well. Which is why we have nonsense like increasing the minimum wage. Folks just don't understand the real issue of a currency that devalues year over year. WHich, if we are going to broach the subject, is why we have poor people. Our economy is meant to rot at the bottom and funnel power into people who own "real property".

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sure there are wealthy, scrupulous people, but that wasn't my point. I too know wealthy, scrupulous people, some of them are my relatives. Admittedly, (full disclosure) some of those rich relatives have also been told that if they try to contact me I will pursue a restraining order, because they are sociopaths.

My point is that the system favors sociopathy far more than it favors intelligence. There is a higher concentration of unscrupulous people that are wealthy and/or in positions of authority than there are intelligent people. There is hard data to back this up, it is a psycho-social fact. Intelligence does not correlate with success, but there is a higher concentration of rich, wealthy sociopaths than poor sociopaths. Our very culture mistakes narcissism for confidence and convincing dishonesty for intelligence.

At the end of day though, success simply does not correlate with intelligence. I know people like to believe that, but that's part of the social lie that is perpetuated by those in power; they must somehow, have some quality of self that makes them worthy and special, and their success simply mirrors that. It's not true, but it's a lie we have sold ourselves ever since we started organizing ourselves into these pyramid social hierarchies. If there is a quality of self that indicates success it is statistically more likely to be a lack of empathy and Machiavellian traits. As an aside, I think dumb luck has more to do with it than any personality trait, good or bad.

On a personal note, I have been lied to, used, manipulated, scapegoated and just generally crapped on far more by the wealthy than by the poor, so my personal experience does echo the data, and I must admit a bias, even if you will not admit your own. I'm glad you know nice people that are wealthy though.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I don't hate the poor, but......



Everyone who's post was structured like that in some way. News flash, you hate the poor.



What ratio would people feel happy about social wellfare? Is it only worthwhile when 100% of it is used for its true purposes? If 20% of recipients are defrauding the system, does that invalidate the other 80% who need help and are getting it?

The common argument that you just don't want 'feeders and other malcontents' to take advantage of the system is thinly veiled attempt to hide your hatred.

Sorry...but that is simply bull#! You can not hate the poor but hate what the poor do. You can love your child but hate what they do. If you are so blind to reality and want to play with words...first make sure you are intelligent enough to do so. You are not.

Second...realize that your definition of words may be skewed compared to others. You may consider the "poor" anyone below a certain economic level. Others consider (in this discussion) those of the poor that rape the system for their personal benefit.

But again...unless you are smart enough to understand the difference...stop spewing ignorant comments of no value.

Sounds like I struck a nerve because you don't like your perfect little conception of your self as anything other than righteous and true. Resorting to name calling/insulting is only reinforcing this point, so thanks for doing my work for me kid. You still can't answer my question because its so important for you to harness righteous hatred of those who take advantage of the system that you can conveniently justify causing harm to good honest people who actually need help. If Jesus and St. Peter were standing at the gates deciding whether to let you in or not I'm sure they would congratulate you for not getting the wool pulled over your eyes by all those sneaky damn poors!

a reply to: redhorse

It does favor sociopathy more. I don't think this is on purpose. Or rather, I think they both share a similar cause. Humans design things based on what they know. We are fantastic mimics. We are terrible innovators. It takes that rare person with adept lateral thinking skills/talents to take observation and turn it into inspiration. Then everyone else gets to replicate.

When the first sociopath crushed his opponents and seized power, the blueprint was created. Rarely a lateral thinker will figure out how to "make it" with their soul intact.

But I think our system arises from the same forces that created our mind, or our need for the mind we have.

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Respectfully, I disagree. The world's rules don't tend to favor the intelligent, they tend to favor the unscrupulous. We have a system built by sociopaths for sociopaths which is why, when you get up to the upper echelons of any social construct you get an exponentially higher concentration of those sociopaths. A higher intelligence is not reflected, but a higher propensity to ping on all three sides of the dark triad certainly is.

Sorry, but that's simply not quite true.

It just makes us all feel better to think that instead of realizing that too many of us tend to make our own boneheaded choices that come back to bite us in the butt.

It isn't because I took that ill-advised loan and leveraged myself up to the eyeballs so badly that I was poorly equipped to handle a financial crisis ... it's because those loan people should've known better than to let me hang myself ... as if it's their responsibility to take care of your finances.

a reply to: ketsuko

Caveat Emptor is a cornerstone of the US. And obviously favors the more intelligent.