Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by Hessdalen
most of the poor do drugs
many of them gamble
most of them smoke cigaretts

Numbers?
Links?
Data sheets?
Facts?

Fun to make thins up in order to make an argument isn't it?

Ilso I take it you trust in everything the OP said? He gave everything you asked for so you believe the American "poor" are still some of the most privileged on the planet?

reply to post by Crapspackle


Dude, get off it! Seriously. She is doing fine and not abusing the system. Stop trolling and let it go. I see nothing wrong with what she is doing. I admire her ability to take care of her child and not giving in to the welfare trap.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I'm disturbed at home much people are jealous of others even those on welfare. When you find out welfare entitles you to some things, the well off person gets jealous because they have to work to pay for anything.

Well, I'm on welfare because I'm disabled. I own loooots of stuff. I own this laptop that cost me more than two grand, and I own about almost the same worth of instruments and recording equipment which I can barely use now because of disability. And y'know what? That is what I most definitely deserve because I worked for all of it, hard.

What am I supposed to do: sell all of my stuff because I lost work due to a disability? That's absurd. I did sell nonessential things that were taking up space like comic books, etc. but when it comes to things which you worked hard to get, it hurts just as hard to have to get rid of them. Should I have to get rid of my Nintendo which was a birthday gift to me? The laptop btw, half of which was paid for by parents who said they would match what I put in as a way to motivate me to work for $1000 in a $10 an hour job. Who is to say they didn't inherit a TV (which the vast majority of people I know have done, old boxy ones or whatever: hell people get rid of them free on Craigslist all of the time). Do you have any idea how cheap it is to get an xbox or stereo used? It's less than $100 okay. That's about one solid days work worth of money and we are otherwise poor year round.

I don't get nearly enough money from welfare to support a lifestyle of any kind of enjoyment. My girlfriend got some money from welfare to help support me (one time, for one month) and then started working so that we can enjoy having a quality of life.

In the study does it say which percentage of these families have both spouses unemployed because I assume it is much more common to have one out of work and the other still working to support them otherwise it is impossible to pay the bills with just welfare. Let alone saving enough to put the down payment on a mobility vehicle, or if anything unforeseen comes up.

Having $1000 in the bank from welfare is not profiting off your tax paying in any way. The government does that enough. My $1000 in the bank is to save me if I have something happen that threatens living in a house or my safety, etc. What if there is a fire and I'm uninsured and all of my clothes burn, etc. Should poor people have to live paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth?



This is the most disgusting post I've seen on this site ever. You should be ashamed OP.

The states are in DEBT because the poor people are spending on Credit for that shiny flat screen TV or the latest ipad.

The result is that the only ones who profit are the BANKS..while the country as such and with it each individual becomes bankrupt.

However, while i consider BANKS as one of the worst evils out there - lets not forget the main reason we have that problem is the fact that people are greedy and want shiny things despite that "in reality" they cannot even afford them. So...its also each individuals fault.

As for the OP article..the article is total BS in my opinion, as if two televisions or a video game would indicate someone is rich. Who made this study? Retards?

Also, one more thing and then I'm done.

Having an AC is not a luxury, it is a privelege and in many places downright needed for quality of life. I live in a very hot place. Tomorrow there is a heat record being set and yesterday was up there too. I inherited for free (ahah) an air conditioner, but I would have saved up to buy one new if I hadn't because I would literally get sick from the heat if I didn't and since I'm disabled it would be bad news. Young people and old people are very sensitive to heat as are the old and every year people die from it. In fact I think the government should work to get everyone a subsidized air conditioner (I dunno if stores sell them on layaway probably right?) and it's all a balance. Sure the ac my use power but you'll end up having to run less cold water showers, etc for yourself and in some places there is a water shortage.

Don't worry there is a system in place for a reason. Attacking the system rather than the corrupt people within it is a huge mistake.

reply to post by Aramchek


I'm not sure but I think here in Florida you had better have a/c before you rent or sell property.

I think I like the post a while back where the gentleman reminded us what we would do in the past when the wealthy had hogged all of the resources. Something about we would flog and behead them?

I think it's time WE poor people begin massing!

***Oh, if you can't afford to take your entire family (that's brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and their kids) on a vacation with you and pay all expenses, you're poor***

Originally posted by apacheman
So he's stealing someone else's resources he didn't pay for? Nice guy. Hope he has permission to be where he is, because if anyone finds out and he doesn't, he'll be evicted. Every bit of land within the US is owned by someone, and resides in a county under county building codes. They may be loose and sketchy, but there's not a place without them.

He owns the land...

This is looking at Poor in one of the most developed and wealthy societies in the world.

Everything is relative.

Electronics and appliances are certainly no measure of wealth. Especially in a nation where we consume and can purchase practically anything on "Credit". Also in that all of these items are categorically depreciating assets.

Additionally, due to the abundance of consumer items purchased and discarded by Americans, Almost anyone can get a perfectly good used A/C unit or Color TV as giveaways.

Go to any well to do suburban "Recycling Center" and look at the wealth in depreciating assets that is just there free for the taking. Televisions, A/C units, fitness equipment.....and so on.

Almost anyone can get a perfectly good used microwave, Fridge, A/C unit or Color TV for free.

If some poor person picks them up and placed them in their apartment it doesn't necessarily make them any less poor.

For their true measure of "Wealth" as in savings,debt to income ratio and/or actual appreciating assets is likely the same as in very little or even non existent.

Your and my taxes are used to pay the interest on the Debt to the International Banking cartel anyway.
The entitlements are financed just as are all govt. programs and expenses...

If more people had jobs we wouldn't need them.....as in the 60's when everyone was gainfully employed.

I love to read some of these posts and people say they need TV and Xbox so they can have entertainment. Growing up in the late 60's and 70's, I rarely had a TV. And when I did, we only go 3 or 4 channels. When everyone else had color, we had black and white. Most of my childhood was spent playing outside (gasp!). We walked the railroad tracks, built forts in the woods from scrap wood and debris we found. We climbed trees, walked to parks, or just played games like checkers or monopoly. We didn't have the stuff kids have today.

I think that is the real problem with society. We have dumbed down our kids to the point where they have no imagination, which is something you need to survive. Being creative is more than just art work or something like that. Creative is knowing how to purchase things, how to stretch food or a dollar.

It's not a crime to be poor. It should be a crime to abuse the system. I think NC has just started drug testing for welfare recipients. The whole country should be doing this. You test positive while on welfare, you're done. I have no tolerance for drug/alcohol abusers. There is no excuse for it, period! Alcoholism is NOT a disease, it's a habit. I don't care what they say. A disease is something you cannot control. You can control what you put into your body.

I think the whole point that some of us are trying to make is that we have been exposed to the seedy side of poor and therefore we generalize or stereotype the poor and homeless. It is no different than the poor or homeless who generalize those who are better off and appear to be wealthy. So we are both at fault. It's human nature and it won't change.

Government hands out cellphones for free...

and then it's a point on how not poor Americans are.

I wonder what else the US government has given away that can be found on that list. Not a bad thing per sé.

But riddle me this;

How can you combat mental poverty when you are supplying materials which increase material poverty?

How can you overcome material poverty if mental poverty is not being battled by the majority of people?

I don't think those in charge of most countries have asked themselves this, maybe because they did not think of it or maybe because they just did not care.

Regardless, I spy with my little eye, propaganda.

It's not a crime to be poor. It should be a crime to abuse the system. I think NC has just started drug testing for welfare recipients. The whole country should be doing this. You test positive while on welfare, you're done. I have no tolerance for drug/alcohol abusers. There is no excuse for it, period! Alcoholism is NOT a disease, it's a habit. I don't care what they say. A disease is something you cannot control. You can control what you put into your body.

reply to post by haarvik


You make an interesting point, but slightly discriminatory don't you think? The biggest recipients of government welfare have been the bailed out banks and other private institutions. Now Im pretty sure some of those bankers have taken drugs or drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol. Would you also agree that these recipients of government welfare should be drug tested?

reply to post by Cuervo


You should try visiting a third world country. That's real poor. You want to whine that Gov should take care of you go head. Billions of people have a third of what american poor have and they are actually happier. I suggest you try and visit Dom.Rep. Again that's real poor. Wise up

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


You should try visiting a third world country. That's real poor. You want to whine that Gov should take care of you go head. Billions of people have a third of what american poor have and they are actually happier. I suggest you try and visit Dom.Rep. Again that's real poor. Wise up

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Absolutely! In fact, just like seat belt and cell phone laws, if you are stopped for any violation you should be subject to a testing. If you are found to be positive, you are ticketed. If a repeat offender, you go to jail. I have no problem with this. This would put a huge dent in drug abuse. And by the same token, abuse of prescription drugs should be included and mandatory jail time for any physician caught dispensing it!

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Absolutely! In fact, just like seat belt and cell phone laws, if you are stopped for any violation you should be subject to a testing. If you are found to be positive, you are ticketed. If a repeat offender, you go to jail. I have no problem with this. This would put a huge dent in drug abuse. And by the same token, abuse of prescription drugs should be included and mandatory jail time for any physician caught dispensing it!

Well at lease no one can accuse you of discrimination. Although I would not make it mandatory for anyone.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by dolphinfan

Almost all of those people are hardworking and half the people that will get steamed towards the "poor" people reading this are poor themselves and just don't know it. Poverty line for a single person is $35,000 by most standards. There are a lot of "poor" people who don't even know they are poor. It's not their fault that people like Heritage Foundation are whining on their behalf.

It detracts from the very real problem of a large portion of American society who truly does struggle day to day in order to pay electricity and feed their families. This article is a work of obvious propaganda to foster a class-war. Disgusting.

edit on 19-7-2011 by Cuervo because: deleted long quote

Are you nuts? 35.000 a year is poor? my family makes around 24,000 and we are definitely not poor. Poor is someone who does not live within the minimum standards, AKA lives on a house that is breaking apart literally, does not have a refrigerator, much less has an AC lets not even talk about a gaming console or a PC.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Back in the 80's,I was working and making around $8000.00
per year.I had a nice little apartment,I owned all my furniture.
I had a color tv,vcr,movies,stereo,records,microwave,portable
washer.I rode the city bus or rode my bicycle.I didn't feel poverty
stricken and I forgot to mention,I had cable and a phone.

GOSH WOW! Stomach churning to see hateful assumptions of poor people are as prevalent over the pond as they are here.
Yes people do have *stuff*, but its a lot harder to get or replace. People buy stuff on weekly repayments or suffer loan sharks to get their kids the things for christmas other kids have had for YEARS already.

Seriously check yourselves...

reply to post by dolphinfan


The real question regarding all of this is what we consider the definition of poor is in this country. Now, that was the intent of the thread, that was the intent of a number of posts I made to attempt unsuccessfully to get it back on track to no avail, but that is the point, is it not?

Hardship stories are numerous, sad and unfortunately there are many more of them today than there have been in quite a while. The current situation however does not negate the question. How do we define poverty? Is there a level of material wealth absent income that disqualfies someone from receving aid? My read of this thread would suggest about a 60-40 split towards no. What someone has has no bearing on their qualification for aid. Further, it would seem that merely asking the question is shameful, disgusting, et.al.

Does income matter for the qualification for aid? Should someone who is not working but getting $5K/month in cash from their parents qualify? I gather the majority again think so, as it is nobodys business how that person defines their own poverty. Of course today they do qualify.

Does quality of life matter? If someone is living in a guest cottage on their parents estate and not working qualify? Yup, again they have no income and despite their access to substantian material wealth, it is their income that qualifies them. Its nobody's business where they live. With respect to comments in the thread, it is immaterial whether they live in the cottage or in a dumpster. I gather thats OK too.

Lets take the other side. Why would anyone who believes that someone who legally uses every trick in the book to hide income from taxation be considered any differently than the folks described above? Are they the same or is the expectation of integrity greater on those with means? In other words, should we expect some to act in good faith on one end of the socioeconomic scale but excuse the failure to act on the other? If so, why and at what point does one move from low expectations to greater expectations. I did not think that integrity was something defined by wealth, but according to many posts here, it absolutely does. While its expected that wealthy abide by the spirit of the tax law, there is little expectation of the person claiming to be poor to do so. Is that because you simply believe the poor have less integrity or are you simply giving them a pass on the integrity test?

At what point does the scale turn and we expect some level of integrity amongst the person requesting aid and then receiving it? In other words, is it a net worth of $50K of material assets, $10K, $100K? I gather than many of you think it is unlimited as the material assets should have no relationship to qualification for aid. It is immaterial because it is nobody's business. Why would a new BMW 7 series be any different than a TV or Xbox? What makes it different? If someone gives a poor person a $100K car does that mean he is no longer poor? Apparently many think he should just drive that car around and collect his monthly check rather than sell the car and take himself off of assistance.

Rather than rail on about the sad story about some single mother who bought her kid a second hand Wii, you might attempt to elevate your comments to something a bit more substantial so that an intellectual reasonable debate can occur other than pointing to the differences between the hedge fund manager and the single, disabled welfare mother. That, my friend is class warfare. Its comical too.

Or does the mere discussion of the definition of poverty make you uncomfortable? Funny how it seems quite easy for folks to define wealthy, yet are uncomfortable or unable to define poor.