Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by Indigo5

 

And by the same token if they are suspect of consuming an illegal substance then they are subject to drug testing. Receiving welfare is not a right. It is not guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore any stipulation necessary can be applied in order to obtain this assistance.

There is a difference between testing someone that is suspected of drug use and drug testing everyone that receives public assistance.

I am not opposed to drug testing by employers, insurance companies or the federal government. Politicians should be regularly drug tested as a condition of employment. DC is just a ghetto with money. Many of these egomaniacs that "serve" the people speak about family values by day and screw hookers and snort coc aine by night. It is the mentality that the rules don't apply to them and that they are "special'. I have relatives that manage "recovery" clinics in DC and while they rightly never name names, they tell me drug use by DC Politicians is as rampant as in hollywood, there just isn't the paparazzi running around DC to capture the debauchery on film on regular basis.

The idea that we should single out welfare recipients to be drug tested as a condition of public aid is offensive to me in that context.

reply to post by apacheman


Ok, Mr. Constitution, let me pose this question to you. If, as you say, you follow the Constitution, then if there were an uprising to overthrow the current government, would you support it? Would you fight and give your life to overthrow it, or would you fight to keep it as it is? Careful how you answer as you might get labeled.

I still want to know what is poor enough???

What condition and diet is fit for someone who is not earning a living?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Plus you can get a Mexican nanny or even just a babysitter for pennies on the dollar. If you know where to look. In Florida it is very common to have Mexican/Haitian/Caribbean and Columbian nanniesor babysitters. They will also clean and cook too, if you don't make speaking english a necessity. Also they will teach your children another language making them ahead of a lot of other children in the School system especially if you get the spanish speaking ones, your children greatly benefit.

reply to post by Janky Red


Sorry for taking the thread off topic. I'm done with that. People here have their minds made up. You are not changing them no matter how sane or practical your ideas are.

As to the point of poverty, the level of poverty, in my mind, is the state at which you can no longer afford the bare necessities of life. When you can no longer provide food, shelter or clothing you are impoverished. Anything above that is poor, not impoverished.

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

Actually they should be putting the food barons in prison. They should be prosecuting the head of the FDA and USDA for murder and complicity. They are the obesity problem, not people. Everyone knows processed foods cause obesity. Take them away and by default the population as a whole will be much healthier.

Take them away, and then arrest people who obtain junk food illegally?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

Well I told you I was giving you ammunition.

In reality though, I know several single mothers, and they all have to use daycare. If they have 1 child, daycare can be anywhere from $250 to $600 per month depending on age and type of daycare. Not everyone has a family member in town, and next door neighbors cost money these days, they aren't doing it for free.

If someone has 2 kids, then the price is between $500 to $1200 for the daycare, and the nanny option actually saves them money, plus it provides some other helpful stuff around the house. That was my whole point.

Of course FREE is always the best option if someone has that available. Grandma or Auntie or whoever. That would be the way to go, but unfortunately that wasn't an option for us, and it isn't an option for many other folks either.

I was just trying to broaden some horizons. Many people don't realize that there are other options that appear out of reach, but in reality they might actually be a cost saver.

Honestly, I have to call shenanigans. People every where else in the world don't NEED to use daycare or a nanny. In England poor people get by just fine without both, and can't afford either.

I don't know any poor people who can afford 1k a month for childcare.

reply to post by mynameispablo


Are you deranged? Move man, Lagos has exactly what you are looking for. No SS whatsoever!

reply to post by NadaCambia


I don't know about everywhere else in the world, I only know about my little slice. I have two very close friends, both of which are school teachers, and both of which must are forced to use daycare services.

In my last job, I had 18 employees. 15 were women, and 6 were single mothers. All 6 used daycare at least part of the time. 1 woman used daycare for 1/2 a day each day, and then her mother could pick up the child the other half. The other 5 women all used daycare all day.

I also have to call shenanigans, I don't know any working, single parents, that are not paying for at least some daycare expenses.

I think the whole point of some of the discussion revolves around the taxpayer. We feel that since our money is being used for this type of thing, we should have some say in who/how it is distributed. As a law abiding citizen, I don't particularly care to have my tax money support a drug user. My preference, and I feel a number of other Americans as well. Of course I don't particularly care to have my money sent overseas either and hopefully someday it won't.

For those of you who say live and let live, then you must also be willing to let people steal, as long as it is not from you. After all, they aren't hurting you. Plus the Constitution says I have the right to happiness. If robbing banks make me happy, then I should be allowed to do it. Ridiculous, no? So where do you draw the line? There has to be laws to keep order out of chaos.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree with you. It hasn't been that long ago my kids were of age for daycare. It was cheaper to have in-home care that to use daycare. At the time, in NC, it would have cost me over $900/mo for both of my kids PART-TIME in daycare. An in-home was only $600/mo. FULL-TIME. My wife and I at the time made less than $70k combined. Take out an $800/mo mortgage and there wasn't much left. One of our checks would have went to pay the daycare, and nothing else. So for us, in-home was great.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by WickettheRabbit

 

If I'm in line at the grocery store and someone talking on an iPhone is paying with food stamps, there is something wrong.

The fact that the person is using a piece of technology crafted by modern day slaves?

Or what?

Eh...I don't mind the slaves because they're from another country. I'm American, after all.

It's the paying for the data plan. That's pricey.

reply to post by WickettheRabbit

Eh...I don't mind the slaves because they're from another country. I'm American, after all.

I hope this is sarcasm.

It's the paying for the data plan. That's pricey.

That is the increasing physical poverty by giving material goods I'm talking about.

Does it piss you off that they can have these unnecessary luxuries or does it piss you off that they'll be cornered even more because of their increasing bills because nobody told them about that when giving them free stuff that costs money to operate?

reply to post by LoneGunMan


That system of thinking has never worked through out history. And very scary thought process by yourself. Most of those people worked very hard to get where they are at. Yes, some are crooks, and some have it handed it to them, but most, worked for it and had the desire to obtain it.

reply to post by dolphinfan


You know, I believe this is needed from several decades ago.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by haarvik


That would depend upon how bad the current government got, and how broad the support for overthrow was.

The oath I swore was to the Constitution, not any particular government or combination of political parties. Both the Republican and Democratic parties seem to have been overrun by sociopaths determined to win or bring down the house and I owe no allegiance to either, or to the system of governance they represent.

Republicans threw the rule of law concept overboard when they chose to reward the bankster frauds instead of prosecuting them. Democrats threw their principles overboard by going along with it. Neither party has the best interests of the nation at heart or in mind.

I am still bound by my oath, so if it were to require an overthrow of a current government to protect the Constitution, then I suppose it would be my duty to help. However, how I go about it is up to me, nothing in the oath I swore demands violence, so there are many ways of accomplishing the desired goal.

I've thought much longer and deeper about these things than you have, I'm sure, since I take my oaths and my citizenship seriously, and chances are I'm much older.

reply to post by apacheman

I am still bound by my oath, so if it were to require an overthrow of a current government to protect the Consitution, then I suppose it would be my duty to help. However, how I go about it is up to me, nothing in the oath I swore demands violence, so there are many ways of accomplishing the desired goal.

I agree.

The only certainty is that things must change, either with or without our influence, eventually the house of cards will come down. The politically correct among us call it a "correction" while others call it a depression.

I ended one of my posts in another thread like this, "The ends are inevitable, but the means are still negotiable."

The economy is falsely inflated. The dollar is falsely inflated. Oil and Gold are falsely inflated. It is going to come crashing down, there is no doubt. The only doubt is how long will we throw money into the abyss, and how are the politicians going to come to terms with the inevitable. Will the politicians begin working for the nation and the people at some point, or will they grasp even harder onto their corporate agenda? Will the politicians be voted out by an active populace, peaceful demonstrations, and an honest press corps? Or, will the entire thing require a 1776 style "reorganization?" I don't think any intelligent person can honestly wish for violence, but I think we all must accept that it is one of the options on the table, and it is imperative to exercise all the other options to the fullest of our capabilities, but if that doesn't work...........

reply to post by apacheman


Possibly, I am 47. I take my oath seriously as well. As you stated, I defend the constitution, not a party. Both are right at times, but mostly wrong. I don't believe a two party system works. I cannot subscribe to the philosophy and practice of voting a particular way just because of party affiliation. There are ideals that are fundamental in any society and to move contrary to them creates a very explosive environment that is not healthy for any side, least of which is the populace at large.

However, back to the OP at hand, it is this political divide that we have grown accustomed to that has gotten us to this point. There will always be poor, there will always be rich. There will always be those that take advantage of those in a lower situation that they are. I think the point the OP was trying to make was that given our society and our lifestyles, even our poor are considered rich in other nations. Our standards of what defines the poor are well above what other countries deem acceptable.

Here's a plan that I think would go a long way towards rectifying what is wrong with this country:

1. Establish voting/taxpaying centers as ubiquituous as post offices or libraries. These should be on a physically seperate computer network that constantly crosschecks itself to prevent hacking. By "physically seperate" I mean dedicated landlines that only connect to regional centers, which connect to state centers and then to a national center. No general internet access whatsoever, and no wireless either.

2. Expand representation in the House as the Constitution envisioned by expanding the membership to achieve a representative/citizen ratio into something more meanignful than a few million to one. He who "represents" a million people represnts no one but himself and his cronies. This can be accomplished by keeping the current House as the Big Business Chamber (what it essentially functions as now) and creating three new ones: one for science and technology issues, one for health/agricultural/environmental issues, and one for education, arts and humanities. Any bill passed in one chamber is presented to the full House and must pass before moving on to the Senate, which should be doubled in size.

3. All budgets passed by the Congress are put online in the taxpaying center systems. Taxpayers would then allocate their own taxes to those uses they approved of or assign them to the general fund if they are lazy or unconcerned. Once a program's budget is full it is removed from the funding list. Any shortfalls are made up from the general fund at the discretion of the full Congress. Total tax to be paid determines the size of the maximum amount allocated to any one program to ensure funding across a broader spectrum.

4. If items of national significance come up (like TARP), establish a threshold number of voters who choose to vote to override their Representative's vote is they vote against the Representative's vote. For instance, if more than, say, 40% of eligible voters came out and voted on an issue, AND over, say 60%, voted opposite what their Representative did, then their vote overrrides his or hers. The thresholds need to be fairly high and would require some tweaking to get right.

5. Cap wealth at some emotionally satisfying figure that rewards hard work, effort, and contributions to society while eliminating a source of societal danger: the wealth addicts/sociopaths who don't know when to say when on wealth, and must keep accumulating it no matter what it costs society.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by dolphinfan

 

It is very rare to see a family just down on their luck, it is much, much more common to see alcholics/drug addicts, criminals, and mentally ill.

The studies from the OP are from regular poor folks.

I don't know dude.
Doesn’t "a family, down on their luck" mean a family that got taken advantage of by some unscrupulous and unethical sales person.
Look, when you say "mental illness," that is usually a form of social anxiety, (not counting a mild case of autism) and some sales guys can sense it and use it to sell you on a lemon that will eventually lead to financial ruin.
And as for drugs and alcohol, those things wouldn't be so bad if the cops weren't involved.
As for criminal element; "With a sward you can rob a man. With a pen, you can rob a thousand men." which means, most of the poor people you see are more likely victims of some politicians criminal behavior than they are criminals.
I do see your position; the one about Tent City being better than Africa. But, what is your point?
As long as you don’t get your head cut off, be happy????