Conservatives, this is what poverty looks like.

And what should she have done differently?

Sure that is just his side of the story, but taking it at face value - ultimately human survival is a natural instinct, and like it or not that instinct is going to supercede some literalistic moral argument about "other people's money", etc when push comes to shove (like it or not).

In the event of extradorinary and life-threatening circumstances (which are legimately beyond a person's control, such as a kid being born with a brain tumor) then people are going to use other people's money to get buy if it boils down to that - vs dying, regardless of the opinion of some Anarcho-capitalist twits who have no clue about how the real world works.

And while there might be a few anarchists who'd really be crazy enough to choose their or their child's death vs. using public assistence for a month or two (just like there may be a few PETards who'd genuinely let the entire human race die off if it meant not experimenting on a lab rat) - I seriously doubt the majority would deny themselves assistence if it really came down to them or their family dying if they refused it (I'll believe that when I see it), such as Ayn Rand herself.

But so far you've seemed like a smart poster and I've enjoyed reading you, so I was assuming you weren't just trolling, and I was asking a serious question - what is your practical, step-by-step solution, about what she should've done differently?

 

Excellent example of the RW d ou che type response the OP knew would respond.

 

Do you even have to stop and think about these cliches and demonizations you hurl at your opponents?

Don't you think we can see what you are trying to pull???

 

Yes for Africa. The USA is not africa. More wealth here than anywhere else.

 

Do any of you?
Did you read some of the "conservative" posts? Probably not, and if you did, you probably are unable to see the hate and vitriol because you are blind, like them.

I'm not trying to pull anything, just calling it like I see it.

 

Controlling ones emotions is the sign of emotional maturity.

Are you up to the task?

Look at how you, "call them as you see them" in that post.

Are you saying that all Conservatives and RW'ers and GOP'ers and Tea Partiers are calloused and uncaring toward the less fortunate just because a few posters who are tired of battling Left wing excesses and see this as just another example of it, express their 'battle weariness' in this thread?

You should know better.

 

The conservatives here seem to fit the statement for the most part. I know there are some Conservatives on and off this site who realize that there is a welfare trap and that good people like my mother and I get sucked into through no fault of our own.

I'm hoping to get on the Ticket To Work in a year or two once my medical situation sorts out and then I'll be able to get off disability. Once I get out into the workforce, I plan on self-publishing my first two novels. I can work, the only reason I am not working is because I am not going to risk my health situation worsening. If, by Yoda, I make a good deal of money from those books, I plan on buying my mom a nice house and making sure she is fully taken care of for the rest of her life.

I'm guessing something along the lines of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRj-S8Aklcw

 

Good luck.

You are buying in to the stereotypes being promoted by the media and the same con men and bad actors in the Obama government who, we all know (NOW) lied their arses off about how Mitt Romney was one of those cartoonish Fat Cat Richie Rich Conservatives who cares nothing about real people.

I trust you've watched the documentary on Netflix, "Mitt."

Or else you've seen the trailers on YouTube and the reviews which ALL say that Romney was misrepresented during the campaigns for POTUS.

Those same stereotypes are at work here in this thread.

Take the time to find out the truth.

Dispel the myths and the lies about Conservatives. Or confirm their validity for yourself before passing judgment.

 

I've said many times before, and I believe within this thread, that I voted for Romney.

I'm talking primarily about the Conservatives here, many of whom seems to be quite dim.

 

Well, I don't like to attack Conservatives but sometimes good sense and common decency require it.

 

Why are we still merely paying for a War on Poverty instead of solving a simple social dilemma, with existing infrastructure?

 

Because all too many on the left are firmly cnvinced that growing the econmic pie is bad for the planet and that poor people are less of a problem than rich people and that real compassion consistof spending other people's money on solutions that don't work, cannot be made to work, and cripple everyone.

 

Some on the left believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. I subscribe to the laws of demand and supply and by extention, a theory of demand and supply that assumes, full employment of resources in any given market as a benchmark Standard.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our republic.

 

A lot of what folks think about the RWers is the 6 yrs of control and ran the economy to the cliff.
Now I know RWers like to say all was hunky dory, but it was the housing boom that made things seem as though they were hunky dory.
They did it to themselves.

 

I believe in REAL charity handed out by REAL caring and compassion, not some big government bureaucracy created and perpetuated big banks and big corporations.

LEARN what REAL love is for your fellow man. LEARN what REAL care and compassion is for your fellow man... LONG before you open your mouth and attempt to give me a lecture in morality.

- - - Updated - - -

See my above response.....

 

Real love and compassion never accuse mothers who take the only options for keeping their child healthy as being "sandbags" on or against society.

This is not love or compassion it is simple disrespect.

 

It is unfortunate for the greater glory of our Republic under our form of capitalism, that we currently cannot invest in morals testing companies on a for-profit basis as an opportunity cost to drug testing companies.

 

Put down the pipe

 

If that were honestly true, then you would think that minorities be better off financially then whites. Tying a family's ideology to their financial well-being is beyond idiotic.

 

Oh do you mean, just ignore the vitriol? Why didn't you say that to the person I was responding to?

I mature enough to realize there are many hateful and mean-spirited people, and they seem to be in denial about it, and they always have others like you to defend them.

Go read my post again...you obviously missed the part where I said there were some Republicans that do care, but in your eagerness to defend the hate spewing poster, you overlooked it.

No, you should know better. Quit defending idiots that spew hate, because it is consuming your party.

 

Mitt Romney fooled you? He was taped saying it himself...it wasn't "Obama's con men" that made that up....you need to read more newspapers.

 

Welfare checks are real. Food stamps are real. The charity you are talking about is good, but it isn't enough to take care of all of the needy. The charities don't have the resources nor the volunteers to handle such a big job. Quit thinking that giving a couple of families a bag of groceries once a month is doing the job....it isn't.


I wouldn't attempt to give you a lesson in morality....you are beyond help.

 

He said Liberals....do you think that all liberals are minorities? That's what is idiotic, if you do.


Why are so many rich people liberals?

This is a good question considering that socialism is geared toward attacking “the rich” and maligning the accumulation of private wealth.

Yet today in America, the majority of rich people statistically are not Republicans but are liberal Democrats, many of them on the far left. They live in places like New York and Hollywood and San Francisco and Chicago and Silicon Valley, hardly the home turf of conservatism. Most of the richest congressional districts are represented by Democrats. Many of the richest people in the US congress are liberals.
http://nikitas3.com/1083/why-are-so-many-rich-people-liberals/

 

To the OP, may I say thank you for sharing these personal aspects of your life and struggle with us, and may I congratulate your mother upon her courage in caring for you in the best way she could. We need more people like her.

My own upbringing has been generally unremarkable, but could be seen by some as involving a degree of privilege, and your story makes me feel inexplicably uncomfortable, even a little guilty.

I find some of the responses thereto so mean-spirited as to be incomprehensible. Whatever ones political allegiances, surely this is a human story, and what sort of creature shows disdain for another's misfortune, or worse still - uses it to further a political ideology? To say I was disgusted by the 'sand-bagging' accusation would be to significantly understate my reaction.

 

Is this thread still active I thought I shut you liberal loons up with the truth about what poverty looks like in America I guess I have to do it again

◾80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
◾92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
◾Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
◾Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
◾Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
◾Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
◾More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
◾43 percent have Internet access.
◾One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
◾One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo
◾More than half have a cell phone
◾96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
◾83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
◾82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
◾Over the course of a year, 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless.
◾Only 9.5 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers, 49.5 percent live in separate single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments.
◾42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.
◾Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
◾The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.
◾The vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair.

this is what poverty looks like in America. it is better to be in poverty in America then middle class in many other industrialized nations