Being Poor is NOT a virtue!

psst: those that decide to own a company jointly require money to do: either their own, or the money of an investor. When/if they succeed in doing that, they may in fact become rich.

Nothing stops these people from doing that now...but the moment that they do, they become those same "rip-off artists" that you complain about.

 

Q: What can I buy with food stamps?

A: Foods for human consumption; seeds and plants that produce food for consumption by food stamp households.

Q: What cannot be bought with food stamps?

A: Any non-food items such as; pet foods, soaps, paper products, household supplies, grooming items, cosmetics, alcoholic beverages and tobacco, vitamins and minerals, any food that will be eaten in the store, hot foods that are ready to eat or any food marketed to be heated in the store.

http://www2.erie.gov/socialservices/index.php?q=food-stamps-frequently-asked-questions

 

Originally Posted by AshenLady
The poor would love to be rich, I believe. People indeed do get rich upon the backs of the poor, and that's gone on forever.

She didn't say Steve Jobs.... and I can name MILLIONS of people who get rich upon the backs of the poor.... and you can too if you ONLY took a minute to look at the list of campaign contributors.

Here let me explain it...

You get sick and need a pill.... you (over) PAY the pharmaceutical company or DIE.

The top pharmaceutical companies are in the top 20 campaign contributors.

You need gas to get to and from work... you (over) PAY oil companies or you lose your job.

Oil companies are in the top 10 campaign contributors.

You need insurance to drive on the highway.... you PAY or get fined.

Insurance companies are in the top 20 campaign contributors.

Come on.. use some common sense... every industry connected with essential goods and services that is not limited by anti-trust regulations.... and some that are .... take ADVANTAGE of the poor.


Take a minute and see if you can figure out why wealth, power and freedom has disappeared from the citizens/consumers in America to the level that they can no longer support the government. Wealth has SHIFTED because Government FAILED to fairly call the game of capitalism and rewarded those who purchased access to manage taxpayers money.

How can anyone miss this? gezz... I need to start copying/pasting ...it's gettingh tedious trying to teach eveyone ... one at a time.

 

Start by repealing legal tender laws and abolishing the war on drugs.

 

http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=809

As a veteran, the VA covers X amount of the tuition and the school covers the rest under the Yellow Ribbon Program. And, yes, the school is FULL of rich kids. BMWs everywhere...

 

I'm poor and I don't "voluntarily" buy medicine of fuel or insurance.... or TAXES which they TAKE out of my paycheck.

 

Your whole post is off topic. I'm addressing the things that are within the control of the poor that they are imprudent with. They can't control the cost of gasoline, medication, or many other things, but the high cost should be even more of an impetus to be responsible with what they have. It's the poverty mindset, and not poverty itself, that keeps people living in squalor.

 

A fringe example of amazing success, yes, but not a fringe example of simply overcoming situations that would have most modern Americans curling up into the fetal position.

The point I was trying to make was that in the "old days" people overcame hardships like that as a matter of routine, while people today look at relatively minor stumbling blocks as almost impassable obstacles.

Anyway, you're allowed to use fringe examples, but you must recognize that only a tiny percentage of people are suffering from the types of calamities you cited. I'm not saying everyone can achieve the kind of success that Hamilton did - he was a genius - but I am saying they can overcome hardships like he did as a thirteen year old boy.

 

He's not blaming you for having kids. He wasn't even complaining that he has kids. Why did you even direct this reply to him?

 

Great thread! It is exactly the difference between the right and left today.

It might be even more interesting and fun if there were more facts and fewer emotionally charged ad hominem attacks.

I'm anxious to get involved!

 

That's a convenient way to dismiss knowledge and valid arguments you may not agree with.

I wasn't

Come on man... didn't you ever see the movie "Trading Places?"

The people of China lived in EXTREME "squalor" until their government embraced capitalism... now they have substantially improved their living conditions as a DIRECT results of having been given an OPPORTUNITY.

Just ask ANY person who has been poor that got wealthy and EVERYONE will say that they got a "break." They got an opportunity. That is why children of the wealthy get the breaks that the underprivileged don't get.

You seem to think that some kind of mindset like "positive thinking" is all someone needs to get out of poverty... I got news for you.... if "positive thinking" was all you need.... we would all have hand ponies when we were children.

 

I've had Indridcold on ignore for saying this to me:

But he is an intelligent chap and good for discussion. I'd be happy to take him off ignore if he can behave himself.

 

from what I have read, it is coming from the Obama administration..they blame potatoes for obesity...as if a vegatable, not the way you cook it, is the problem. A potato is a healthy food, it's the butter, oil and sour cream that makes it not so good.

 

oops, MY bad...it is the WIC program that forbids potato...same government, different program:

http://www.higginscompanies.com/blog/?p=568

 

Potatoes aren't so healthy, just so you know. Carbohydrates are separated into complex and simple. Potatoes are very starchy and their glycemic impact on blood sugar is topped only by granulated sugar itself. Spikes in blood sugar have a direct causal effect for obesity because it induces fat storage when the surge in energy is not put to immediate use. Complex carbohydrates are healthier because they are less processed, especially steel rolled oats and whole grains, for example, and their metabolic breakdown happens over a period of several hours.

With all that said, however, I am alarmed at the steps Democrats are taking to control what we eat. We're not just talking about Obama and his man-chick wife, but Mayor Bloomberg of New York and the San Francisco City Council have also enacted controls on the types of foods people may eat.

And people said we were nuts for calling them socialists.

Ha!

 

I have no doubt the poor would love to be rich. They just don't love the idea of being rich enough to work the long hours, put forth the dedication, take the risks, and make the total commitment, and sacrifice, to be rich. I was born poor, I and only I determined that I would not stay that way. That's not conceit, but I'm not denying that I am, but that is stating that no on else would have been blamed if I had not succeeded, and no one else gets the credit either. Everyone had every advantage I had, all I had was more determination. I also know how very easy it would have been to give up at times.

 

What about the large number of middle class couples that work two jobs and buy the house in the suburbs and have 2 vehicles which they change frequently, along with their household furniture and appliances? They run their debt up until they can't get any more credit and then one of them is caught cheating on the other and they have a messy divorce that results in a double bankruptcy. Just how is this lifestyle less irresponsible than that of the lumpen proletariat the OP describes?

 

It isn't.
(character minimum)

 

Wait, you make $40,000/year?

Hate to break it to you, but you aren't a "poor person."
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

You're downright middle-class even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Even if you had 8 kids you would be above the federal poverty line.

 

Lets not get into a semantic argument. We are talking about economic impoverishment, not intellectual or spiritual.

Except for the fact that you entirely miss the point about having below aveage intelligence. You assume that a person with an80 IQ is capable of making subtle distinctions, that they have self confidence enough to actually attempt anything more.

If you are making $20k a year and are married and have a couple of kids, you are forced to be frugal.

For someone with a Saint's alias, you have a pretty narrow perspective on the human condition.

 

I'm just saying that 40,000 is something that a lot of people who are actually poor would KILL for. 20,000 a year is something that a lot of people who are actually poor would kill for.

I repeat that I live on roughly 8,000 a year. I have no kids (because I'm smart enough to know I can't support them now), but still, there's no excuse to really be paying more than 20,000 a year to live, if you have no kids.

 

nonsense. sure some can get lucky, but without intelligence and creativity, chances of creating wealth are few and far between. Unless you are a drug pusher or pimp.

Oh really? do you have an data to confirm this opinion?
I will grant that if a stupid person starts at min wage and works for 10 years picking up shopping carts from the parking lot, there is a chance he'll get a few bucks raise. But the limit of their earning power is very clearly defined.

sorry I totally disagree. I guess you don't know many stupid people. You thnk the subtleties of compound interest, IRA's, mutual funds and the like are readily understandable to a person with a 80 IQ? There are tens of millions of americans with IQs lower than 80 and I'd hazard a guess that their vocabularies are belwo 300 words and reading is a struggle for them.

No, not everyone can succeed, at least in economic terms. some people can succeed, some people do succeed, but not everyone is equiped physically, emotionally and/or intellectually to do so.

 

Of course, there are rare cases of those who do everything right yet struggle. These are the few that charity helps. We do not need the federal government to see to these few, they can get their needs met through family, friends, churches, charities and state welfare systems.

 

I only spent $3,000 for my first year. I'm about $5,000 and its almost September of this year.

 

But being Gay or a Minority is ...