Why Such Disdain for the Poor?

Yep, because the almost fifty years of thr "War on poverty " has accomplished so much, other than keeping poor people poor, a.d voting democrat.

 

I don't understand the question and I didn't realise that I had any attempts in regards for anything...

 

The war on poverty has been the most useless war in history. How much have we spent and wasted on a bottomless hole? I guess the poor can be happy in the fact that they are better off today than 50 or 60 yrs ago when we started trying to fix an unfixable problem. So they're even more comfortable=less incentive to not be poor.

 

I think that's nonsense. Poverty now is nothing like pre-WWII poverty.

 

How can you say that? 1 out of 5 children are starving, or haven't you heard?

 

Ask Obama. The poor have never been this poor since the Dust Bowl years.
Average income is down the last 5 years at around $4,500 less.
The Black youth have an unemployment rate around 50%. Never been that
high before.
Obama also pledged that no one making less than 250 K would see s dime in new
taxes.ObamaCare has at least SEVEN new taxes that directly impact all americans.

 

I'm "poor" and (*)(*)(*)(*) you for speaking for me.

 

Because most of them are losers, peasants or sluts, that's why - obvioulsy

 

Y'gotta admit, a Welfare Culture exists. They provoke much of the "disdain".
Multi generations of welfare recipients.

[video=youtube;hq-hx73or30]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq-hx73or30&feature=kp[/video]

Nothing new.
Solution: WorkFare. No Welfare.


Moi

No ​

 

I would prefer a raising of the min wage, a lowering of welfare, and a reduction in immigrants - all at the same time.

This would sort out the problem.

Workfare is despicable and is akin to theft.

 

What disgusts me is the smug dismissal from the 'I got mine, (*)(*)(*)(*) you' brand of right-wing self-centredness. 'Bad choices' and 'lack of personal responsibility' is pretty much the only thing they can come up with. Oh yes, and 'poor people are fat so how can they still be poor?' is another bit of blinding logic from these morons.

 

Poor logic. Poverty is relative.

 

This is a much more complicated question than you might think. There are a lot of different things going on.

The reaction of many conservatives is based on a judeo-christian ethic of charity. They feel that the plight of the poor is exaggerated in order to raise taxes unfairly. The anger comes from the sense that they are being unfairly accused of callousness towards the poor.

If the ethic was not so deeply ingrained into our culture chances are they would just shrug and say something like "I feel for them, and thank god I am not one of them, but taxing the bejeezus out of me is never going to stop some people from being poor."

Instead the accusation triggers a huge guilt response. Which causes them to think of the poor as something evil so they don't have to feel responsible for them.

 

It is quite possible that without the anti poverty programs the problem would have been much worse. Because two numbers move in the same direction does not prove cause and effect. The fact that many do not understand this reflects poorly on our educational system.

 

This is more a reflection on our educational system. The poorer the area you live in the worse the schools.

 

There has been no such war on the poor hence the basis of your op is false.

 

If that is so { " poverty is relative " } than what is " You didn't build that business ".

 

It sounds like you're dismayed that public schools aren't adequately brainwashing children into the socialist mindset. Since the flamboyant Left keeps wringing it's hands over all the "poverty" in this country, it's clear that the "war on poverty" didn't work. Do you want schools to teach children this conflicting message?

 

The hardest working (and most generous) people that I have ever met were poor.
The laziest and most stingy people that I have ever met were rich trust-funders.

"the poor are lazy" is a moronic statement.

 

Very similar actually

- - - Updated - - -

So is any generalization based on personal observations.

 

What war on the poor and why make such a loaded statement without bothering to defend it? This is the same liberal canard I grew up hearing.

How is blocking amnesty a war on the poor when it's Americans without high school diplomas that are first in line to lose jobs and have their wages depressed by the glut of illegal labor? This isn't even up to debate, it's proven and accepted.

Labor economists have concluded that undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to 7.4 percent. - NY Times. Who benefits? The higher-ups.

Let's add more, from the federally-mandated US Commission on Immigration Reform -

The Commission recommends the elimination of the admission of
unskilled workers. Unless there is another compelling interest, such
as in the entry of nuclear families and refugees, it is not in the national
interest to admit unskilled workers. This is especially true
when the U.S. economy is showing difficulty in absorbing disadvantaged
workers and when efforts towards welfare reform indicate that
many unskilled Americans will be entering the labor force.

This commission recommended to eliminating unskilled worker immigration (nearly all of our current immigration) and cutting legal immigration down to 500k a year. We're currently giving about 1 million Green Cards annually alone.

I'm sorry but it's the Democratic Party's immigration policy that is screwing the American poor, not the GOP's efforts to block it. The GOP is actually helping the unskilled American laborer.

- - - Updated - - -

The solution to high black unemployment is to legalize illegal invaders taking their jobs and invite even more in. Democrats!

 

Some of it. Now I have a True / False test for you.

There is a multigenerational Black inner city culture of "Welfare Living", aka "ripping off White Man society". True/False

There is the same in the Deep South but this time the perps are Red Necks. True/False


Now that we have established it is cultural, not racial I see two common themes.
1) No local employment opportunities
2) No desire NOT to be on Welfare.

I do NOT buy into the educational argument. The opportunities are there. How many times have you read the story of the "good, studious" Black kid in the inner city getting offed because he was just that, good & studious.
Not joining the cultural norm, enforced !


WorkFare, NOT Welfare. The able bodied receive job training/placement and if they refuse - they can make their own way.
WorkFare may require someone to "move" just as a working person may find their job moving.
No WorkFare. No money.



Moi

No ​

 

That's complete and total crap. A large majority of the poor are not lazy parasites. How could they be? They're the ones doing all the work while rich people "supervise."

 

Not all people are poor because they lack ambition and drive to do better, but many are. People are rich not because they inherited a trust fund, but often because they were willing to work harder than others, to risk more, and to put in more hours. I see many poor people who try to get out of work because it cuts into their cable TV and social networking time. They aren't going to school for 8 years to be a doctor, and they aren't living on a Top Ramen diet because they're trying to get a business off the ground. Overall, I see richer people working MUCH harder than poor people and in this country of equal opportunity, everyone seems to gravitate to the station in life they're willing to work for and nothing more.

 

That's completely wrong in every single way. Rich people do not work harder -- money is what rich people put up so they don't have to work. Rich people are mostly rich because the inherited money from rich parents or rich benefactors. Guys like Donald Trump and George Bush don't work hard, and they fail constantly, but they have the family and business connections to absorb their failures. Cable TV doesn't make people poor, and poor people can't afford to go to college in the first place to become a doctor.