Why are the poor, poor?

[brokeplex]

Well, well, well...the hornets' nest seems to have been stirred up on this one!    I've got my spray can ready just in case...and according to the label, it can hit a nest from 25 feet away! 

Personally, having read through the commentary and having BTDT (been there done that) with the snide and sarcastic remarks that have become commonplace, I am not so interested in joining the fray with my point of view and possibly valuable insights. However, some facts about the sarcasm and/or personal digs may help get some misinformation on the right track for you all to continue the war:

1) Holland is often viewed as one of the most liberal and progressive countires in the world. Not sure of the status at the moment, but they are planning to institute a eugenics program that controls birth rate and death based on a variety of factors. Fact is, nearly all major issues on the left or right side of the polictical/social spectrum can be traced back, quite easily, to too many people.

2) "forced labor" is a buzz term that is often misused and has been here. When the U.S. "forced" german pow's to work the ag fields during WWII, it was not called such. Prisoners on prison are forced to perform tasks. Even full time, happy employees are forced to perform or they get fired. Sure, they may have a choice, but ulimately everyone has to buck and and perform or they are left on the sideline. For those on public aid, their being required to perform as all other workers do for compensastion is not forced labor.

3) actually, the idea that one's opinion is as valid as another's is somewhat absurd. Opinions not based on facts and not supported with logic are not as valid.

4) if the princilple "he who has the money makes the rules" is a conservative tenet (which it is not), then conservatives would have failed. The welfare rules are largely made by the power of the lobbyists for special interests for the poor. Conservatives are attempting to add reason and responsibility to the entitlements.

5) "My goodness the conservatives miss the days of mint juleps and tea on the veranda (as the sound of whips reverberate thru the evening air!)" Good example of why not to participate.

Kaiser!  I am delighted that someone else noticed the multiple personal attacks and absurd personally directed comments.

I agree with you, why bother to engage that type of dialog? there is nothing to be learned and no contribution to a meaningful discussion can be made while engaging such people, on web sites or in the real world. let them rant I say!  to quote someone who opined recently : "with every word you type"  

to your points, and I will not attempt to put words in your mouth, I simply will take your thoughts and develop them along the lines which I started on this thread.

1) how can it be disputed that overpopulation is the root of many problems in the world. those who hoist the Al Gore flag should have already come to the conclusion that 7 billion people generate much more stress on the environment than say 5 billion, or 4 billion? so what is the problem with mandatory birth controls for those who can't pay their way in our world? why should the productive tax payers be forced to not only pay the freight for the charity seeker in question, but for all of his or her progeny ad infinitum? The comparison with the brutal mandatory sterilization efforts on the part of former dictatorships, is just a red herring. Democratic countries have long used mandatory sterilizations / and or birth control  for those who are deemed unable to support their progeny. And I would remind you that my opine was that mandatory sterilization should only be applied as a remedy for those men who refuse to support their children, after certain criteria are met. Don't we throw child support scofflaws in jail right now? Yes, we do, and we garnish their wages as well. If a child support scofflaw has no means of support, and can not and will not support his progeny, then why is it unreasonable to convict that person of a sex crime and put him in a prison farm? And if he repeats the offense, why not humanely give him a vasectomy?

2) Seeking public assistance is a voluntary act on the part of the requester, and is not one of their civil rights. However, the tax payer has no choice but to pay the taxes to support this welfare system, or suffer the consequences of the law themselves. Why is it not a good thing to reduce the burden on the tax payer by incarcerating male child support scofflaws on a prison farm and use the income generated by that labor to offset the expenses of keeping his family in food, etc.? We throw such scofflaws in jail right now, and they sit and do nothing but rot until their time is up. So that is more humane than working these criminals and supporting their families with the proceeds?

3) My friend Kaiser, logic has little or nothing to do with some of the opinions of the advocates of the present welfare system. It is plain as day that many, but not all, are not the least bit interested in a dialog about the options in altering the present system. Throwing out red herring after red herring is all that one needs to see. Not everyone uses those tactics, but it is a clear delimiter of those who wish a serious dialog and those who are not interested in such dialog and substitute debating points for an exchange of ideas.

4) ultimately under a democratic form of gov the voters make the rules. when tax payers who are also voters have enough of their own funds being syphoned off to support programs which do not benefit them or their families, then the rules will change. we have already seen some changes, esp at the state levels. here is TX there has been a move towards privatization of the welfare industry in an attempt to dislodge the entrenched welfare bureaucracy (those whom I have called the "poverty pimps") Lets remember that the left in this country can not win on their issues at the ballot box, and their strategum has long been to use the courts instead of the legislatures, this is a problem that the majority of voters are now awakened to and the appointment of strict constructionist federalist judges has started the rectification process.

5) I realize that your point here is an attempt to inject humor into a largely humorless discussion. good luck in finding much humor on the left, wasn't it Ann Coulter who opined that "liberals have had their sense of humor surgically removed"?

[serious crayons]

I don't mean to be difficult and you are so patient, but tell me again, what is the point that you are making with the references to the Census Bureau data?

Two things, actually.

1) Many poor people work full time. As do many single parents.

2) One good way to convince people that you are correct in your generalizations is to offer some kind of hard data -- Census figures, poll responses, research results ... SOMETHING! -- rather than just making sweeping statements about a vast group of people, all or almost all of whom you have not met.

But, you know, I have an even better vision for that single parent working that job while someone else watches the kids. Avoid the pregnancy in the first place.

So now, in your view, not only should welfare recipients avoid having children, but even the working poor (or even middle-class single parents, I guess) should not have them? In other words, you find it preferable to live in an incredibly wealthy country in which people below a certain income level should be discouraged from partaking in in one of the most basic human experiences ... than to live in an incredibly wealthy country where the haves lend a hand to the have-nots??

Finish an education which opens the doors of opportunity for you so you don't have to be a part of an underclass. Isn't that a better vision?

Yes. That would be great. Now all you have to do is spread the word through education and encouragement to all the poor people of this country. But then -- guess what? You'd be working for one of the many anti-poverty programs that are engaged in this very effort!! 

That is how do we either eliminate or reform the welfare system, the educational system, the penal system, so that we can eliminate the present seemingly intractable poverty of the underclass? Can we go forward on that basis?

So you figure eliminating Welfare will get the poor out there working full time and pretty soon there won't be so many poor people? But how does this jibe with the figures I've been offering for the past several days showing that before the War on Poverty there were actually MORE poor people? And that throughout most of American history (especially pre-New Deal, I'm guessing) poverty has hovered around 20 to 25 percent? Yes, you've made clear that you don't think the WoP has been as effective as it should have been. But there is no indication whatsoever that it has made poverty WORSE! And again, if you have evidence of this, let's see the facts and figures.

In fact, as we have discussed numerous times, the WoP has made the situation better. Not fixed it altogether, but held down the poverty rate. And this, even as wages for middle- and lower-income workers have declined, in constant dollars, since the '70s.

My point is, that type of generalization takes our eyes off what should be discussed within this context, and that context would be alternatives to the present welfare system.

Right. I didn't mean to make racism and classism central to the discussion. They came up originally as I was speculating about the reasons the image of the lazy, oft-pregnant, Twinkie-gobbling Welfare queen is so persistent, despite the apparent lack of evidence that such a figure represents the typical Welfare recipient in the real world.

There are people on this web site who are more interested in making little debating points than meaningful discussions of public policy. But from my point of view that is a waste of time, as I won all the debates that I needed to win back in high school. So, I would prefer to look at what is ailing the present system and look for realistic alternatives.

This confuses me a bit. What are we doing here but debating? Are we looking to hammer out new policy, hoping that the BetterMost members who are also federal officials with influence in this area will read the thread and take action? Or more to the point, is anyone here really trying to come up with some new idea for helping the poor, or are we just batting back and forth our entrenched, conflicting views about the causes of the poverty and effectiveness of the current system?? In a discussion that seems to be taking on an increasingly nasty edge?

good luck in finding much humor on the left, wasn't it Ann Coulter who opined that "liberals have had their sense of humor surgically removed"?

Uh-huh. Right. Must be because we don't get those hilarious witticisms of hers.  Um, including that one, I guess.

I remind you again, as I mentioned the last time you said this, that the two funniest people in America are on the left. You can see them every night from 10 to 11 p.m. Central Time on the Comedy Channel (though I watch them in the morning, while working out).

[Jeff Wrangler]

The arch-conservative Anne Coulter has said, "Liberals have had their sense of humor surgically removed"?

Jesus H., "Pot, meet Kettle." 

[HerrKaiser]

others see a bright shining city on the hill with an internment camp at the foot with sweat shops and 'hospitals' where doctors geld men....

Can anyone explain to me what this is supposed to mean?

[Jeff Wrangler]

Can anyone explain to me what this is supposed to mean?

I think it's a swipe at Broketrash's remedy for poverty in the U.S.

[oilgun]

No Humour on the Left!?   

Apart from Anne Coulter, that redneck guy and whats-his-name that used to be on SNL, most comedians are pretty much good ol' liberals, at least.

See related article below:


Drew Carey closes Conservative Comedians Association
Funny man Drew Carey has reportedly closed the Conservative Comedians Association after only two years of operation. In a press release, the comedian cites 'being the only conservative comedian on Earth' for the close.
"It took a lot out of him," says long-time friend of Carey, Sam Jackman. "He was wearing too many hats too small for his head: chairman, treasurer, secretary - even caterer. Although he was pretty good at being a caterer."

Critics blame the lack of conservative comedians in the US on IQ. "To be a good comic, you have to be pretty intelligent. That's where it all falls down for the CCA."

"Although Drew was the only member of the organization until the very end, he really did try to alert fellow comedians to the evils of a higher minimum wage and universal health care," said Jackman. "Eventually, it became clear that all other comedians are just Bolsheviks who like to whine about stupid poor people."

It is believed that the CCA (or, Drew Carey) was until recently involved in secret negotations to secure the membership of Rush Limbaugh, in recognition of a lifetime of service to the 'unintential self-parody' genre of comedy. Unfortunately for the CCA, Rush didn't think of himself as funny in the same way everyone else does.

Critics of the club complained that while the idea of a Conservative Comedians Association is pretty funny, it's a bit odd that Drew Carey ever considered himself a comedian.

"Ha ha ha ha ha ha," laughed at least one prime time comedian, laughing on the condition of anonymity. "Ha hah ha ha," he later added.

The failure of the Conservative Comedians Association to attract members is only the most recent incident in a long string of thwarted attempts by conservatives to attract talented minds.

In the realm of science, for instance, the right-wing has been opposed by every Nobel Prize recipient, most particularly by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein.

Few are able to account for this phenomena, but researchers believe it has something to do with their high levels of education.

Meanwhile, one critic who has come to Drew Carey's defense writes, "Carey tries really hard to be original but being the world's only conservative comedian may be the wrong idea. Maybe he should wear a wacky tie and funny old fashioned glasses instead?"

Copyright 2004-2008 Brainsnap.com.

 

[Phillip Dampier]

Things are getting a bit too heated in here.  Debating ISSUES is what we're all about, so let's cut down on the characterizations of the individuals posting those issues, and keeping the personalities out of the mix.  Casting aspersions on each other usually suggests someone has run out of intellectual fuel to debate an issue intelligently, so showing that "tell" usually suggests you are about to "fold your hand."  It is perfectly acceptable, if a debate has exhausted its course, to simply agree to disagree and move on to the next issue.  We're all neighbors here, so let's always try and keep things civil.

[HerrKaiser]

Casting aspersions on each other usually suggests someone has run out of intellectual fuel to debate an issue intelligently,

I agree.

And when they go the next step and harken back to nazi concentration camps, it's more than being out of fuel.

[oilgun]

I agree.

And when they go the next step and harken back to nazi concentration camps, it's more than being out of fuel.

What about when they post old Drew Carey material, is that also a sign of running out of fuel? 

[Jeff Wrangler]

And when they go the next step and harken back to nazi concentration camps, it's more than being out of fuel.

Oh, really? Well, if you've got fuel to spare, maybe you can explain why rounding up the poor isn't such a big step after legally preventing them from reproducing?