Simplest reason poor are poor

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Simplest reason poor are poor
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
The reason poor are poor?
Lets put the blame where blame is do.

Multiple children with multiple un-responsible dead beat fathers and un caring mothers.
The destruction of the family unit is a huge problem that adds to the poverty of many future young adults and individuals.
Feb 18, 2014 8:53am
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
You make it sound so simple. Please enlighten us further.

*due
Feb 18, 2014 1:29pm
Devils Advocate's avatar

Devils Advocate

Brudda o da bomber

4,539 posts
So then. Let's see...

The poor have no money.

So you would take the one thing that is FREE for them to do? Where do you set the income level to allow people to Fuck legally?
Feb 18, 2014 2:06pm
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
If you have a low level job wife and four kids .. do you really need a $350.00 tatoo
Feb 18, 2014 2:20pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Devils Advocate;1582037 wrote:So then. Let's see...

The poor have no money.

So you would take the one thing that is FREE for them to do? Where do you set the income level to allow people to Fuck legally?
You don't need to set any of this. If you have a child you are expected to care for this child until age 18. If you have a child and you cannot afford to take care of it, that is child abuse which is punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Take away all federal assistance and the free market will regulate the price point at which to raise a child.
Feb 18, 2014 2:26pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Now that's an interesting idea...cut child credits by 25% for a single parent, but then double it for married couples.
Feb 18, 2014 6:41pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
gut;1582116 wrote:Now that's an interesting idea...cut child credits by 25% for a single parent, but then double it for married couples.
gosh a ruddies a method to punish the children of single mothers.
Feb 18, 2014 7:46pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
isadore;1582126 wrote:gosh a ruddies a method to punish the children of single mothers.
Children of single parents are disadvantaged, right? So I'm merely providing an incentive (handout) to promote the nuclear family. I would think you would support that, since you are this website's #1 fan of handouts.

Or perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that the handouts go to the children instead of Oprah and bon-bons.
Feb 18, 2014 7:55pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
gut;1582131 wrote:Children of single parents are disadvantaged, right? So I'm merely providing an incentive (handout) to promote the nuclear family. I would think you would support that, since you are this website's #1 fan of handouts.

Or perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that the handouts go to the children instead of Oprah and bon-bons.
I have no problem with rewards for marriage but I definitely have a problem with the cuts.

Of course your unfounded prejudice against single mothers is shown by the last statement.
Feb 18, 2014 8:01pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
isadore;1582135 wrote:I have no problem with rewards for marriage but I definitely have a problem with the cuts.

Of course your unfounded prejudice against single mothers is shown by the last statement.
It's not a prejudice - if you want to incentivize marriage, and INCREASE the subsidy for the nuclear family, then the money must come from somewhere. It makes sense, to take that money from precisely the behavior you wish to reduce, a.k.a children out of wedlock.

And, by the way, that's not taking away from the children. If the mother chooses to marry, she actually gets MORE money for her children. Therefore the only one taking away from the children is the mother...but we already knew that.
Feb 18, 2014 10:50pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
gut;1582192 wrote:It's not a prejudice - if you want to incentivize marriage, and INCREASE the subsidy for the nuclear family, then the money must come from somewhere. It makes sense, to take that money from precisely the behavior you wish to reduce, a.k.a children out of wedlock.

And, by the way, that's not taking away from the children. If the mother chooses to marry, she actually gets MORE money for her children. Therefore the only one taking away from the children is the mother...but we already knew that.
are you kidding,
woman run out and marry anyone or we will deprive your children of the necessities of life. What an exercise in compassion.
Feb 18, 2014 10:57pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
isadore;1582193 wrote:are you kidding,
woman run out and marry anyone or we will deprive your children of the necessities of life. What an exercise in compassion.
More effective than free college for kids who are unprepared because they had a lousy upbringing.
Feb 18, 2014 11:29pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
gut;1582195 wrote:More effective than free college for kids who are unprepared because they had a lousy upbringing.
free college offers hope and opportunity to those most at need.
Cutting funds for children causes harm and pain to the most needy.
Feb 19, 2014 7:13am
rrfan's avatar

rrfan

Senior Member

1,922 posts
The problem is the government handouts with people never getting off of them. They are happy being home and having someone else pay the bills. It is a joke. I have multiple properties and one of my Duplex's I converted to "low income government assisted living" Obama pays 90+ percent of the rent and the person drive a Lincoln Navigator. I wonder why that person will not go and get a job???
Feb 19, 2014 12:11pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
More effective than free college for kids who are unprepared because they had a lousy upbringing.
Ding ding ding....we have a winner.
woman run out and marry anyone or we will deprive your children of the necessities of life.
Welll there doesn't seem to be aproblem with 'running out' and having irresponsible sex, then sticking the taxpayers with the cost of raising father-less children.
Feb 19, 2014 12:23pm
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Belly35;1581894 wrote:The reason poor are poor?
Lets put the blame where blame is do.

Multiple children with multiple un-responsible dead beat fathers and un caring mothers.
The destruction of the family unit is a huge problem that adds to the poverty of many future young adults and individuals.
Capitalism. This is not an insult, just reality.

Even if every citizen in the US went to school and received a PHD there would have to be someone to man the Fast food joints and lesser jobs.
Feb 19, 2014 5:10pm
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Belly35;1582045 wrote:If you have a low level job wife and four kids .. do you really need a $350.00 tatoo
the obvious answer is yes.
Feb 19, 2014 5:22pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
HitsRus;1582336 wrote:Ding ding ding....we have a winner.



Welll there doesn't seem to be aproblem with 'running out' and having irresponsible sex, then sticking the taxpayers with the cost of raising father-less children.
First, many critics believe that the "welfare rolls" are overflowing with public assistance recipients. Actually, the average monthly participation was only 4,375,022 in 2010. That's an average of 1,393 people for each of the 3,141 counties in the United States each month. The 1,118,588 adult recipients compose less than four-tenths of one percent of the U.S. population at any given time. Critics claim that "welfare queens" give birth to many children in order to get more money. In fact, the average family size is less than 2 ½ people.* There were 3,323,369 children in those families in the average month.

http://voices.yahoo.com/welfare-america-myths-facts-8524989.html?cat=55
Feb 19, 2014 6:25pm
Lovejoy1984's avatar

Lovejoy1984

Senior Member

5,277 posts
gut;1582195 wrote:More effective than free college for kids who are unprepared because they had a lousy upbringing.
But what about the sanctity of marriage?

Isn't that the reason the Homosexual population can't marry?
Feb 19, 2014 6:36pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
HitsRus;1582336 wrote: Welll there doesn't seem to be aproblem with 'running out' and having irresponsible sex, then sticking the taxpayers with the cost of raising father-less children.
Precisely. Take away the incentives and people start making better decisions. As always, you get more of what you subsidize...and we subsidize single mom's.

That sounds cold and heartless, but the cycle of dependency is far worse. Truthfully liberals want to just right a check and then walk away patting themselves on the back.
Feb 19, 2014 8:16pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
isadore;1582488 wrote:First, many critics believe that the "welfare rolls" are overflowing with public assistance recipients. Actually, the average monthly participation was only 4,375,022 in 2010. That's an average of 1,393 people for each of the 3,141 counties in the United States each month.
47 MILLION on food stamps....or by what magic is that not welfare?
Feb 19, 2014 8:18pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Zombaypirate;1582461 wrote:Capitalism. This is not an insult, just reality.

Even if every citizen in the US went to school and received a PHD there would have to be someone to man the Fast food joints and lesser jobs.
I don't know that fast food would be any real loss (save maybe BW3), but you're right. You can get a PhD in bull frog mating, doesn't mean there is a job for you. And aside from technical degrees like engineering and medicine, school is mostly just a filter and companies teach you what they need.

College is, in large part, a test where the truly smart people can differentiate themselves. If you're a mediocre student, getting a mediocre degree is not going to substantially improve your opportunities. Plenty of college grads who went to work on the assembly line because they made more in the UAW than they could in their field.
Feb 19, 2014 8:22pm
Classyposter58's avatar

Classyposter58

Senior Member

6,321 posts
I think most simply do not aspire to do more because they were not told to
Feb 19, 2014 8:29pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
gut;1582517 wrote:Precisely. Take away the incentives and people start making better decisions. As always, you get more of what you subsidize...and we subsidize single mom's.

That sounds cold and heartless, but the cycle of dependency is far worse. Truthfully liberals want to just right a check and then walk away patting themselves on the back.
taking basic necessities away from children does not just sound cold and heartless, it is cold and heartless to punish them.
Feb 19, 2014 9:25pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
isadore;1582558 wrote:taking basic necessities away from children does not just sound cold and heartless, it is cold and heartless to punish them.
They are only punished by the irresponsibility of their mother. If you want to break cycles of poverty, start holding people accountable and teaching personal responsbility.
Feb 19, 2014 9:37pm