Paycheck to Paycheck HBO Documentary

[Anonymous]

Cats aren't incredibly expensive, honestly. Food and litter. I doubt they have seen a vet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having children young isn't a problem exclusive to the poor. Well, I guess the having the children part is. The wealthier groups just get abortions. Let's not pretend that wealthy children don't make mistakes/poor decisions. They are just lucky enough to have parents who can help clean up the mess. That is the main difference between the poor and the rich. The rich can afford some mistakes and bounce back. The poor cannot. So, since it is unlikely we will ever succeed in eliminating mistakes/poor decisions, I think we should focus on how to help the poor overcome those things.

Poor women who did not have children as teenagers are just as badly off as poor women who did have children as teenagers. These women aren't poor because they had children; they had children because they're poor.

This.

x10000000000000

Agree. When you don't have much to look forward to, there's no reason to put off having children. If you think life is going to be an endless rat race of minimum wage jobs and struggle without any ability to move upward (especially because you don't know anyone who did anything differently), you are more likely to have kids because you don't gain anything by putting it off. But if you're from a middle-class family it's clear that having a child when you're young will interfere with your professional career -- that you expect to have because your parent(s) had one.

Very true. And furthermore, it's very different to think of putting off kids when you are part of a cohort that includes FTMs in their late 30's/early 40's--many of the women who waited to have kids were only able to do so because they were confident in having the money for fertility treatments if needed. If you will NEVER have the money for fertility treatments, then waiting really is gambling that you will be naturally fertile at a later age. In that light, having kids in your 20's because you're married ad both employed starts to seem pretty logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has the Republican Party seen this documentary? If not, they should.

They will only focus on how she had 3 kids before making a decent living, how she has tattoos, how she got her hair done for $87 dollars when she couldn't afford medicine, why did she have a puppy and cats when she was living paycheck to paycheck, etc. People see what they want to see in these things.

All excellent points. Why does she have animals to feed if she is worried about feeding her kids? Why have more responsibility & stress in her life by having pets, seems she has enough to deal with?

So the recommendation would be what, then? Surrender the animals to a shelter? Head over to the pet board and open any thread where someone expresses a desire to get rid of their pet for any reason - medical reasons in their kids, animal adapting poorly to children or changed living situation, you name it - and see the degree to which people will scream about how irresponsible it is to that animal and why aren't they thinking about the commitment they made.

Here's the thing. Poor people are people too. They like pets and having nice haircuts. They don't always make good decisions, and they are not obligated to make better decisions than you are based on income.

It's like a poor person must be above reproach on every level before they are deserving of sympathy, before they are allowed to think and feel and want the same things that people who are not poor want.

The bottom line is that many people want to be able say that poor people are poor solely because of bad decisions on their part. That means they have not chance of them being the poor person. 'That will never be me, I would never do 'that', which is why they are in that situation'. It's a form of sick deluded self-reservation'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has the Republican Party seen this documentary? If not, they should.

They will only focus on how she had 3 kids before making a decent living, how she has tattoos, how she got her hair done for $87 dollars when she couldn't afford medicine, why did she have a puppy and cats when she was living paycheck to paycheck, etc. People see what they want to see in these things.

All excellent points. Why does she have animals to feed if she is worried about feeding her kids? Why have more responsibility & stress in her life by having pets, seems she has enough to deal with?

So the recommendation would be what, then? Surrender the animals to a shelter? Head over to the pet board and open any thread where someone expresses a desire to get rid of their pet for any reason - medical reasons in their kids, animal adapting poorly to children or changed living situation, you name it - and see the degree to which people will scream about how irresponsible it is to that animal and why aren't they thinking about the commitment they made.

Here's the thing. Poor people are people too. They like pets and having nice haircuts. They don't always make good decisions, and they are not obligated to make better decisions than you are based on income.

It's like a poor person must be above reproach on every level before they are deserving of sympathy, before they are allowed to think and feel and want the same things that people who are not poor want.

The bottom line is that many people want to be able say that poor people are poor solely because of bad decisions on their part. That means they have not chance of them being the poor person. 'That will never be me, I would never do 'that', which is why they are in that situation'. It's a form of sick deluded self-reservation'.

Let me try that again:

The bottom line is that many people want to be able say that poor people are poor solely because of bad decisions on the part of the impoverished person. This means they have no chance of becoming the poor person. 'That will never be me, I would never do 'that', which is why they are in that situation'. It's a form of sick and deluded self-preservation'.

[Anonymous]

My sister is a high-school teacher and conducting her students through a project on homelessness, hunger, and poverty. She spoke of a man who came and spoke to her students about how he ended up homeless. He wasn't a lazy irresponsible idiot. He wasn't an alcoholic or drug addicted loser. He wasn't uneducated or mentally ill either. He was a guy like any other. He had a job a house a wife but he lost them all one by one because unfortunately the circumstances of life itself got the better of him.
Sadly the circumstances of life get the better of many people. Not everyone who is poor is pathetic. Not everyone who is on welfare is worthless. People lose jobs. People fall on hard times and unfortunately people don't always have family to lean on. Many times as was the case with this man, while he had friends he didn't want to be a burden on them by continuing to sleep on their couches so he ended up homeless.

You know we often look at a collective group like poor people and are so quick to make presumptions about them - all of them. In our rush to judgement we often fail to remember that while our overall assessments and appraisals of the group as whole may be in many ways accurate, that still doesn't discount the fact that the group is comprised of individuals. Living, breathing, loving, feeling, talented, hopeful human beings not unlike ourselves each with their own individual stories and their own individual struggles that separate them from the stereotypes and generalizations we rely on so much to make sense of their situations.

Until we fully understand that these are people and consciously keep in mind that these are individuals all the government programs and services in the world won't ease their suffering or aid their struggle because being impoverished is one thing - being imperceptible is another kind of hell altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has the Republican Party seen this documentary? If not, they should.

They will only focus on how she had 3 kids before making a decent living, how she has tattoos, how she got her hair done for $87 dollars when she couldn't afford medicine, why did she have a puppy and cats when she was living paycheck to paycheck, etc. People see what they want to see in these things.

All excellent points. Why does she have animals to feed if she is worried about feeding her kids? Why have more responsibility & stress in her life by having pets, seems she has enough to deal with?

So the recommendation would be what, then? Surrender the animals to a shelter? Head over to the pet board and open any thread where someone expresses a desire to get rid of their pet for any reason - medical reasons in their kids, animal adapting poorly to children or changed living situation, you name it - and see the degree to which people will scream about how irresponsible it is to that animal and why aren't they thinking about the commitment they made.

Here's the thing. Poor people are people too. They like pets and having nice haircuts. They don't always make good decisions, and they are not obligated to make better decisions than you are based on income.

It's like a poor person must be above reproach on every level before they are deserving of sympathy, before they are allowed to think and feel and want the same things that people who are not poor want.

The bottom line is that many people want to be able say that poor people are poor solely because of bad decisions on their part. That means they have not chance of them being the poor person. 'That will never be me, I would never do 'that', which is why they are in that situation'. It's a form of sick deluded self-reservation'.

Let me try that again:

The bottom line is that many people want to be able say that poor people are poor solely because of bad decisions on the part of the impoverished person. This means they have no chance of becoming the poor person. 'That will never be me, I would never do 'that', which is why they are in that situation'. It's a form of sick and deluded self-preservation'.

Agree. I believe that we get into victim-blaming because we don't want to face how easy it is for bad things to happen to us so we fool ourselves into believing that we would be too smart for this to happen to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has the Republican Party seen this documentary? If not, they should.

They will only focus on how she had 3 kids before making a decent living, how she has tattoos, how she got her hair done for $87 dollars when she couldn't afford medicine, why did she have a puppy and cats when she was living paycheck to paycheck, etc. People see what they want to see in these things.

All excellent points. Why does she have animals to feed if she is worried about feeding her kids? Why have more responsibility & stress in her life by having pets, seems she has enough to deal with?

So the recommendation would be what, then? Surrender the animals to a shelter? Head over to the pet board and open any thread where someone expresses a desire to get rid of their pet for any reason - medical reasons in their kids, animal adapting poorly to children or changed living situation, you name it - and see the degree to which people will scream about how irresponsible it is to that animal and why aren't they thinking about the commitment they made.

Here's the thing. Poor people are people too. They like pets and having nice haircuts. They don't always make good decisions, and they are not obligated to make better decisions than you are based on income.

It's like a poor person must be above reproach on every level before they are deserving of sympathy, before they are allowed to think and feel and want the same things that people who are not poor want.

The bottom line is that many people want to be able say that poor people are poor solely because of bad decisions on their part. That means they have not chance of them being the poor person. 'That will never be me, I would never do 'that', which is why they are in that situation'. It's a form of sick deluded self-reservation'.

Let me try that again:

The bottom line is that many people want to be able say that poor people are poor solely because of bad decisions on the part of the impoverished person. This means they have no chance of becoming the poor person. 'That will never be me, I would never do 'that', which is why they are in that situation'. It's a form of sick and deluded self-preservation'.

Agree. I believe that we get into victim-blaming because we don't want to face how easy it is for bad things to happen to us so we fool ourselves into believing that we would be too smart for this to happen to us.

I think many people get into victim-blaming because if they admit to themselves that some people are poor for circumstances beyond their control, then that means voting and acting to deny benefits and charity, and generally being a smug ass towards the poor, means that that person isn't all about personal responsibility, they're just heartless.

[Anonymous]

12:42 here. I think she is an admirable women, doing her best to do all the right things, and a highly sympathetic character. I only pointed all of that out to say (as has been validated by other posters) that if you are poor, no matter what people will find something to nitpick and victim blame for you, especially right wingers looking to validate their worldview. You have to be 100% perfect, otherwise people will nitpick your choices to the nth degree, and it isn't really fair at all. I agree poor people are people too. If you got a large tax refund that you use 90% of to pay the bills, and you haven't treated yourself to an extravagance in a long long time, what, really, is one 87 dollar hair salon appointment over the course of a year. It's not like she does that all the time, and people have to do something to keep going and distract themselves from the dreary day to day of treading water. Also, in that part of the country, people don't take their animals to the vet or stress about them the way DCUMers do. The cat wasn't even spayed--I doubt it ever saw a vet. Cat food and litter isn't that expensive. I thought getting rid of the dog was responsible, and it was sad to see her kids upset.

But sadly, people like to nitpick, and I doubt anyone who has an Ayn Randian world view of the poor as lazy is really going to be swayed by this movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sister is a high-school teacher and conducting her students through a project on homelessness, hunger, and poverty. She spoke of a man who came and spoke to her students about how he ended up homeless. He wasn't a lazy irresponsible idiot. He wasn't an alcoholic or drug addicted loser. He wasn't uneducated or mentally ill either. He was a guy like any other. He had a job a house a wife but he lost them all one by one because unfortunately the circumstances of life itself got the better of him.
Sadly the circumstances of life get the better of many people. Not everyone who is poor is pathetic. Not everyone who is on welfare is worthless. People lose jobs. People fall on hard times and unfortunately people don't always have family to lean on. Many times as was the case with this man, while he had friends he didn't want to be a burden on them by continuing to sleep on their couches so he ended up homeless.

You know we often look at a collective group like poor people and are so quick to make presumptions about them - all of them. In our rush to judgement we often fail to remember that while our overall assessments and appraisals of the group as whole may be in many ways accurate, that still doesn't discount the fact that the group is comprised of individuals. Living, breathing, loving, feeling, talented, hopeful human beings not unlike ourselves each with their own individual stories and their own individual struggles that separate them from the stereotypes and generalizations we rely on so much to make sense of their situations.

Until we fully understand that these are people and consciously keep in mind that these are individuals all the government programs and services in the world won't ease their suffering or aid their struggle because being impoverished is one thing - being imperceptible is another kind of hell altogether.

Totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't she get the haircut after the big tax refund? She also went to the doctor and paid off some debt, right?

it was probably one of the few luxuries she's allowed herself in a while.

Yes she did and I have no problem with that.

[Anonymous]

DCUM poor bashing is always the same. The poor shouldn't have any joy in life. No pets. No haircuts. No sex because it might lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Really they should just kill themselves because they are poor. They deserve nothing but judgement and scorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister is a high-school teacher and conducting her students through a project on homelessness, hunger, and poverty. She spoke of a man who came and spoke to her students about how he ended up homeless. He wasn't a lazy irresponsible idiot. He wasn't an alcoholic or drug addicted loser. He wasn't uneducated or mentally ill either. He was a guy like any other. He had a job a house a wife but he lost them all one by one because unfortunately the circumstances of life itself got the better of him.
Sadly the circumstances of life get the better of many people. Not everyone who is poor is pathetic. Not everyone who is on welfare is worthless. People lose jobs. People fall on hard times and unfortunately people don't always have family to lean on. Many times as was the case with this man, while he had friends he didn't want to be a burden on them by continuing to sleep on their couches so he ended up homeless.

You know we often look at a collective group like poor people and are so quick to make presumptions about them - all of them. In our rush to judgement we often fail to remember that while our overall assessments and appraisals of the group as whole may be in many ways accurate, that still doesn't discount the fact that the group is comprised of individuals. Living, breathing, loving, feeling, talented, hopeful human beings not unlike ourselves each with their own individual stories and their own individual struggles that separate them from the stereotypes and generalizations we rely on so much to make sense of their situations.

Until we fully understand that these are people and consciously keep in mind that these are individuals all the government programs and services in the world won't ease their suffering or aid their struggle because being impoverished is one thing - being imperceptible is another kind of hell altogether.

Totally agree.

Well said! And I agree too. There are a large number of people who have no safety net. No family. No one to fall back on in life when things go wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM poor bashing is always the same. The poor shouldn't have any joy in life. No pets. No haircuts. No sex because it might lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Really they should just kill themselves because they are poor. They deserve nothing but judgement and scorn.

When this forum got to the sex part I just could not believe my eyes.

So if Bill Clinton had not been wealthy he would not have had sex with M and therefore no sex scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM poor bashing is always the same. The poor shouldn't have any joy in life. No pets. No haircuts. No sex because it might lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Really they should just kill themselves because they are poor. They deserve nothing but judgement and scorn.

Jon Stewart did a great bit on conservative critics of food stamps: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-trashes-fox-and-eric-bolling-for-food-stamp-hypocrisy/

It's bizarre -- you're bad if you don't eat healthy food but if it's too healthy and thus more expensive, that's not permissible either. Makes me wonder what a conservative would think is virtuous poor people's food. Do they want them to eat Wonder Bread? Or is that so bad for you that it's a waste of food stamps but then if you buy really good whole grain bread that might be expensive and you would be considered to be putting on airs. Can't win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM poor bashing is always the same. The poor shouldn't have any joy in life. No pets. No haircuts. No sex because it might lead to an unwanted pregnancy. Really they should just kill themselves because they are poor. They deserve nothing but judgement and scorn.

Jon Stewart did a great bit on conservative critics of food stamps: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-trashes-fox-and-eric-bolling-for-food-stamp-hypocrisy/

It's bizarre -- you're bad if you don't eat healthy food but if it's too healthy and thus more expensive, that's not permissible either. Makes me wonder what a conservative would think is virtuous poor people's food. Do they want them to eat Wonder Bread? Or is that so bad for you that it's a waste of food stamps but then if you buy really good whole grain bread that might be expensive and you would be considered to be putting on airs. Can't win.

I saw this when it aired. They are totally right. No win.