Sorry you're poor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this, OP! I've been struggling with how to explain the difference between a democrat and a republican to my five year old, and now I can simply read your post and explain that republicans are ignorant, selfish people who only care about themselves. Thanks again!

Republican here. Not all Republicans are as self-absorbed as this OP is. In fact, I would bet this poster would consider himself/herself an Independent - not a Republican at all.
There are some of us Republicans - many, in fact, - who care deeply for those who are struggling to make ends meet. There are those of us who volunteer for Meals on Wheels, or at a local soup kitchen, or at a local school providing tutoring services (for free). There are those of us who donate money and goods to non-profits in order to help others who are not as fortunate. Many of us Republicans don’t have the HHI that others do, but find the money and the time to help others.
Don’t let this poster serve as representative of Republicans - or any party - for that matter. S/he is in a league all his/her own. And, none of us want to join him/her.

Not to mention Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats who are waiting for the government to take care of things. I'm registered as Green so it's not like I'm siding with one party or another.

I started off life as a child of an upper middle class family and ended my childhood as the child of an upper lower class family. Maybe lowest of the middle class. Dad gave up his stressful, success driven, cut throat, executive position to become a civil servant. There wasn't money for community college let alone a 4 year school and I'm learning disabled and not a great student, so there weren't any scholarships or grants.
Still I managed to do well and even had $300k in assets. One severely disabled child is all it takes to lose all you have. Selling my DC house and moving to an area of the country with limited opportunities but wonderful services for said disabled child. Paid cash for the house so all I have to cover are the taxes and upkeep costs for our housing.

I'd rather be poor than happy than rich and miserable. Granted money does make things a little easier and it's nice to be able to afford a plumber.

The "charities" that Republicans donate to are largely their own churches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

And, has the poverty as a result of this spending decreased? No. That is the point. What the government is doing to address poverty has done nothing to improve it.

[Anonymous]

How many generations back does your money have to go to be considered Old Money? Do you have to be a Rockefeller or a Carnegie, or will just two generations suffice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

And, has the poverty as a result of this spending decreased? No. That is the point. What the government is doing to address poverty has done nothing to improve it.

Have wars decreased as a result of this spending? Has the number of people in jail decreased? Has the need for roads decreased? No. Then what are we spending all that money on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

And, has the poverty as a result of this spending decreased? No. That is the point. What the government is doing to address poverty has done nothing to improve it.

Have wars decreased as a result of this spending? Has the number of people in jail decreased? Has the need for roads decreased? No. Then what are we spending all that money on?

Once again, your comparisons are lame.
If we had it your way, we would have no military, no police or prisons, and no roads. What a wonderful world that would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

And, has the poverty as a result of this spending decreased? No. That is the point. What the government is doing to address poverty has done nothing to improve it.

Have wars decreased as a result of this spending? Has the number of people in jail decreased? Has the need for roads decreased? No. Then what are we spending all that money on?

Once again, your comparisons are lame.
If we had it your way, we would have no military, no police or prisons, and no roads. What a wonderful world that would be.

And if we had it your way, we'd have a lot more people with no housing, food, or health care. That's not such a great world, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

And, has the poverty as a result of this spending decreased? No. That is the point. What the government is doing to address poverty has done nothing to improve it.

Have wars decreased as a result of this spending? Has the number of people in jail decreased? Has the need for roads decreased? No. Then what are we spending all that money on?

Once again, your comparisons are lame.
If we had it your way, we would have no military, no police or prisons, and no roads. What a wonderful world that would be.

And if we had it your way, we'd have a lot more people with no housing, food, or health care. That's not such a great world, either.

Actually, no, because the money being spent on poverty is only increasing the problem. Do some research. The number of people living below the poverty line has increased quite substantially over the past 6 years. The number of SNAP recipients has grown. The number of people relying on government programs has grown. What we are doing is NOT working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

And, has the poverty as a result of this spending decreased? No. That is the point. What the government is doing to address poverty has done nothing to improve it.

Have wars decreased as a result of this spending? Has the number of people in jail decreased? Has the need for roads decreased? No. Then what are we spending all that money on?

Once again, your comparisons are lame.
If we had it your way, we would have no military, no police or prisons, and no roads. What a wonderful world that would be.

NP. I do not see a poster suggesting we do not need the military, police, or roads.

Someone with reading comprehension would realize that the poster rightly pointed out that a program is not useless, merely because it has not made itself obsolete.

[Anonymous]

NP. I do not see a poster suggesting we do not need the military, police, or roads.

Someone with reading comprehension would realize that the poster rightly pointed out that a program is not useless, merely because it has not made itself obsolete.

OBSOLETE? Not even close. Poverty in this country is moving in the wrong direction. It is getting worse with what the government is doing.
Is that what you call “working?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, Republican, but you are the epitome of the compassionate conservative who just doesn't understand this very basic distinguishing factor. As you've stated, you are happy to help those you deem worthy of assistance, but I suspect you aren't a fan of eradicating homelessness and poverty by expanding the safety net. That's the real difference. And if you say you are in favor of eradicating homelessness and poverty, then you are voting for the wrong party.

Democrats need poor people to get votes. Why would they want to eliminate poverty if that means losing their jobs? (Not pp).

No, all we need is to be decent to every group of people that Republicans disparage. It generally adds up to a majority of the country. Think about this. The Republican party says it values religion, economic freedom, and a strong defense.

The Hispanic population is the most Christian segment of America. The Democrats get 70% of their vote.

Asian Americans are the wealthiest and most upwardly mobile segment of America -- wealthier than whites. The Democrats get 70% of their vote.

Jews and the GOP are both extremely pro-Israel. The Democrats get 70% of the Jewish vote.


So why can't the Republicans crack the most religious, most wealthy, and most right-leaning foreign policy segments of America? How is it that Democrats, even in this day and age, get 70% of their votes? It is because your party cannot conceal its disdain for these and so many other segments of America. It is palpable. You think you can talk down the poor in front of Jews, that you can talk down blacks in front of Asians, and you can badmouth Hispanic Americans right to their faces and somehow they will eventually vote for you one day. Once they stop being such idiots.

Guess what? They are being completely rational. The worst thing you can do in politics, job, friendship, or marriage is to hitch your wagon to someone who loathes you.

The democrats love accusing the Republican Party of being racist against everyone but whites. They love talking about the phony "war on women" (you forgot to mention women, do the dems also get 70% of their votes?). But it's all bogus. Republicans are no more racist or sexist than democrats are. Democrats just hold women and minorities to a lower standard which is even more insulting. All men are created equal, no?

We don't love it. We hate it! Tons of Democrats want limited government but can't tolerate bigotry. You force us to choose which is the worse evil.

It's not "all bogus". Minorities do not imagine this. I don't see anyone holding Jews or Asians to a "lower standard". Even in your response, the preconception that all minorities are slacker dependents shines through. These are two high achieving, high income segments and yet you still roll them into this "lower standard" crap.

Way to show your hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We've been throwing money at poverty for, what, 60 years. There is still poverty.

How about we house our homeless veterans in military bases, rather than illegals?

Now do you see why there is still poverty? Because it's about the voting block.

We've been throwing money at the military for 60 years. There are still wars.
We've been throwing money at education for 60 years. There are still people who need education. (Children, for example.)
We've been throwing money at road-building for 60 years. There are still transportation problems.
We've been throwing money at policing and incarceration for 60 years. There is still crime.
We've been throwing money at health care for 60 years. There are still illnesses.

This is perhaps one of the lamest responses I have seen on DCUM.
Military - we will always NEED military - unless of course, you do not care about the safety of our country.
Education - we will always NEED education - but, I agree, the federal government should get out of this area.
Road Building - we will always NEED roads - and as technology improves, so do our roads.
Policing and Incarceration - we will always NEED police and places to house criminals. As much as you would like this world to be perfect, there will always be criminals.
Health care - we will always NEED health care. And, as people learn more, our medical system advances and health care improves.

But, poverty? We don’t NEED poverty. The efforts our government has made at combatting poverty simply has not worked. Yet, more money is being poured into it year after year, making more and more people dependent on government instead of becoming self-sufficient.

Sorry, your comparison has failed miserably.

We don't need poverty. We do need housing, food, and health care, though. Which is what the government spending on poverty goes for.

And, has the poverty as a result of this spending decreased? No. That is the point. What the government is doing to address poverty has done nothing to improve it.

Have wars decreased as a result of this spending? Has the number of people in jail decreased? Has the need for roads decreased? No. Then what are we spending all that money on?

Once again, your comparisons are lame.
If we had it your way, we would have no military, no police or prisons, and no roads. What a wonderful world that would be.

And if we had it your way, we'd have a lot more people with no housing, food, or health care. That's not such a great world, either.

Actually, no, because the money being spent on poverty is only increasing the problem. Do some research. The number of people living below the poverty line has increased quite substantially over the past 6 years. The number of SNAP recipients has grown. The number of people relying on government programs has grown. What we are doing is NOT working.

NP. The question about spending money on anything (military, roads, poverty etc) shouldn't be 'did it make the problem better/worse' but 'if we did not put the money into it, would the situation be worse than it is now.' For example, it's just common sense to say that if we did not spend money on upkeep of the roads, they'd be in a worse shape than now, so money spent on roads is money well spent.

I have no idea what the answer is about poverty. I do think having some social net is a good thing. Regardless of whether you think all poor people are 'deserving' or not, even in the most 'it's their own fault' scenario, I don't think anyone deserves to starve or freeze to death just for being lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a common misconception in America that just because someone is poor, then that is their fault.

Everyone is under the belief that in this country of ours, EVERYONE who wants to make it CAN.

And those that do not make it, only do not make it due to fault of their own.

That in America, EVERYONE has a shot at the brass ring.

This is the American Myth. It is pure mythology folks.

Why? For the obvious reason. Do the math.

Because theoretically speaking, there are not enough decent jobs in this country for EVERY single person in this country.

It just isn't possible for each and every single American in our country to hold a decent job here. It could never happen. And anyone who says it could is dreaming.

Well, yes, but that is not in contradiction to saying those who work hardest and are smartest are bound to end up better off than those who do not, barring some major bad luck (like being hit by a car crossing the street and turning into a vegetable).

When I was a cild, my family immigrated here with nothing but two suitcases each and less money than it would take to pay a month of rent on a crappy apartment. Knowledge of English at the time varied from very basic to nonexistent. Guess what? Every single one of my family members is currently middle class or upper middle class - the adults worked hard and made the way, the children studied hard (in practical fields) and then worked hard. I also have a number of immigrant friends with similar stories. As far as I and people around me are concerned, the American dream works fine.

[Anonymous]

Not AMG? Tsk tsk tsk.