Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Tugger wrote:There is no excuse, there is need for programs that "fight" what is not real.
Tugger wrote:Anyone can achieve success if they just believe and push themselves. There is no excuse, there is need for programs that "fight" what is not real.
Tugg
Tugger wrote:Was just realizing that "poverty" is not a thing, it is a concept only and no one is trapped by it. So it is important to not believe in it as if you do you could become trapped by the idea of poverty and will not be able to succeed or overcome the drag of being "poor".
Anyone can achieve success if they just believe and push themselves. There is no excuse, there is need for programs that "fight" what is not real.
Tugg
salttee wrote:When a person exists in a circumstance where their skills, talents and knowledge (or health - mental or physical) leave them at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of society, they will find themselves in the economic condition of poverty
EA CO AS wrote:Would you agree, though, that "poverty" doesn't simply happen to someone, and that it requires, at some point, one or more poor choices made by that individual?
Tugger wrote:
Anyone can achieve success if they just believe and push themselves.
B777LRF wrote:EA CO AS wrote:Would you agree, though, that "poverty" doesn't simply happen to someone, and that it requires, at some point, one or more poor choices made by that individual?
Would those poor choices include a choice of the wrong parents, country or continent or would it, perhaps, include a poorly chosen medical, physical or mental, condition?
EA CO AS wrote:B777LRF wrote:EA CO AS wrote:Would you agree, though, that "poverty" doesn't simply happen to someone, and that it requires, at some point, one or more poor choices made by that individual?
Would those poor choices include a choice of the wrong parents, country or continent or would it, perhaps, include a poorly chosen medical, physical or mental, condition?
None of the above; but obviously you knew that and are just being obtuse for the sake of being so.
Once again, would you agree that poverty isn't something that "just happens" and requires one or more poor choices to either arrive at or remain in?
330west wrote:I think you should consult Webster's on the definition of obtuse
BobPatterson wrote:Would you mind revealing something about your standing in society? Level of education, financial class position, fields of endeavor?
Just in general, no need to divulge personal information of any kind.
Might help in understanding where you are coming from.
Thanks.
EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:When a person exists in a circumstance where their skills, talents and knowledge (or health - mental or physical) leave them at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of society, they will find themselves in the economic condition of poverty
Would you agree, though, that "poverty" doesn't simply happen to someone, and that it requires, at some point, one or more poor choices made by that individual?
salttee wrote:Your diagnosis is shallow to the extreme.
EA CO AS wrote:You're not seriously asserting that people who experience poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others, then?
salttee wrote:EA CO AS wrote:You're not seriously asserting that people who experience poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others, then?
Yes I most certainly am saying that the vast majority of people in poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others.
EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:EA CO AS wrote:You're not seriously asserting that people who experience poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others, then?
Yes I most certainly am saying that the vast majority of people in poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others.
The "vast majority" does not equal all. In other words, you're agreeing that it is possible for some - perhaps not all, but some - to escape poverty by making the choice to do so.
EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:EA CO AS wrote:You're not seriously asserting that people who experience poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others, then?
Yes I most certainly am saying that the vast majority of people in poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others.
The "vast majority" does not equal all. In other words, you're agreeing that it is possible for some - perhaps not all, but some - to escape poverty by making the choice to do so.
EA CO AS wrote:I agree that poverty exists, but if you're being intellectually honest, you must also agree that personal choices, at some point, are not only a factor in getting there, but also escaping it.
Otherwise, you're saying that not only does poverty "just happen" to people out of the blue, but that those afflicted can only see their lot in life improve based on the benevolence of others.
LittleFokker wrote:EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:
Yes I most certainly am saying that the vast majority of people in poverty have absolutely no chance of escaping it without the assistance of others.
The "vast majority" does not equal all. In other words, you're agreeing that it is possible for some - perhaps not all, but some - to escape poverty by making the choice to do so.
So because a few caused their own poverty and refuse to get out of it, screw all of them right? What an asshole viewpoint on the world.
BobPatterson wrote:EA CO AS wrote:I agree that poverty exists, but if you're being intellectually honest, you must also agree that personal choices, at some point, are not only a factor in getting there, but also escaping it.
Otherwise, you're saying that not only does poverty "just happen" to people out of the blue, but that those afflicted can only see their lot in life improve based on the benevolence of others.
Surely you would agree that (some, many) people are born into poverty? Almost as surely the mother would have chosen not to have been there.
Now, how does this child elevate himself from the state of poverty? Just pick from a menu?
I'll wait for your list of menu options (choices) that you assign to him before going on.
Thanks.
B777LRF wrote:EA CO AS wrote:Would you agree, though, that "poverty" doesn't simply happen to someone, and that it requires, at some point, one or more poor choices made by that individual?
Would those poor choices include a choice of the wrong parents, country or continent or would it, perhaps, include a poorly chosen medical, physical or mental, condition?
LittleFokker wrote:So because a few caused their own poverty and refuse to get out of it, screw all of them right? What an asshole viewpoint on the world.
EA CO AS wrote:You want a menu, though? Well, it starts with the parents; hopefully, they make the right choices to make things better for their child than it was/is for them. That's every parent's goal, right? Yes, not all can do that - but that doesn't mean NONE can either, and that's my point - there are people who work themselves out of poverty. It's not a black hole from which there is zero chance of escape, which is what I'm hearing from some here.
MaverickM11 wrote:LittleFokker wrote:So because a few caused their own poverty and refuse to get out of it, screw all of them right? What an asshole viewpoint on the world.
That's the alpha and omega of Republican Christianity for you.EA CO AS wrote:You want a menu, though? Well, it starts with the parents; hopefully, they make the right choices to make things better for their child than it was/is for them. That's every parent's goal, right? Yes, not all can do that - but that doesn't mean NONE can either, and that's my point - there are people who work themselves out of poverty. It's not a black hole from which there is zero chance of escape, which is what I'm hearing from some here.
There's a reason it's called the poverty *trap*, or poverty *cycle*, because if it doesn't "start with the parents", then what? Game over. For some parents they simply can't provide for children between commuting to three different part time jobs that don't pay health insurance. For others they simply don't care, for any number of reasons. The world/white house is full of rich brat #@&$-ups that would be in prison were it not for the means their parents had to bail them out. Now take away those means, connections, and endless second chances--good luck trying to escape that life.
EA CO AS wrote:Right, so once again, everyone is a victim, no one can ever do anything to better themselves, and it's all up to the benevolence of others to make it happen.
EA CO AS wrote:study after study shows Republicans are magnitudes of order more charitable than Democrats...
Tugger wrote:Was just realizing that "poverty" is not a thing, it is a concept only and no one is trapped by it.
Tugger wrote:There is no excuse, there is need for programs that "fight" what is not real.
Tugg
EA CO AS wrote:Right, so once again, everyone is a victim, no one can ever do anything to better themselves, and it's all up to the benevolence of others to make it happen.
EA CO AS wrote:Democrats only, though - right? Even thought study after study shows Republicans are magnitudes of order more charitable than Democrats...
Tugger wrote:Was just realizing that "poverty" is not a thing, it is a concept only and no one is trapped by it. So it is important to not believe in it as if you do you could become trapped by the idea of poverty and will not be able to succeed or overcome the drag of being "poor".
Anyone can achieve success if they just believe and push themselves. There is no excuse, there is need for programs that "fight" what is not real.
Tugg
salttee wrote:EA CO AS wrote:study after study shows Republicans are magnitudes of order more charitable than Democrats...
Are these Fox News studies?
EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:EA CO AS wrote:study after study shows Republicans are magnitudes of order more charitable than Democrats...
Are these Fox News studies?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... lanthropy/
A major survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy confirms that residents of states that lean Republican and are most religious donate more of their money to charity, while more secular regions — and areas that tend to vote Democrat — give less.
330west wrote:Exactly. I think of there being three types of "charities". The first is donating to your church. The second is donating to other nonprofit organizations that aren't service-oriented. The third is the only one that I consider real. That's when you give money to Goodwill, Salvation Army and other groups that actually help the disadvantaged.
But where's that money going? Who are they donating to?
EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:When a person exists in a circumstance where their skills, talents and knowledge (or health - mental or physical) leave them at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of society, they will find themselves in the economic condition of poverty
Would you agree, though, that "poverty" doesn't simply happen to someone, and that it requires, at some point, one or more poor choices made by that individual?
EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:EA CO AS wrote:study after study shows Republicans are magnitudes of order more charitable than Democrats...
Are these Fox News studies?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... lanthropy/
A major survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy confirms that residents of states that lean Republican and are most religious donate more of their money to charity, while more secular regions — and areas that tend to vote Democrat — give less.
MaverickM11 wrote:EA CO AS wrote:salttee wrote:
Are these Fox News studies?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... lanthropy/
A major survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy confirms that residents of states that lean Republican and are most religious donate more of their money to charity, while more secular regions — and areas that tend to vote Democrat — give less.
lol it's working like a dream in the Bible Belt, right? They just tend to make more and donate more for the tax writeoff, often to institutions that don't do anything to alleviate poverty like art collections, or to their predator-pastor friend so he can get a new G-IV. But more importantly you're the one telling us charity doesn't work so isn't "who gives more" a moot point? What are republicans doing to alleviate poverty?
EA CO AS wrote:Well, it starts with the parents; hopefully, they make the right choices to make things better for their child than it was/is for them. That's every parent's goal, right? Yes, not all can do that - but that doesn't mean NONE can either, and that's my point - there are people who work themselves out of poverty. It's not a black hole from which there is zero chance of escape, which is what I'm hearing from some here.
330west wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:EA CO AS wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... lanthropy/
A major survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy confirms that residents of states that lean Republican and are most religious donate more of their money to charity, while more secular regions — and areas that tend to vote Democrat — give less.
lol it's working like a dream in the Bible Belt, right? They just tend to make more and donate more for the tax writeoff, often to institutions that don't do anything to alleviate poverty like art collections, or to their predator-pastor friend so he can get a new G-IV. But more importantly you're the one telling us charity doesn't work so isn't "who gives more" a moot point? What are republicans doing to alleviate poverty?
By the looks of Trump's budget maybe they're hoping the poor will just off themselves or die from completely treatable and preventable illnesses.
MaverickM11 wrote:Also you can check out the philanthropy study here, without the wingnut Washington Times agenda:
https://www.philanthropy.com/interactiv ... ch-results
The wealthy give a much smaller proportion of their income to charity than those making under $100K, or even $25K. But even the Washington Times admits once you take out the nonsense religious donations, the list changes dramatically:
"Indeed, when tithing is taken out of the equation, the list of most charitable states changes dramatically.
New York, for example, is ranked No. 18 overall, but jumps to No. 2 when only secular donations are counted. Pennsylvania would make a similar leap, rising from No. 40 to No. 4."
Tugger wrote:Was just realizing that "poverty" is not a thing, it is a concept only and no one is trapped by it. So it is important to not believe in it as if you do you could become trapped by the idea of poverty and will not be able to succeed or overcome the drag of being "poor".
Anyone can achieve success if they just believe and push themselves. There is no excuse, there is need for programs that "fight" what is not real.
Tugg
Braniff1 wrote:Tugger wrote:Was just realizing that "poverty" is not a thing, it is a concept only and no one is trapped by it. So it is important to not believe in it as if you do you could become trapped by the idea of poverty and will not be able to succeed or overcome the drag of being "poor".
Anyone can achieve success if they just believe and push themselves. There is no excuse, there is need for programs that "fight" what is not real.
Tugg
I know some people that I'd like to introduce you to; they might be able to help you finish your PhD in life science that you have obviously failed to discern. Take another "Tugg" on that joint, it will help make things clearer to you...hopefully. It's sad you have such little grasp of reality. Philosophy, in your case, is just a fancy word for Bull Shit.
salttee wrote:The cited philanthropy study obtained their data from IRS records, so it did not tabulate actual donations but rather deductions for alleged donations. I suggest that there is only a loose correlation between donations claimed and donations made. It also doesn't account for donations made by people who took the standard deductions. The study is hookum.
Flighty wrote:Edit: Good people can be trapped in poverty, but if it lasts over 12-15 years in the USA, it is really more your behavior than anything. This emphatically includes the raising of children.
Flighty wrote:Tragically, wages for working people might have to rise to correct this crisis. NYT readers of course will suffer, because they work in the high professions, nonprofits or are heirs to wealth. They might have to hire legal workers to work in their gardens and wash their $60,000 Volvo hybrids.
I fear that Trump may have to go on television and personally apologize to low-educated American citizens about their rising wages! Surely he should take responsibility!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/21/us/p ... -jobs.html
Francoflier wrote:For those who don't know Tugger, that was sarcasm...
Either that or he defected to the dark side of the Force.
Flighty wrote:Well okay, but in general, poverty is a behavior pattern. It starts with not having a father at home. Poverty isn't only financial. Any social worker will tell you that.
You can give $1m to most poor people and within 18 months, they will still be poor people. It's a behavior pattern.
The proof I will point to is, certain groups of immigrants to the USA come here with absolutely nothing AND are richer than white people on average. That is a fact. Poverty is not only about money. Nor is financial stability. Financial stability is almost entirely a behavior pattern and NOT about how much money you make.
If you are poor, one thing you can do at age 5 is, find a Korean American friend. Do everything that Korean American 5 year old does. Never leave their side. When they apply to dental school, YOU apply to dental school. When they buy a million dollar rental property, YOU buy a million dollar rental property. When they drive a $10,000 car with $4,000,000 in the bank, YOU do that too. you're welcome
Edit: Good people can be trapped in poverty, but if it lasts over 12-15 years in the USA, it is really more your behavior than anything. This emphatically includes the raising of children.