Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   What happens when you give money with no strings attached to the poor? Do they: A) spend it on hookers and blow; B) burn it to keep warm; or C) start up businesses and buy food for their children?   (npr.org) divider line 276
    More: Obvious, developing world, poor people, return on investments  
•       •       •

10510 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-25 09:47:02 AM  

Carn: brobdiggy:

So you're taking the moral high ground and suggesting we should stop feeding the poor, is that your angle?


I'm saying that giving handouts can help in the short run, but it's not sustainable over the long term.  It's a much better idea to get people to help themselves.

Help the poor people?  Yes.
Help them in a way that creates dependency on the U.S. government teat?  No.
Have the help be contigent on learning a trade or skill, and part of the help program involves finding the person some work?  I would absolutely be in favor of that.*

*Works for US better than Africa
 
2013-10-25 09:47:06 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.


If you have an iPhone and can go to Applebee's, you aren't poor. Not by a long shot.
 
2013-10-25 09:47:47 AM  

odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.


And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.
 
2013-10-25 09:48:55 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.


When rich people blow money it's generally not on someone else to pay for their mistake.
 
2013-10-25 09:49:05 AM  

CapnPlaty: The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.


You are probably not going to start a new business because you already have a mean of income. Career change is not the same things as starting a career. Besides that, none of the other moves are bad.

I think it all boils down to a philosophical argument: if you give free money to people, is it more likely to make them lazy or give them a kick start.

Of course it depends on individual. The real question is, what percentage is likely to do what. According to conservatives 99% lazy 1% kick start. According to liberals (I consider myself one), 20% lazy 80% kick start.

It would be interesting to see the real number somehow.
 
2013-10-25 09:49:16 AM  

RedTank: Yes, lets give 100 poor people money and then report how well it went when 1 of them actually does something with it to make sustainable income.

/Just giving money away is a little too leftist for me.


Yes, because if you gave away $1000 to 100 people and one of them started a successful business, 10 did something to improve their child's education, 30 used it to pay down debt, 57 used it to feed their family directly and one buys a motorcycle all that anyone will hear about is the last guy, who bought hookers and blow and ended up having a heart attack and dying.

because socialism.
 
2013-10-25 09:49:43 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

It would be exactly the same. No matter how much conservatives wail about it, poor people use the money they get to take care of themselves and they spend it responsibly (mostly). At around a 98% level. Facts are facts.


Citation SORELY needed. That certainly flies in the face of what I've seen in my city.

And, BTW, while it seems intuitive that more people in a poor country (rather than people in a bad neighborhood) would do something proactive with the money I have yet to see anyone note that this "study" was simply asking the recipients what they bought. If they spent it on khat or hookers would they say that?
 
2013-10-25 09:49:56 AM  
See: Katrina, Hurricane for an example of what people in Western countries do when they receive money they haven't earned.
 
2013-10-25 09:50:09 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

Cool selectivity story bro. In UK not so long ago the government found out we were handing out about a billion per year in housing benefit for people to have spare bedrooms they didn't need. This was keeping people who did need those properties on waiting lists. The government reduced the housing benefits of claiments who refused to move, saving UKP800M, and put back UKP150M into a specialist fund to help out the few who would be really inconvenienced.

In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax" in a bid to fool the viewing public into thinking this was some new tax on bedrooms in general. Furthermore, and this is the relevent point, they spent $$$ of compulsory license fee money on a research firm to scour the country looking for people who lost out. Eventually, after a FOUR MONTH search, they found a couple and stuck them on prime-time news with no balance to speak of.

This is the same BBC (and indeed the same actual news programme) that conspired to conceal repeated acts of child sexual exploitation because it was done by "one of their own", and which in order to divert people's attention started randomly accusing right-wing politicians of pedophilia knowing that they would be able to pay off the lawsuits using cash forcibly taken from the public. Oh, and its then-director-general became "buddies" with Al Gore, and promptly stiched up a policy conferance so that it would henceforth treat climate change as undisputed fact. It then refused to honour FOI requests about the conferance until it was finally discovered that ...


so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well
 
2013-10-25 09:50:09 AM  

brobdiggy: Carn: brobdiggy:

So you're taking the moral high ground and suggesting we should stop feeding the poor, is that your angle?

I'm saying that giving handouts can help in the short run, but it's not sustainable over the long term.  It's a much better idea to get people to help themselves.

Help the poor people?  Yes.
Help them in a way that creates dependency on the U.S. government teat?  No.
Have the help be contigent on learning a trade or skill, and part of the help program involves finding the person some work?  I would absolutely be in favor of that.*

*Works for US better than Africa


So how are the poor children who are supposed to be getting an education have time to go to school when they are spending all their time working for a 1$ an hour in a sweatshop since we're going to take away federal housing, food, and other benefits to them?
 
2013-10-25 09:50:46 AM  
brobdiggy:  ...Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.

Thought experiment: Suppose you take a room full of people, and choose the 50% with the highest (actual wealth) / (deserved wealth). Get them to agree on a moral code among themselves. What would it be? Well, in the least surprising thing you'll read on FARK all day, it will be that:

"one should never talk about people who don't deserve money unless they have more money than any of us".

Through ceaseless pushing of this moral code, it has been slipping into the public consciousness to the extent that ordinary folk are afraid to say things like what you said.
 
2013-10-25 09:50:51 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.


If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.
 
2013-10-25 09:51:14 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Nutsac_Jim: mayIFark: Anyone finds this interesting and not know about micro credit, should read about Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank experiment.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 300x168]

Is that a new meme? I have no clue what it means.

Yes, Man.


Good to know.

/no idea what I just learned though
 
2013-10-25 09:52:54 AM  

Lady J: so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113

I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well


He said they adopted the term, not created it.
 
2013-10-25 09:53:04 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: That's Socialism.

Yes, people voluntarily giving their own money to a charity is socialism.


Anyone doing anything to help anyone is socialism. Ergo Jesus dying for your sins = socialism!
 
2013-10-25 09:53:10 AM  
Some people will use the money responsibly to improve their lives. Other people will foolishly spend the money on fleeting things and end up right where they started.

Gosh, it's almost like poor people are individuals who are capable of making good and bad decisions just like everyone else, and are not automatically going to do the things a commonly held socio-economic bias says they will. But but but that means the only real way to effect true change is to give each and every poor person the chance to improve themselves and their lives, through continued funding of strong social support programs, financed primarily by taxes on the rich and middle class!
 
2013-10-25 09:53:15 AM  

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.
 
2013-10-25 09:54:08 AM  

baconbeard: See: Katrina, Hurricane for an example of what people in Western countries do when they receive money they haven't earned.


So, people started to receive money from Katrina? That's good.

/had to
 
2013-10-25 09:54:16 AM  
"There is this growing realization that being poor is really stressful, and that hat can make it hard to organize your life and plan and make good decisions,"

That's why I'm stressed and have been making bad decisions in my life.  Wrong hat.
 
2013-10-25 09:54:36 AM  

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.
 
2013-10-25 09:55:04 AM  

mayIFark: CapnPlaty: The study was conducted by the person who co-founded the charity.  I'm guessing these results are just a tad bit skewed.

That's not to say that providing resources to those ambitious enough to do something with them is a bad idea. Personally, if someone hands me an additional $20,000, my first move isn't going to be to start a home business. I'll probably pay off some bills and upgrade some things around the house, but I'd also get a kick ass new computer.

You are probably not going to start a new business because you already have a mean of income. Career change is not the same things as starting a career. Besides that, none of the other moves are bad.

I think it all boils down to a philosophical argument: if you give free money to people, is it more likely to make them lazy or give them a kick start.

Of course it depends on individual. The real question is, what percentage is likely to do what. According to conservatives 99% lazy 1% kick start. According to liberals (I consider myself one), 20% lazy 80% kick start.

It would be interesting to see the real number somehow.


You were doing well until you revealed that, like most libs, you can't accept the idea that there could be such a thing as moderate conservative. Presumably, you think wanting to attach conditions to Obamacare is exacting the same as invading Poland.
 
2013-10-25 09:55:08 AM  
As a poor person every extra penny I have left over gets put into things I need to make money which would make me less poor so I could by more things I need to make more money. However when the absolute MAX I can put aside each month is no more than $30-40 (on a REALLY good month) makes the process grindingly slow and excruciating that by the time I manage to build anything significant it's already out of date (computer stuff).

If I had been given even an extra $50-100 per month or a one time influx of $5000-10,000 a few years back I would be out of poverty and paying taxes by now and even able to pay that money back. Instead I'm a drain and get treated like a freaking leech/criminal just because I'm broke.

In fact if the "job creator" who completely imploded his business despite my best efforts to get him to make RATIONAL decisions with company resources hadn't ripped me off for thousands of dollars I would have been well on my way to making money again.

Also no one will lend to you when you're poor ESPECIALLY when you have the AUDACITY like I did to never go into debt with credit cards, cars, houses, bill collectors, etc.

So glad I listened to all the super responsible people in this world and worked myself into a wheelchair, avoided debt and splurging on useless crap, etc while they ran the entire economy into the ground, made housing completely unaffordable, froze wages and stole every freaking penny they could. I watched my youth slip away as all my friends enjoyed life and I toiled away for scumbags who stabbed me in the back.

I was (and am) one of the most bootstrappy mother frackers you'll ever meet. Where's mine, assholes?!
 
2013-10-25 09:55:57 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.


Nope.
They will use this as evidence that "job creators" need more money.
 
2013-10-25 09:56:27 AM  

mayIFark: I think it all boils down to a philosophical argument: if you give free money to people, is it more likely to make them lazy or give them a kick start.

Of course it depends on individual. The real question is, what percentage is likely to do what. According to conservatives 99% lazy 1% kick start. According to liberals (I consider myself one), 20% lazy 80% kick start.

It would be interesting to see the real number somehow.


You may find this interesting:

http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cash-really -c hange-your-life-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
 
2013-10-25 09:56:51 AM  
ITT:  liberals that don't understand the difference between people that are poor because they live in a sh*t country and poor people in America who are conditioned to not have to work hard and that a million safety nets will catch them on the way down.  Give $1,000 to a man whose life depends on his ability to do something wtih it, and you will see motivation and results.  Give $1,000 to a man who can spend that $1,000 on a big screen TV and still get food stamps and have his basic needs met, and you will see different results.

I laugh at how easily you cows have bought into the anti-capitalist movement that's 'chic' the last 10 years or so.  The reason its funny:  you consider yourselves to be enlightened and intelligent.
 
2013-10-25 09:57:04 AM  

zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.


Because every rich person is a huge corporation.
 
2013-10-25 09:58:33 AM  

zeroman987: What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.


That's Congress blowing our money to give welfare to rich people.
 
2013-10-25 09:59:19 AM  

brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.


There's no limit on how many troll alts one can add to the ignore list, is there? Only, it seems like every day there's another one, and I sometimes worry about maxing out the list.
 
2013-10-25 09:59:22 AM  

brobdiggy: Also, as some people have pointed out, the article discusses giving aid to people in African countries, not welfare-poor in the US.

Two things to note:
1. Giving $1,000 to a welfare-poor person in the US and giving $1,000 to an abject-poverty man in Uganda are two completely different things.  Money will go a lot further in Uganda.  Note that I am NOT advocating that we give MORE money to American poor because of this.

2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year.  Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true.


Best start thinking about it more then... Once robotics starts taking over more and more jobs, you're going to have to change the thinking of how society deals with unemployment.
 
2013-10-25 10:00:50 AM  
Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

ih2.redbubble.net
 
2013-10-25 10:00:59 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: beezeltown: Give money to poor people who LIVE IN A POOR COUNTRY, and they do good things, potentially.

CSB:

My friend dated a girl, when we were in high school, who came from a very poor family. One winter, her mother complained that the heating bill was too high, maybe $200. My friend's parents gave GF's mom $200 to pay the heating bill.

A couple of weeks later, another story about the gas being turned off emerged. Turns out, the mom used the $200 to get cable installed.

This is just an anecdote, but I would tend to think throwing money at people who squander resources and opportunities routinely is a poor use of "charitable" funds.

Yeah, screw the poor, because of this one guy who knew some other people who told a story that he's now telling on the internet that's totally believable.


I'm not saying "screw the poor". The point I'm illustrating is that handing money to somebody who has demonstrated a clear inability to handle money responsibly will likely do nothing to help that person. There may be exceptions, but those examples would certainly be exceptional.

And, no, I don't think hyperbolic pronouncements should be based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from "some guy" on the internet.
 
2013-10-25 10:01:53 AM  
Lady J:
so I checked one of your facts, that the BBC came up with the term 'bedroom tax', and it's bs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21321113
I can't be bothered to check the rest, but I suspect they're bs as well

Here's what I said:

THE GREAT NAME: In response, UK's BBC (left wing state broadcaster) adopted the term "bedroom tax"
...

...so I didn't say they invented it. AFAIK it was Labour party spin doctors who thought the term up. The fact that BBC chooses to give its "impartial" news reports using politically charged lexicon taken directly from the out-of-office left-wing opposition party is pretty damning I'd say.
 
2013-10-25 10:02:10 AM  

Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.


That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.
 
2013-10-25 10:02:17 AM  

Phineas: ITT:  liberals that don't understand the difference between people that are poor because they live in a sh*t country and poor people in America who are conditioned to not have to work hard and that a million safety nets will catch them on the way down.  Give $1,000 to a man whose life depends on his ability to do something wtih it, and you will see motivation and results.  Give $1,000 to a man who can spend that $1,000 on a big screen TV and still get food stamps and have his basic needs met, and you will see different results.

I laugh at how easily you cows have bought into the anti-capitalist movement that's 'chic' the last 10 years or so.  The reason its funny:  you consider yourselves to be enlightened and intelligent.


potato/0
 
2013-10-25 10:06:02 AM  
Guys, my gut feeling based on recent right wing American talking points trumps any research or studies you might cite.
 
2013-10-25 10:06:15 AM  
When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.
 
2013-10-25 10:06:19 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.

That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.


Slippery logic?  That Walmart and other large corporations keep labor costs low by paying poverty wages and then reap the benefits in terms of record profits?  This isn't some new magical idea, it's been going on for years.

California To Wal-Mart: Enough! No More Taxpayer Subsidized Profits For You
 
2013-10-25 10:08:17 AM  

brobdiggy: 2. If you do give a random poor person in the US some money, there is a VERY high probability that the money will be blown and they'll still be poor next year. Yeah, you don't want to hear that, but you know it's true


They will spend that money on what?  Food, clothes, electronics, etc right?    So business will sell more which makes their bottom line better, people are happier at the bottom and at the top.  Kind of a stimulus you might say.

Wait I forgot you have to cut taxes to the wealthy and the money will trickle down to the poor people.
 
2013-10-25 10:08:40 AM  

lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.


I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.
 
2013-10-25 10:08:56 AM  

dwrash: So one 1 in 1,000,000 justifies free handouts?


No, it justifies your "fark the poor" philosophy.

/But, I'm sure you saw a welfare mom with a Gucci handbag, so...
 
2013-10-25 10:09:47 AM  
There are some many view of this, so I decided to go full Maslow on this.

People in third world countries are struggling just to have their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing met.  Perhaps they really understand the need to use money to get those fundamental survival needs met.

Folks in America have their basic needs met - often through working the welfare system.  They don't really understand the meaning of true poverty.  Thus, figuring they can get their food, shelter, and clothing provided, they misuse money, not realizing that this is a possible means of improving their situation rather than just getting some wants fulfilled.

Some folks really need the assistance of welfare just to get back on their feet.  Many folks just work the system to fund their lifestyle.
 
2013-10-25 10:10:59 AM  

tlenon: Its a wonder Cabrini Greens isn't a sprawling zone of commerce and industrial business startups. Mind you Crack production does not count....


You know how I know you're not from Chicago?  It's not just the s you added to Cabrini Green.
 
2013-10-25 10:11:02 AM  

brobdiggy: Bellamy says those findings suggest that, while cash seems to help in the short run, it's still unclear whether it helps in the long run.

Kind of like supply side vs. demand side.

Liberals say we should keep throwing money at poor people, and look at short run benefits.  They completely ignore the culture of dependency it creates.

Economists know that spending is better focused on policies in which the poor can lift themselves.  Better/subsidized education, training, or vocation programs.

You know, the whole "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" idea.


So what happens when conservatives want to (a) not give any money to poor people and (b) reduce spending on education, health care, social security, etc. so the top 0.1% can get another tax break? (And they don't care, they send their kids to private school, have a great health insurance policy anyway, private guards in their private subdivision, etc. So why spend money so a bunch of poor people have a decent school?)

I mean, I could almost sorta get behind the whole "screw anyone who is poor, no matter the reason" mentality, if it didn't also come with huge cuts to education or any other program that might give hard-working poor people a chance to pull themselves up and improve their situation. (Forget about the middle class working their way up, the super-rich have pulled that ladder up behind them a long time ago.) And it's all couched in "we need tax cuts for job creators" and "we have a spending problem" when it's really "Boo hoo, Mitt Romney pays 12% of his income in taxes (less than most middle class workers) and some of that goes to feed and educate these stinking poor people. If we just let them die, he may only have to pay 10% and can buy that third yacht."

Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for those who are lazy or choose not to work. Unlike Mitt Romney (who is unemployed and makes millions in dividends/untaxed capital gains), I work hard for my money every day. But as the income disparity in this country widens, the middle class is being pushed toward the bottom (go ahead and look at a graph of income and see if 50% is closer to the bottom or the line on the right that goes straight up), and we are becoming more like the Dark Ages and third-world hellholes where like 6 families have all the money and everyone else lives in poverty.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:02 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.



You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:10 AM  

Wise_Guy: zeroman987: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

What about TARP? What about the Detroit bailout? Walmart? Mobil Exxon? Etc etc ad infinitum.

Because every rich person is a huge corporation.


Respond to my comment, not what you wish my comment says.

Every corporation is run by a rich person. When a government gives money to a corporation, a rich person gets it through their salary or through dividends. Poor people don't own very much and they don't own stock.

Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people. When the house of cards fell, the taxpayers footed the bill. So, his statement is incorrect. When rich people blow all their money, it DOES come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

See also Walmart (the government subsidizes their low wages by a ridiculous amount, putting more money in their pockets) and the other companies that get corporate welfare.

It is disengenuous to say that rich people don't get welfare because the majority of welfare goes to the rich. Democracy is failing, not because the masses are voting themselves tons of money, it is failing because the rich have tricked the masses into voting to give the rich even more money.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:19 AM  

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: Carn: brobdiggy: Tyrone Slothrop: odinsposse: HindiDiscoMonster: When the GOP hears this their heads will explode... I think we should get right on that.

Nope. What will happen is they will find one guy who spends it on something stupid like a gold rocket car and, out of the thousands who use their money to do good, that one guy will be held up as proof that this plan is absolutely broken and these poor people are useless drains on society.

And yet when rich people do stupid things with their money they think it's fine.

If a rich person blows his money, I don't care -- his money didn't come from taxpayers' pockets.

The Waltons, whose fortunes are subsidized by the federal government through assistance to their workforce because they aren't paid a living wage, would like a word with you.  Indirectly, that's exactly where a lot of that money is coming from.

That's some slippery logic.

Without government assistance, do you honestly believe everyone at Walmart would quit?  Nope.  They don't have a better place to go.  They'd simply have less money.

It's also worth mentioning that, while American's like to talk about how poor 'poor people' are; by other countries standards they have an incredibly high standard of living.  True story - I live in a *400 sq ft.* apartment, have no cable TV, no car, no a/c.  Where I live, that's not too exceptional (maybe the TV is).

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

If we cut-off government assistance programs, Walmart workers would keep working because it is the best option they have.  The quality of their lifestyle would decrease.

I really don't think it is far to say these programs help Walmart.  Walmart doesn't give a f***.

Slippery logic?  That Walmart and other large corporations keep labor costs low by paying poverty wages and then reap the benefits in terms of record profits?  This isn't some n ...


Supply and demand doesn't work that way.  Nobody is forced to work at Walmart *and* Walmart is complying with minimum wage laws.  The fact that Sam Walton can make more money than some other less-rich business man doesn't increase the value of the guy scanning items at the checkout.

If Walmart wasn't paying enough, nobody would work there.  People do, of their own free will.  It's quite clear that they are paying a fair wage, because people accept it under reasonable circumstances.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:39 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Uranus Is Huge!: HindiDiscoMonster: Uranus Is Huge!: Truly poor

Not iPhone 4 and Applebees poor.

Apple and Applebees are not poor... they are huge multimillion dollar businesses....

No shiat.

I was referring to people considered poor because they still carry an iPhone 4 and go to Applebees for special occasions.

If you have an iPhone and can go to Applebee's, you aren't poor. Not by a long shot.


Yes. You understood my point. Good job.
 
2013-10-25 10:13:35 AM  
It is amazing to me just how much the Puritan idea that poor people are poor due to having low character pervades American thinking.  The idea that situation may have more to do with someone's inherent wealth seems an anathema to most people.  I guess there is attribution bias as well, with people who figure if someone else is going through tough times, it must be because they are somehow flawed, but if they themselves are going through tough times, it is because they were dealt a shiatty hand.
 
2013-10-25 10:13:49 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Fark_Guy_Rob: lowrez: When they're getting a one time gift rather than a regularly scheduled handout they tend to make better decisions. Fascinating.

I can't blame anyone for acting in their own best interest, within the confines of the law.  In a lot of places it makes more sense to collect walfare than get a job.  The numbers are pretty staggering.  If I had the choice between working a full-time job paying $8 an hour, or collecting the same (or more) in welfare, *personally*, I'd take welfare.


You sound woefully ignorant. Many of the people on welfare are called working poor. The DO have the $8/hr job but that cannot sustain one person, much less, a family. So, they require public assistance.


http://benswann.com/welfare-recipients-in-new-york-can-now-earn-more -t han-teachers/
Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job. In fact, in 12 of those states, welfare recipients make more than they would at a $12 per hour job.

I'm sorry, maybe you could elaborate on where I'm wrong?
 
2013-10-25 10:14:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Guys, my gut feeling based on recent right wing American talking points trumps any research or studies you might cite.


Really? That's a shame because I was hoping to take some left wing rubbish and dress it up as a study, and push it through some corrupt public-funded research instatute so that it would then become infinitely convincing to FARK's libs. But obviously not you!
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report