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 282
    More: Obvious, developing world, poor people, return on investments  
•       •       •

10502 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:13 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!
 
2013-10-25 10:14:31 AM

teenytinycornteeth: 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.


Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.
 
2013-10-25 10:15:13 AM

zeroman987: 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.


And all this would change if the rich person spent his money more wisely.  Good to know.
 
2013-10-25 10:15:38 AM
Because a person starving in Africa is situationally equivalent to the U.S. lower classes who have a statistically larger obesity problem than hunger.

Dream on, FARK socialists.
 
2013-10-25 10:16:03 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.


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.


Same goes for pretty much any company who gets away with paying the majority of their workforce so poorly that they have to be on assistance programs just to get by. Add on top of that the ridiculous tax breaks they get from setting up tax havens and shady overseas bank accounts, and taking advantage of loopholes, to say nothing of corporate welfare. Given all the various and sundry ways there are to buy your way out of paying your fair share of taxes if you have the money, I'd say the middle class subsidizes rich peoples' lifestyles to a greater extent than we do for the poor.
 
2013-10-25 10:16:58 AM
Weird, thought I erased that first one. Bleh, me dum, need coffee.
 
2013-10-25 10:17:39 AM

jshine: teenytinycornteeth: 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.

Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.


Then he should shut his mouth about Chicago. Omaha is a freaking pit and I wouldn't move there even if you gave me a 20% raise.

Oh btw, for the price of a two bedroom condo in the area where cabrini green used to be, you could get a nice house in Omaha.
 
2013-10-25 10:18:21 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.


But the point your are missing here is that people with $8hr jobs shouldn't be having families.  If we can drive that point home enough, then eventually we can drive the poors out of existence and we can have our country back!  (insert maniacal cackling)
 
2013-10-25 10:19:16 AM
A) Los Angeles
B) New York
C) Africa
 
2013-10-25 10:19:24 AM

brandied: 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.



You don't think living in Chicago in the winter with no electricity is "true poverty"? You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty? I really despise you people who speak with so much authority about issues that you obviously have no idea about. You are what I like to call a phony intellectual. You actually think that you are BETTER than poor people because you were born with a mommy and daddy who could pay the bills. your ignorant comment that I highlighted is the perfect illustration. You think that poor people don't "realize" that spending money frivilously is the opposite of saving it? You think that poor people don't know that MONEY will improve their situation? But, I guess you're able to sustain yourself because you were smart enough to figure it out, huh? Unlike those poors who lack your intelligence. Smh. Please.
 
2013-10-25 10:19:34 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.


That's unfortunately not how our current economy works.  Walmart doesn't pay enough and a million people work there.  There are millions of jobs that do not pay enough, which is the reason why we have a class of people called the working poor.  Most people who can work, do, and are still poor.  The belief that poor people are all lazy moochers is the right wing's love child.

Of course, it's not just Walmart.  Let's say you can choose between them, Target, Best Buy, or some other big box.  If you work retail, you're making shiat wages and you're f*cked.
 
2013-10-25 10:20:32 AM

farkdd: 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?


What if sometimes (and I only mean sometimes) doing something like this would actually help the poor? What would be your moral view then?
 
2013-10-25 10:20:43 AM

zeroman987: Rich people directed their minions to originate crappy mortgages, lied about their crappiness, and sold them to other rich people

, the government, and pension funds. When the house of cards fell, Congress decided to give some of them huge handouts designed to prevent the market from fixing the problem, andthe future  taxpayers footed the bill.

FTFY.

// I hate people who say we "had to" bail out the banks and car companies when they complain about the system they are endorsing.
 
2013-10-25 10:20:59 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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?


What an excellent argument for raising the minimum wage, doubling it in fact.
 
2013-10-25 10:22:36 AM
It is intresting what happens when you keep money in a community. The follow up to this should be better schooling and training to keep the momentum going. This wouldnt work with my roomates mom, you give her money and she would blow it. For a while my roomate was sending her $400 a month to help with her "brothers". And if her mom didnt get that money she would get drunk and call my roomate leave a dozen angry drunk voicemails, she had the time to do this since she dosent work.
 
2013-10-25 10:22:46 AM

THE GREAT NAME: 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!


By all means, do a detailed take down of this rubbish without using any homespun folksy nonsense about teaching men to fish.
 
2013-10-25 10:22:58 AM

THE GREAT NAME: So, you give people free money and then hang around to see what they do with it. They therefore avoid the hookers and blow and are seen to be spending it sensibly. They are (or claim to be) happier, but do not get any healthier or better educated.

Cultures have to lift themselves out of poverty. The only thing "we" can do to help is to protect them from tyranny (which necessarily includes not being a typrant yourself, something western libs, with their legendary lack of self-awareness, are rather bad at).


Oh, you're not just a blatant racist trying to cloak his hate of "them" in Libertarian-sounding whargarrbl.  Oh, wait.

THE GREAT NAME: First I wondered why this young boy would aid a theif, attempt to injure, deface property, and finally insult a state worker who was simply doing his job.  Then I saw the skin colour of the people he grew up around.


THE GREAT NAME: This was just the best route in for a troll. But it was a bit obvious


Go away.
 
2013-10-25 10:23:34 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty?


That's called college.

Apparently you have no concept of what true poverty is.
 
2013-10-25 10:24:00 AM

beezeltown: 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.


Then why are you presenting your anecdote as if it's some sort of argument?
 
2013-10-25 10:24:00 AM

Wise_Guy: zeroman987: 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.

And all this would change if the rich person spent his money more wisely.  Good to know.


All this would change if rich people were forced to put their own money at risk and not the taxpayer's money. Maybe then they would spend more time evaluating their investments. Then again it must be nice to know you can invest in something and when it turns out to be crap, the government cuts you a check no matter how stupid you were! Not to mention the richest people don't actually work and live off investments.

Basically fark them.
 
2013-10-25 10:25:37 AM
This reminds me of the old saying, "Give a man a fish. He eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he's drunk every weekend."
 
2013-10-25 10:26:26 AM

vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.


Well that is the problem.

In Tennessee the poor know that they will get at least one meal a day and most likely two. In Africa the poor are lucky if they can eat once a day. The Republicans are right in this, that the less of a safety net a society provides the more their poor become self starters. The only downside is those that can't or won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps starve to death.  I'd rather provide the basics of life and have people by lifers in the welfare system, then allow my fellow citizens to starve to death.
 
2013-10-25 10:26:50 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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?



"found that some welfare recipients make more "income" than those in the private sector."

"Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that in 33 states, welfare recipients make more than they would at an $8 per hour job."

Ok let's examine those 2 lines.  $8hr for a year is $16,640 a year, divide that by 12 months is $1386 a month in "income", assuming they say that said person gets max on everything --  food stamps so let's say $350, now public housing is probably $800 a month, then they add in healthcare and cash assistance and it's easy to see how you can "make" more money than working at $8 an hour.  How is this suprising?

"income" is not the same as liquid cash.
 
2013-10-25 10:27:10 AM

New Age Redneck: This reminds me of the old saying, "Give a man a fish. He eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he's drunk every weekend."


Build a man a fire, he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
2013-10-25 10:27:56 AM
I'm all for doing this here, as long as we track the inevitable, hilarious results.
 
2013-10-25 10:27:59 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.


Except it turned out to be a hell of a lot more than 1 person out of 100 so your comment is stupid.

But you know which 1% does suck?
 
2013-10-25 10:28:28 AM

zeroman987: jshine: teenytinycornteeth: 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.

Another good hint that he's not from Chicago is where it says "Omaha, NE" in his profile.  It's subtle, but telling.

Then he should shut his mouth about Chicago. Omaha is a freaking pit and I wouldn't move there even if you gave me a 20% raise.

Oh btw, for the price of a two bedroom condo in the area where cabrini green used to be, you could get a nice house in Omaha.


Well right, that was sort of my point.  Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.
 
2013-10-25 10:28:53 AM

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


I'd rather give money to a poor person who then goes and spends it on alcohol than give the same amount of money to a charity that just gives most of it to the heads of the charity, like Komen. At least someone's getting a little extra enjoyment in their otherwise sh*tty life.
 
2013-10-25 10:29:15 AM

vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.


This, except Detroit.
 
2013-10-25 10:30:06 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think living in Chicago in the winter with no electricity is "true poverty"? You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty? I really despise you people who speak with so much authority about issues that you obviously have no idea about. You are what I like to call a phony intellectual. You actually think that you are BETTER than poor people because you were born with a mommy and daddy who could pay the bills. your ignorant comment that I highlighted is the perfect illustration. You think that poor people don't "realize" that spending money frivilously is the opposite of saving it? You think that poor people don't know that MONEY will improve their situation? But, I guess you're able to sustain yourself because you were smart enough to figure it out, huh? Unlike those poors who lack your intelligence. Smh. Please.


Here is the problem with this progressive narrative. Even if we ignore the many, many government programs available to the lower classes in the U.S., if they found themselves truly desperate and approached any mainstream church or synagogue in the United States, explicitly asking for help turning their life around, there is no farking way they would be turned away without food, clothing, and being hooked up with some sort of decent work opportunity, at least for the short-term to give them a start. I can name several in my city alone. Why does this never happen in reality, despite being so painfully obvious? Because that would require both serious effort and humility. People want to fill out an application and get checks in the mail because it's less embarrassing than asking real people for life-changing assistance.
 
2013-10-25 10:30:36 AM
chimp_ninja:

Go away.

No you go away. You're the biggest racist here. Even your login name is racist.
 
2013-10-25 10:31:45 AM

Carn: Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.

That's unfortunately not how our current economy works.  Walmart doesn't pay enough and a million people work there.  There are millions of jobs that do not pay enough, which is the reason why we have a class of people called the working poor.  Most people who can work, do, and are still poor.  The belief that poor people are all lazy moochers is the right wing's love child.

Of course, it's not just Walmart.  Let's say you can choose between them, Target, Best Buy, or some other big box.  If you work retail, you're making shiat wages and you're f*cked.


You're making the assumption that 'If someone works X hours' they should have 'Y lifestyle'.  And I fundamentally disagree.

How much should someone get paid for doing X?  However much they can get!  Is a football player making 3 million per year overpaid?  No.  That's his value.  Being good at football is something a lot of people care about, and spend money to support.

Lots of jobs are trivial.  *Anyone* can do them.  I can, you can, my half-retarded nephew can.  How much should someone get paid for doing a trivial job?  Whatever they can get!  I used to work at McDonalds.  I was a 'good employee' but there isn't really a difference between a good employee and an average employee and a not horrible employee at McDonalds.  So, that sets the wage.

Our society feels that, the free market approach is too much.  Without laws and regulations, employers could band together and force wages down for trivial jobs where performance doesn't really matter; so we have laws to stop that.  Specifically the minimum wage laws.

As long as Walmart pays the minimum wage, they aren't doing anything wrong.  If people don't like it; they should complain about the law, not Walmart.  The law is artificially increasing prices, and that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  If the employees qualify for government assistance, that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  People will gladly work 50 hours per week for enough money to feed their children rice, history and even current living/working conditions show that.

Of course, there is very little difference between raising the minimum wage and giving 'working poor' government assistance.

But yeah, minimum wage already *isn't* a fair wage; it is an artificially inflated wage.  And if that isn't enough money, don't blame Walmart or Target, blame the lawmakers that put minimum wage where it is.  Getting upset at Walmart for not paying people more is like getting upset at people for declaring legitimate tax deductions when they file each year.  People SHOULD act in their own best interest, within the confines of the law and whatever internal sense of right and wrong they have.
 
2013-10-25 10:31:55 AM

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. 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. "


Ah yes, selective quoting, the favorite rhetorical device of teabaggers ev'a'whea. Aside from signs like "get a brain morans."

What it IN FACT says is that the skeptic was impressed by the results, but noted two areas of weaknedd
 
2013-10-25 10:33:34 AM

teenytinycornteeth: Don't speculate on the status of "Cabrini Greens" when you have zero knowledge and are just spouting your thinly veiled racism to be hilarious.


Let's not pretend that tlenon or THE GREAT NAME bother to thinly veil the fact that they're human garbage.

Well, assholes playing a character who is human garbage, at least.
 
2013-10-25 10:33:37 AM

nunyadang: Any Farkers read the whole article?

"Even though households were spending more on health and education, it didn't seem to be having much effect. People who got money were sick just as often as those who got less. And school attendance rates for their kids didn't really change. 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. "


Ah yes, selective quoting, the favorite rhetorical device of teabaggers ev'a'whea. Aside from signs like "get a brain morans."

What it IN FACT says is that the skeptic was impressed by the results, but noted two areas of weakness. Being a moran, you quoted only those two weaknesses and implied that the program is a failure.

Reading comprehension is for libtards!
 
2013-10-25 10:33:38 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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?



You send me some whacked out blog that links to the DAILY CALLER? The website that asked the burning question that's on all of our minds..."Why doesn't the President have any white dogs"?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political-commentary-goe s -the-do?lite">http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-political- commentary-goes -the-do?lite=

THAT Daily Caller?

/Stopped reading right there
 
2013-10-25 10:33:40 AM

blindio: 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.


It would be better to have people motivated through their work.  Talk about increasing minimum wages or wages in general.  Talk about giving people incentives to work and talk about moving them to a middle class. That would be better than just giving money away yes?
 
2013-10-25 10:33:52 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: 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.


How many times, exactly, do you need to hear the same sort of story before you start thinking it might, just maybe, possibly be true?
 
2013-10-25 10:34:15 AM
The other thing to point out here is when sending aid to impoverished countries the bulk of it gets absorb by overinflated costs, logistics, bureaucracies and outright theft. Just handing the cash directly to those that need it cuts that sh*t out. Will some people waste it? Definitely but who gives a sh*t? It costs more to pay for the anti abuse systems that are themselves abusing the money.

Bring that concept to the US. How much gets wasted on bullsh*t drug testing and anti fraud schemes? How much gets wasted on social workers who don't really give a sh*t and are just absorbing a paycheck and/or getting their rocks off by making their caseloads jump through ridiculous hoops just to get a measly few bucks? Again, will people abuse the system? Yes. But that is what fraud laws are for. Don't waste a ton of money assuming EVERYONE on bennies is a con artist. If someone is scamming it's pretty easy to see the red flags going up at which point you investigate. Compare this to an agency like the IRS. Do we audit every single person who files taxes? No. We trust that people will do the right thing and trust that the failsafes and warning systems will prevent fraud or alert the agency that someone is up to no good.

And as someone who as a young man was forced into that sh*tty system a few times I'll tell, ya... it's a f*ck of a lot harder to find a job when you are constantly getting harassed by these people or having to ask potential employers to sign your welfare form to prove you asked for a job. How does that look to an employer with all the negativity surrounding people on welfare? The stigma alone is enough for them to trash your resume so that time and opportunity have been wasted.

I propose if you want to do these job search requirements then set up a system that employers are required to provide a reference ID for ANYONE who comes in to apply. No signing papers or declaring whether you are on welfare or not. Just something that shows you did indeed apply somewhere.

There are tons of other common sense things that could be done but all we hear are screams to punish anyone who is forced accept benefits.

And at the end of the day there will ALWAYS be lazy people. Just let them be lazy. I don't want to work with or employ them. I don't want them so broke they're wandering the streets stirring up sh*t and looking for stuff to steal. I don't want them so depressed and angry that they turn to drugs or violence. Just let them do their thing of in some corner of society where we don't have to deal with them. When and if they are ready to make something more of themselves give them an opportunity to rejoin the productive populace.
 
2013-10-25 10:34:22 AM

RightToWork: DROxINxTHExWIND: You don't think living in Chicago in the winter with no electricity is "true poverty"? You don't think eating Raman noodles several meals per week or making a choice between medicine and meat for dinner is true poverty? I really despise you people who speak with so much authority about issues that you obviously have no idea about. You are what I like to call a phony intellectual. You actually think that you are BETTER than poor people because you were born with a mommy and daddy who could pay the bills. your ignorant comment that I highlighted is the perfect illustration. You think that poor people don't "realize" that spending money frivilously is the opposite of saving it? You think that poor people don't know that MONEY will improve their situation? But, I guess you're able to sustain yourself because you were smart enough to figure it out, huh? Unlike those poors who lack your intelligence. Smh. Please.

Here is the problem with this progressive narrative. Even if we ignore the many, many government programs available to the lower classes in the U.S., if they found themselves truly desperate and approached any mainstream church or synagogue in the United States, explicitly asking for help turning their life around, there is no farking way they would be turned away without food, clothing, and being hooked up with some sort of decent work opportunity, at least for the short-term to give them a start. I can name several in my city alone. Why does this never happen in reality, despite being so painfully obvious? Because that would require both serious effort and humility. People want to fill out an application and get checks in the mail because it's less embarrassing than asking real people for life-changing assistance.


Please define "decent work opportunity".  If you say "minimum wage job", do you have any idea how much that sucks?  You can't possibly support yourself in my area (Northern VA), anywhere on that money, you just can't.  That won't even cover housing, electric, heat and water.  You know, basic shelter and warmth.  Still need food and clothes.  I guess you could go dig worms on the side of the road and make your own clothes out of plastics from the recycle bins.
 
2013-10-25 10:34:25 AM
I would say that sure, there are outliers, but by and large, poor people gravitate to that condition. Take the lottery curse for example.  Typically, it is poor people playing.  When one wins, they have no idea how to maintain or build on wealth, so it evaporates.
 
2013-10-25 10:34:53 AM

Slaves2Darkness: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

Well that is the problem.

In Tennessee the poor know that they will get at least one meal a day and most likely two. In Africa the poor are lucky if they can eat once a day. The Republicans are right in this, that the less of a safety net a society provides the more their poor become self starters. The only downside is those that can't or won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps starve to death.  I'd rather provide the basics of life and have people by lifers in the welfare system, then allow my fellow citizens to starve to death.


That right there is what I see as the fundamental difference between right and left in this country. Liberals believe it's the role of government to ensure its population isn't starving destitute on the street, conservatives believe government has no business giving out what they perceive as free handouts to undeserving people who won't take personal responsibility for their situation. What I think conservatives fail to grasp is that pretty much every time their model for dealing with the poor has been put into practice it's led to bloody revolts and uprisings. Social welfare programs are as much about keeping the rich in possession of their heads as they are about helping the poor.
 
2013-10-25 10:38:50 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: You're making the assumption that 'If someone works X hours' they should have 'Y lifestyle'.  And I fundamentally disagree.

How much should someone get paid for doing X?  However much they can get!  Is a football player making 3 million per year overpaid?  No.  That's his value.  Being good at football is something a lot of people care about, and spend money to support.

Lots of jobs are trivial.  *Anyone* can do them.  I can, you can, my half-retarded nephew can.  How much should someone get paid for doing a trivial job?  Whatever they can get!  I used to work at McDonalds.  I was a 'good employee' but there isn't really a difference between a good employee and an average employee and a not horrible employee at McDonalds.  So, that sets the wage.

Our society feels that, the free market approach is too much.  Without laws and regulations, employers could band together and force wages down for trivial jobs where performance doesn't really matter; so we have laws to stop that.  Specifically the minimum wage laws.

As long as Walmart pays the minimum wage, they aren't doing anything wrong.  If people don't like it; they should complain about the law, not Walmart.  The law is artificially increasing prices, and that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  If the employees qualify for government assistance, that benefits the employees - not Walmart.  People will gladly work 50 hours per week for enough money to feed their children rice, history and even current living/working conditions show that.

Of course, there is very little difference between raising the minimum wage and giving 'working poor' government assistance.

But yeah, minimum wage already *isn't* a fair wage; it is an artificially inflated wage.  And if that isn't enough money, don't blame Walmart or Target, blame the lawmakers that put minimum wage where it is.  Getting upset at Walmart for not paying people more is like getting upset at people for declaring legitimate tax deductions when they file each y ...


Haha, awesome.  So you'd remove those restrictions and we can go back to the robber baron days.  What else should we remove?  Worker's safety laws? 40 hour work week?

Since you are arguing that the minimum wage is too high, I expect good things out of you.  What kind of dystopian hellscape do you imagine for 99% of us in the future?
 
2013-10-25 10:39:31 AM

brimed03: 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.

Except it turned out to be a hell of a lot more than 1 person out of 100 so your comment is stupid.

But you know which 1% does suck?


Yes, I do know which 1% sucks.  That 1% unquestionably needs to pay more - But everyone else needs to be motivated through working (long-term gain) as opposed to literally just handing them money (generally short-term gains).  Raise minimum wages and raise wages in general at the expense of the top 1%.  But do it through the system.
 
2013-10-25 10:41:24 AM

Slaves2Darkness: vudukungfu: Yeah. in Africa.

Try that in Tennessee.

Well that is the problem.

In Tennessee the poor know that they will get at least one meal a day and most likely two. In Africa the poor are lucky if they can eat once a day. The Republicans are right in this, that the less of a safety net a society provides the more their poor become self starters. The only downside is those that can't or won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps starve to death.  I'd rather provide the basics of life and have people by lifers in the welfare system, then allow my fellow citizens to starve to death.


You are right that it is a difficult choice between creating wealfare dependents versus allowing people to starve. Any you are right that the latter is worse.

HOWEVER:- if we must provide handouts so that starvation cannot happen, then it is right that we should aim to create a culture that stigmatises the fecklessness of people who don't need welfare but claim it anyway.

The problem is that libs don't like to talk about those people; they get wierd, accusatory and screechy. They try to say that the moderate right actually hate all of the poor, which is abject nonsense. The right strongly support the efforts of people to lift themselves up by the bootstraps. It is in fact the affluent left, with thir terror of being "overtaken" who try to keep them down. As I mentioned earlier, this "moral code" that you should never discuss the undeserving unless they are very rich (ie top 1% or 0.1%) is, to put it bluntly, the result of the fact that most libs are themselves undeserving but affluent "trustafarian" types - in other words, for all their high horse "I'm a better person because of my support for the poor" posturing, they are really all just smokescreening the fact of their own individual uselessness.
 
Displayed 50 of 282 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report