"Most people who are poor choose to be poor"

[Biased Liberal Media]

I just got this response in another forum here on DU...



That most Poor People Have Cable, Drive Cars , Have Stereos in Their Cars. Most People who are Poor choose to be poor.Look it up. Yes, The government can pay for their secondary education through pell grants. Who says that the poor can have a free ride on my tax dollars to live in public housing. I think that they need work for the city to pay for their rent. Just a thought.....By the way,, Im not rich and I got a HUGE tax cut this past year.....

That's just ignorant...so I countered it.

How can people who post on a progressive/democratic site say such things?? That's just low and ignorant.

[Tux]

1. Easy

They're libertarians. They agree with social Darwinism as well as personal liberty.

[Jamastiene]

2. Obviously someone

who doesn't live in a red state and wants to be obnoxious about having enough in life. I'd like them to try to explain why they have those view s and decided to post here? Unless they just wanted to cause an uproar.

[ogradda]

3. how can anyone any where believe that crap?

seriously like anyone wants to be poor:eyes:

[donheld]

4. DU has its share of heartless people too

We even have a few idiots. Sometimes a Moran even finds their way in. I really do think some people chose to be Morans. Some prefer ignorance.

[undergroundpanther]

5. When the market crashed..

Rich people who lost everything in the market crash killed themselves rather face being poor.

[highlonesome]

12. You spelled "moron" wrong (EOM)

[donheld]

15. You must be new here. There is a reason we spell it that way.

[Megahurtz]

30. But he spelled it "moran" because he's the moron!

(think about it) So because of that I'll go on spelling it m-o-r-o-n myself.

I'm not trying to put you down, but I'm just trying to point out that that's the jest of the "moran" dude.

(not that it really matters anyway)

[Us vs Them]

6. Some poor people make unwise decisions with what money they have

Public housing in its current state is literally the least we can do. These are humans we're talking about, not the runts of the litter - so Darwinism isn't going to work here. Common decency of society will dictate certain taxpaying members deserve the fundamentals of life. Food, shelter, and water. Education and a viable chance of employment are nearly neglected with each new Presidential Budget, because they've already got enough wars on the table. Apparently they don't need the War on Poverty, too.

[Biased Liberal Media]

20. Wouldn't that be considered socialism?

from what I gathered, socialism is providing each citizen with food and shelter...it's something I'm all for.

[jwirr]

28. Take a look at a dictionary.

Socialism: "a social/economic system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community": socialism is about public vs. private ownership of the means of production (such as factories, stores, power plants, farms, mines, etc.) not government help for the poor, which is just an answer to a national problem of poverty. There are many forms of government and economics systems that provide for the poor, including our own democracy which is based on the economic system known as capitalism: "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and developed is proportionate to the accumulation reinvestment of profits gained in a free market".

[saracat]

7. very odd poster.

[Senior citizen]

8. Actually, some poor people DO choose to be poor.

There are people who choose not to earn enough to have to pay taxes, because they don't want to support the war.

There are people who choose simple lifestyles because they don't want to support big corporations.

There are people who eschew higher-paying occupations that harm others, for lower-paying occupations that help others.

But they're a tiny minority. Most poor people have no choice in the matter. They were born poor, never had a chance at a decent education, and struggle just to survive. Many of today's working poor hold two or three jobs, and many people who are working full time live in shelters or are homeless because they can't afford rent. If they had chosen poverty, they wouldn't bother working at all.

If you read John Perkin's book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," or my post in the Economic Development and Poverty forum about how economic development causes poverty, you'll realize that many high-paying occupations are those which deliberately cause poverty for others. The quickest way to get rich is to exploit others or steal, and there are some people who simply choose not to do that--even if it means they'll live in poverty. To the social Darwinists, they're just losers, but to people of conscience they are heroes.

[Biased Liberal Media]

18. I think what bothers me is the stereotypes

Yes, there are lazy poor people but they do NOT make up the majority for all poor people. The problem is is that you're living in an economy that is dying and when cheap labor is being pursued. The rich want to save a buck so they employ those who cost less. The person who takes that job on average, is a family person trying to make ends meet and put a roof over his/her family's head and food on the table. Why hasn't corporate welfare been an issue?

I just see so much nitpicking from people, even on here, with regard to poor folk. it's greed, bottom line.

[ArchTeryx]

25. Great description.

It illustrates very nicely why Social Darwinism is like the snake that perpetually eats its own tail, really. It goes on in a vicious little circle, destroying everything around it. Without people of conscience, all it leads to is third-world anarchy.

-- ArchTeryx

[flordehinojos]

9. your quote, "Most people who are poor choose to be poor", sounds like

something the PUSHIES would say, from POPPY Pushie, to MOMMY Pushie, to Junior Pushie and all of the rest of the Pushies, including Pickles Pushie.

[UL_Approved]

10. Forum link please

You need to post a link if you are quoting something. This goes for ANY forum, even the Lounge.

[Biased Liberal Media]

17. Is it against TOS to link to other forums though??

If you want you can PM me. I don't want to break TOS.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. This premise is based upon a Calvinistic principle of equality poverty

with immorality and the choice to be both. Marvin Olasky was (and still may be) a top advisor to the * administration pre- and post- 2000 election. His writings were the basis for the faith-based funding. He advocated the principle that the government providing social services made for sloth and poor morals in the recipients who would not be "inspired" to change their wretched lives and become independent and rise from poverty. Instead, religious organizations that would offer a bowl of soup and some "good" (read, religious) advice on how to turn their lives around. It would make for a "better" society all around.

[AngryOldDem]

13. Easy

They say this out of laziness and (as you said) ignorance, and possibly a fear of the truth. For the truth is, most poor people hate where they are, and want to do everything they can to become self-sufficient. They hate asking for help. They hate being dependent on others. Just like the rest of us "well-off" types. But there are some "well-off" types who just can't see that there but for the grace of a lot of lucky breaks in life, go them. And there is NO guarantee in this society that it won't be them asking for the same kinds of help in the future.

It takes time and an open mind to look into all the factors in this country that lead to poverty, as well as all the roadblocks that keep the poor from improving their situation. It's far easier to just stereotype and walk away.

The same comments outrage me as well. I just chalk it up to ignorance, and hope that those who make such comments never have to face living in poverty themselves. I hope, too, that somewhere deep inside their consciences, they are bothered just a little whenever they make these kinds of remarks.

[highlonesome]

14. Yes that's ignorant, but....

I think it's at best naive to say that problem is only -- or even mainly -- poverty in and of itself. Someitmes it's not so much the money as it is the family or lack of it.

We were quite poor for a long stretch when I was growing up, but I was lucky enough to be born blessed with a good mind and into a family tha valued education. My parents made sure my brother and sister and I could all read and write by the time we went to kindergarten. Both my parents read for enjoyment a fair amount too and encouraged it in us, even if it was just comic books.

It's just not that simple. People don't choose to be poor in general, but often being poor is the result of hundreds or thousands of separate smaller choices that all add up to unending multi-generational poverty.

And simply throwing money at it doesn't necessarily solve it. There's some good strong evidence that supports the idea that much of the welfare system undermined family units and made the problem worse.

And it's not just the education system either. Kids have to live in and environment where education is valued. If he's never seen his parents read a book, why would he want to?

[AngryOldDem]

16. Well aware there's more to the story than that

And I may be naive, but I have been working with many of the poor (some who live in a shelter and some in their own places) employed and not, who don't like their current situations and are trying to get out of them. Those who have families also value education a great deal and are making sure their children stay in school and have every opportunity to get out of the system, even if the parents don't.

To simply make the sweeping generalization that all poor are lazy also ignores some facts that sometimes it is difficult to get out of the cycle, because of low-wage, no-benefit jobs, and a lack of adequate and affordable housing, no child care, and a public-assistance attitude that if you are working, you can afford to have benefits such as food stamps cut in half. (I know several who pay upwards of $500 in rent because in my area that's all there is and subsidized housing is full. Others are working, but can only afford to feed their children because that's all their food stamps now cover.) The social service system, that they must go through to get any type of assistance, is overburdened and is often of no help. I have noticed, too, that the longer people are at a job, their hours tend to get cut. A woman who was working roughly 24 hours last summer is now lucky to get 15.

I've seen enough people who are trying to play by the rules get smacked down enough times that they are just about ready to give up. But again, what keeps them going are their kids and the belief that there is a better life outside of the welfare system somewhere.

And I'm not getting into playing blame games. If I see honest effort to make their situations better, as I do in most cases, I do all I can to help them in their efforts.

[Biased Liberal Media]

19. I like the thought of welfare to work

it can help teach a person to be self-sufficient and at the same time, helps provide them with skills that they may not be able to obtain on their own time.

[bread_and_roses]

22. Unfortunately, this sort of program is now used mainly to deny people

any assistance. Where a program is designed to actually HELP an individual return to work by providing support for child care, transportation, health care, etc. until their job can provide them they can be useful to individuals. But since Clinton's mis-named welfare "reform" they are mostly used as an easy way to sanction individuals who cannot comply with the requirements. This lowers the "rolls" which politicians love. It results also all too often in the idiocy of forcing the mother of toddlers to work half the day at a fast food job that will not support her, has no health care, takes two hours bus travel for four hours work and requires a huge expense in day care.

And while such programs can aid some individuals, they should never be considered a "solution" to poverty, which is systemic. By far, most of the people who get out of welfare on jobs will be back on when the economy turns down, when their hours are cut, or all too often when the Corporation receiving a subsidy for employing them loses it after the six months or so. The employer then finds a reason to get rid of them and hires ANOTHER person on welfare so that the wages are subsidized.

And "welfare to work" programs that require unpaid labor in return for the assistance just further depress wages and jobs.

[Biased Liberal Media]

23. The system is due for an overhaul

it's obvious. I always assumed welfare to work was a helpful program with many, many bugs that needed sorting out. I have never personally been on welfare (just food stamps) so I don't know how that system works.

Again, this is precisely why I'm for a socialist country/government.

[Sugarbleus]

27. Been reading a book:

"LOST GROUND"; Welfare Reform, Poverty, and Beyond.

Edited by Randy Albelda and Ann Withorn. Contributing authors/scholars are about 14 in number.

I'm only about 1/4 through the book but it's FULL of details and arguments for why "Welfare Reform" was the wrong thing, done the wrong way, at the wrong time.

Welfare Reform aka PRWORA/Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act is a cruel hammer to be brought down upon single mothers. It was entered into with the help of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich using Charles Murray's notorious 1984 tract, Losing Ground: American Scoial Policy 1950-1980 as the lubrication to foist this reform upon WOMEN with children.

"Reformers" had been trying to change the attitudes towards women on welfare for decades. I didn't know it but we gave public assistance to women back in the 1890's; especially if they were widowed. See, women then were expected to "depend" on their husbands for support--though many women did work outside the home for meager wages to help support the family. If the husband died or deserted than the society felt sorry for the woman and allowed her some assistance, especially for her and any children. They were "deemed Deserving".

As Linda Gordon, Sociologist states: By devoting themselves to mothering, the female recipients were performing what God, nature, and society intended women to do and doing so, moreover, under difficult circumstances. Children were by definition deserving. Mother-children famiies certainly seemed as derserving of public support(ADC) as the elderly (Social Security Act).

Over time, the and leaving a whole lot of interesting history behind here, (you have to read the book)..attitudes changed from deserving to parasites. Women of color were the worst treated, as attitudes changed, until they stood up for their rights to benefits the same as any white single mother was getting. And yes, let's not leave out MEN'S role in changing these attitudes early on. They didn't want to pay to support "deserted women/children"..hence the campaign to reform/restrict welfare began a long time ago.

Then there's the business/corporations angle. As argued in this book, it goes like this. By subsidizing women to stay home with their children (as the RWer Xtians believe is normal and honorable work, in raising children)...this somehow created a baseline of poverty/income from which the working people wanted to stay far above. Working people competed for jobs based on their skills and experience and asked for the best dollar value for their labor. They expected raises like all of us would. The business world claimed that working people were asking for too much in wages and benefits and saw their bottom line shrinking. (poor babies)

Skipping ahead, outsourcing became the key to MORE PROFITS for the boss--cheap labor overseas. Then by forcing desparate women/men off of welfare, here comes a whole new group of people who are forced to take whatever job they can get. Voile' the bosses have a new pool of cheap labor, right here at home, from which to drive down wages and increase their profit margins. If this former welfare recipient won't do the job, oh well, the next one will. Whippppeeeee

Not only did "reformers" force women off welfare into work, they did NOT provide adequate helps such as JOB TRAINING/higher education or quality job placement so that the woman could REALLY improve her income stream/lifestyle. Childcare is rare, housing costs have soared and many of the former "helps" AFDC (now TANF) recipients got were also cut off or hung over their heads to FORCE them to comply with a job, any job or else. Can you say: "Servitude"?

Working for minimum wage or just above DOES NOT IMPROVE THE LIVES OF SINGLE MOTHERS thrown off Welfare. They are STILL struggling and some worse than others. I heard a woman at a Kucinich rally talk of how she was not allowed to go to college when on TANF. She wanted to know if he would change that policy if elected. I seem to recall a statement made by * that people who go to college instead of to work after assistance is removed are cheating the system (words to that effect)WTF???!!

Words like those just make me more convinced that tossing people off of assistance before they are ready, IS the cat-out-of-the-bag statement for the pro CHEAP LABOR lobby as well as the ANTI WOMEN'S HEALTH, WELFARE, AND RIGHTS MOVEMENT!

It was stated in the book that many business people felt that raising children wasn't worthy enough--ONLY PAID labor was worthy of respect. The reformers urged women/men to get into "JOB READINESS PROGRAMS" so they could guilt trip them into believing that raising children wasn't a worthy cause and that they needed to set an example for their children. (As if prosperous women don't stay home with their kids) :eyes:

[bread_and_roses]

21. "throwing money at it" is indeed the way to solve poverty

And just what is this "good strong evidence" that "much of the welfare system undermined family units and made the problem worse?"

Poverty in this country is a structural problem built into a system that needs cheap and disposable labor to sustain high profits for Corporations. If every single poor person in this country suddenly had the skills to get a good paying job, exactly where are the jobs for them? And yet people continue to talk about poverty as if it were solely the fault of individuals who do not have the education or the personal strength to "lift themselves" out of it. The poverty level is kept artificially low and the employment figures kept artificially high precisely because we don't want to admit that there is no where for people in poverty to go.

If we admitted the systemic, structural nature of poverty we could no longer demonize and denigrate the poor. We would have to start talking about a basic guaranteed national income and about sustaining neighborhoods - decent schools, free healthcare, decent housing, decent recreational facilities like parks - even when there are no jobs. But the taxes for that would cut into Corporate profits, so we continue with our national pretense that anyone and more significantly everyone can get out of poverty by their own efforts. It is nonsense, demonstrably false, and nothing but an excuse for maintaining Corporate profits and the prison-industrial State.

[kineneb]

39. Not all poor are poorly educated- take me!

I have a BA and am a thesis away from an MA. Hubby is ill and can't work, and the only job I can find right now pays $10/hr, 35hrs/wk with NO benefits and no hope of them. And yes, I am looking for another job. The chances of anything full-time with benefits in my actual field is almost nil, even if I get the MA. So we are stuck.

Yes, we want to get Hubby on disability, but because he used to do computer tech work, instead of something physical, the !@#$%s think he should be able to work. So we just wait until his kidneys go, and then he will automatically qualify for SSDI, while attached to a dialysis machine.

Angry, yes!:mad:

[jwirr]

29. You are correct - welfare did

undermine families and make the problems worse. However it is not the way that you are suggesting. I know I was there. What went wrong was not the giving of money to poor families but the rules the right wing republicans insisted went with the money. In almost all states a woman and children could only receive welfare IF there was a man in the household, which of course led to an unemployed/disabled husband leaving the family. Some states even required that the woman file for divorce and harassed the family with raids to ensure that the man was not "visiting" the family. This, of course, ended the two parent family that might have recovered if the parents were not forced apart. It was not until the late 1970s that they finally figured out what was happening and changed the rules.

[Sugarbleus]

24. My concern is that so-called "Dems" who talk like this

(and there's no assurance that wasn't a freeper in disguise)..My worry is that these types COULD be the bulk of the next DNC voting block. Could these sorts sway the next Democratic platform?

Afterall, Clinton and Kerry DID sign on to the "welfare reform" bill that virtually killed the program and caused more harm than good by it's passage. Is that how the budget got balanced in the 90's? by gutting "helps" programs. With Dems like this who needs fascists.

I've been reading some interesting literature on the subject. A google search on "Welfare Reform" and the "Housing Crisis", poverty et al, will bring up a lot of additional info as well.

:)

[freestyle]

26. The tax cheat who wrote that should just shut up

Fraud is the only way someone who is not rich got a huge refund, unless they have strange definitions of huge or rich. I guess this person thinks they earned their free ride. I am always surprised by the mental gymnastics that allow people to get all sorts of breaks and think they did it on their own.

[Megahurtz]

31. This happened on another thread

when some poster said some people "choose to be homeless" so I quickly countered him. Maybe it's the same poster.

How truely ignorant is that?

[Sugarbleus]

32. How ignorant indeed!! I'm starting to think we are not dealing

with fellow dems on specific domestic issues here in DU. Me thinks we are dealing with wolves in sheep's clothing. =o/

[Dark]

33. A lot of libertarians are crossing over with Bush's hostility towards

civil rights. They bring excellent views regarding social issues, but will find that they are at odds with many Liberals concerning economic issues.

The problem is that they have a different mindset. To them, working eighty hours at a minimum wage job just so that you can make TEN CENTS MORE than the federal living wage is GOOD.

To us IT'S BAD.

It's that simple.

[oscar111]

36. moved

[jmcon007]

34. Actually, he's right....

...except for the word "Most". But, yes, some people are poor because of the choices they make. I guess maybe you would suggest that if the damned fools would just quit giving what little they have to others they consider worse off than themselves, maybe they could have something. Let me guess, you are still hanging onto that Reagan 'Welfare Cadillac" story that was proven to be untrue, huh?
One thing the right wing bozos can never understand is that there are infinitely more people around with less than they have, but who are much happier because they know the feeling of giving and sharing. That's not exactly a Republican virtue, after all.
I wonder how much of this character's HUGE tax cut he gave to someone needy or an organization to help the needy. I doubt he wants to go THAT far in helping keep people off the Welfare rolls.

[oscar111]

35. Job Shortage 14 million: forces poverty on most: no choice involved.

14 million do not choose to be poor.

End that before accusing any poor person of laziness.

see my sig for proof links to fed gov websites. Best possible proof.

As to proof, make the RW poster give his sources on how the welfare queens are everywhere. Talk is cheap.

[JohnnyBoots]

37. All the things he mentions are forms of

entertainment, a staple of poverty culture. People in that level have a hard time seeingthe big picture, ergo any extra money goes to entertainment in the here an now, not stashed away for thier futures. The whole Pell Grant idea exists in the abstract, or they have developed a complacent self defeatitst attitude due to thier environment. It takes a lot to teach someone the hidden rules of class stratification and to bump them up a level and have them be successful.

[Pthalo BlueMoon]

38. Ignorant...

That is a very ignorant argument, IMO.

Poor do not choose to be poor. Sure, there are some exceptions. Those that choose a gubmint check before finding work. But there are those that were born into poverty, and lack the skills/resources to climb out from the gutter.

Ignorance is abundant, I suppose...

[charleslb]

40. Rubbish

The idea that the poor choose to languish in their low-income condition is just the most absurd rubbish.