• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

and you still don't seem to get the idea that they are no more wholly and individually responsible for the social stigma they suffer than you are for the social privilege enjoy.

geo.

The only privilege I enjoy is the knowledge that I am the master of my fate. My success is based on my sweat and work ethic and I alone am responsible and accountable. No more, no less. I know that's above your understanding to truly know what the means in real life and not in a movie or some novel. Maybe one day you'll understand it.
 
So you emulate the writing of medieval texts without capitalization out of what... reverence? My guess is you're unemployed. Amirite?

no, largely out of laziness... emulating Don Marquis' Archie, if anyone. capital letters have no intrinsic value. if they, or any aspect of writing do not contribute to the comprehensibility or the beauty or to any aspect of communication, i consider them optional. i do not follow rules just because they exist and someone told me to.

geo.
 
The only privilege I enjoy is the knowledge that I am the master of my fate.
that is not a 'privilege'. that is a delusion.

"one day".... heheh

geo.
 
no, largely out of laziness... emulating Don Marquis' Archie, if anyone. capital letters have no intrinsic value. if they, or any aspect of writing do not contribute to the comprehensibility or the beauty or to any aspect of communication, i consider them optional. i do not follow rules just because they exist and someone told me to.

geo.

Ok. Just so you know, I don't find it difficult to read your posts without capitalization. It's just not my thing and is your thing.
 
Ok. Just so you know, I don't find it difficult to read your posts without capitalization. It's just not my thing and is your thing.

understood. i have no problem with your use of caps.

we CAN find common ground.

buut... i owe SlackMaster a thump... ever since he brought it up... my kb is all screwed up!

i am contacting my attorney.

geo.
 
that is not a 'privilege'. that is a delusion.

"one day".... heheh

geo.

Walk a day in my shoes friend... then maybe. Until then... I have a favorite quote to end discussions like these that's very poignant to you and may help you out in future. Your defense has been substantial btw...



"Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession - their ignorance."
— Hendrick Willem Van Loon
 
They don't "cost" us that, they are working for a living and earning that wage. The welfare mother is doing nothing at all. Try again.

Now, THAT'S too funny. You really think they earn what they make? You really think we can pay a mom what she's worth??
 
What if they bought the Xbox and big screen TV but lost their jobs which made them poor? Should they be forced to sell any basic entertainment item before being allowed to go to a soup kitchen for assistance?

Why shouldn't they?

Safety net services are meant for people who are destitute.
 
They don't "cost" us that, they are working for a living and earning that wage. The welfare mother is doing nothing at all. Try again.

It's still government teat suckling. It's still my tax payer dollars.

And Michelle Bachmann and Stephen Fincher (and the others who take government subsidies) cost me more than welfare mothers do.

Get them to stop suckling, and I'll get the welfare mother to stop suckling. Let's not even talk of the truly disabled who will be severely hurt by the spending cuts so that Michelle Bachmann can continue collecting her share of government funds.
 
"Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession - their ignorance."
— Hendrick Willem Van Loon

That sounds exactly like the people who support Michele Bachmann.
 
Why shouldn't they?

Safety net services are meant for people who are destitute.

Honestly, that's a pretty short-sighted way to look at it.

Safety nets can also be very useful for helping keep people in the work-force for the long haul.

Let's talk disability. In a lot of cases, there's a pretty bit run-up to the point when someone becomes permanently disabled. Helping them for a short time at any point along that run-up can help prevent them from ever becoming permanently disabled.

I'd rather have someone go on welfare for 6 months and deal with their building problem than tough it out and have them wind up on welfare for the rest of their lives. It's not only the kind and decent thing to do, but it's fiscally advantageous. Putting the bar for public assistance at "about to die" is stupid.
 
Why shouldn't they?

Safety net services are meant for people who are destitute.

Those are homeless shelters. Certain safety nets are designed to stop people from falling into the destitute mode thus providing greater likelihood of said individual rejoining the working force and once again contributing to society.
 
Honestly, that's a pretty short-sighted way to look at it.

Safety nets can also be very useful for helping keep people in the work-force for the long haul.

Not at all.
If you have many, illiquid, unnecessary assets that can be used to cover needs.
You should be willing to liquidate them, before asking others to pay for you.

If someone isn't willing to give up things, to keep themselves, how can they morally ask another to do so?

Let's talk disability. In a lot of cases, there's a pretty bit run-up to the point when someone becomes permanently disabled. Helping them for a short time at any point along that run-up can help prevent them from ever becoming permanently disabled.

I'd rather have someone go on welfare for 6 months and deal with their building problem than tough it out and have them wind up on welfare for the rest of their lives. It's not only the kind and decent thing to do, but it's fiscally advantageous. Putting the bar for public assistance at "about to die" is stupid.

I have no problem with people addressing a medical issue, using safety net services.
Without having to give up significant assets.

I'm talking about the majority here, who are not expected to do so.
"About to die" is an embellishment, it's more "about to have no money to cover my needs."
 
Those are homeless shelters. Certain safety nets are designed to stop people from falling into the destitute mode thus providing greater likelihood of said individual rejoining the working force and once again contributing to society.

Safety net is the bottom, to prevent loss of life and health.
Not to sustain a specific asset level.
 
None of that addresses the innumerable reasons why someone may have these "assets," which have been stated over and over again.

- The apartment came with most of them.
- They have a resale value of almost nothing.
- Many of them are either necessary to survival, or necessary for living and working in a developed nation.
Etc, etc, etc.
 
Walk a day in my shoes friend... then maybe. Until then... I have a favorite quote to end discussions like these that's very poignant to you and may help you out in future. Your defense has been substantial btw...

"Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession - their ignorance."
— Hendrick Willem Van Loon

yeah, that is a good quote.

i am not a young man, ya know. i have put in my years. i was raised in poverty, unnecessary poverty... too many damned kids... cause the religion said so.

I worked hard some of the time (as a groom on a ranch, loading trucks fulla frozen chicken), not so hard other times.... rose to the empyrean of managing system programmer for a Fortune 500 hundred company before i left that and took to living largely hand to mouth. to what end?

Ecclesiates.. THAT is the ticket:

"what profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? . . . I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. . .

Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field. He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity
."

yes... that is what i think. what is really cool about Ecclesiastes is that he does not credit God with his coming to understand, only experience and his own wisdom.

geo.
 
None of that addresses the innumerable reasons why someone may have these "assets," which have been stated over and over again.

- The apartment came with most of them.
- They have a resale value of almost nothing.
- Many of them are either necessary to survival, or necessary for living and working in a developed nation.
Etc, etc, etc.

Cable television is not necessary for life.
Xbox's are not either.

Asking people to give those up temporarily, to level themselves back out, is not a bad thing.
 
Not at all.
If you have many, illiquid, unnecessary assets that can be used to cover needs.
You should be willing to liquidate them, before asking others to pay for you.

If someone isn't willing to give up things, to keep themselves, how can they morally ask another to do so?



I have no problem with people addressing a medical issue, using safety net services.
Without having to give up significant assets.

I'm talking about the majority here, who are not expected to do so.
"About to die" is an embellishment, it's more "about to have no money to cover my needs."

What majority?

And what kind of money are you going to get for a non-flat screen TV, an original generation X-Box, and a VCR?

Just because someone has a TV doesn't mean it a 55" flatscreen. Just because someone has a videogame system doesn't mean it's a PS3 160Gb. DVD players NEW go for $20 these days. So you're not going to get **** for them if you try to sell them.
 
Cable television is not necessary for life.
Xbox's are not either.

Asking people to give those up temporarily, to level themselves back out, is not a bad thing.

Basic cable came with one of the apartments I lived in - as did the rather large TV it was on (something I would never actually buy myself - I don't watch TV). Counter to what you're probably thinking, it was not a very posh apartment. In fact, the cheaper apartments are the ones that tend to have things like that.

Were I to sell it, my landlord would have charged me for it.

You act like getting maybe 30 bucks for your used Xbox is going to fix all their problems. So someone wants to be able to have a modicum of enjoyment in their lives. That means they deserve to be poor?

As mentioned earlier, "stuff" is a really poor measure of poverty. Services is a much more accurate way to measure it.
 
Cable television is not necessary for life.
Xbox's are not either.

Asking people to give those up temporarily, to level themselves back out, is not a bad thing.

i would not necessarily disagree except (of course there is an "except") that puts US in a position of qualifying what is and what is not 'necessary'... which i think we can do, IF we can agree that the right of obtaining what is necessary (which is what both jefferson and Locke meant by "the pursuit of happiness) without having to subject one's interest to anothers is, in fact, a natural and inalienable right.

that would make 'welfare programs' and 'charity' both unnecessary. THIS is the idea behind the notion of 'entitlement'. not your generosity but a rightful claim on the part of those who have been denied.

geo.
 
What majority?

And what kind of money are you going to get for a non-flat screen TV, an original generation X-Box, and a VCR?

Just because someone has a TV doesn't mean it a 55" flatscreen. Just because someone has a videogame system doesn't mean it's a PS3 160Gb. DVD players NEW go for $20 these days. So you're not going to get **** for them if you try to sell them.

Low income in this country is not some 1980's lifestyle.
They have many of the amenities the middle class have.

Why do you think businesses like Aarons and other "rent to own" stores are so successful.
They primarily sell to "poor" people.
 
Basic cable came with one of the apartments I lived in - as did the rather large TV it was on (something I would never actually buy myself - I don't watch TV). Counter to what you're probably thinking, it was not a very posh apartment. In fact, the cheaper apartments are the ones that tend to have things like that.

Were I to sell it, my landlord would have charged me for it.

I understand that furnished apartments exist.
However, the majority of them that specifically house low income people are generally, not like this.
Unless we're talking about those pay by the week places.

You act like getting maybe 30 bucks for your used Xbox is going to fix all their problems. So someone wants to be able to have a modicum of enjoyment in their lives. That means they deserve to be poor?

You can get much more than $30 for an Xbox.
You can also find other, less expensive forms of entertainment, than an Xbox.

As mentioned earlier, "stuff" is a really poor measure of poverty. Services is a much more accurate way to measure it.

I agree, but asking people for to give up money for you, when you are unwilling to give up your own stuff, is contradictory and immoral.
 
Back
Top Bottom