• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

A question. (For those on the right.)

Deacfreak07 said:
Food is also no longer the primary expenditure in an average budget. Housing and child care are IIRC. That system is very dated and inadequate.
Click to expand...
Food wasn't the primary then either, it was one third (thus the 3 multiplier).

Regardless, so you believe poverty should be defined based on an average (which is moving further and further away from subsistence living), not by what is necessary to survive. Or to put it another way, you define what is necessary by how the average lives, regardless of how well off that is. That's part of the problem I have with they way we define it and then how we approach helping people. IMO that's also how you end up with people in poverty but possessing lots of middle american luxuries (which upsets people).

That modern way of defining poverty started at the inflection point of the above graph. The World Bank defines it completely differently, placing a lot of them into the Middle Class.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
I note that the people in this story are suffering the consequences of copulating irresponsibly and committing violent crime. One strategy for these disadvantaged people to have avoided being on welfare would have been to contain their animal urges.
Click to expand...

NEWS FLASH: Poor people are animals!
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
I note that the people in this story are suffering the consequences of copulating irresponsibly and committing violent crime. One strategy for these disadvantaged people to have avoided being on welfare would have been to contain their animal urges.
Click to expand...

I've said for years on here that voluntary paid sterilization is the easiest way to solve the problem. $20,000 per person who volunteers is peanuts compared to what we would otherwise spend on social benefit programs, combating crime, etc.
 
Deacon923 said:
Here is a very good article about the overall shoddy design of the patchwork safety net and its particular impact on fathers and marriage. Because of the way the programs work, the best economic setup for poor people is for a mom to have a boyfriend who is not the father of her children. If she lives with the dad, his income counts against benefits, and if she marries boyfriend, his income counts against benefits, so the system actively discourages marrying anyone. This problem is compounded by the ongoing disappearance of low-skill jobs for men, especially men with criminal records, which means that the men cannot make enough money to make up for loss of benefits that would ensue if they married the women. Further, men are actively discouraged from even cohabiting with their girlfriend/mother of their children because if they do the family loses benefits, so they have little opportunity to develop positive relationships with their kids even if they want to. Most of this is based on the outdated notion that the "right" way to be a family is a breadwinning dad and a stay at home mom, which just doesn't work anymore for poor families because dad cannot find a job - mom is more likely to be employable.

The conclusion drawn will vary by ideological slant, but there's no denying that the existing system is pretty f'd up.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/how-anti-poverty-programs-marginalize-fathers/283984/

ETA: I also note that the people in this story are living packed into a small house with 6 kids and about 4 or 5 adults, which is not too far from the third world conditions, or the condition of migrant workers, that some posters believe should be a basis for comparison to the condition of the poor in America.
Click to expand...

Still, we have learned that when opportunity is bountiful, the welfare rolls shrink. And when it isn't, they expand. Historical evidence proves this. There is the solution.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
They are not adequately containing their animal urges.
Click to expand...

just awesome. love it. when a poor person doesn't control their "animal urges" to have sex, they get to live in poverty for the rest of their lives, and doom their children to it as well. when a wall street banker gives into the "animal urges" (they call it "animal spirits", sounds better) and cuts a few corners, takes a few risks, and ends up wrecking the whole global economy, what happens? Their company provides a lawyer, their company pays the fine, they get a little embarrassed, but the yacht and the house in the Hamptons makes 'em feel all better pretty soon.

great country we live in.
 
Maybe the poor people remain poor in some part because they don't control their animal urge to bump and grind each other.
 
Every time I don't think he say something dumber than his last post. He proves me wrong.
 
I wonder if RJ and 923 would agree with me that Medicaid should ask Cassie to use birth control when Frandy pokes her vagina with his stiffened penis.
 
But you oppose making contraceptive coverage mandatory.
 
Jhmd's "reduce the scope of the government" simply means "lower taxes for the rich and let red states disenfranchise and subjugate minorities with impunity" Yeah, fuck that.
 
RJKarl said:
But you oppose making contraceptive coverage mandatory.
Click to expand...

I oppose forcing one person to pay for another person's contraception. But if we are already forced to pay for Cassie's living expenses, maybe Cassie should be forced to use contraception. You like to boss people around. Why not intervene here where you can make a positive difference?
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
I oppose forcing one person to pay for another person's contraception. But if we are already forced to pay for Cassie's living expenses, maybe Cassie should be forced to use contraception. You like to boss people around. Why not intervene here where you can make a positive difference?
Click to expand...

Our religion is against gluttony as well, yet here we are paying taxes for people to get triple bypasses and Lapband surgeries.
 
I didn't think we'd get multiple posters to suggest eugenics as a solution to poverty in the course of a month, but here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top