CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why Everyone Hates Republicans
Republican: "Get a job you lazy bum, stop living off of unemployment!"
Citizen: "The only jobs that are available are in the service industry, but if you say so..." -gets a job in the service industry-
Republican: "You don't deserve to earn enough to survive at this job, you bum!"
Citizen: "But I work full-time, shouldn't I be entitle to a living wage?"
Republican: "Entitle? Living wage? Oh no, the communists have breached our defenses, quick, put this sucker in prison with the worst of criminals: gays and pot smokers!"
The Republican Party is currently the conservative party in the United States. Conservatism: a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of the culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
Not that I think your observations are particularly incorrect, but simply that I find it worthy of mention that on the larger political spectrum the Republican and Democratic parties are not particularly different from on another... Arguably the consequence of 200+ years of a two-party system.
By definition, Democrats have become socialists and after six years of Obama ABSOLUTELY PROVES what the GOP has always said. GOVERNMENT IS NEVER THE ANSWER!
The GOP is socialist as well. Eisenhower's highways? Socialism. Medicare? Socialism. Police and fire services? Socialism. National parks? Socialism. If government is never the answer then maybe you should stop supporting the GOP because they are socialist and, like every other political party in America, use the -shutters in terror- the government to enforce their policies.
I don't mean any of that, it's not my definition, it's Wikipedia's. Arguably conservatives don't really want reduced government, since they would prefer if the government took a larger role in ethics and morals. Not to mention that anyone who supports the current military budget (many conservatives want to expand it) can't really claim to be in support of small government since it is the biggest expenditure, which requires the largest amount of government support.
Not to mention that anyone who supports the current military budget (many conservatives want to expand it) can't really claim to be in support of small government since it is the biggest expenditure,
Social Security 24%
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP 22%
Defense 19%
Safety net 12%
The "Big Government" that Conservatives and regulation in business, and personal freedoms from our federal government.
It also addresses the Constitution as the law of the land, which is constantly ignored in legislation and administration, mostly by liberals.
Fair enough, defense is one of the biggest expenditures.
The "Big Government" that Conservatives and regulation in business, and personal freedoms from our federal government.
The only personal freedom conservatives appear to care about are guns and lobbying, however, they seem to have no problem oppressing social deviants for victimless crimes such as recreational drug use and gay marriage.
It also addresses the Constitution as the law of the land, which is constantly ignored in legislation and administration, mostly by liberals.
When conservatives talk about the Constitution they usually forget that the Necessary and Proper Clause exists when looking at liberal policies, and usually forget the constitution all together when it comes to their own policies. For instance, torture is unconstitutional, yet conservatives have no problem supporting Guantanamo Bay and punishments like solitary confinement which is torture under international law. And let us not forget all the wire tapping and spying that has happened because of the conservative backed patriot act. But god forbid a liberal politician suggests raising taxes, now that would be true unconstitutional move, right?
Then your citation in support of your position is not what you mean?
Very strange argument GD.
He thought that the definition was my own and was correcting it what he perceived to be my definition.
"When you say that conservatives want things "the way things were", you mean they want reduced government."
So I responded by saying that I didn't mean any of that because it was not my definition (as it is not typical for someone to mean words that are not theirs to begin with), it was from an encyclopedia. I didn't think that would really need a whole lot of explaining.
I don't hate, generally. That said, many GOP pundits, politicians and followers exhibit some variety of: heartless, scientifically-ignorant, self-important, fear and hate mongering, insulting, topic avoiding, lower-class detesting bullies.
all we get from politicians on the right is the message "we need to cut welfare for the poor," while they continually support welfare for the rich. . . . .
Do I think that they're dead wrong, or at least very very misguided? Of course! I find that they care far more about principles than results, even in economics their views seem to me as based on values rather than hard science.
All of my relatives are all very Republican and very Christian, except for a self-described Libertarian (agnostic) sibling, and a liberal (Christian) cousin. On the whole, I've met far more people who identify as conservative than anything else.
I strongly advocate having a deep love for everyone and forgiving them as being essential for a better state of mind, and it's working for me, even if letting go of anger can be quite a bitter pill to swallow at times. This is not for religious reasons, I'm a staunch atheist, apatheist, and I'm also more or less a liberal.
Some people may be stubborn and dogmatic, but they're still people, and it's ultimately your choice as to whether or not you're going to stay angry. I just accept people for who they are, and try to work with what is given to me. For example, we can try to use that "handouts are bad" attitude to get them on board with higher estate and gift taxes.
It is hard to feel a deep love for people who are perpetuating poverty, war, racism, sexism, the military-industrial complex and the incarceration of social deviants. People don't hate Republicans because they are angry at the world or anything like that, we hate the GOP because the GOP hates us. Without any exaggeration, the Republicans believe that I should be locked up with murderers and rapists. Not because I hurt anyone, but simply because my way of life is different from theirs. Because I have the audacity to smoke smoke, in their eyes I am scum and should have years of my life taken from me. When a group of people wish to imprison me for any reason I obviously will not take kindly to them, but I will especially be angered with them when they do it because they are too close-minded to even consider an idea that isn't from their own isolated, out of touch culture. My friends can't get married because their idea of what love is doesn't fit nicely into what conservative America's idea of love. They don't have access to the basic human of healthcare because the right-wing half of America wants to pretend it's 1776 and that we can all just live as Jeffersonian farmers. Children live in poverty and are then thrown into adult life with no tools to get out of it because they would rather spend money on bombs than welfare and education. I can be friends with someone who disagrees, hell I've had intimate relationships with someone who disagrees with me. But these people, they're just monsters that look good because they just so happened to be the victors. In conclusion, I can not love these people deeply.
It is hard to feel a deep love for people who are perpetuating poverty, war, racism, sexism, the military-industrial complex and the incarceration of social deviants.
I haven't refuted that it isn't easy, in fact I've acknowledged that it isn't.
People don't hate Republicans because they are angry at the world or anything like that, we hate the GOP because the GOP hates us.
Are you actually going to prove that everyone hates Republicans, and that the members of the party hate "us"?
Without any exaggeration, the Republicans believe that I should be locked up with murderers and rapists. Not because I hurt anyone, but simply because my way of life is different from theirs.
Because I have the audacity to smoke smoke, in their eyes I am scum and should have years of my life taken from me.
No, you're not going to a max security prison for smoking marijuana, that's a silly fringe view that hardly anyone is advocating. And again, no, it's not because you're different, it's because they believe that you're posing a threat to society.
As long as you're not dealing or cultivating, it's unlikely that you're going to spend years in prison.
When a group of people wish to imprison me for any reason I obviously will not take kindly to them, but I will especially be angered with them when they do it because they are too close-minded to even consider an idea that isn't from their own isolated, out of touch culture.
My friends can't get married because their idea of what love is doesn't fit nicely into what conservative America's idea of love.
Which assertions of mine are you refuting here? It just sounds like you're expanding on my points that Republican policies tend to be bad, and that they're dead wrong, with examples.
They don't have access to the basic human of healthcare because the right-wing half of America wants to pretend it's 1776 and that we can all just live as Jeffersonian farmers.
Okay, I didn't want to have to get visceral, but haven't you had these views at one point???
I don't remember hearing this from you in our last debate, in fact iirc I remember you as a die hard Libertarian, so I'm bit bewildered by all of this. That being said, wouldn't you agree that this really the result of indoctrination and ignorance, rather than spite and apathy?
Children live in poverty and are then thrown into adult life with no tools to get out of it because they would rather spend money on bombs than welfare and education.
Again, correct, but I'm not refuting that conservatism is causing damage, the crux of my point is that you're just going to have to try to get rid of the hate. It wasn't my aim to downplay, ignore, or disregard the damage, and I don't think that I've done that.
I can be friends with someone who disagrees, hell I've had intimate relationships with someone who disagrees with me. But these people, they're just monsters that look good because they just so happened to be the victors. In conclusion, I can not love these people deeply.
I'm sure that your brain was given the equipment to do this, you can do it, your fixating is just making it very difficult for yourself.
I'm not suggesting that you applaud the results of conservatism (in fact I feel that you should do the opposite, but we already agree there), just that it's optimal to try to get rid of the anger, because that anger is really just going to make things worse. And dare I say, you'd be helping them slow down your personal development by staying angry, an essential part of your development seems to have been moving away from them in certain aspects, namely economic theory and some values.
I haven't refuted that it isn't easy, in fact I've acknowledged that it isn't.
Easy or not I'm going to drop this because I don't see how debating something this trivial will add to this thread.
Are you actually going to prove that everyone hates Republicans, and that the members of the party hate "us"?
I didn't think this would need explaining, but as you can see by the original post (not post really, but you understand) this thread is a joke, as a joke the title should not be taken too seriously. This actually a very common formula, someone says "this is why everyone hates -insert group here-" and then will show or describe something that the said group does that pisses people off.
And again, no, it's not because you're different, it's because they believe that you're posing a threat to society.
They believe me to be a threat because it am different. Republicans don't like people who don't conform to the traditional American way of life, pot smokers, gays, women who have had abortions ect. None of the above are a threat, but are believed to be because they don't feet neatly into their culture. Different is scary, that's basically what it comes down to.
As long as you're not dealing or cultivating, it's unlikely that you're going to spend years in prison.
While most pot smokers don't get caught or get incarcerated (mainly because police are losing the war on drugs), it can't be ignored that people get locked up for minor possession charges. Your source proves that you can go to jail for a year for a first offense and for year if caught again.
Which assertions of mine are you refuting here?
You tried to convince me why I should love, I put forth a response on why I shouldn't. It would be a failure on my part if I only said why I believed you to be wrong. So instead I also used rhetoric in an attempt to convince you that I was right and make my point of view cleared, since it was not previously stated.
Okay, I didn't want to have to get visceral, but haven't you had these views at one point???
I don't remember hearing this from you in our last debate, in fact iirc I remember you as a die hard Libertarian, so I'm bit bewildered by all of this. That being said, wouldn't you agree that this really the result of indoctrination and ignorance, rather than spite and apathy?
As I recall, I have never had these Republican ideas. I was once pro-life, but that was more or less just experimentation on an issue I had never had given thought too. Needless to say, after testing out how well my hypothesis about the issue held up, I became pro-choice. So besides that little hiccup I have never agreed with the republican view of social issues.
You do have a point about me once being a Libertarian, as they often describe themselves as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." You remember correctly, I was once a die hard supporter of free markets and little government intervention. However as I stated "I will especially be angered with them when they do it because they are too close-minded to even consider an idea that isn't from their own isolated, out of touch culture." I am not going to pretend that I didn't once agree one some fiscal issues, but I'm not really getting this whole "oh wow I used to be just like them" vibe. Because I may have arrived at a conclusion that a conservative would have arrived to on some financial issues, but they were for different reason. American conservatives are knee deep in the American tradition and conformity. I listened/read work of economists from different perspectives and took the parts that made sense and argued against the rest.
Again, correct, but I'm not refuting that conservatism is causing damage, the crux of my point is that you're just going to have to try to get rid of the hate. It wasn't my aim to downplay, ignore, or disregard the damage, and I don't think that I've done that.
I don't see why it is wrong to hate your enemies when you have ample reason to do so. I don't think you're ignoring I was just, again, further explaining why I can't find it in my cold, cold heart to love them.
I'm sure that your brain was given the equipment to do this, you can do it, your fixating is just making it very difficult for yourself.
I'm not suggesting that you applaud the results of conservatism (in fact I feel that you should do the opposite, but we already agree there), just that it's optimal to try to get rid of the anger, because that anger is really just going to make things worse. And dare I say, you'd be helping them slow down your personal development by staying angry, an essential part of your development seems to have been moving away from them in certain aspects, namely economic theory and some values.
Anger is an emotion that comes naturally, and I can't see how it could be harmful outside of situations where it is in excess. By excess, I mean anger to the point where it controls ones life. Although it may be hard to believe, but I am not livid every waking minute. I don't think about politics all the time and I'm usually not enraged when I do. But seeing the way the world we live in and the people that inhabit it are, I think it would be harmful to not be angry. People should be mad that they're being oppressed or that they don't live in a particularly enlightened part of the world, and doing so doesn't slow down personal development. In fact, I know that being pisses off about something is often great motivation to learn more about the issue.
They believe me to be a threat because it am different. Republicans don't like people who don't conform to the traditional American way of life, pot smokers, gays, women who have had abortions ect. None of the above are a threat, but are believed to be because they don't feet neatly into their culture. Different is scary, that's basically what it comes down to.
Dislike isn't tantamount to hate, and they see it as a threat to an ideal that they've more or less been indoctrinated into holding.
While most pot smokers don't get caught or get incarcerated (mainly because police are losing the war on drugs), it can't be ignored that people get locked up for minor possession charges. Your source proves that you can go to jail for a year for a first offense and for year if caught again.
Yes, the one year worse case scenario exists, but it's not the same as a federal prison, much less the (rarely) moderate to (almost always) high level prisons for rapists and murderers.
You tried to convince me why I should love, I put forth a response on why I shouldn't. It would be a failure on my part if I only said why I believed you to be wrong. So instead I also used rhetoric in an attempt to convince you that I was right and make my point of view cleared, since it was not previously stated.
No, you told me why you can't. I'm telling you that it is easier for everyone involved (especially yourself), and I wasn't by any means making an ethical appeal.
As I recall, I have never had these Republican ideas. I was once pro-life, but that was more or less just experimentation on an issue I had never had given thought too. Needless to say, after testing out how well my hypothesis about the issue held up, I became pro-choice. So besides that little hiccup I have never agreed with the republican view of social issues.
Except for gun control, maybe?
You do have a point about me once being a Libertarian, as they often describe themselves as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative." You remember correctly, I was once a die hard supporter of free markets and little government intervention. However as I stated "I will especially be angered with them when they do it because they are too close-minded to even consider an idea that isn't from their own isolated, out of touch culture." I am not going to pretend that I didn't once agree one some fiscal issues, but I'm not really getting this whole "oh wow I used to be just like them" vibe. Because I may have arrived at a conclusion that a conservative would have arrived to on some financial issues, but they were for different reason. American conservatives are knee deep in the American tradition and conformity. I listened/read work of economists from different perspectives and took the parts that made sense and argued against the rest.
Why did you espouse free markets, then? Was it actually for a more utilitarian perspective predicated on empathy, or was it closer to the side of having things be "fair" instead of real world results?
I don't see why it is wrong to hate your enemies when you have ample reason to do so. I don't think you're ignoring I was just, again, further explaining why I can't find it in my cold, cold heart to love them.
I'm not saying that you should because it's "wrong" to hate people. I'm not preaching moral philosophy to you, and I don't have one myself. Unless something in your brain was shut down, you have the capacity to do so.
Anger is an emotion that comes naturally, and I can't see how it could be harmful outside of situations where it is in excess. By excess, I mean anger to the point where it controls ones life. Although it may be hard to believe, but I am not livid every waking minute. I don't think about politics all the time and I'm usually not enraged when I do. But seeing the way the world we live in and the people that inhabit it are, I think it would be harmful to not be angry. People should be mad that they're being oppressed or that they don't live in a particularly enlightened part of the world, and doing so doesn't slow down personal development. In fact, I know that being pisses off about something is often great motivation to learn more about the issue.
Tumors also occur naturally, and will not pose any real harm until they're going everywhere and permeating other parts of your body. Knowing that you have a tumor can actually motivate you to improve your life. This does not make tumors a good thing.
The benefits to anger are not unique, you can find motivation by recognizing that you love yourself and others, and thus want to help. Anger is not a pleasant emotion to have, even if it won't ruin your life, it doesn't need to control you or ruin your life to be harmful.
Dislike isn't tantamount to hate, and they see it as a threat to an ideal that they've more or less been indoctrinated into holding.
If they simply disliked pot and gays they would just shake their head of say "oh kids these days." But no, they hate it, so they make other people's way of life a crime under federal law.
Yes, the one year worse case scenario exists, but it's not the same as a federal prison, much less the (rarely) moderate to (almost always) high level prisons for rapists and murderers.
Maybe they don't got to a high security prison, but a year behind bars is a year behind bars regardless. That is a whole 365 days stolen from you.
No, you told me why you can't. I'm telling you that it is easier for everyone involved (especially yourself), and I wasn't by any means making an ethical appeal.
Whether it is easier or harder is a personal opinion and it really comes down to the type of person you are. For instance two employees might have a bad boss, it is easier for employee to just keep their mouth shut and think about how deep down the asshole screaming at them is a person deserving of love. For the other, it would be impossible to just sit there and take that with out eventually blowing up.
Except for gun control, maybe?
Maybe, while I was at one time favor of looser gun laws, I have always been in favor of the entire nation following one set of gun laws, unless you have a quote that proves otherwise. That would be considered moderate if I'm not mistaken.
Why did you espouse free markets, then? Was it actually for a more utilitarian perspective predicated on empathy, or was it closer to the side of having things be "fair" instead of real world results?
Utilitarian. Although I guess you could say fair as well, because let's be honest, people who have more than just their own self-interest in mind usually believe that their political perspective is fair.
I'm not saying that you should because it's "wrong" to hate people. I'm not preaching moral philosophy to you, and I don't have one myself. Unless something in your brain was shut down, you have the capacity to do so.
If you're going to talk about the brain and how to determine if someone is capable of having the chemical reaction they call love with certain people, I'm going to need to see several reputable sources that back what you say up. After that, we can discuss this further.
Tumors also occur naturally, and will not pose any real harm until they're going everywhere and permeating other parts of your body. Knowing that you have a tumor can actually motivate you to improve your life. This does not make tumors a good thing.
That is a cheap shot and the two are unrelated. Emotions come to people naturally and to claim that a reasonable amount of any one of them will stunt personal development is a claim almost as ludicrous as the exert from your reply. If you want to make assertions about psychological development, please, provide me with sources.
The benefits to anger are not unique, you can find motivation by recognizing that you love yourself and others, and thus want to help. Anger is not a pleasant emotion to have, even if it won't ruin your life, it doesn't need to control you or ruin your life to be harmful.
Being sad isn't a pleasant emotion either, but when a family member dies it's natural to feel sad and it's part of the grieving process (as anger is to) that in the long run will eventually return the sufferer back to normally. But, let's say this mourner mistakenly enlisted the services of the therapist PhD Sticker, and you told them just to bottle up what they were feeling. They would keep it inside and while they might be able to mask it for awhile, they wouldn't progress.
If they simply disliked pot and gays they would just shake their head of say "oh kids these days." But no, they hate it, so they make other people's way of life a crime under federal law.
It was a concession that they also dislike them for doing. They hate the action because they think that it deviates from god's law, their personal view of what is and isn't "proper", and hate it because they feel that it will destroy society as a result, directly and indirectly.
Maybe they don't got to a high security prison, but a year behind bars is a year behind bars regardless. That is a whole 365 days stolen from you.
I have not denied this at any point. That was my own assertion to refute an exaggeration.
Whether it is easier or harder is a personal opinion and it really comes down to the type of person you are. For instance two employees might have a bad boss, it is easier for employee to just keep their mouth shut and think about how deep down the asshole screaming at them is a person deserving of love. For the other, it would be impossible to just sit there and take that with out eventually blowing up.
No, forgiving the person is not tantamount to bottling up the anger, and I have not asserted that anyone is deserving of being forgiven, either. The idea of having a system of deserving and not deserving things is silly. Come to think of it, putting deserving and not deserving in the mix probably will make things worse, but I digress.
If you want to prove that it's not necessarily easier, you're going to need at the very least a better analogy.
Maybe, while I was at one time favor of looser gun laws, I have always been in favor of the entire nation following one set of gun laws, unless you have a quote that proves otherwise. That would be considered moderate if I'm not mistaken.
It depends on the gun laws, really. But, if you call yourself moderate, I'll just assume that you are.
If you're going to talk about the brain and how to determine if someone is capable of having the chemical reaction they call love with certain people, I'm going to need to see several reputable sources that back what you say up. After that, we can discuss this further.
There are sections of the brain responsible for empathy and compassion, and if these sections are working properly, by definition, you will feel empathy and compassion. This is neither an exceptional claim, nor an esoteric topic. I shouldn't have to cite this, but whatever:
The above is a highway to several other sources that support the claim that there are distinct regions of the brain that cover these feelings.
That is a cheap shot and the two are unrelated. Emotions come to people naturally and to claim that a reasonable amount of any one of them will stunt personal development is a claim almost as ludicrous as the exert from your reply. If you want to make assertions about psychological development, please, provide me with sources.
What, my assertion that anger negatively affects personal development actually needs to be cited? It's only blatantly obvious in extreme cases, but if it were completely harmless to personal development in small instances, then numerous small instances wouldn't lead to disaster.
If you don't deal with the anger, it's going to accumulate:
Being sad isn't a pleasant emotion either, but when a family member dies it's natural to feel sad and it's part of the grieving process (as anger is to) that in the long run will eventually return the sufferer back to normally. But, let's say this mourner mistakenly enlisted the services of the therapist PhD Sticker, and you told them just to bottle up what they were feeling. They would keep it inside and while they might be able to mask it for awhile, they wouldn't progress.
I'm not sure where you read that I'm advocating that someone deals with anger by bottling it up, because I'm seeing this surface in other parts of your arguments. That is a strawman, I'm not at all advocating that you make an effort to deal with it.
That being said, I was already aware with the stages of grieving and I've taken note of myself as I was experiencing it on more than one occasion, and observing others passing through each stage following an unpleasant event on, again, more than one occasion, so that I could deal with my grieving properly, and help myself and others with it in the future.
Republican: "Get a job you lazy bum, stop living off of unemployment!"
Citizen: "The only jobs that are available are in the service industry, but if you say so..." -gets a job in the service industry-
Here is where your story goes of track.
"Get a job" implies, support yourself. If you expect to support yourself earning minimum wage, you will run directly into reality in short order.
You could at that point identify and execute the steps needed to get a better paying job. When instead you simply demand more money, who is holding you back, Republicans or your own choices.
"Get a job" implies, support yourself. If you expect to support yourself earning minimum wage, you will run directly into reality in short order.
In this country it is a problem.
You could at that point identify and execute the steps needed to get a better paying job. When instead you simply demand more money, who is holding you back, Republicans or your own choices.
This is where your story goes off track. Someone who's only opportunity for income is minimum wage can't wait years to get a college education or work their way up the ranks, they need to eat and find shelter in the present, not in the distant future. So instead of asking people who are starving in the present to wait until the far off future to eat, it only makes sense that we do what most industrialized nations do and what America once did: pay people a living wage. Servers aren't your servants, they work hard and no one who works full time should have to choose whether to buy groceries or pay rent because their boss is to stingy to pay them enough to live on.
Today most well paying jobs require some form of college education, or years of experience. Someone who graduates high school will most likely not have either of the following. This country fails to provide them with open jobs that pay well, education to get a high paying job or regulating to business to ensure that no worker is denied the right to fair pay, and your solution is to, correct me if I'm wrong, blame the individual and let them starve until they can start a career? As an older gentleman you enjoyed a minimum wage that people could live on, so why shouldn't my generation enjoy that too? Do you mean to tell me that millions of workers in the American service industry don't deserve to earn enough to satisfy their most basic needs?
First of all, we are talking about people without debilitating disabilities.
Of course they must be cared for. Just so you won't bring that in later.
In this country it is a problem.
In any country it is a problem of you do not prepare yourself for your own future.
Someone who's only opportunity for income is minimum wage can't wait years to get a college education or work their way up the ranks, they need to eat and find shelter
Ask yourself what this someone has been up to the first 18 odd years if their life. If you go down life's road and smack into a brick wall, who let that happen.
So instead of asking people who are starving in the present to wait until the far off future to eat
I said nothing about people who are starving. There are literally thousands of places an individual can go and get free food.
it only makes sense that we do what most industrialized nations do and what America once did: pay people a living wage.
If you as individual are by your own lack of preparation, unable to earn more than minimum wage, you can still afford to live because of hundreds of federal, state and local programs that supplement your needs for food shelter and medical care. However if you decide to take a spouse and have children, you will not have enough on minimum wage to support a family. Tell me who, that stays in this situation, has not made a poor choice.
This country fails to provide them with open jobs that pay well, education to get a high paying job or regulating to business to ensure that no worker is denied the right to fair pay
Are you talking "pay well" jobs or jobs that can support you. It is completely possible to live on a salary available to high school graduates in this country. A well paying job (above substance level) requires preparation and effort to obtain, as it should.
correct me if I'm wrong, blame the individual and let them starve until they can start a career? Starve is your word. preparation for the future before the future is may word. Further, as I have pointed out a single individual can get food, shelter, and medical care for free.
Do you mean to tell me that millions of workers in the American service industry don't deserve to earn enough to satisfy their most basic needs? Again those are your words and they point to a situation that does not exist for an individual wage earner.
To be fair, there are a great and growing number of young people/children who are not receiving the guidance they need to focus on their future. Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people. What the government or the community cannot supply is the personal incentive.
The overwhelming majority of successful people in this nation have earned their wealth. Tens of thousands of small business are owned by people who began with a vision and some determination. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, The Mark Zuckerberg and the Dave Thomas, and tens of thousands of people we never heard of, all began in this way. Millions flock to our shores for exactly this opportunity that you claim we do not offer.
In any country it is a problem of you do not prepare yourself for your own future.
It is not a problem in every country, there are countries that have their minimum wage set a rate that allows anyone who works full time to satisfy their basic human desires.
People aren't in situations where they have to make such little money because they didn't prepare, this is a fallacy that older Americans like to bring up all the time. The economy has changed and is still changing, manufacturing is declining and being replaced by service jobs. Thirty years ago anyone with a high school diploma could get a factory job and earn enough to support themselves, hell, some people even raised families on those wages. That isn't the case anymore, a high school diploma no longer provides citizens with the tools needed to get a well paying job. To blame kids for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time for their problems is not only illogical, it's unethical.
Ask yourself what this someone has been up to the first 18 odd years if their life. If you go down life's road and smack into a brick wall, who let that happen.
For the first 18 years of ones life, no including the baby years, they are in school from K-12, getting an education. The education provided by the state no longer provides new members of the work force with access to jobs that pay enough to meet their needs, a benefit that your generation had and is taking for granted. You act as if these kids were supposed to be taking college classes in high school so they could come out with a bachelors degree so they can earn the privilege of being a living wage. An individual's life is not solely controlled by the individual, you have to take into account the environment, while conservative ideology can deny this all it wants, this is an undisputed fact amongst the social sciences.
I said nothing about people who are starving. There are literally thousands of places an individual can go and get free food.
You said that people who don't earn enough to satisfy their basic human needs should, instead of being payed humanely for their work, need to take steps to earn more. People have to get food stamps because they can't afford to feed themselves. Poverty is basically being subsidized because the United States doesn't put the burden of feeding the work force on the employers, so they let them pay workers in humanely and then pick up the slack.
If you as individual are by your own lack of preparation, unable to earn more than minimum wage, you can still afford to live because of hundreds of federal, state and local programs that supplement your needs for food shelter and medical care.
What part it's not their fault don't you get? A lot of Americans aren't stuck working these jobs because they dropped out of school or did nothing for 18 years. They are stuck there, not because they didn't prepare (graduating K-12 isn't a lacking to prepare) but because jobs outside of the service and manufacturing industry require a college degree now. Service workers are usually not payed living wages and manufacturing is on the decline, so it is of no fault to the individual if they happened to born in the worst of times.
However if you decide to take a spouse and have children, you will not have enough on minimum wage to support a family. Tell me who, that stays in this situation, has not made a poor choice.
I was never talking about kids, I'm saying one person can't support themselves on $7.25 an hour if they work 40 hours a week.
Are you talking "pay well" jobs or jobs that can support you. It is completely possible to live on a salary available to high school graduates in this country. A well paying job (above substance level) requires preparation and effort to obtain, as it should.
There is a reason people say "make the minimum wage a living wage" because you can't live on it without government assistance or splitting your rent with other people, both of which aren't always options. A well paying job isn't a privilege, it's a right. Your generation got a high school diploma which gave them access to well paying jobs, but now we don't deserve enough education for them because? I'm waiting for the answer.
Starve is your word. preparation for the future before the future is may word. Further, as I have pointed out a single individual can get food, shelter, and medical care for free.
Prepare is your single word. Stop using the word prepare, instead say: get a college education, get lucky or obtain incredible talent. Because these kids have been in school for 13 years, if that doesn't count as preparation for the future than I don't know what does.
Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people.
Okay, you're obviously out of touch with reality.
The overwhelming majority of successful people in this nation have earned their wealth. Tens of thousands of small business are owned by people who began with a vision and some determination. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, The Mark Zuckerberg and the Dave Thomas, and tens of thousands of people we never heard of, all began in this way. Millions flock to our shores for exactly this opportunity that you claim we do not offer.
Yeah, you're definitely out of touch with reality. You're pointing to the cream of the crop who came up with ground break inventions and you're acting like everyone can do that, they're just choosing not to. Immigrants came to America... they also came to Mexico, Canada, Chile, Brazil, UK, ect. Immigrants immigrate to a lot of fucking places, Dave, America isn't that special.
I'm saying one person can't support themselves on $7.25 an hour if they work 40 hours a week.
I worked 60 to 72 hours a week to get ahead. What's magic about 40 hrs.
Thirty years ago anyone with a high school diploma could get a factory job and earn enough to support themselves
TODAY skilled machinists and toolmaker jobs go empty because no one has the training to fill them. These are trades that require trade school graduates, not PHD's or doctorates.
For the first 18 years of ones life, no including the baby years, they are in school from K-12, getting an education.
Go back out on the streets in Chicago or Oakland. We both know we will not find kids with HS educations and marketable skills standing on the street corners. We will see by the thousands, those who have dropped out and given up.
People have to get food stamps because they can't afford to feed themselves. Poverty is basically being subsidized because the United States doesn't put the burden of feeding the work force on the employers
Where are the starving ones again? Make up your mind, are they starving or getting SNAP cards.
What part it's not their fault don't you get?
There is no need to get shook up there GN. No need to be rude either.
Here is what I said earlier:
To be fair, there are a great and growing number of young people/children who are not receiving the guidance they need to focus on their future. Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people. What the government or the community cannot supply is the personal incentive. I would add to that the mention of countless job and education counseling programs, education grants are available. The problem for these people is incentive has been taken from them. The welfare check comes every month and every month they have to trade it for their pride.
[Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people.]
Okay, you're obviously out of touch with reality.
Are you making the claim that these programs do not exist?
Yeah, you're definitely out of touch with reality. You're pointing to the cream of the crop who came up with ground break inventions and you're acting like everyone can do that, they're just choosing not to.
Right : Tommy Taylor, Mike Luddy, Robert Richmond, Glenn Godfrey, Blaine Thompson, William Bennett. There are as I said thousands of people running the small businesses they have created. This my friend is friggen REALITY.
I worked 60 to 72 hours a week to get ahead. What's magic about 40 hrs.
Once you work over 40 hours your boss has to pay you over time, so they will try to do so as little as possible. Get a 2nd job? In this economy, good luck! I'd debate you on why it is ridiculous to even suggest that people should work over time just to pay for food and rent in the most productive years in the history of the United States and the world, but that I get the feeling you're too deep rooted in conservatism to wrap your head around an idea like that.
TODAY skilled machinists and toolmaker jobs go empty because no one has the training to fill them. These are trades that require trade school graduates, not PHD's or doctorates.
I don't think I've ever mention PhD's (which is a doctorate by the way). This does not refute my claim that these kids have prepared for the workforce. By the time they can even attend trade schools (implying that they can afford to pay for the tuition and to take the time off from work) they will have already gone through 13 years of schooling.
Where are the starving ones again? Make up your mind, are they starving or getting SNAP cards.
Some get food stamps, some don't, not everyone gets them. But when you give food stamps to workers because they can't feed themselves instead of requiring their boss to pay them a living wage you're only letting the problem continue.
There is no need to get shook up there GN. No need to be rude either.
Here is what I said earlier:
To be fair, there are a great and growing number of young people/children who are not receiving the guidance they need to focus on their future. Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people. What the government or the community cannot supply is the personal incentive. I would add to that the mention of countless job and education counseling programs, education grants are available. The problem for these people is incentive has been taken from them. The welfare check comes every month and every month they have to trade it for their pride.
[Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people.]
You know, looking at the quotes you picked, you've largely ignored the majority of what I said. But I'll take the high rode and instead of ignoring this (which I quite honestly should) I'll respond to this... again.
Here we are talking about minimum wage and job quality and you're saying that it's their fault because they traded welfare for pride. Some people cheat welfare, but hey, every system every conceived by man can be cheated. Not just anyone can waltz into the welfare office and get their bills payed. People are stuck on welfare because they don't have access to better jobs or education to get high paying jobs and you're saying that it's their fault because they have no pride. The environment has power over the individual and this particular environment is not all the fruitful for many adults. So I'll ask you again, what part of it isn't their fault don't you get?
Are you making the claim that these programs do not exist?
They are not abound. Not everyone has access to job training and education after high school, that isn't liberal propaganda, that is a cold hard fact. Not everyone has money for it and not everyone has time for it, just because a college or technical school exists somewhere in America doesn't mean that every American can attend.
Right : Tommy Taylor, Mike Luddy, Robert Richmond, Glenn Godfrey, Blaine Thompson, William Bennett. There are as I said thousands of people running the small businesses they have created. This my friend is friggen REALITY.
Not everyone can be an entrepreneur, I don't care if "start a business" is the go to answer for conservatives, it's not something everyone can do. Not everyone has the skills, money or time needed to start a business. I'm not sure why this is the excuse old men always jump to when someone needs to make money, because with all of the capital and resources needed to even start one it's just not a practical option... well, for now that is. If college education was more easily accessible you'd be seeing a hell of a lot more tech start ups, but that is a debate for another day.
Once you work over 40 hours your boss has to pay you over time
Wrong again friend NO boss NO overtime. Can you wrap your head around that?
By the time they can even attend trade schools
You never even mentioned the trades.
Why is that GN, got something against plumbers?
requiring their boss to pay them a living wage
Do you understand even the basics of capitalism or running your own business? It would seen as though you do not. Just saying.
Its also clear that you do not understand the human dynamic of taking a hand out. What I said was that the people who live on government handouts lose their pride and their dignity in the transaction. The recipients actually develop resentment towards the giver. It does not lift them out of poverty as evidenced by 50+ years of war on poverty with virtually no change.
They are not abound. Not everyone has access to job training and education after high school
Simply incorrect ------- sorry. Every major city has them. Do you want to be a baker - go find a bakery that will let you sweep the floor - ever hear the expression "Get your foot in the door" Guess not.
People are stuck on welfare because they don't have access to better jobs or education
I suppose. You never heard of moving to find work either.
Not everyone can be an entrepreneur
But everyone can find an entrepreneur and guess what, they need employees. I'm not sure why young 20 somethings continue to make excuses why they can't this and why they can't that. For that matter why do they (make that YOU) such rude and pugnacious debaters.
I'm sorry. I have no more time for your excuses. THE END
I'm working on that with my therapist,who says that if I stay on the meds. I should be able to control the outbursts. Gota good tip on my new therapist from FromWithin, so what could go wrong.
Daver, I have noted a trend in your posts: The assumption that many people on the lower end of the political spectrum have the necessary education and resources to access both the means to better themselves, and the means to use government assistance. I implore you, come out here to Chicago. Explore the South Side for a little bit. See how people live, and how they are raised, then try to tell me that all of these people have the ability to simply "prepare for the future".
I used to live in Oakland CA and still visit there every other year. I see first hand the blight that is there.
My earlier comment:
To be fair, there are a great and growing number of young people/children who are not receiving the guidance they need to focus on their future. Educational opportunities and job training programs abound for these young people. What the government or the community cannot supply is the personal incentive.
I would add to that the mention of countless job and education counseling programs, education grants are available. The problem for these people is incentive has been taken from them. The welfare check comes every month and every month they have to trade it for their pride.
My remarks are in the context of the OP blaming Republicans for this situation, while as everyone knows it has been worsened for the past fifty years by the well intentioned, but total failure of LBJ's "War on Poverty"
I share your concern for the mess we have made of these peoples lives.
My point is that Republicans simply are not the culprit.
But that's the thing, you are assuming they know about these programs. Even though personal experience is not a sufficient indicator of a trend, I have met many people who simply did not know that they could actually access many of the programs that you are referring to, for a wide variety of reasons.
Though I agree, saying "the Republicans are to blame" is as absurd as saying "the Democrats are to blame". I really am sick of partisan politics.
All of my relatives are all very Republican and very Christian, except for a self-described Libertarian (agnostic) sibling, and a liberal (Christian) cousin. On the whole, I've met far more people who identify as conservative than anything else.
Most people don't self identify as political, but most people say conservative logic out of their mouths.
Not everyone hates the GOP. Only Liberals and welfare sponges hate them. They are told to do so by the Liberal media.
The GOP know how to create real jobs that pay real wages by lowering taxes and not making enemies of Business, while Democrats have become socialists and create nothing but Government jobs and minimum wage jobs. But it keeps getting better. The Democrat party decided to force Obamacare on the people who told them they hated it. This took away full time jobs and kept companies from hiring more than 49 people. The middle class is being destroyed by this extremist party.
Democrats have become so blatant finally showing even the most dense of voters who they truly are and how they care only for their voting blocks. They will redistribute the middle class pay check to buy off the votes.
Not everyone hates the GOP. Only Liberals and welfare sponges hate them. They are told to do so by the Liberal media.
Based on your statement as a whole, I'm going to assume that by "liberal media" you mean any media outlet besides Fox, The New York Post or the Wall Street Journal. When it comes to international news, the American liberal view is actually what is know as moderate through out the industrial world.
The GOP know how to create real jobs that pay real wages by lowering taxes and not making enemies of Business, while Democrats have become socialists and create nothing but Government jobs and minimum wage jobs.
The GOP cutting taxes can only help so much, companies in the united states could pay much higher taxes than they currently are. In fact, our taxes are quite low compared to most times in history and our economy is barely growing at all. Further more, the GOP is against any attempt to modernize laws for the internet or to modernize our education system, which is actually the biggest killer of jobs. It seems like a lot of conservatives don't seem to understand that we're living in the information era and most of the new jobs created will be in high tech industries (that require at least some college education) and will operate over the internet. You really think manufacturing is going to supply good paying jobs in the future? Certainly not, the assembly line is becoming more and more mechanized to the point that it will soon be run totally by machines. Further more, 3D printers are going to flip manufacturing and shipping on their ass as they become more popular. So while the GOP is busy pretending it's still 1980, they're slowing our transition into a new age of economic growth.
But it keeps getting better. The Democrat party decided to force Obamacare on the people who told them they hated it.
Actually, the the idea of health care reform is what got him elected, so the majority of Americans didn't hate.
This took away full time jobs and kept companies from hiring more than 49 people. The middle class is being destroyed by this extremist party.
Maybe if we had universal health care like every other industrialized nation the American population would have to try to cram a half-way reform through. We had the most inefficient and expensive healthcare system in the world before the reform, it would be crazy to leave the pig be. Again, the Democratic party isn't extreme, they are considered moderate in industrialized world.
Democrats have become so blatant finally showing even the most dense of voters who they truly are and how they care only for their voting blocks. They will redistribute the middle class pay check to buy off the votes.
The middle class doesn't pay the majority of taxes, that would be the upper class who lobby congress to give them tax breaks and loop holes, but I suspect you have no problem with corporate welfare. Furthermore, giving people some cash so they don't starve or freeze to death because of the economic conditions in our country isn't buying votes, it's called humanity, you might want to try it sometime.
I don't know if this is just being impartial to both parties but:
1 - There is an innumerable amount of ways to earn waaay more money than the average job position (Note: this may be limited to euntrapenuerial mindsets)
2 - People are, in a way, just waiting for a handout if they do not even try and earn a living (self-employed) for themselves (hence premise #1); and if they're just waiting for the govt. to handout a job.
3 - therefore, people sitting back and blaming the govt. for their financial problems goes unwarranted and irresponsible
1 - There is an innumerable amount of ways to earn waaay more money than the average job position (Note: this may be limited to entrepreneurial mindsets)
Not everyone has the resources or skill sets to start their own business. Regardless of where someone may be down the road, that future entrepreneur is either going to have to survive off of government assistance, low wage work or debt until then. So while the poor may be able to become rich in the future (keep in mind, this is statistically very unlikely) they won't have enough income to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, not to mention paying for modern day necessities such as a phone, internet and car (you might not need a car if you live in an urban area, but that is evened out by higher rent) until they eventually get their break, and that could be years of waiting. It doesn't make sense to starve workers like this because of the notion that they may one day become wealthy.
2 - People are, in a way, just waiting for a handout if they do not even try and earn a living (self-employed) for themselves (hence premise #1); and if they're just waiting for the govt. to handout a job.
False. If you started your statement with "Some people are" instead of "People are" then it would have been plausible. We are only just starting to understand human nature, all we know for sure is that is that people are motivated by a variety of incentives and that not everyone has the same incentives or goals. If there is some sort of study that shows other wise I'd be very interested to see it. Further more, government assistance has requirements that must be met before benefits can be received, so not just anyone can waltz in and say "pay all my expenses."
3 - therefore, people sitting back and blaming the govt. for their financial problems goes unwarranted and irresponsible
Why can't people blame their country for their financial problems? If you happen to be born into a poor country where workers don't have to be paid enough to live and education for well paying jobs isn't made readily available how are you economic problems your fault? An absolute genius could be born in the wrong place at the wrong time and never get anywhere in life, why, because individuals don't have sole control over their fate. An individual is limited in what they can do by their environment, and if they are stuck in a particularly unfruitful environment, I can't see how it is out of line to blame the environment instead of the individual.
Not everyone has the resources or skill sets to start their own business. Regardless of where someone may be down the road, that future entrepreneur is either going to have to survive off of government assistance, low wage work or debt until then [...]
Cutting grass for 30 bucks a lawn (not in the poor neighborhoods), collecting miscellaneous metals and selling it to a scrap yard, then negotiating a consistency deal, etc.. I never said the purpose of self-employment is to become rich, I said their are self-employment opportunities that can make more than minimum wage, but people lack effort to try and start a self-employed job because they don't want to teach themselves innumerable things available on the internet that they can use at a free public library. For instance, teaching yourself to program then programming an app that generates an average $100+ a month- which is a low average, is perfectly free but requires effort and dedication; but a thug in a bandanna doesn't want to be seen in the library coding like some geeky nerd and lose street cred.. So he'll just remain poor and cool.
False. If you started your statement with "Some people are" instead of "People are" then it would have been plausible
I didn't say 'all' so I wasn't implying everyone. The rest of your statement is comprised of excuses to justify laziness. Just because everyone doesn't have the same motivational incentives doesn't mean one cannot be motivated or have incentives..? It just means they'll be motivated differently and have different incentives.
If you happen to be born into a poor country where workers don't have to be paid enough to live and education for well paying jobs isn't made readily available how are you economic problems your fault?
This whole statement is irrelative as we are clearly speaking of America. And in America, unless one is tied up in a basement, or in prison, they can educate themselves (free libraries with computers that have internet wherein infinite knowledge I readily and freely available to anyone with Wi-Fi) and then implement that education in reality and consequently earn money- as the billionaire Warren Buffet says "the more you learn, the more you earn".
Cutting grass for 30 bucks a lawn (not in the poor neighborhoods), collecting miscellaneous metals and selling it to a scrap yard, then negotiating a consistency deal, etc.. I never said the purpose of self-employment is to become rich, I said their are self-employment opportunities that can make more than minimum wage, but people lack effort to try and start a self-employed job because they don't want to teach themselves innumerable things available on the internet that they can use at a free public library. For instance, teaching yourself to program then programming an app that generates an average $100+ a month- which is a low average, is perfectly free but requires effort and dedication; but a thug in a bandanna doesn't want to be seen in the library coding like some geeky nerd and lose street cred.. So he'll just remain poor and cool.
Got to love how clueless trust fund kids are. "Why are you people poor? You just have to choose to be rich like me!"
Got to love how clueless trust fund kids are. "Why are you people poor? You just have to choose to be rich like me!"
Yea, which is why there are so many self-made billionaire and millionaires that came from the poor... They educated themselves and used their education and dislike for working for people and capitalized by innovating and executing ideas derived from learning - like the billionaire Mark Cuban- he learned about developing software, stopped wanting to work for people, and started innovating.
Also, are you just to here to solicit personal attracts or attend to the actual argument? Its a fallacy to say because I am rich I can't speak on the poor. And I feel I am being charitable saying that poor people have access to valuable information and can freely educate themselves if they wish...
----
P.S. I thought I respectfully requested that you not speak personally of me? And my curiosity and self-empowerment derived from my personality and commonsense; in other words I would still be the same poor. I can't stand the idea of having a boss, a mentor/teacher maybe, but not a 'boss'- and I know I would still be the same because ever since I was little (and couldn't ascertain being "rich") I had problems with being ordered to do something. If you ask nicely I will comply, but if you demand I will either make it real difficult or not do it at all.
Also, are you just to here to solicit personal attracts or attend to the actual argument? Its a fallacy to say because I am rich I can't speak on the poor. And I feel I am being charitable saying that poor people have access to valuable information and can freely educate themselves if they wish...
You have to see you that it lakes any kind of substance. You have no experience whatsoever about what its like to be poor. Your glib little statements about how poor people have to reason to be poor are offensive and ill-informed. It is like a white guy who tells black guys how to deal with racism "just hold your head high, show them you're an equal to them etc etc" would make you cringe right? It is the same when you talk about what poor people should do.
Its advisory information. If the black guy punches white guys in the face for calling him a nigger and gets threatened and sent to jail every time, then I would applaud the white guy if he tells him: "ignore those racist comments because your reactions may eventually get you killed".
Furthermore, I am not wrong about free public libraries with books that teach you valuable self-employment skills and methods as with investing the money you earn from that employment, that can get you out of poverty (unless you wish to say that only free public libraries are offered in rich communities).
P.S. I have a friend who lives in a terrible poor neighborhood who saw the situation he was in and is currently trying to deploy himself out of that environment by learning how to code with me and create an app network. And I met him in the library which is why I keep making that point.
Just as a footnote, I grew up in red Kentucky and I wasn't diagnosed CAPD and ADHD until I was in my 30s. Today psychological care is completely pulled out of the school system because right wingers don't want to pay for it. These kinds of decisions they are making have drastic social implications that are devastating to the health of society.
I have severe dyslexia, ADHD, and NPD (narcissistic personality disorder), and have still maintained a 4.8 GPA average in high school (no tutoring). Even though I had conditions that would preclude such advancement, I studied and worked hard to so I could be better than everyone else (an effect of my Narcissism) and ended up being so (though it still is extremely hard for me to read and write/type grammatically correct, I still do it more effectively than most, but I also have a 177 IQ still my conditions sometimes interferes with my academic potential).
And since working for someone shows inferiority (which, to me, is intolerable), I self-educated myself outside of school on things like stocks/bonds, real-estate, properly investing, and engineering, then I found ways to self-employ and earn more money in one week than a minimum waged paycheck would accumulate in two weeks.
And currently I am teaching myself to program because I have technological ideas that I do not wish to pay a programmer to execute my ideas and take 50% of my equity, so I asked myself "why cant I just do it myself" and came up with no valid reason, so I am doing just that [programming the ideas myself] (hence self-empowerment). You cannot tell me that it is impossible for poor people to think like this unless you're telling me that I am a creative genius (which I don't mind).
Right because they're to focused on why the govt. is holding them back- and if they truly cared they would get their lazy asses up and protest or something.
They are also focused on the next episode of desperate housewives or some other show about the rich and free instead of reading things that may expand their mental capacity as to what is out their that they can actually do for themselves.
You also disregard what they spend their extra cash on (nice clothes instead of really cheap ones, unnecessary gifts for their children, fast-food, etc.). A child does not need a gift on their birthday or Christmas if their parents aren't financially in a good position. This may sound harsh but it is good advise if they wish to better their position by saving up money and investing in something that creates a larger ROI (not stock- as those earnings are contingent) but other assets- and they can learn about them while reading investment books instead of watching reality TV.
It is limited to FAR more than just one's mindset. Equality of opportunity is far from existing in this country, which means one needs things such as a proper education (not available everywhere), sufficient means of satisfying basic needs (food, water, shelter/security), etc before they can successfully pull out of poverty. When someone comes from a situation that lacks these opportunities, they, generally speaking, do not manage to pull out of their socio-economic standing.
1- public libraries for self-education (free computers, and innumerable books covering extensive materials, even ones for self-improvement)
2- actually paying attention in public school where books are free and so is the education- and they are legally required to attend school- I feel no pity for kids that grow up in environments that aren't constituted with educational aspects (there are nerds in the hood, for instance, so only BS excuses would justify why the fatherless nerd can educate himself out of the hood and not the thugs).
You people act as if these poor people are so desperately trying to learn and empower themselves but cant because of those darn governmental and societal restrictions; truth is, they do not wish to put in the effort to better themselves.
Now maybe because of my IQ I cannot ascertain the difficulty of self-education, but I assume with the right amount of effort they can learn (but I understand it wont be as fast for someone with an average IQ but I can still happen with time).