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.
That’s true. But it has nothing to do with being poor, and everything to do with not knowing how to save. Frankly, most of the people criticizing the poor don’t have a clue how to save themselves. For example, most people wait till the bills are paid and if anything is left over, they’ll save it. But of course, there’s never anything left over at the end of the month.
The way to save is to treat your savings like a bill and pay yourself first every month. Then, use the shit out of compound interest. Most people have no clue what compound interest is. Can’t save millions if you don’t.
OK, compound interest is when you earn interest on interest. You don’t have to understand it. Just make sure the account you deposit your savings in, compounds quarterly.
Please don’t tell my Jewish friends that I let you in on the secret.
But it has nothing to do with being poor, and everything to do with not knowing how to save.
No, it has everything to do with being poor. "Not knowing how to save" is just a different way of saying they're poor. If poor people want to save, they will save.
But of course, there's never anything left over at the end of the month.
Who gets paid by the month, apart from teachers? Most bills are monthly, but paychecks come every week or two.
I think for the most part, the post has the situation misinterpreted. It isn't really the case that poor people don't try to save money; but that people who don't try to save money are much likelier to end up poor.
This is true based on about 7 out of 10 Americans have little or no savings. But read more into that than just the poor. A huge swath of people who are not poor also don't save money even when they're able.
And, as someone already said in the other column, the crush of poverty itself pretty much never let's most people climb out of it.
Oh, and let's not forget, there are also lots and lots of people with big homes and fancy cars who lose it all because they live beyond their means until it all collapses.
Too many people, rich or not so rich, adopt a life style which is at the top end of their earnings.
Making provision for illness, old age or other contingencies is, regularly put off to sometime in the future, or ignored altogether.
They become accustomed to their comfortable way of life and assume it is going to last forever.
Sometimes it does, but all too often their circumstances change for the worse and they're left high and dry.
It is vital to produce a fixed and variable expenditure projection budget which should allow for all essential overheads but include a surplus, part of which should be allocated to short term investment with the balance being placed in a longer term plan with higher interest rates.
Such prudence offers a nest egg for the future and/or any emergencies along with a feeling of security.
Most poor people, and I've seen this across the States, struggle to be able to save money because they're poor. I'm not saying it wasn't their fault, but it's difficult to save money when your weekly paycheck isn't enough for a week of groceries.
Why would you stay at that job indefinitely rather than seek training in order to credential oneself for a better job, in time?
I've seen this argument in real life I lot of the time when talking to people about this topic, and I've experienced it in my own life. So, the main reason poor people stay in the same job instead of looking for a better one is because frankly, most of the time they can't afford it. Yes, there are unemployment checks, but you honestly can't live on those. Take it from me; my mom and dad were both working parents. My dad got laid off, essentially fired, and he was looking for a better job for around a month. If my mom hadn't been working, we wouldn't have been able to pay rent.
So, the main reason poor people stay in the same job instead of looking for a better one is because frankly, most of the time they can't afford it.
No, that is not true.
The primary reason why poor people stay poor (for a very long period of time to indefinitely) is because they have a very poor grasp of the 'chess board' of their life & how to efficiently play the American 'game'. Community Colleges are highly affordable (also, they cost more now then they used to), and offer a good 15+ Associate Degrees, Certificates, ect. which would qualify one for a job with an income in the $40,000-$75,000 range. Furthermore, the Government provides guaranteed student loans to citizens up to $59,000 (for undergraduate; even more for graduate school), on a per year basis, no co-signer needed & no strings attached. That is plenty enough money to earn multiple Associates degrees which would give a person all kinds of quality employment options.
The primary reason why poor people stay poor (for a very long period of time to indefinitely) is because they have a very poor grasp of the 'chess board' of their life & how to efficiently play the American 'game'.
I agree with you here. I actually laid out a few steps to not being poor that was from a study, if you'd like to go searching. But, most of the time, again, poor people need their current jobs to live. That may not be why they're poor, but it's most likely why they can't get a better job.
Furthermore, the Government provides guaranteed student loans to citizens up to $59,000.
Yes, and the keyword there is loans. Loans have to be paid back. So essentially, poor people are just getting poorer. But, through the three steps from the study mentioned above, it's avoidable.
Yes, and the keyword there is loans. Loans have to be paid back. So essentially, poor people are just getting poorer. But, through the three steps from the study mentioned above, it's avoidable
It is a sensible investment that would be unreasonable not to take advantage of (if in a poverty-like situation). There is enough money there for a person to rent an apartment (or even put a down-payment on a condo/apartment to mortgage) and attend the local community college with only having to work no more than 20 hours per week (if at all)--and that is just for one person, if paired off, it becomes even far, far easier (as you would have two loans/contributors).
My local Community College is only $1600 a semester, then an AA/AS would cost $7000 or less total.
There is enough money there for a person to rent an apartment (or even put a down-payment on a condo/apartment to mortgage) and attend the local community college with only having to work no more than 20 hours per week
But, you would have to work 20 hours a week to pay off the loan(s). Like I said, loans have to be paid back and if you don't pay back your student loans, the person/organization who gave you your loan will probably sue you.
and that is just for one person, if paired off, it becomes even far, far easier (as you would have two loans/contributors)
How does it become easier? By taking out more loans? That just makes it more difficult to pay back your loans.
But, you would have to work 20 hours a week to pay off the loan(s). Like I said, loans have to be paid back and if you don't pay back your student loans, the person/organization who gave you your loan will probably sue you.
You do not pay back the loans until after one stops College; at which point, the person would be qualified for a better job (if they chose their major wisely and put in the work). Also, Federal loans work differently than private bank loans
How does it become easier? By taking out more loans? That just makes it more difficult to pay back your loans
Yes, having more immediate money available to invest. Again, if a person(s) invest unwisely, that is their fault (which is the topic of the Thread). If you take the money and go on vacation for 5-8 years with nothing to show for it, well that was their decision and they will ultimately pay the price for it
Related question; do you think the government should stop giving out student loans?
No. Actually, I think we should dispense with most other 'social programs' and expand student loans more (to the rates for Graduate school, which are higher than Undergrad). I think it is the Governments responsibility to provide a reasonable chance of success to the citizens, regardless of a persons background, and then let people essentially rise and fall based upon their own merit. This would actually save a bunch of money on 'social programs' and all citizens could not possibly (sensibly) complain about the 'deal' they were given if this happened (though, of course, many likely still would).
The student loans give a person the means to make or break, based on their own life decisions. Right now, it is a 'tight squeeze' of sorts (since the loans are not all that much), though if it were upped just a bit, it would provide plenty enough opportunity to citizens as well as the means to do away with many issues we face as a society.
I've seen this argument in real life I lot of the time when talking to people about this topic, and I've experienced it in my own life.
It isn't an argument. What xMathFanx is trying to do is misdirect you so that you blame the victims of poverty rather than the factors which are actually responsible. It's precisely the same logical fallacy which justifies beating your wife (i.e. "the bigger question is why didn't you leave your husband"?)
Not only does his question assume that the victim hasn't tried to better their own circumstances (which of course is counter-intuitive, since poverty is a bad thing), but it also assumes that, if everybody had "credentials", then nobody would need to work grocery jobs. The fact of the matter is that grocery jobs still need to be done, regardless of whether you do them or somebody else does them.
If a grocery store type job is a job that is required in society, a real job, then those that operate that job should be able to at the very least survive on the pay they earn from it.
I don't disagree. Also, there is a portion of the population (those with disabilities) that may only be able to do such jobs. This could be addressed through a social program specifically for those with disabilities, while dispensing with welfare
You’re saying that poor people cannot save money. The topic claims that poor people don’t save money even when they can.
Poverty creates an environment wherein those in its clutches must attend to short run matters. It stifles the ability to have long term prospects, since immediate matters are a constant and long term goals appear unrealistic. As a result, opportunities that may exist are not perceived. Money that may be saved is instead spent on a brief repreave from the stresses of immediate matters. Often this repreave takes the form of alcohol or drugs, which are abused in higher rates among the poor.
You're saying that poor people cannot save money. The topic claims that poor people don't save money even when they can.
No, I'm saying poor people do not save money because of their financial situation. Namely, being poor. Not to say that being poor is an infinite fractal that cannot be escaped from.
Poverty creates an environment wherein those in its clutches must attempt to short run matters.
Whoa friend, poverty and poor are not the same. Poor is defined as "lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society". Poverty, meanwhile, is defined as "the state of being extremely poor". People in poverty cannot save money without risking their lives in the form of not buying food. Let me tell you as a person who grew up poor, poverty and being poor are not the same and I suggest you do not get the two mixed up.
It stifles the ability to have long term prospects, since immediate matters are a constant and long term goals appear unrealistic.
Using that logic, aren't immediate matters long term goals, in a way? Buying food, buying shoes, and working for at least minimum wage are all long term goals in the eyes of those in poverty. Not, the poor, mind you.
As a result, opportunities that may exist are not perceived. Money that may be saved is instead spent on a brief repreave from the stresses of immediate matters.
So, are you implying that it's the poor people's own faults that they're poor? That it's their faults that they can't save money?
Often this reprieve takes the form of alcohol or drugs, which are abused in higher rates among the poor.
Again, you are using the terms 'poor' and 'in poverty' as if they are interchangeable. They aren't. Yes, I will agree with you, where you say that drug and alcohol abuse is significantly higher among people in poverty, as well as with the homeless.
Last thing, please do not act like you know more about the poor and those in poverty than people who were in those positions at one point in their lives. I know everyone on this site loves to go on philosophical tangents, but it just doesn't work here.
please do not act like you more more about the poor and those in poverty than people who were in those positions at one point in their lives
Experiencing something in no way whatsoever qualifies you as a professional on the matter. Surviving a shooting doesn't make you a marine, digging up rocks in your garden doesn't make you an archaeologist, and having been in poverty doesn't make you an economist.
having been in poverty doesn't make you an economist
I didn't say I was an economist. I was only saying I know what it's like to be poor. Obviously, this doesn't give me greater authority over someone else, it just gave me a better insight.
Don't get me wrong, Ex, I understand what you're trying to say. Obviously, through simple math, it seems easy to retire rich. But factoring in living conditions, it's just not possible for a family to save money. For a single person, it seems possible so I guess the lesson is to not have kids.
Nahh.. It's NOT easy.. The MATH is easy.. The discipline to DO it is NOT. And, it doesn't matter that you have children.. It matters that you have or don't have the inclination or the discipline to do it.
Look.. It's even worse for me.. I KNEW the rules, and still didn't do it..
It's NOT easy.. The MATH is easy.. The discipline to DO it is NOT. And, it doesn't matter that you have children.. It matters that you have or don't have the inclination or the discipline to do it.
We can agree to disagree on if having children matters because I believe it varies among households. Also, I realize it's not easy. I meant the math is easy, and obviously the discipline to do so is not easily acquired.
No, I'm saying poor people do not save money because of their financial situation
If you are saying that poor people cannot save due to their financial situation, then it is as I said. If you are saying they do not save, even if when they can, then you are in agreement with the OP.
poverty and poor are not the same
Not if you specifically use definitions that make them different. However, Webster’s first definition of poverty is “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions”, meaning that to be poor is to be in a state of poverty. This is more reasonable than concluding that poverty is synonymous with extreme poverty. A semantic argument will be more useful if you opponent is actually semantically incorrect.
Let me tell you as a person who grew up poor, poverty and being poor are not the same
First, an appeal to ones own authority based on anecdote is fallacious. Second, poverty is a state of being poor according to the Webster’s dictionary. Your experience did not give you insight into this commonly excepted use of the word “poverty”.
and I suggest you do not get the two mixed up.
Since the error is yours, I suggest you consider your recommendations before presenting them.
Using that logic, aren't immediate matters long term goals, in a way?
No. They aren’t. Nothing i said implies this.
Buying food, buying shoes, and working for at least minimum wage are all long term goals in the eyes of those in poverty
No, even for poor people, by which I mean people living in poverty mind you, food is an immediate need. The fact that many poor people cannot see past the short term only makes my point. The lack of having long term prospects does not transform short term prospects into long term ones.
So, are you implying that it's the poor people's own faults that they're poor?
When money isn’t saved due to a lack of long term thinking, then it is their fault insofar as it is the result of their own personal perception. Keep in mind that we are talking in terms of rates and averages. No individual need be offended by stats or averages.
That it's their faults that they can't save money?
The topic is whether poor people do not save money even when they can. It was you who stated that poor people don’t save money due to their financial situation. But as I pointed out, there are higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse amongst the poor. Spending spare cash on substances rather than savings, while claiming that spare cash simply cannot be saved, is a poverty mindset.
Again, you are using the terms 'poor' and 'in poverty' as if they are interchangeable. They aren't
See above. Or see Webster’s.
Last thing, please do not act like you know more about the poor and those in poverty than people who were in those positions at one point in their lives
A few things:
-I haven’t acted smarter than anyone.
-Just as I do not know your history, you do not know mine. So don’t pretend that you have experiential knowledge that somehow trumps my own, especially without any knowledge whatsoever of my experience.
-Just as I do not appeal to unverifiable experience as authority, I recommend you stop the practice. It’s fallacious.
I know everyone on this site loves to go on philosophical tangents, but it just doesn't work here.
Your whole post was based on an incorrect semantical analysis and a misapplication of logic. If philosophical tangents don’t work here, I suggest you get back on point.
If you are saying that poor people cannot save due to their financial situation, then it is as I said. If you are saying they do not save, even if when they can, then you are in agreement with the OP.
I'm saying neither of those.
Not if you specifically use definitions that make them different
Obviously, but you seem to use poverty and poor as if they are the same word, but they aren't. Yes, there are levels to being in poverty, but being poor is above being in poverty.
First, an appeal to ones own authority based on anecdote is fallacious.
Okay, let me use a non-anecdotal example: 97.3 million Americans are classified as low-income citizens. 45 million Americans live below the poverty line. Not to say that low-income is the same thing as poor, but below $25,000 annually is generally considered poor.
Second, poverty is a state of being poor according to the Webster’s dictionary. Your experience did not give you insight into this commonly excepted use of the word “poverty”.
First, yes. Like I said, poverty is a state of being poor. But, saying they're synonymous is like saying since California is a state in the U.S., it's basically the U.S. Second, we can agree to disagree here.
Since the error is yours, I suggest you consider your recommendations before presenting them.
Again, poverty and poor are not the same. I'm not sure what else I can say about it.
The lack of having long term prospects does not transform short term prospects into long term ones
People who are poor normally can't see past the short term, yes. But, I would argue that a short term prospect like having food, clothing, heat, etc. can become a long term prospect if you know you'll only have it for a limited time.
When money isn’t saved due to a lack of long term thinking, then it is their fault insofar as it is the result of their own personal perception.
Here, I agree with you. I just needed you to clarify.
Keep in mind that we are talking in terms of rates and averages. No individual need be offended by stats or averages
Okay, sure.
See above. Or see Webster’s.
See above. Or see statistics.
A few things
- Sure
- That's fair
- That's also fair, thanks for the insight.
To get back on point, my stance on this issue: true
but you seem to use poverty and poor as if they are the same word, but they aren't. Yes, there are levels to being in poverty, but being poor is above being in poverty.
To be poor is to be in a state of poverty. To be in a state of poverty is to be poor. Poverty refers to extreme poverty, as your google definition states, when context suggest as much. This was not suggested in my post. Which means that in the context of my post, by definition, being in poverty is synonymous with being poor. To be poor is not, by definition, a condition of less crisis than poverty.
To reiterate, poverty is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions”. Poor is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “lacking material possessions” and “of, relating to, or characterized by poverty”.
If you want to agree to disagree, disagree with Webster.
Okay, let me use a non-anecdotal example: 97.3 million Americans are classified as low-income citizens. 45 million Americans live below the poverty line. Not to say that low-income is the same thing as poor, but below $25,000 annually is generally considered poor.
A number of those people are temporarily poor because of their long range goals (ie college student). Another number of those people are poor because they are literally incapable of full functionality (typically a psychological disability). But then there is the group that this debate is about; people who are poor and capable. Do they fail to take actions that would lift them out of poverty? Or are they blocked from taking actions that would lift them out of poverty? Are you really saying it’s neither?
People who are poor normally can't see past the short term, yes. But, I would argue that a short term prospect like having food, clothing, heat, etc. can become a long term prospect if you know you'll only have it for a limited time.
Getting food for today because you don’t know if you’ll have it tomorrow is still a short term prospect.
To get back on point, my stance on this issue: true
At the risk of being sidetracked by a philosophical tangent, why do you think it is the case that poor people don’t save money even when they can?
No, not necessarily. Students do not live in poverty, but they are nevertheless generally poor. Of course, this example is particularly pertinent given that you have used your fallacy that poor and poverty are the same thing precisely to LIE that students are included in national poverty statistics. For your information, they aren't. Please see:-
All individuals living in group quarters (whether college students living in dorms, prisoners, people living in residential treatment centers, etc.) are excluded from the Census “poverty universe” and thus are not included in poverty statistics
But then there is the group that this debate is about; people who are poor and capable. Do they fail to take actions that would lift them out of poverty? Or are they blocked from taking actions that would lift them out of poverty? Are you really saying it’s neither?
Your theory that poverty is the fault of the individual is not just false and stupid, but nothing short of offensive.
It is not necessarily the case that to be poor is to be in a state of poverty, but it happens to be the case in the context of this discussion.
you have used your fallacy that poor and poverty are the same thing
In this context, and according to Webster’s dictionary, they are.
precisely to LIE that students are included in national poverty statistics
There are a whole host of students, both traditional and non-traditional, who are not living in dorms. When I say that there are a number of people who are temporarily poor because of their long range goals, such as college students, it is not inaccurate, regardless of other students who are not counted as poor.
but nothing short of offensive.
Despite this increasingly popular belief, your offence is not a valid argument. Nor is it my problem.
By the way, there is a question that you avoided answering (for apparent reasons): What do you suppose would happen if everyone decided to not have an economic system?
Well yes necessarily unless you want to do that “ dance “ where terms and meanings are re-interpreted to suit your narrative
poor
pɔː,pʊə/Submit
adjective
1.
lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.
"they were too poor to afford a telephone"
synonyms: poverty-stricken, impoverished, necessitous, beggarly, in penury, penurious, impecunious, indigent, needy, needful, in need/want, badly off, low-paid, in reduced circumstances, in straitened circumstances, destitute, hard up, short of money, on one's beam-ends, unable to make ends meet, underprivileged, deprived, penniless, without a sou, as poor as a church mouse, moneyless; More
Your theory that poverty is the fault of the individual is not just false and stupid, but nothing short of offensive
Translation: People who go spend their paycheck on meth are not at fault. It's the cops' fault. It's the government's fault. It's God's fault even though I don't believe in him. But who's fault is it not? The person who spent their paycheck on drugs... There are no exceptions. None. No one is in poverty by their own doing. No one makes unwise financial decisions. No one is their own crown of thorns
All people everywhere, who are in poverty, were placed their by an invisible lib fairy that no one can see... it has wings. It has a magic wand. It is clothed in rainbows, smokes imaginary cigars, and has an imaginary invisible, naked body. Why? Because Quantum says so. That's why.
And this just in. Parents are authoritarians for making toddlers mind, proof is needed for God but not for any lib talking point, and Farrakhan is dandy despite claiming to love Hitler. Why? He's black. Support for the Fuhrer is fine if you're black.....
First, Amarel is right about the College situation; or, more broadly, people who are poor in the short-term in order to advance long-term goals--which requires investment.
Your theory that poverty is the fault of the individual is not just false and stupid, but nothing short of offensive.
If an abled body & mind individual is in poverty for say, 10 years (or a quite extended period of time, without any long-term investment occurring), how is that not their fault given the resources available to them in the USA (and, presumably, in the UK, ect.)? In your worldview, whos fault is it?
First, Amarel is right about the College situation
I am sorry that you think ignoring insurmountable evidence to the contrary is the way to show people that you are not ignorant and stupid. It really isn't. I have no interest in debating a topic with you after I have already proven you to be wrong. That's silly.
You claim that parents are authoritarians for stopping toddlers from running out in the street because obviously the toddler has the right to do what it wants...
They are authoritarians. You can not objectively describe when a child needs no guidance. They might need no parental guidance at age 2 depending on the child.
To be poor is to be in a state of poverty. To be in a state of poverty is to be poor.
The way you put it here, I can kind of agree.
A number of those people are temporarily poor because of their long range goals
Yes, this is true. A certain percentage of those 97 million Americans definitely made a couple of bad decisions.
people who are poor and capable. Do they fail to take actions that would lift them out of poverty? Or are they blocked from taking actions that would lift them out of poverty? Are you really saying it’s neither?
Yes, I believe people who are poor and capable do not take action to lift them out of their position. So, I assume I agree with the OP.
why do you think it is the case that poor people don’t save money even when they can?
Poor people don't save money even when they're able because of their position financially. Not because they're barred from any opportunities, but because they turn to alcohol and drug abuse, like you said, which is why the drug and alcohol abuse rate is much higher in poverty-stricken communities.
Why do you believe poor people don't save money even when they can?
But you just said they cannot save as they have no money ?
No, that's not what I said. I said because they are poor, instead of saving for something in the future, they look for instant gratification in the form of drugs/alcohol.
That’s simply not true , some poor people don’t save money , some do , you are lumping them all into one box
Yes, but a majority do not save money. And, you're still lumping them all into two groups when there are many different circumstances.
yes there are poor people who look for solace through drugs /alcohol but the majority of poor people worldwide do not
You seem to believe it isn't a problem at all. I assure you, it is. Over 35 percent of the United States' poor population are alcoholics, and 26 percent are drug abusers.
I haven’t attempted to lump the poor into boxes I’m countering your opinion as in you neatly putting the “ majority “ into one box
One, yes you were, smaller categorizations are still categorizations. Two, aren't the majority and minority two "boxes"?
Oh right , this pedantic game where if I have a different case for every poor person I’m still categorizing them , I’m not interested in these semantic games I only wanted clarity on your posting
I never said you said it's not a problem. What I said was you seemed to believe it was a problem. Since you said "yes there are, but", I saw it as you not believing it to be a problem.
if I have a different case for every poor person I’m still categorizing them
I was just stating that the minority and majority are still categorizations, plus the fact that you were the one that brought up categorization in the first place.
Why do you believe poor people don't save money even when they can?
Let’s be clear about what poor people we are referring to. There are a large number of people who are temporarily poor. I mentioned students, but there are also all kinds of ways people end up poor for the short run but stabilize in the long run. We aren’t talking about them.
There is a large number of homeless people who suffer from mental health issues. We aren’t talking about them either.
We are talking about the capable poor who do not rise above it. To say they have a short range mindset is often true, but it’s pretty broad and perhaps vague. A person could have long term hopes and dreams, but lack the discipline or know-how to achieve them. I still call that a short range mindset.
The point is that poverty isn’t simply a money problem, it’s a mindset problem. Consider what happens to poor people who win the lottery. It’s often a catastrophe for them. On the other hand, people who do not have a poverty mindset will often act in ways which reduce or illuminate the money issue associated with poverty. They will do things like save money.
There is debate over whether poverty causes a poor mindset or a poor mindset causes poverty. Those who have been, but are no longer poor, are likely to believe the mindset is the cause.
I should note that there are examples of actual barriers which should be addressed when identified. For example, welfare programs have been known to provide perverse incentives, such as breaking up otherwise healthy family structures. Welfare also has the problem of creating a "cliff effect" wherein getting a job and a paycheck actually means a significant decrease in ones financial status due to the loss of benefits. A small family takes a significant risk in that initial employment period where government benefits halt but private benefits have not yet begun.
These barriers are real. Acknowledging that poverty is primarily a mindset problem does not eliminate the necessity to manage or alter our welfare systems.
Over here sometimes one is better off on welfare in certain cases because of the extra perks one gets through welfare , someone getting the minimum wage is actually worse off than those on welfare which is pretty unfair and no valid solution has been put forward to address this
I see from what you’re saying the same applies in the U S where a loss of benefits is possible when one takes on a job , what if any solutions do you see to solve this problem ?
Note: I'm jumping in on this conversation a bit, sorry for intruding--just have something to add quickly
Over here sometimes one is better off on welfare in certain cases because of the extra perks one gets through welfare...I see from what you’re saying the same applies in the U S where a loss of benefits is possible when one takes on a job ,
The way Welfare works here is, in outline:
(A) one has to work at least 30 hours, which is considered full-time
(B) there is an 'income cap', over which, one no longer qualifies for welfare
Then, people become incentivized to work close to the minimum hours for 1 job, rather than work overtime or get multiple jobs--as that would push them over the 'income cap' limit.
From personal experience, when I went to Community College, I worked 2 jobs; 1 full time (40 hrs), the other part-time (10-20 hrs). Now, the 40 hr job was minimum wage, which is certainly not a living wage in the US. I was young, and wondered to myself how many of the adult employees were managing to pay for their bills when they worked 30-40hrs at the store with no 2nd job; the math didn't add up, at all. Often, I would have to stay extra time when the store needed, while these people tended to cut hours off short. Then, I found out, they were on Welfare, and were in total making quite a bit more than me (with the 2 jobs, double the hours). From talking to them, the ones I knew, had no plan or desire to get out of their current situation (such as, take classes at the local community college, learn a trade, ect.).
Now, I definitely do not want to imply this is all people on Welfare, just stating what the system allows and seems to incentivize. Also, there are no requirements to demonstrate progress toward a better financial situation (such as previously discussed).
That very intersting indeed as the perception over here is mainly that in the U S one gets food stamps and little else as no real welfare system exists in the U S , how long can one claim welfare in the U S ?
Over here there are families that have never worked and claim welfare and all it’s benifits for life , indeed this is generational in some cases with their children following the self same path
Tell me X are all citizens of the U S also entitled to an old age pension paid by the government ?
It is a bit complicated, as there are both Federal & State programs with different guidelines for each program and state. The Federal Programs typically have a 5 year limit, though there are ways around it through 'exemption policies'. Also, each State has their own rules, and differing levels of money received. Here is a brief excerpt of a report concerning 'time limits' for Welfare programs:
"Nationally, a large proportion of TANF households are not subject to time limits, but time limits play a key role in some states. About 44 percent of TANF households are not subject to federal or state time limits because they are “child-only cases” — typically, children living with a relative or families in which the parent is not eligible for benefits. In addition, about half of TANF families live in states that rarely or never close families’ cases because of time limits. On the other hand, a quarter of TANF families live in states that usually terminate benefits after 60 months, and nearly as many are in states with shorter limits."
Note: it is rather long, so skimming may be beneficial, if desired
Great advice. I try to apply it whenever I see your name on top of a post. My bullshit detector goes into red alert and I skim right over that fallacious wall of junk.
According to multiple entries in your own waterfall, Nom only has "31 accounts", so you are another fine example of unfathomable stupidity. You are literally so much of an idiot that you can't even stick to your own false narrative.
He’s lashing out X , his wife wisely walked / ran and his family disowned him , now when he looks in the mirror he sees a sad , bitter 63 year troll who’s merely looking for someone to blame for the way he is
He’s lashing out X , his wife wisely walked / ran and his family disowned him , now when he looks in the mirror he sees a sad , bitter 63 year troll
Dermot, is this supposed to be a parody? You are accusing other members of "projection", yet here you are clearly trolling another member, at the end of which you conclude by calling him a troll.
Parody 😂😂😂 You’re priceless Q , I’m not trolling , I’m merely showing sympathy for a fellow human as in you who still refuses to debate but prefers to constantly attack and harass others why’s that ?
You are saying the most hurtful things that your small mind can possibly think of. I'm fairly sure that is the actual definition of trolling. Small-minded people saying nasty things for no other reason than to be hurtful.
I'd say not. He has happily run 80% of the members off the site.
Bronto, someone opened a thread last week and exposed the fact that you have nearly two hundred puppet accounts. There is absolutely no truth to anything you ever say. Just like the two above you, you are a liar and a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
Do you feel ashamed at all, for the way you have been carrying on?
MathFan, I just conclusively proved that you are a liar. You are done. It's a shame that you lack the intelligence to even understand when you are done.
It's called "Freudian projection" and it appears to be the only thing you actually know how to do.
That’s if like you one is obsessed with appealing to “ authority “ figures as in Nietzsche, Marx , and Stalin ; it’s just called projection you supercilious twat
But you are Nom and his 41 accounts , so why are you still crying over my destruction of your Leninism v Stalinism debate ?
That’s if like you one is obsessed with appealing to “ authority “ figures as in Nietzsche, Marx , and Stalin
Dermot, how is it even possible that, after spending literally 30 minutes researching Freudian projection, you still do not know what it is? An appeal to authority is not the same thing as Freudian projection.
it’s just called projection you supercilious twat
Freud was the person who invented the concept, you impossibly stupid retard.
Freud considered that, in projection, thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that cannot be accepted as one's own are dealt with by being placed in the outside world and attributed to someone else.
There's that projection again Nom , so you're admitting you didn't know about the term " projection " until you googled it
Your appeal to authority is pretty pathetic and all because I crushed you and your 41 Alts yet again
So Freud the bloated egotist has copyright on the term "projection " 😂😂 You are one spectacularly dense English Twat , so why did your wife and family disown you again ? 😂😂😂
Says a 63 year old English twat who probably fantasizes about fucking the horse faced Camilla Parker “ Bowels “ while playing an L P by his “ hero “ James Taylor 😂😂😂😂😂😂 🖕🖕🖕
The point is that poverty isn’t simply a money problem, it’s a mindset problem.
Yes , I agree
That's because you're a moron. Poverty is a problem which exists in physical reality. The mind does not influence physical reality. Do you believe in telekinesis and psychic powers too, you obnoxious dimwit?
Let’s be clear about what poor people we are referring to. There are a large number of people who are temporarily poor. I mentioned students
That isn't even slightly accurate, Amarel. First you tried to conflate poverty with being poor, and then you tried to use students as an excuse to imply poverty statistics are over-inflated. Without, I might add, even having the diligence to check that they are included in national poverty statistics first.
there are also all kinds of ways people end up poor for the short run but stabilize in the long run. We aren’t talking about them.
It definitely happens, but once again you are scrambling to manufacture excuses to justify quite an astounding ideological bias. What you describe is relatively rare. Affluence and poverty both tend to work exponentially. That is, when someone has a little success, becoming more successful gets considerably easier than it was previously.
I take it you are unfamiliar with the adage that: "It takes money to make money"? Well, the inverse rule applies to poverty.
In sum, from reading a little of your writing, it is difficult to fail to recognise the extraordinary bias within it, since you are doing everything short of outright denial in order to play down both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of poverty. Not only is it apparent that you assume poverty to generally be the fault of the individual, but it is also apparent that you assume poverty to be a transitional phase in life which people are simply able to "grow out" of.
Basically, the things you are writing are erroneous, demonstrably contrary to the available literature, and seem to be an exercise in how to illustrate a patent pro-capitalist bias during a conversation.
Not only is it apparent that you assume poverty to generally be the fault of the individual, but it is also apparent that you assume poverty to be a transitional phase in life which people are simply able to "grow out" of.
When you are young, you are still learning more about the 'game' and how to best approach it based on your knowledge. Your youth (should be) figuring this out, and credentialing yourself accordingly. Then, being poor is a temporary phase in life healthy, driven, responsible, savvy people should be able to get themselves out of and into a more secure, stable situation
You're so ignorant it is baffling. First, Webster's Dictionary agrees with me on "poor" vs "poverty". Second, it is well established that the majority of people on welfare do not stay there. Similarly, almost no one in the top 1% is the same from year to year. An individuals financial status is most often not stagnant over the course of ones life. This topic is about poor people more than people who are temporarily poor.
Third, do you believe that the solitary point of having an ecological system in the first place is so that it benefits all the organisms in the forest?
Most poor people are too old or sick to work. They have no point at which to start of getting a job or being able to reliably save money. Hundreds if not thousands of dollars are needed to just get a job at mcdonalds. Seems crazy? You have good clothes, a home, a car and no other worries that matter here besides getting that job. They don’t. Most places try to hire young people too, most homeless are older. Negative views towards homeless also serve to hinder employment as well as transportation. Getting back to the discussion, when homeless are able to save any real money (which is rare) they usually have lost hope and use it on the pleasures of life. Who can blame them?
I don't agree with your point, however, with the fact that poor people don't even try to save money when they are able to afford the money.
First of all we all know that poor people need money or a shelter to live in so if they afford it for themselves if they are clever they would save money for the future. But put in your mind that they need money so hard and if they afford it they will try all there best to use it only for the essential things they need. They will not waste it on such ridicules stuff.
Second thing you are not in there mind to know what their thinking about, every person have their own persecutive. I respect yours but why do you bother about poor people? I wonder.
Shut up bronto. The solitary point of having an economic system in the first place is so that it benefits everybody or almost everybody. If it isn't working for people then blaming them for it is regressive and stupid.
The solitary point of having an economic system in the first place is so that it benefits everybody or almost everybody
I be Quantumhead puppet.
You are wanker. Everybody doesn't mean every bodies from other countries you lizard brains.
& if the bloody wanks won't save money like adult it is no Godzilla fault.
Economic system can no make Libby wankers save the money. They be go & buy $1,000 phone & the $5 Red bull. Not Godzilla fault. Quantumhead fault. Pay 4 you own food. This Godzilla food. You need the lizard food.
Poor analogy. You're referring to a forest as a sentient individual/organization capable of dismantling their ecological system if they so chose. Humans are sentient beings that are able to communicate and reason; if we all, for some reason, wanted to dismantle our economic systems, we could. A forest couldn't.
