PDA

View Full Version : Your brain on poverty...



Arbo
09-15-2013, 10:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmT3K6j6Gy4&feature=player_embedded#t=252

Interesting. Thoughts?

red states rule
09-15-2013, 10:42 AM
Oh brother. Being poor in America is not that bad. In fact the poor in America have a damn good life and decent standard of living





Rasmussen: Most Americans Below Poverty Level Have Enough Food, at Least One Car

Most of the 46 million Americans living below the poverty level have adequate food, and three-quarters of them have a motor vehicle, according to federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen.

Among Rasmussen's findings, reported by The Washington Examiner (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/feds-‘poor’-consume-rich/348206) : 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck; 70 percent have a VCR; 64 percent have a DVD player; 63 percent have cable or satellite TV; 53 percent have a video game system; 50 percent have a computer; 30 percent have two or more cars; and 23 percent use TiVo.

“What the government defines as poverty is vastly different from what most Americans envision,” Rasmussen writes in his book, “The People’s Money: How Voters Will Balance the Budget and Eliminate the Federal Debt.” (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Money-Balance-Eliminate-Federal/dp/1451666101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328136510&sr=1-1)

The Examiner reports that other details from two recent Department of Agriculture surveys in the book include:

-- In 1 percent of households, someone must miss a meal, on an average day;

-- Children are hungry in 0.25 percent of U.S. homes;

-- 96 percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn’t afford food.

-- 83 percent of the poor said they have enough to eat.

“About 40 million Americans are officially defined as living below the poverty line. Yet most of those have adequate levels of food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Sixty-three percent of American adults believe such a family is not living in poverty,” Rasmussen writes, according to the Examiner. “Only 16 percent believe that a family is living in poverty if it has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR, but that’s what the average family living in poverty has as defined by the U.S. government.”

Earnings of $22,314 is considered the 2010 poverty level for a family of four.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-poverty-level-book/2012/02/01/id/426339#ixzz2eybUdlVM
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now! (http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Obama-Policies/Should-Congress-Repeal--Obama-s-Health-Plan-and-Ot/id/13/kw/default?PROMO_CODE=10EFE-1"target="_blank")

Arbo
09-15-2013, 10:58 AM
Oh brother. Being poor in America is not that bad. In fact the poor in America have a damn good life and decent standard of living

Your response has NOTHING to do with the topic discussed in the video. Do you have an actual comment on that topic?

red states rule
09-15-2013, 11:06 AM
Your response has NOTHING to do with the topic discussed in the video. Do you have an actual comment on that topic?


1) Why would anyone take seriously anything from Al Gore TV (ie Current TV)

2) Here is a prime example of people in welfare taking full advantage of US taxpayers




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw


3) As I pointed out, the "poor" have it damn good in America before any handouts

Arbo
09-15-2013, 11:08 AM
1) Why would anyone take seriously anything from Al Gore TV (ie Current TV)
2) Here is a prime example of people in welfare taking full advantage of US taxpayers
3) As I pointed out, the "poor" have it damn good in America before any handouts

Would have taken less time for you to answer the 'do you actually have a comment on the topic' with a 'nope, I got nothing.'

red states rule
09-15-2013, 11:12 AM
Would have taken less time for you to answer the 'do you actually have a comment on the topic' with a 'nope, I got nothing.'

Yep I can tell you were brought here by FU and LR

Same debate style. Ignore reality/facts and just troll

Arbo
09-15-2013, 12:05 PM
Yep I can tell you were brought here by FU and LR

Same debate style. Ignore reality/facts and just troll

How about you quit derailing a thread, got a complaint, got a gripe? Take it to the cage. Your ignorance doesn't need to be filling every other thread up here.

tailfins
09-15-2013, 02:25 PM
Oh brother. Being poor in America is not that bad. In fact the poor in America have a damn good life and decent standard of living

There are many kinds of poverty. Doing a brain dead repetitive task or being idle is among them.

Arbo
09-15-2013, 05:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SmT3K6j6Gy4

Figured I'd just post it again so people can skip the mindless OT crap.

tailfins
09-15-2013, 06:16 PM
Figured I'd just post it again so people can skip the mindless OT crap.

The video sets up a straw man. I will use Rush Limbaugh as an example. He says many are poor because no one showed them how to access opportunity. He asks how much compassion is there to giving a guy a shopping cart as opposed to showing him how to set up a small business.

DragonStryk72
09-15-2013, 06:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmT3K6j6Gy4&feature=player_embedded#t=252

Interesting. Thoughts?

Having been in poverty myself, I can certainly say that it does effect your mental process, and it's difficult not to fall into the trap of poverty, that being that you reinforce your own poverty by buying things you certainly don't need in order to feel a sense of joy and stability. Now, the problem with that mental state is that the current system for aiding those in poverty actually serves to reinforce that mentality, by keeping people at just the line, and disourage forward progress.

I'll tell you a story in this regards: While I was living in poverty, I started hitting up Labor Ready up in Albany, NY. Now, in order to have a shot at work, you have to be there at about 430 in the morning, and wait in line til 530 when they open, so that you can be at the head of the line, if not first in line. Then, you spend several hours waiting to see if there's work available.

The problem comes in places such as NY state, because in order to get unemployment, you have to attend daily classes at 8 am, which is the prime time to get work through Labor Ready. And the work through Labor Ready can easily be rolled over into real work, but not if you have to go sit in a classroom all for several hours to "learn" how to get a job during the prime hours to get one.

It's also very easy to find yourself screwed because you accepted part-time work that lands you without the benefits anymore, even if the benefit amount was larger than what you make on the new job. So, on the one hand, you have the feeling of abject poverty, while simultaneously being "punished" for any forward progress you try to make.

In the end, the welfare system works almost tirelessly against the very people it's trying to help. It isn't a matter of funding, but of approach to addressing poverty as an issue. We are taking an incredibly wrong tack in how we work on poverty.

tailfins
09-15-2013, 06:32 PM
Having been in poverty myself, I can certainly say that it does effect your mental process, and it's difficult not to fall into the trap of poverty, that being that you reinforce your own poverty by buying things you certainly don't need in order to feel a sense of joy and stability. Now, the problem with that mental state is that the current system for aiding those in poverty actually serves to reinforce that mentality, by keeping people at just the line, and disourage forward progress.

I'll tell you a story in this regards: While I was living in poverty, I started hitting up Labor Ready up in Albany, NY. Now, in order to have a shot at work, you have to be there at about 430 in the morning, and wait in line til 530 when they open, so that you can be at the head of the line, if not first in line. Then, you spend several hours waiting to see if there's work available.

The problem comes in places such as NY state, because in order to get unemployment, you have to attend daily classes at 8 am, which is the prime time to get work through Labor Ready. And the work through Labor Ready can easily be rolled over into real work, but not if you have to go sit in a classroom all for several hours to "learn" how to get a job during the prime hours to get one.

It's also very easy to find yourself screwed because you accepted part-time work that lands you without the benefits anymore, even if the benefit amount was larger than what you make on the new job. So, on the one hand, you have the feeling of abject poverty, while simultaneously being "punished" for any forward progress you try to make.

In the end, the welfare system works almost tirelessly against the very people it's trying to help. It isn't a matter of funding, but of approach to addressing poverty as an issue. We are taking an incredibly wrong tack in how we work on poverty.


Section 8 housing pressures people to commit to poverty. One has to stay on a waiting list for years. If the applicant lifts out of poverty for even a short time, they become disqualified and taken off the waiting list. One must artfully avoid financial recovery to stay on the Section 8 housing waiting list.

DragonStryk72
09-16-2013, 02:36 PM
Section 8 housing pressures people to commit to poverty. One has to stay on a waiting list for years. If the applicant lifts out of poverty for even a short time, they become disqualified and taken off the waiting list. One must artfully avoid financial recovery to stay on the Section 8 housing waiting list.

Wow, I didn't even know about that part. But yeah, the whole system is built against actually achieving their goal. Personally, I think it should be something where while you're on welfare, you should be put to work doing infrastructure work, be it filling in potholes, data entry, or any of the other areas the government is short on workers for (Taking into account any disabilities you might have.). This gets you working, with listed work experience, and mentally, you get a sense of personal motivation.

I think motivation is what is really lacking in the current iteration of welfare. I saw this wonderful youtube video by RSAnimate:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/u6XAPnuFjJc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Trigg
09-16-2013, 03:04 PM
so stress from being poor decreases the IQ of the poor person by 13 points. So, in effect, they can't help being poor, we should just shut up about them helping themselves and just give them more free stuff.


This is complete BS from liberals to make us feel bad about wanting healthy people to GET A JOB.

red state
09-16-2013, 04:39 PM
so stress from being poor decreases the IQ of the poor person by 13 points. So, in effect, they can't help being poor, we should just shut up about them helping themselves and just give them more free stuff.


This is complete BS from liberals to make us feel bad about wanting healthy people to GET A JOB.

Red States Rule and Trigg have very good points and are SPOT ON!!!! Great reading such intelligent, well written folks who actually know how to debate without calling others a name or insinuating that they are beneath another when the OBVIOUS counters such a insinuation.

tailfins
09-16-2013, 04:49 PM
so stress from being poor decreases the IQ of the poor person by 13 points. So, in effect, they can't help being poor, we should just shut up about them helping themselves and just give them more free stuff.


This is complete BS from liberals to make us feel bad about wanting healthy people to GET A JOB.

I don't see the connection. Raising one's IQ by 13 points is an extra incentive to climb out of poverty.

Arbo
09-16-2013, 05:24 PM
Personally, I think it should be something where while you're on welfare, you should be put to work doing infrastructure work, be it filling in potholes, data entry, or any of the other areas the government is short on workers for (Taking into account any disabilities you might have.).

I agree, it should be WORK-fare .. perhaps a super minimum safety net, but beyond that, you have to 'give back' to get any assistance.

DragonStryk72
09-17-2013, 01:02 AM
I agree, it should be WORK-fare .. perhaps a super minimum safety net, but beyond that, you have to 'give back' to get any assistance.

Plus, we'd have a more productive infrastructure automatically being maintained, without the need for massive spending bills to do it. People putting into the system wouldn't be as pissed about those on assistance, because let's be honest, if they're giving back, we're pretty well good with it. Plus, the system would be cheaper to maintain, as you only need a certain base amount, as opposed to having to provide whole incomes for families with no recompense.