The Culture of Poverty, the Culture of Cruelty: How America Fights the Poor and Not Poverty

[AthenaAwakened]

First of all, there is a wide space between sub-$100 and $1500. You can even find new sofa/loveseat combos for half that.
Second, even if you set your heart on that particular model you did write "at some point" i.e. eventually. They could have sat on old furniture for a year and saved up enough to pay cash. And they could have bought the two pieces separately, as they had money to buy each.
The problem for this family is impulse buys. Every time they go to pay their bill (in person for some reason) they are in danger of seeing something new and shiny that strikes their fancy and that they just must have with the result that their rent-to-own bill is now almost as high as their housing bill.

Lastly, when you can't afford something you have to settle for something lesser and/or you delay the purchase.

Most people would.
You know what one of the worst things about being poor is? Having to constantly refuse any goodies in life so that your "neighbors" can give you a passing grade at being poor. You are not allowed "new," "a treat," or "special." In order to be properly poor, you had better be seen as constantly scrapping and scraping, ragged and worn. Anything above bare subsistence, and you are acting uppity, above your station and you will not get your passing grade.

Is that what you teach at your "economic self-defense classes"? That people should give in to all their impulses? Full speed ahead and damn the financial torpedoes?

Yes, that is exactly what I tell them. You got me again. You are just so clever. Can't put anything pass you. No sirree.

And who are you to make that decision?

It's advice not a decision. They make their own decisions.

Advice is usually free and even then overpriced. And when unsolicited can be quite costly.

If you are behind on the rent $900.00, behind on the electric bill, the water bill, and every other bill because your car died and you had to replace it, or your kid got sick and you missed work, maybe weeks worth of work, and your kid wants new Chuck Taylors and they are $45 bucks, are you gonna refuse him? When you are so deep in the hole you can't even daylight bussed down to you, how many times do you just keep telling a kid no? How many times do you just keep telling yourself no, just so people who don't give a damn about you can feel that they are protecting the moral good?

Apparently you do teach that in your classes.

Got me again, you sly dog.

But I will tell you what we do do in those workshops, we listen.

Try it sometimes and you might learn something.

 

[Toni]

We are not talking about the Untouchables in India but about the poor in the US. And while causes vary, many stay in poverty due to poor decisions they are making including bad money management and living beyond their means. Consider this article:
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa (excuse the annoying web design of WaPo)
The article is supposed to be very sympathetic toward the struggling family it profiles but its actual effect is to highlight how this family remains in poverty due to their own choices. The headline already tells the story. People who are poor have no business buying $1500 furniture as there are much cheaper options available even new but if need be buying used on Craigslist is also an option. I.e. they are living beyond their means. And they show poor money management skills by agreeing to an expensive installment plan instead of maybe buying the items piecemeal as they can afford them if they have no access to credit at reasonable terms.
And it's not like Buddy's (the rent-to-own company they talk about in the article) only carries furniture. Big screen TVs, smartphones and even jewelry are also available. All things people can do without if they want to live within their means. And it's not like Abbots (family featured in the article) learned from their mistake either

I.e. they keep getting more stuff they can't afford (they struggle to pay a cell phone bill but get a smartphone - not smart!) Oh and they are smokers too - unhealthy and expensive. First rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Second would be to maybe try to get out.

Find work? She’s tried, but neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education.

She isn't working so what is she doing with all that free time? Certainly not studying for a GED or learning a marketable skill.

Derec,

We can outlaw the Rent-a-centers of the world and then this is not a problem.

No one, rich or poor, is going to rent a sofa for any amount of money, if they are paid enough for their work to buy it. All of this is connected. that's how SOCIAL PROBLEMS are. It's not just about renting a sofa, it's about credit laws and wages earned and housing and usury and education, etc. It is all connected and it all has to be fixed

Now I know the rugged individualism lie is strong

But fight it Derec

Step into the light

Why does anyone need to buy a $1,500 sofa? I make a middle class living and got my couch at the thrift store for $100

Eh, at a certain point in time I got tired of having only other people's cast offs/stuff I picked up from the curb or for a few bucks (generally well under $100) and decided I wanted something that I picked out especially for my place. From a store. In a color that I wanted. Not just something I had to settle for. Well made generally lasts longer, too and I'd rather pay for quality and have it last for 20 years than pay discount store prices and have it look like crap in 5 years.

Most people would.

You know what one of the worst things about being poor is? Having to constantly refuse any goodies in life so that your "neighbors" can give you a passing grade at being poor. You are not allowed "new," "a treat," or "special." In order to be properly poor, you had better be seen as constantly scrapping and scraping, ragged and worn. Anything above bare subsistence, and you are acting uppity, above your station and you will not get your passing grade.

It simply means that life is good enough that "new", "a treat" or "special" was of greater priority than any other possible use of the money, which means that all the necessities are taken care of and there is ample savings for future hardship. If not, then obviously these things aren't valued and is exactly the kind of mental state that Loren is referring to, that giving them additional funds won't suddenly cure. It also means that "new", "a treat" or "special" is literally more important than the lives of destitute third world individuals since the money could have otherwise been used to alleviate their suffering and potentially save their life. A much better use of funds than "a treat", wouldn't you agree?

Oh reason not the need!

There are very, very few individuals who have completely provided for all necessities before allowing small indulgences. Do you have in liquid savings a sum of mone to cover a full 3-6 months worth of living expenses? On top of zero debt and a fully funded retirement? Probably not yet here you are, reading this on some computer on the Internet both of whic cost considerable money instead of working that second or third job so you can have all that savings.

 

[Axulus]

We are not talking about the Untouchables in India but about the poor in the US. And while causes vary, many stay in poverty due to poor decisions they are making including bad money management and living beyond their means. Consider this article:
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa (excuse the annoying web design of WaPo)
The article is supposed to be very sympathetic toward the struggling family it profiles but its actual effect is to highlight how this family remains in poverty due to their own choices. The headline already tells the story. People who are poor have no business buying $1500 furniture as there are much cheaper options available even new but if need be buying used on Craigslist is also an option. I.e. they are living beyond their means. And they show poor money management skills by agreeing to an expensive installment plan instead of maybe buying the items piecemeal as they can afford them if they have no access to credit at reasonable terms.
And it's not like Buddy's (the rent-to-own company they talk about in the article) only carries furniture. Big screen TVs, smartphones and even jewelry are also available. All things people can do without if they want to live within their means. And it's not like Abbots (family featured in the article) learned from their mistake either

I.e. they keep getting more stuff they can't afford (they struggle to pay a cell phone bill but get a smartphone - not smart!) Oh and they are smokers too - unhealthy and expensive. First rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Second would be to maybe try to get out.

Find work? She’s tried, but neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education.

She isn't working so what is she doing with all that free time? Certainly not studying for a GED or learning a marketable skill.

Derec,

We can outlaw the Rent-a-centers of the world and then this is not a problem.

No one, rich or poor, is going to rent a sofa for any amount of money, if they are paid enough for their work to buy it. All of this is connected. that's how SOCIAL PROBLEMS are. It's not just about renting a sofa, it's about credit laws and wages earned and housing and usury and education, etc. It is all connected and it all has to be fixed

Now I know the rugged individualism lie is strong

But fight it Derec

Step into the light

Why does anyone need to buy a $1,500 sofa? I make a middle class living and got my couch at the thrift store for $100

Eh, at a certain point in time I got tired of having only other people's cast offs/stuff I picked up from the curb or for a few bucks (generally well under $100) and decided I wanted something that I picked out especially for my place. From a store. In a color that I wanted. Not just something I had to settle for. Well made generally lasts longer, too and I'd rather pay for quality and have it last for 20 years than pay discount store prices and have it look like crap in 5 years.

Most people would.

You know what one of the worst things about being poor is? Having to constantly refuse any goodies in life so that your "neighbors" can give you a passing grade at being poor. You are not allowed "new," "a treat," or "special." In order to be properly poor, you had better be seen as constantly scrapping and scraping, ragged and worn. Anything above bare subsistence, and you are acting uppity, above your station and you will not get your passing grade.

It simply means that life is good enough that "new", "a treat" or "special" was of greater priority than any other possible use of the money, which means that all the necessities are taken care of and there is ample savings for future hardship. If not, then obviously these things aren't valued and is exactly the kind of mental state that Loren is referring to, that giving them additional funds won't suddenly cure. It also means that "new", "a treat" or "special" is literally more important than the lives of destitute third world individuals since the money could have otherwise been used to alleviate their suffering and potentially save their life. A much better use of funds than "a treat", wouldn't you agree?

And who are you to make that decision? If you are behind on the rent $900.00, behind on the electric bill, the water bill, and every other bill because your car died and you had to replace it, or your kid got sick and you missed work, maybe weeks worth of work, and your kid wants new Chuck Taylors and they are $45 bucks, are you gonna refuse him? When you are so deep in the hole you can't even daylight bussed down to you, how many times do you just keep telling a kid no? How many times do you just keep telling yourself no, just so people who don't give a damn about you can feel that they are protecting the moral good?

I'm not making any decision. We are talking about priorities revealed by decisions made here. A revealed fact.

So you are saying that we are about to be homeless, might as well blow the limited amount of money we have on whatever? Might it not be a better idea to stash away that money for food? You know, something that is essential for my kid in this scenario to function and grow up healthy, not Chuck Taylors? If he wants something nice, I would lay it out honestly for him. Either you can have the Chuck Taylors, or you can eat. That's just the situation we are in at the moment. I then put his or her name in the mix for those giving tree charities and get a few nice things for him or her that way, so at least there are some things coming for Christmas.

 

[Axulus]

We are not talking about the Untouchables in India but about the poor in the US. And while causes vary, many stay in poverty due to poor decisions they are making including bad money management and living beyond their means. Consider this article:
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa (excuse the annoying web design of WaPo)
The article is supposed to be very sympathetic toward the struggling family it profiles but its actual effect is to highlight how this family remains in poverty due to their own choices. The headline already tells the story. People who are poor have no business buying $1500 furniture as there are much cheaper options available even new but if need be buying used on Craigslist is also an option. I.e. they are living beyond their means. And they show poor money management skills by agreeing to an expensive installment plan instead of maybe buying the items piecemeal as they can afford them if they have no access to credit at reasonable terms.
And it's not like Buddy's (the rent-to-own company they talk about in the article) only carries furniture. Big screen TVs, smartphones and even jewelry are also available. All things people can do without if they want to live within their means. And it's not like Abbots (family featured in the article) learned from their mistake either

I.e. they keep getting more stuff they can't afford (they struggle to pay a cell phone bill but get a smartphone - not smart!) Oh and they are smokers too - unhealthy and expensive. First rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging.
Second would be to maybe try to get out.

Find work? She’s tried, but neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education.

She isn't working so what is she doing with all that free time? Certainly not studying for a GED or learning a marketable skill.

Derec,

We can outlaw the Rent-a-centers of the world and then this is not a problem.

No one, rich or poor, is going to rent a sofa for any amount of money, if they are paid enough for their work to buy it. All of this is connected. that's how SOCIAL PROBLEMS are. It's not just about renting a sofa, it's about credit laws and wages earned and housing and usury and education, etc. It is all connected and it all has to be fixed

Now I know the rugged individualism lie is strong

But fight it Derec

Step into the light

Why does anyone need to buy a $1,500 sofa? I make a middle class living and got my couch at the thrift store for $100

Eh, at a certain point in time I got tired of having only other people's cast offs/stuff I picked up from the curb or for a few bucks (generally well under $100) and decided I wanted something that I picked out especially for my place. From a store. In a color that I wanted. Not just something I had to settle for. Well made generally lasts longer, too and I'd rather pay for quality and have it last for 20 years than pay discount store prices and have it look like crap in 5 years.

Most people would.

You know what one of the worst things about being poor is? Having to constantly refuse any goodies in life so that your "neighbors" can give you a passing grade at being poor. You are not allowed "new," "a treat," or "special." In order to be properly poor, you had better be seen as constantly scrapping and scraping, ragged and worn. Anything above bare subsistence, and you are acting uppity, above your station and you will not get your passing grade.

It simply means that life is good enough that "new", "a treat" or "special" was of greater priority than any other possible use of the money, which means that all the necessities are taken care of and there is ample savings for future hardship. If not, then obviously these things aren't valued and is exactly the kind of mental state that Loren is referring to, that giving them additional funds won't suddenly cure. It also means that "new", "a treat" or "special" is literally more important than the lives of destitute third world individuals since the money could have otherwise been used to alleviate their suffering and potentially save their life. A much better use of funds than "a treat", wouldn't you agree?

Oh reason not the need!

There are very, very few individuals who have completely provided for all necessities before allowing small indulgences. Do you have in liquid savings a sum of mone to cover a full 3-6 months worth of living expenses? On top of zero debt and a fully funded retirement? Probably not yet here you are, reading this on some computer on the Internet both of whic cost considerable money instead of working that second or third job so you can have all that savings.

Why a fully funded retirement? A retirement doesn't need to be fully funded, and debt doesn't need to be fully paid off, before you can get some indulgences. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about the things that Athena brings up: the rent, the car repair, food, utilities, clothes, toiletries, and at least a little savings (maybe at least a months worth).

 

[Axulus]

To add to that, the homeless hide, and they are very good at that. The police roust them and they are primary targets of crime so being invisible is a survival technique. Especially the working homeless. And the homeless who still have cars are exceedingly good at hiding because (1) they have cars so they are mobile and (2) if they are working, as many of them are, they don't need their bosses knowing that they are homeless. And notice this doesn't count couch surfers and "longtime visits from friends of the family."

Not to mention that even if that number was right, which I doubt, it is still OVER a half million people in this country with no roof. WTH? That's not something we should be cheering.

Why do you doubt it? On what basis is there to jump to a knee jerk conclusion without careful examination on the validity of the method used to obtain the number? Is bias coloring your perception here instead of evidence? Also, I'm not cheering the number, I'm cheering the _reduction_ in the number. Aren't you? Or would you rather go back to 750,000?

 

[laughing dog]

Why a fully funded retirement? A retirement doesn't need to be fully funded, and debt doesn't need to be fully paid off, before you can get some indulgences.

Well then why the interjection about the cost of a couch?

 

[Emily Lake]

I can go for that

Wonderful!

Let me start by presenting a small amount of my background, because it will undoubtedly influence my perspective. My biological parents were white, and divorced. My stepfather was black, and has had the care and feeding of me since I was 3. I have several siblings, one of whom is mixed, the remainder of which are black from my stepfather's first marriage. For simplicity, I'll refer to my stepfather as my dad, as that's how I think of him. We were not wealthy as kids, but we were never homeless. There were several times where we made use of food stamps and surplus foods. Dad was enlisted military his entire life, and completed his bachelor's degree while serving. Mom never completed high school, and didn't get her GED until she was in her late 30s. My older step brother was the first in my dad's family to go to a "real" university, I was the second, none of my other siblings did. I paid my own way through college, with a lot of student loans. I'm now in my 40s, with a comfortable job, married, and a higher-than-average income. My biological dad struggled with drug abuse his whole life, as well as poverty. Much of my family is very low income.

Personally, I don't think that the problem is one-size-fits-all, nor is there any single cause. No one can say "The problem is single moms", and shut the door... because that's not the problem, it's a problem. It's a problem for some situations in some cultures for some families. In other situations and cultures, it's not a problem at all. Similarly, no one can say "The solution is higher food stamps" and call it quits. That's not the solution, it's a solution, for some people in some situations in some cultures. But it's not going to fix all of it, by any means.

Related to this is the problem of fraud and con artists. Certainly they aren't prevalent - they aren't the majority by any means, most likely they're a very small slice of the apparent homeless and poor in the US. But the do actually exist, and ignoring their existence, or pretending that anyone who mentions them is full of hatred of is singling out the "undeserving" poor is willfully allowing loss in a limited system. I would rather that we acknowledge their existence, take reasonable steps to limit the ability of con artists to exploit the system and harm those who are already vulnerable, and then set aside the rest as a problem to be tackled further down the road. But it's important to acknowledge them first, before you set them aside.

At this point, my knowledge is shaky. There's a lot that I don't know about the actual workings of these systems. Please educate me, and let's start discussions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why does anyone need to buy a $1,500 sofa? I make a middle class living and got my couch at the thrift store for $100

Or look at the classifieds (or these days Craigslist), people selling furniture when they're moving.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh, at a certain point in time I got tired of having only other people's cast offs/stuff I picked up from the curb or for a few bucks (generally well under $100) and decided I wanted something that I picked out especially for my place. From a store. In a color that I wanted. Not just something I had to settle for. Well made generally lasts longer, too and I'd rather pay for quality and have it last for 20 years than pay discount store prices and have it look like crap in 5 years.

You can get good quality from people who are moving.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what one of the worst things about being poor is? Having to constantly refuse any goodies in life so that your "neighbors" can give you a passing grade at being poor. You are not allowed "new," "a treat," or "special." In order to be properly poor, you had better be seen as constantly scrapping and scraping, ragged and worn. Anything above bare subsistence, and you are acting uppity, above your station and you will not get your passing grade.

That's not what we are saying.

We do have a big problem with luxuries when you're having trouble with the necessities. Do the necessities first, if you have extra then look at luxuries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And who are you to make that decision? If you are behind on the rent $900.00, behind on the electric bill, the water bill, and every other bill because your car died and you had to replace it, or your kid got sick and you missed work, maybe weeks worth of work, and your kid wants new Chuck Taylors and they are $45 bucks, are you gonna refuse him? When you are so deep in the hole you can't even daylight bussed down to you, how many times do you just keep telling a kid no? How many times do you just keep telling yourself no, just so people who don't give a damn about you can feel that they are protecting the moral good?

You keep railing about poverty yet you are part of the problem!

It's a collection of decisions like this that put them in the hole in the first place!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why a fully funded retirement? A retirement doesn't need to be fully funded, and debt doesn't need to be fully paid off, before you can get some indulgences. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about the things that Athena brings up: the rent, the car repair, food, utilities, clothes, toiletries, and at least a little savings (maybe at least a months worth).

Yeah--retirement is something you fund over your working life. So long as you are on target you're fine.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I can go for that

Wonderful!

Let me start by presenting a small amount of my background, because it will undoubtedly influence my perspective. My biological parents were white, and divorced. My stepfather was black, and has had the care and feeding of me since I was 3. I have several siblings, one of whom is mixed, the remainder of which are black from my stepfather's first marriage. For simplicity, I'll refer to my stepfather as my dad, as that's how I think of him. We were not wealthy as kids, but we were never homeless. There were several times where we made use of food stamps and surplus foods. Dad was enlisted military his entire life, and completed his bachelor's degree while serving. Mom never completed high school, and didn't get her GED until she was in her late 30s. My older step brother was the first in my dad's family to go to a "real" university, I was the second, none of my other siblings did. I paid my own way through college, with a lot of student loans. I'm now in my 40s, with a comfortable job, married, and a higher-than-average income. My biological dad struggled with drug abuse his whole life, as well as poverty. Much of my family is very low income.

Personally, I don't think that the problem is one-size-fits-all, nor is there any single cause. No one can say "The problem is single moms", and shut the door... because that's not the problem, it's a problem. It's a problem for some situations in some cultures for some families. In other situations and cultures, it's not a problem at all. Similarly, no one can say "The solution is higher food stamps" and call it quits. That's not the solution, it's a solution, for some people in some situations in some cultures. But it's not going to fix all of it, by any means.

Related to this is the problem of fraud and con artists. Certainly they aren't prevalent - they aren't the majority by any means, most likely they're a very small slice of the apparent homeless and poor in the US. But the do actually exist, and ignoring their existence, or pretending that anyone who mentions them is full of hatred of is singling out the "undeserving" poor is willfully allowing loss in a limited system. I would rather that we acknowledge their existence, take reasonable steps to limit the ability of con artists to exploit the system and harm those who are already vulnerable, and then set aside the rest as a problem to be tackled further down the road. But it's important to acknowledge them first, before you set them aside.

At this point, my knowledge is shaky. There's a lot that I don't know about the actual workings of these systems. Please educate me, and let's start discussions.

Well now I will tell you something about me

I was born at the end of the long hot summer of 1965. My father's family had money (thanks to my Grampa and his seven stills running 24/7 during Prohibition) and my mother's family had name (my Great Grampa was a professor responsible for establishing the one of the first Schools for Colored Children in SE NC.) Family and Name, two things that were drilled into me from an early age were the importance of family and name.

I grew up in the South (people sometimes forget the Nation's Capitol is in the South.) I grew up surrounded by family. I grew up with many things expected of me because of my family and my name. I spent the first 18 years of my life being a professional "credit to my family" and "credit to my race." I was told before I started school that because I was black, I had to be twice as good as the white students to considered their equal. I was told before I started school that because I was a girl, I had to be twice as good as the boys to considered their equal. Do the math I was told. All this meant that in order to be considered the equal of any white boy, I had to be four times his better. So that is what I did. It was the beginning of desegregation and the very real fear of if those first years of full integration didn't show the white world that black student were up to the task, then Jim Crow would return, was palatable. So an entire generation who went to school in the early seventies carried the hopes and burden of the race, sometimes on the shoulders of those of us only six years old.

My first remembrance is of the Riots of '68. I am told I damn near died there. Shortly after, I remember being in my father's family home in GA. It was late and my brother and I were asleep when my father came running into the house to tell us that the Sheriff had shot my uncle in the back and left him in a ditch to gulp and die. My cousin, who has living in Atlanta at the time where he and his comrades were setting up a Black Panther cell, got the news about his father, gathered his boys, drove home and attempted to burn his home town down to the ground. It was the only time in my life I ever saw my parents afraid. My father sent us to North Carolina to my momma's home in the dead of night.

When I was 12, I escaped a gang rape. The would be assailants were white. That is the day I learned a very interesting thing. If you kick one boy in the balls, the other five will grab their balls too and you then have time to make a get away.

I went on to graduate high school and college in the top of my class. And by 1990 I found myself engaged to the very white son of a very white Methodist minister from Louisville KY. My father was less than pleased, but he held his peace, mostly. In the end i broke the engagement. The young man wanted a political career and he wanted it in the South. A black wife would have been a hindrance to that. I went on to live my life and he went to work in the Clinton White House and is now back in Washington in the Obama Administration.

I went on to raise my nephew, take care of my folks until they passed, go to a few more colleges of my choice, teach, sing, sling hash, love, cry and damn near die.

I am a non-theist who prays
I am an agnostic who is sure
I am a skeptic that believes
I am a naturalist that revels in the holy mystery

I am neither saint nor sinner but have practiced both virtue and vice

I wrestle with my angels and dance with my demons

I practice my humanism religiously and my religion humanely

I have partaken of the Balm of Gilead, and though scarred I am healed and while not holy, I am made now whole.

 

[Toni]

Why a fully funded retirement? A retirement doesn't need to be fully funded, and debt doesn't need to be fully paid off, before you can get some indulgences. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about the things that Athena brings up: the rent, the car repair, food, utilities, clothes, toiletries, and at least a little savings (maybe at least a months worth).

I'm just talking like Suze Orman. What you're saying is: "My values and my decision making, formulated based upon my own circumstances is sensible and 'right.'" Really--you think that YOU can/should set the standard for what is responsible? What you just wrote would be wiped out entirely by the loss of a job unless you had another one just as good the next day. Or being the victim of a hit and run accident. Or having a ruptured appendix.

Let's be honest here: If you are rich, you can be all manner of fuck up, on a pretty spectacular scale, make horrendously bad decision after horrendously bad decision, abuse drugs, alcohol, slide by in school with minimal effort and still grow up to be president, so long as your daddy is rich and powerful enough. Certainly you will never want for a damn thing, no matter how many financial disasters you mastermind.

Or take it out of the political arena: Paris Hilton.

If you are poor and especially if your daddy is also poor, you dare not buy a bag of cookies. Or send your kids to school in clothes that did not come out of a charity barrel or store, even if they were purchased by the Santa Anonymous who chose your kids' name off of the tree standing in the mall. Or let anyone catch you using your cousin's old smart phone after your cousin upgraded and passed along their old one, sharing as family does. Never mind that the smart phone is the only computer access you have and you need it to job hunt, especially since the library hours are cut.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why a fully funded retirement? A retirement doesn't need to be fully funded, and debt doesn't need to be fully paid off, before you can get some indulgences. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about the things that Athena brings up: the rent, the car repair, food, utilities, clothes, toiletries, and at least a little savings (maybe at least a months worth).

I'm just talking like Suze Orman. What you're saying is: "My values and my decision making, formulated based upon my own circumstances is sensible and 'right.'" Really--you think that YOU can/should set the standard for what is responsible? What you just wrote would be wiped out entirely by the loss of a job unless you had another one just as good the next day. Or being the victim of a hit and run accident. Or having a ruptured appendix.

Let's be honest here: If you are rich, you can be all manner of fuck up, on a pretty spectacular scale, make horrendously bad decision after horrendously bad decision, abuse drugs, alcohol, slide by in school with minimal effort and still grow up to be president, so long as your daddy is rich and powerful enough. Certainly you will never want for a damn thing, no matter how many financial disasters you mastermind.

Or take it out of the political arena: Paris Hilton.

If you are poor and especially if your daddy is also poor, you dare not buy a bag of cookies. Or send your kids to school in clothes that did not come out of a charity barrel or store, even if they were purchased by the Santa Anonymous who chose your kids' name off of the tree standing in the mall. Or let anyone catch you using your cousin's old smart phone after your cousin upgraded and passed along their old one, sharing as family does. Never mind that the smart phone is the only computer access you have and you need it to job hunt, especially since the library hours are cut.

or heaven forbid someone GIVE you something new. You better have a gift receipt to prove your destitution.

 

[Axulus]

Why a fully funded retirement? A retirement doesn't need to be fully funded, and debt doesn't need to be fully paid off, before you can get some indulgences. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about the things that Athena brings up: the rent, the car repair, food, utilities, clothes, toiletries, and at least a little savings (maybe at least a months worth).

I'm just talking like Suze Orman. What you're saying is: "My values and my decision making, formulated based upon my own circumstances is sensible and 'right.'" Really--you think that YOU can/should set the standard for what is responsible? What you just wrote would be wiped out entirely by the loss of a job unless you had another one just as good the next day. Or being the victim of a hit and run accident. Or having a ruptured appendix.

Let's be honest here: If you are rich, you can be all manner of fuck up, on a pretty spectacular scale, make horrendously bad decision after horrendously bad decision, abuse drugs, alcohol, slide by in school with minimal effort and still grow up to be president, so long as your daddy is rich and powerful enough. Certainly you will never want for a damn thing, no matter how many financial disasters you mastermind.

Or take it out of the political arena: Paris Hilton.

If you are poor and especially if your daddy is also poor, you dare not buy a bag of cookies. Or send your kids to school in clothes that did not come out of a charity barrel or store, even if they were purchased by the Santa Anonymous who chose your kids' name off of the tree standing in the mall. Or let anyone catch you using your cousin's old smart phone after your cousin upgraded and passed along their old one, sharing as family does. Never mind that the smart phone is the only computer access you have and you need it to job hunt, especially since the library hours are cut.

What does any of this have to do with splurging on some luxury when you can't even make rent? I'm not talking about a bag of cookies, get a clue. We were talking about things like new brand name shoes, fancy sofa, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Related to this is the problem of fraud and con artists. Certainly they aren't prevalent - they aren't the majority by any means, most likely they're a very small slice of the apparent homeless and poor in the US. But the do actually exist, and ignoring their existence, or pretending that anyone who mentions them is full of hatred of is singling out the "undeserving" poor is willfully allowing loss in a limited system. I would rather that we acknowledge their existence, take reasonable steps to limit the ability of con artists to exploit the system and harm those who are already vulnerable, and then set aside the rest as a problem to be tackled further down the road. But it's important to acknowledge them first, before you set them aside.

The "undeserving" are wider than the frauds and con artists. They include those whose problems stem from mismanagement rather than an inability to earn enough.

 

[lpetrich]

We see plenty of immigrants come here and make it. It certainly can be done despite having worse handicaps.

Except that they don't make it on their own, contrary to right-wingers' ideology of rugged individualism. They help each other, something that right-wingers consider anathema. It's handouts and right-wingers proudly brag about how they didn't need anyone's help. Consider the attempts to outlaw feeding of homeless people and the right wing's lack of outrage.

 

[Toni]

I'm just talking like Suze Orman. What you're saying is: "My values and my decision making, formulated based upon my own circumstances is sensible and 'right.'" Really--you think that YOU can/should set the standard for what is responsible? What you just wrote would be wiped out entirely by the loss of a job unless you had another one just as good the next day. Or being the victim of a hit and run accident. Or having a ruptured appendix.

Let's be honest here: If you are rich, you can be all manner of fuck up, on a pretty spectacular scale, make horrendously bad decision after horrendously bad decision, abuse drugs, alcohol, slide by in school with minimal effort and still grow up to be president, so long as your daddy is rich and powerful enough. Certainly you will never want for a damn thing, no matter how many financial disasters you mastermind.

Or take it out of the political arena: Paris Hilton.

If you are poor and especially if your daddy is also poor, you dare not buy a bag of cookies. Or send your kids to school in clothes that did not come out of a charity barrel or store, even if they were purchased by the Santa Anonymous who chose your kids' name off of the tree standing in the mall. Or let anyone catch you using your cousin's old smart phone after your cousin upgraded and passed along their old one, sharing as family does. Never mind that the smart phone is the only computer access you have and you need it to job hunt, especially since the library hours are cut.

What does any of this have to do with splurging on some luxury when you can't even make rent? I'm not talking about a bag of cookies, get a clue. We were talking about things like new brand name shoes, fancy sofa, etc.

Maybe you should get a clue: people are sometimes given gifts. If you know the right neighborhoods, you can find lots of barely used or brand new 'brand name' stuff just left in the garbage or on the curb or at Goodwill.

What I want to know is who you are to judge what other people can and cannot have? What other people can and cannot afford?

If you are rich enough, you can make all sorts of bad decisions, do lots of terrible things and your money insulates you from the consequences.

If you are poor, you aren't allowed to have anything nice. According to you.

Who put you in charge? Just exactly how bad are people who can barely keep a roof over their head supposed to feel about accepting a nice pair of sneakers for their kid or for themselves?

 

[DBT]

We see plenty of immigrants come here and make it. It certainly can be done despite having worse handicaps.

Except that they don't make it on their own, contrary to right-wingers' ideology of rugged individualism. They help each other, something that right-wingers consider anathema. It's handouts and right-wingers proudly brag about how they didn't need anyone's help. Consider the attempts to outlaw feeding of homeless people and the right wing's lack of outrage.

The very same people who help members of their own family get educated and established with few reservations or restrictions...

 

[Axulus]

What does any of this have to do with splurging on some luxury when you can't even make rent? I'm not talking about a bag of cookies, get a clue. We were talking about things like new brand name shoes, fancy sofa, etc.

Maybe you should get a clue: people are sometimes given gifts. If you know the right neighborhoods, you can find lots of barely used or brand new 'brand name' stuff just left in the garbage or on the curb or at Goodwill.

What I want to know is who you are to judge what other people can and cannot have? What other people can and cannot afford?

If you are rich enough, you can make all sorts of bad decisions, do lots of terrible things and your money insulates you from the consequences.

If you are poor, you aren't allowed to have anything nice. According to you.

Who put you in charge? Just exactly how bad are people who can barely keep a roof over their head supposed to feel about accepting a nice pair of sneakers for their kid or for themselves?

I get to judge it when they are buying it on my dime, which is the entire proposal of AA and others for those in "poverty". Why should someone be able to have a nicer sofa or nicer shoes than me on my dime? I am not talking about a lucky find, gifts, or bags of cookies. I wish you people would stop with the red herrings and actually address the issues at hand.

If they would rather have a new pair of brand name shoes than electricity, fine, their money, their choice, just don't ask me to fund such choices.

 

[Toni]

Maybe you should get a clue: people are sometimes given gifts. If you know the right neighborhoods, you can find lots of barely used or brand new 'brand name' stuff just left in the garbage or on the curb or at Goodwill.

What I want to know is who you are to judge what other people can and cannot have? What other people can and cannot afford?

If you are rich enough, you can make all sorts of bad decisions, do lots of terrible things and your money insulates you from the consequences.

If you are poor, you aren't allowed to have anything nice. According to you.

Who put you in charge? Just exactly how bad are people who can barely keep a roof over their head supposed to feel about accepting a nice pair of sneakers for their kid or for themselves?

I get to judge it when they are buying it on my dime, which is the entire proposal of AA and others for those in "poverty". Why should someone be able to have a nicer sofa or nicer shoes than me on my dime? I am not talking about a lucky find, gifts, or bags of cookies. I wish you people would stop with the red herrings and actually address the issues at hand.

If they would rather have a new pair of brand name shoes than electricity, fine, their money, their choice, just don't ask me to fund such choices.

Because guess what? You have no idea if it is your dime or not your dime. You really do not.

What you are claiming as 'red herring' is reality. Your ability to know/'appropriately assess' whether someone should have a nicer sofa or nicer shoes than you is the real red herring and no small part of a fantasy.

If you want nicer things, then do what it takes to earn the money to get those nicer things. What? Not so easy as that? Then who are you to complain that someone found a (legal) way to get nicer things?

Because the real misconception is the prevalence of welfare queens.