Split Poverty, from: Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Loren Pechtel]

Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money

What?

That's absurd.

It's like saying "House fires can only be cured by building with fireproof materials, not with water".

Throwing money at poverty has an extremely poor track record.

The long run issues of poverty might well be helped with education; But the acute and immediate problems are ONLY able to be solved by money.

But money doesn't solve them.

I disagree. Money certainly moved me out of poverty.

The problem here is there are two concepts involved.

Poor: A lack of money. It can be solved by adding money.

Poverty: A culture of not looking to the future, not handling money well. It can't be solved by money. We get various natural experiments of this sort--lottery winners. They typically soon end up where the were before.

 

[laughing dog]

Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money

What?

That's absurd.

It's like saying "House fires can only be cured by building with fireproof materials, not with water".

Throwing money at poverty has an extremely poor track record.

The long run issues of poverty might well be helped with education; But the acute and immediate problems are ONLY able to be solved by money.

But money doesn't solve them.

I disagree. Money certainly moved me out of poverty.

The problem here is there are two concepts involved.

Poor: A lack of money. It can be solved by adding money.

Poverty: A culture of not looking to the future, not handling money well. It can't be solved by money. We get various natural experiments of this sort--lottery winners. They typically soon end up where the were before.

The implicit assumptions in your simplistic argument are that those lottery winners who “ end up where they were before” were poor, and that people who buy lottery tickets have a similar psychological outlook as those in poverty. Both assumptions are dubious at best.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Poverty can only be cured with education, not with money

What?

That's absurd.

It's like saying "House fires can only be cured by building with fireproof materials, not with water".

Throwing money at poverty has an extremely poor track record.

The long run issues of poverty might well be helped with education; But the acute and immediate problems are ONLY able to be solved by money.

But money doesn't solve them.

I disagree. Money certainly moved me out of poverty.

The problem here is there are two concepts involved.

Poor: A lack of money. It can be solved by adding money.

Poverty: A culture of not looking to the future, not handling money well. It can't be solved by money. We get various natural experiments of this sort--lottery winners. They typically soon end up where the were before.

This isn't even remotely on-topic. Also poverty has a lot more to do with the inability to withstand risky or long-term avenues to develop value... ie... go right to work, instead of college. THAT IS THE POVERTY CYCLE. They need money NOW! It isn't merely they can't manage money. The trouble is, they don't have enough to manage. Get in the green in March with tax refund and one unexpected and very likely expense away from more debt. People in poverty don't live paycheck to paycheck, they aren't that well off.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Dear IIDB Users,

We appreciate your contributions to the discussions. However, please be mindful that the current topic is centered around the "Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling". Although addressing "the Solution to Poverty" is an important issue, it's not the focus of this thread. We urge all participants to keep their posts related to the designated subject matter. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Best,

IIDB Staff

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem here is there are two concepts involved.

Poor: A lack of money. It can be solved by adding money.

Poverty: A culture of not looking to the future, not handling money well. It can't be solved by money. We get various natural experiments of this sort--lottery winners. They typically soon end up where the were before.

The implicit assumptions in your simplistic argument are that those lottery winners who “ end up where they were before” were poor, and that people who buy lottery tickets have a similar psychological outlook as those in poverty. Both assumptions are dubious at best.

You realize lottery winners are typically poor? Haven't you heard of the lottery as a tax on the poor?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem here is there are two concepts involved.

Poor: A lack of money. It can be solved by adding money.

Poverty: A culture of not looking to the future, not handling money well. It can't be solved by money. We get various natural experiments of this sort--lottery winners. They typically soon end up where the were before.

The implicit assumptions in your simplistic argument are that those lottery winners who “ end up where they were before” were poor, and that people who buy lottery tickets have a similar psychological outlook as those in poverty. Both assumptions are dubious at best.

You realize lottery winners are typically poor? Haven't you heard of the lottery as a tax on the poor?

Dude, elsewhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This isn't even remotely on-topic. Also poverty has a lot more to do with the inability to withstand risky or long-term avenues to develop value... ie... go right to work, instead of college. THAT IS THE POVERTY CYCLE. They need money NOW! It isn't merely they can't manage money. The trouble is, they don't have enough to manage. Get in the green in March with tax refund and one unexpected and very likely expense away from more debt. People in poverty don't live paycheck to paycheck, they aren't that well off.

That's what the left would have you believe. The reality, though, is that windfalls usually get spent.

As distinguished from the poor where windfalls are generally put to good use.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't even remotely on-topic. Also poverty has a lot more to do with the inability to withstand risky or long-term avenues to develop value... ie... go right to work, instead of college. THAT IS THE POVERTY CYCLE. They need money NOW! It isn't merely they can't manage money. The trouble is, they don't have enough to manage. Get in the green in March with tax refund and one unexpected and very likely expense away from more debt. People in poverty don't live paycheck to paycheck, they aren't that well off.

That's what the left would have you believe. The reality, though, is that windfalls usually get spent.

As distinguished from the poor where windfalls are generally put to good use.

Dude, you are on the fucking staff. Stop! Or snip the derail elsewhere.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem here is there are two concepts involved.

Poor: A lack of money. It can be solved by adding money.

Poverty: A culture of not looking to the future, not handling money well. It can't be solved by money. We get various natural experiments of this sort--lottery winners. They typically soon end up where the were before.

The implicit assumptions in your simplistic argument are that those lottery winners who “ end up where they were before” were poor, and that people who buy lottery tickets have a similar psychological outlook as those in poverty. Both assumptions are dubious at best.

You realize lottery winners are typically poor? Haven't you heard of the lottery as a tax on the poor?

Your evidence to support your assumptions is you "heard" something? Once again, you astound with your assumptions. This is link from 4 years ago (Who play the Lottery?) -

The general belief is that poorer Americans buy lottery tickets more often than wealthier ones. But that's not quite true.
The survey showed the most frequent lottery players earn between $36,000 and $89,999. About 56% of that group bought tickets in the last year. Fewer of those making under $36,000 bought tickets, only 40%. About 53% who make above $90,000 bought a ticket.

Moreover, your handwaved response ignores the more salient point that it assumes that lottery players represent the typical poor person.