[Big Mac]

Let's say President Obama would give the following address:

"My fellow Americans, we know that the American economy is fundamentally broken. For too long it has promoted selfishness and greed. The rich have gotten richer on the backs of the poor in unethical fashion. Now it's time to even the playing field. Therefore, I have sent to the Congress the National Reinvestment Act of 2009. The plan under this act is actually very simple: Every head of a household and every indigent family head who can demonstrate from tax returns or poor living conditions that he or she has made on average less than $50,000 a year over the last ten years is entitled to receive from the government a lump sum reinvestment amount of $50,000 for the next 3 years. We estimate that around 50,000,000 people will be eligible for these grants, and the estimated cost is projected to be $15 trillion in additional debt, which will be authorized by the US Treasury and then bought by the US Federal Reserve (in the style of Banana Republics [which is how we're currently financing the enormous debt load, btw]). Now we understand that this will cause some loss of value to the dollar, but the enormous stimulative effect of this money will catapult our ailing economy out of this serious recession and hundreds of millions of Americans out of poverty.

There will be those on the right side of the aisle who will claim that we're creating such an gargantuan national debt that we'll never be able to get out of it, but we say to them that it's time for bold and courageous action to get this country on the right track! They'll try to intimidate you with rhetoric about hyperinflation, and they'll probably say this will reduce the incentive of Americans to power the economy by performing in their normal, poorly paying jobs. I say, don't listen! It's time for the economy to work for all of America, and that's what we intend to do with this unprecedented act of kindness toward the working class. We must all recognize that tireless creed, "Yes We Can Spend!" God bless you and God bless the United States."

Just assume my rough numbers are accurate for this exercise. Now, does anyone think this would be a good plan? And of that portion, do you see any potential drawbacks? This is a test of the MacNN Left's knowledge of Economics 101.

[ort888]

That plan would never work. Therefor Democrats are stupid.

It all makes sense now. Why didn't I see it before?

[BadKosh]

"The rich have gotten richer on the backs of the poor in unethical fashion."
WHAT A PILE OF BS! Urban legend at best. The poor have gotten poorer from being stupid and lazy.

"Every head of a household and every indigent family head who can demonstrate from tax returns or poor living conditions that he or she has made on average less than $50,000 a year over the last ten years"


Hand outs for idiots and pigs? I just don't see a RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT. The idiots will continue to take the low pay jobs and party on, and the pigs will still live in trashed surroundings and have poorer health because of it.

[besson3c]

Yes, poor people are all idiots and pigs! I'm glad we got that out of the way in the third post, this thread has all the markings of being a great success!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, poor people are all idiots and pigs!

To be fair there is a weird kind of social bond at the low end of the spectrum which does tend to keep people in their perceived place. Until a poor person breaks that bond, they're always going to be poor.

Example (off family, no less): "I bet you won't remember us when you're rich. You'll be too good for us".

And then there's the classic "you're not working class, not one of us". Which is inevitably followed by "damn straight, now get out of my way you pig-dog peasant". Of course, Doof was once working class... ...but Doof chose to break free of those bonds.
And it is a choice to anyone with an IQ over 40.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

To be fair there is a weird kind of social bond at the low end of the spectrum which does tend to keep people in their perceived place. Until a poor person breaks that bond, they're always going to be poor.

Example (off family, no less): "I bet you won't remember us when you're rich. You'll be too good for us".

And then there's the classic "you're not working class, not one of us". Which is inevitably followed by "damn straight, now get out of my way you pig-dog peasant". Of course, Doof was once working class... ...but Doof chose to break free of those bonds.
And it is a choice to anyone with an IQ over 40.

This definitely exists, I agree, as to social economic classes and the disconnect between them. I agree that many poor are lazy, but to go as far as BadKosh has gone is just insanity. What about the disabled? Vets? People bankrupted because of sickness? There are plenty of people that are poor but are not also lazy pigs. Making these sorts of inaccurate and outrageous statements doesn't do anybody any good.

As far as the original hypothetical, that reminds me too much of the SNL Harry Carrey "if the moon were made of cheese, would you eat it? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!"

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Obama would never say something like "Yes We Can Spend."

It'd be something double-speaked like, "Yes We Can Invest In the Children!"

I'm not so sure this is a hypothetical with as much imaginary money as Obama is planning on spending.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The poor have gotten poorer from being stupid and lazy.


Hand outs for idiots and pigs? I just don't see a RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT. The idiots will continue to take the low pay jobs and party on, and the pigs will still live in trashed surroundings and have poorer health because of it.

I thought working for a school in the Bay Area is a pretty self gratifying job. I get to work with computers and help support both the staff and the students. When the students graduate, I get to look forward to them complaining about how stupid and lazy I am.

Thanks, BadKosh.

[Uncle Skeleton]

"Abortions for all"
"Boo!"
"Very well, abortions for none"
"Boo!"
"Hmmm. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others"
"Yay!"

[ort888]

What if Obama dissolved the entire military, made abortion mandatory, banned all guns and made any sort of media dissent illegal. THAT WOULD HE HORRIBLE. I can't believe that I just made-believe that he might do that. He truly is a terrible person.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ort888 

What if Obama dissolved the entire military, made abortion mandatory, banned all guns and made any sort of media dissent illegal.

Oh. My. God. He did that? That's it! I'm changing my vote to McCain. Obama just lost the election and must move back in with his parents. What a loser.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This definitely exists, I agree, as to social economic classes and the disconnect between them. I agree that many poor are lazy, but to go as far as BadKosh has gone is just insanity. What about the disabled? Vets? People bankrupted because of sickness? There are plenty of people that are poor but are not also lazy pigs. Making these sorts of inaccurate and outrageous statements doesn't do anybody any good.

As far as the original hypothetical, that reminds me too much of the SNL Harry Carrey "if the moon were made of cheese, would you eat it? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!"

Insanity? LOL!!!

The phrase "poor living conditions that he or she has made on average less than $50,000 a year over the last ten years is entitled to receive from the government a lump sum reinvestment amount of $50,000 for the next 3 years" is the hint. Entitled?? Because they picked the wrong house, place, employer or all the other excuses?? NO. People make mistakes, and should take responsibility for them. Too lazy to pick up or take care of your surroundings? Too uneducated to get a job good enough to allow you to get more education? I don't see how OTHERS are responsible for these type of people. Handouts will be counter-productive.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: were you looking for genuine discussion, or were you just trying to ask a leading question in order to make some point of your own? If the latter, I think we all have a pretty good idea what that point might be. If the former, next time I would suggest approaching these sorts of questions a little differently if you want a little more than reactionary responses.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yes, I would eat it.

[besson3c]

BadKosh: that's not what you said. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, I would eat it.

Me too. I think the moon is overrated. What has it ever done for me?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

To be fair there is a weird kind of social bond at the low end of the spectrum which does tend to keep people in their perceived place. Until a poor person breaks that bond, they're always going to be poor.

Example (off family, no less): "I bet you won't remember us when you're rich. You'll be too good for us".

And then there's the classic "you're not working class, not one of us". Which is inevitably followed by "damn straight, now get out of my way you pig-dog peasant". Of course, Doof was once working class... ...but Doof chose to break free of those bonds.
And it is a choice to anyone with an IQ over 40.

Oh yeah, it's there. I see it every day. More able folks try to break away from the poverty cycle, and it's practically impossible sometimes. The poor decisions of one's family end up impact the current generation or siblings.

I've heard this stuff, as has my wife. As have plenty of my friends and relatives.

I think it's related to the disincentive to be smart when in school -- don't kill the curve, etc.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ort888 

That plan would never work. Therefor Democrats are stupid.

It all makes sense now. Why didn't I see it before?

You know, we get that you think Republicans are idiots and that Democrats have the answers.

However, if you have absolutely nothing to say besides "God, I'm SO dumb for being a Democrat", why do you even bother? It stopped being ironic or funny or whatever else the 500th time you did it.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"The rich have gotten richer on the backs of the poor in unethical fashion."
WHAT A PILE OF BS! Urban legend at best. The poor have gotten poorer from being stupid and lazy.

"Every head of a household and every indigent family head who can demonstrate from tax returns or poor living conditions that he or she has made on average less than $50,000 a year over the last ten years"


Hand outs for idiots and pigs? I just don't see a RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT. The idiots will continue to take the low pay jobs and party on, and the pigs will still live in trashed surroundings and have poorer health because of it.

People like you are what give sane conservatives a bad name.

A clearer way of making the argument:

Poor people do not have to live in filth and squalor. There's a small collection of apartments (maybe condos; I'm not sure) a few blocks from my home in Lafayette. They all look like crap - and I don't just mean that the exterior needs repairs. I mean that there are bags of garbage and rotting recliners in the front lawns, cars on blocks in the backyards, and when the residents go outside and leave their front doors open, you can see inside that their home is a complete sty.

I keep up on a blog about child abuse (Parents Behaving Badly). Many, many times, when a child is taken into custody by CPS, the house is described as being disgusting, with living conditions that are utterly baffling. You know, things like a room that's full of nothing but bags of garbage, a fridge full of moldy and rotting food, a baby in a room full of dirty diapers, and dog poo in every corner of the house.

You are in control of your living environment. While your stainless steel sink might be dented and rusty, the linoleum is peeling up at the corners, and the carpet is stained, you don't have to surround yourself with a shithole. Vacuuming doesn't cost much. Nor does doing the dishes, cleaning out the fridge, dusting, and taking out the garbage on a regular basis.

We feel sorry for poor people when we see their living conditions - why? Nobody forces them to live like that. You can live in a trailer and still keep it clean and poo-free. The sad fact is, many broke people simply have a very low standard of living. It's not that they can't afford to mow the lawn - it's that they don't care. It's not that they can't get off their asses and take out the trash once a week - it's that they're lazy enough throw it in the corner of the room and hose off the maggots on the bags once in awhile.

As much as I hate to admit it, I do agree with Doofy that there is a sort of restriction or lowered expectation that poor people place on themselves. The Starbucks where I used to work was entirely employed with college and high school dropouts who lived in the poor areas around downtown Indianapolis. For the first year I was there, I was the only person in the store (besides the general manager) who was working at getting an education and starting an actual career. The longest-running employee there, Beth, came from an extremely white trash family in Lafayette. Her mom was a meth addict and had been in and out of jail throughout her adulthood. Beth's various half and step brothers were largely in jail or prison. She was the only person in her family who was capable of holding down any sort of job whatsoever.

I wanted to help Beth. It killed me that she was in her late 20s, and her only source of income was a crap $11-an-hour job as a Starbucks shift supervisor. She had no real aspirations - because, she told me many times, she couldn't. This was as far as she could go. Her boyfriend (who, as far as I know, is still with her) was a complete social disease. He was a crack addict, living as a squatter in an abandoned building in downtown Indy. He abused Beth, had raped her several times, and couldn't keep a job. I insisted Beth could do better. I told her she deserved better, that she was a smart woman and just needed to change the direction of her life. She continued to insist that she couldn't rise above it, that this was "how her life had to be". She used to be homeless at one point, and told me that she ate out of the trash cans on the sidewalks of downtown Indy, because she "had her pride" and it was "better than being seen going into a homeless shelter".

I would have saved up my own money and sent Beth to college myself, if I knew it would actually help her. People don't like to talk about it, but many broke people believe they have no choice. It's not a matter of not having enough money or not being given a chance - they truly believe that they were born to be broke and are stuck no matter what.

My mom's been involved in the downtown Indianapolis homeless ministry for as long as I can remember. She started as a volunteer and eventually became a full-time employee of two different missions in downtown Indy. She talked to and knew some of the homeless "regulars" in the area - and not all of them were homeless because they had no choice. They were homeless because they chose it - because it was easier than the uphill climb out of their perceived plight.

One of the addicts who came in for meals on a regular basis came from an extremely wealthy family in one of the richest parts of Indianapolis. His family had invested thousands of dollars in sending him to rehab facilities all over the country (he's addicted to mouthwash). Time and again he went back to his addiction. He didn't want the help. His parents finally gave up, kicked him out, and he's been living as a homeless man ever since.

It simply doesn't work to just throw money at the problem. We need a drastic (and likely painful) shift in our perceptions and mentality and what we consider an acceptable standard of living - the kind of so-called poverty we see in the United States (which is a cake walk compared to the kind of poverty in countries like Haiti, Mexico, and India) has become a parasite on society. It seems to me that it would do better to encourage broke people to take responsibility and make the most of what they have, rather than wallowing in self-pity and filth because of the bad hand they were dealt by life.

The "what defines an acceptable standard of living" part is a damn big one. I'm supporting two people full time (myself and the boyfriend) on a $45,000 salary right now. We are by no means living like we're broke - we have two cars, high-speed Internet, and a 1300 sq ft apartment. I'm not putting a whole lot into savings right now, but we've made a new budget so that my savings plan is back on track. My mom makes somewhere around $33k. The state of her retirement is questionable (mostly because the economy tanked, which drastically affected her 403(b) and IRA), but she's not starving. She still does things like bathe regularly, eat healthy food, mow the lawn, and keep her house clean. One of my friends only makes $36k and has a massive amount of debt (he's not the smartest when it comes to financial responsibility, but he's getting there). He finally took responsibility for it and went to a credit counselor, who helped him figure out a payment plan to get rid of his debt. He lives in a small apartment and doesn't have a working car right now, but he takes care of himself and his home and holds a steady job. The idea that you need at least $75,000 a year to support a two-person family is insane. In fact, I'd argue that $75k would be plenty to support yourself, a spouse, and a kid. Of course, if you can't even pay your bills every month and are having things like electricity and water shut off on a regular basis, you might want to just avoid the entire "kid" thing altogether - which isn't as difficult to do as you might think.

I'm all for making education available to everyone - I wouldn't go so far as to say that education is a right, but I don't really have a problem with seeing my tax dollars go to fund the tuition of a kid who would otherwise be stuck working at Burger King for the rest of his life. Of course, the education system needs serious reform as well, but that's a different story.

[olePigeon]

I'd like to put up a vote of no confidence for the moon. All in favor?

[shifuimam]

I like the moon. It's so pretty at night when it's full and has wispy clouds around the edges.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You know, we get that you think Republicans are idiots and that Democrats have the answers.

However, if you have absolutely nothing to say besides "God, I'm SO dumb for being a Democrat", why do you even bother? It stopped being ironic or funny or whatever else the 500th time you did it.

This isn't actually true. I'm just pushing back against the ridiculously one-sided arguments I see on here all the time.

I consider 90% of politicians to be snakes and phonies. Democrats and Republicans both. They are both interested in the same thing and are just pandering to different audiences to get there. And the ones who aren't snakes or phonies can't get anywhere without the support of snakes and phonies, so it turns the whole process into a joke. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

That said, the Democrats are the party that panders to me, so I pretty much vote for them 100% of the time. Why would I vote for the party that pretends to be against me core values when I can vote for a party that at least acts like it supports my core values. It's the lesser of two evils.

The truth is that nothing is really simple and every story has two sides. Even though I feel a certain way, I always take the time to understand the other side and try to understand why people feel like they do. I am pretty much completely mixed up on about 50% of the important issues facing this country. I have no freaking idea about how to fix or solve any of these problems. I have no idea who is right and wrong.

I just find it funny that the same 5 or 6 people on here continue to vilify the Democrats and act like they are some sort of organized evil organization of scam artists who can only be foiled by the valiant and noble Republicans.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I like the moon.

We Like The Moon - rathergood.com

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Shifuimam, that was a great post.

I just wish people (leftwing poverty pimp types in particular) would get to the point of realizing that NO amount of raising taxes and spending money we don't have and every other bad idea will 'fix' a damn thing for people who live in self-created squalor. Aknowledge it. Stop denying it. Stop kneejerking when others acknowledge it. Accept it. Deal with it.

Then (and step is a biggie): realize that promising these people someone will solve things for them simply by virtue of their condition, with no consideration of it being self-exacerbated or not, doesn't HELP these people or anyone else. It actually further HARMS them.

Once over that hurdle, we could actually get to the final step and have a rational discussion about improving the condition of the truly needy through no fault of their own- and take it from there.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ort888 

This isn't actually true. I'm just pushing back against the ridiculously one-sided arguments I see on here all the time.

I consider 90% of politicians to be snakes and phonies. Democrats and Republicans both. They are both interested in the same thing and are just pandering to different audiences to get there. And the ones who aren't snakes or phonies can't get anywhere without the support of snakes and phonies, so it turns the whole process into a joke. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

That said, the Democrats are the party that panders to me, so I pretty much vote for them 100% of the time. Why would I vote for the party that pretends to be against me core values when I can vote for a party that at least acts like it supports my core values. It's the lesser of two evils.

The truth is that nothing is really simple and every story has two sides. Even though I feel a certain way, I always take the time to understand the other side and try to understand why people feel like they do. I am pretty much completely mixed up on about 50% of the important issues facing this country. I have no freaking idea about how to fix or solve any of these problems. I have no idea who is right and wrong.

I just find it funny that the same 5 or 6 people on here continue to vilify the Democrats and act like they are some sort of organized evil organization of scam artists who can only be foiled by the valiant and noble Republicans.

Then instead of posting something like "This plan will never work, boy are the Democrats total morons", why not post something that provides some genuine insight into why Democrats/the liberal left/etc. think that such a plan as OldManMac described could work?

Arguing about political and socioeconomic issues is tricky - you generally won't change the minds of the people who disagree with you, while the people who agree with you will just rally behind you and agree with you.

I look at such discussions from a different angle - talking about this stuff allows people (including myself) to be challenged to form more coherent and solid arguments for why they see things the way they do. I hate ignorance more than anything else when it comes to any issue - don't just say "throwing money at the problem won't work" - explain why. Give some evidence (which my last long-winded post attempted to do). If you think that the OP's example would work, explain why. Show some examples, some real-world indicators that it would alleviate at least some of the problem.

Arguing about politics has, in most regards, degenerated into nothing but petty insults, name-calling, yelling, and finally a feeling of self-importance that you're right and brilliant, and people who disagree with you are wrong and stupid. What in the world does that accomplish?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Then instead of posting something like "This plan will never work, boy are the Democrats total morons", why not post something that provides some genuine insight into why Democrats/the liberal left/etc. think that such a plan as OldManMac described could work?

huh?

If you think that the OP's example would work, explain why.

No one thinks the OP's example would work. It's a ridiculous cartoonish straw man.

Arguing about politics has, in most regards, degenerated into nothing but petty insults, name-calling, yelling, and finally a feeling of self-importance that you're right and brilliant, and people who disagree with you are wrong and stupid. What in the world does that accomplish?

I'm bemused that you don't see these features shining brightly from the OP.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Shifuimam, that was a great post.

Aw, shucks. Thanks.

I just wish people (leftwing poverty pimp types in particular) would get to the point of realizing that NO amount of raising taxes and spending money we don't have and every other bad idea will 'fix' a damn thing for people who live in self-created squalor. Aknowledge it. Stop denying it. Stop kneejerking when others acknowledge it. Accept it. Deal with it.

Then (and step is a biggie): realize that promising these people someone will solve things for them simply by virtue of their condition, with no consideration of it being self-exacerbated or not, doesn't HELP these people or anyone else. It actually further HARMS them.

Once over that hurdle, we could actually get to the final step and have a rational discussion about improving the condition of the truly needy through no fault of their own- and take it from there.

The problem is that it's perceived as very difficult to clearly differentiate between helpless poverty and self-inflicted being-broke.

It doesn't seem all that complex to me - someone who has a mental or physical disability and therefore cannot adequately care for himself and his home needs assistance. Some conservative types would argue that such assistance should be (and is) provided by private, non-profit organizations, but what about in areas like LA or Chicago, where the non-profits aren't big enough to handle the population of disabled people?

Sometime in...I don't know...the 70s or 80s, it became really politically incorrect to have public institutions to house and care for disabled people and unwanted children. Most were shut down, under the guise that "disabled people want independence" and children "need their parents". The problem is that now we have disabled people living in squalor because they cannot care for themselves and can't afford a caregiver, and children end up dead or permanently damaged because CPS returns them to people who are clearly incapable of, you know, keeping them alive past the age of three.

The large majority of the broke population, however, is there because they choose that path in life. It's complete and total crap that if your parents are uneducated and poor, you have no choice but to be uneducated and poor. I know this from absolute firsthand experience. I got shitloads of money from federal and state programs to go to college, because my mom didn't make enough money to even put her over the national poverty line. It's not hard to qualify for this stuff - stay in school, maintain at least a 2.5 or 3.0 GPA (depending on the grant requirements), and do more than just write your name at the top of your SAT. Bam - free money to go to your local public university. That university may not provide as stellar an education as, say, MIT, but it'll keep you off the streets and give you the tools, the contacts, and the piece of paper necessary to get a damn job and take care of your own life.

Rewarding people with free money simply because they're broke or don't know how to keep their home clean is a great way to reward laziness and irresponsibility.

I believe that humans are inherently bad (comes with the whole being-a-Christian thing). The trouble is, most left wingers like to think that humans are inherently good - that if given the chance to do the right thing, they will. Given the money to get started on a better life, they'll choose a better life rather than where they are right now. Trouble is, every piece of written and spoken history on the planet points to the opposite - that people are inherently self-serving and greedy and, given the chance to feed that inborn nature, will choose to do so. There are far more people in the world like Bernie Madoff than Mother Teresa.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That university may not provide as stellar an education as, say, MIT, but it'll keep you off the streets and give you the tools, the contacts, and the piece of paper necessary to get a damn job and take care of your own life.

You seem to assume that most people with financial difficulties do not have jobs. I think this assumption is incorrect.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

There are far more people in the world like Bernie Madoff than Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa's shtick was to let people suffer and die from their illnesses because through the suffering they were brought closer to God.

I'll take Bernie Madoff over Mother Teresa.

[besson3c]

Why do Republicans think that Democrats think that we can "save all the poor people"? Some of us just have a different opinion on where these various balances lie. It's frustrating that people assume that because we question ideology that we must be in favor of some extreme end of the spectrum.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You seem to assume that most people with financial difficulties do not have jobs. I think this assumption is incorrect.

I'm not sure where you're getting that assumption from.

If you take no responsibility for your future and put no stock in your education, you'll end up in a dead-end job without enough money to pay your bills on time every month.

Getting a degree can do wonders for a person. Maybe not in this immediate economic climate, but in general, if you have a degree, you are more hireable than someone without a degree who is applying for the same position.

The dropout rates for high schools in poor urban areas are utterly astonishing.

Comparing in my own state, between Arsenal Technical High School and Lew Wallace High School (two of the worst high schools in the state), and Carmel High School and West Lafayette High School (two of the better upper middle class schools in the state):

By graduation rate:

Tech: 44.0%
Lew: 42.1%
Carmel: 91.7%
W.L.: 90.5%

Average SAT score:

Tech: 957
Lew: 755
Carmel: 1126
W.L.: 1199

The first two schools are predominantly low-income and predominantly black (63% and 97%, respectively). Tech topped out at 70% of school lunches being provided through the free lunch program, with another 10% provided through the reduced-cost program. Lew Wallace was at 63% free and 2% reduced-cost.

Carmel? 83% white with lunch statistics at 4% free, 2% reduced-cost. West Lafayette came in at 72% white, with 6% of lunches provided free and 3% provided at a reduced cost.

Why do you think the dropout rate is so high at the first two high schools? Many of the female students end up pregnant. Males and females end up joining gangs, which results in death, dropping out, imprisonment, or all three. Still others simply quit because "it's too hard" and they operate under the belief that they have no choice but to live in poverty. The end result? The majority of the students don't even make it into college.

What's equally interesting is the statistics on income for the cities served by these four high schools, by median family income and percent of families below the national poverty line:

Indianapolis (center township, which is where Tech serves)
$29,476
24.4%

Gary
$32,205
22.2%

Carmel
$110,549
1.6%

West Lafayette
$71,510
9.5%

Likewise, compare the graduation rates of Compton High School and Beverly Hills High School in California:

Compton: 59.7%
Beverly Hills: 100.0%

Average SAT scores:

Compton: 773
Beverly Hills: 1189

I would say that there's a damn big correlation between being broke and being uneducated. Not only that, but the high schools with the worst graduation rates and the worst test scores do end up with many of the kids on the streets, either jobless or earning income through, shall we say, questionable means.

So what's the solution? We have to find the cause of the problem, first. Are the education problems in places like Compton and Gary due to the low-income, or does it have more to do with the societal expectations and standards that pollute low-income populations? Is the problem really that black people can't get higher-paying jobs, or is it because they are generally unwilling to take the steps necessary to acquire higher-paying jobs? Poverty is something that spreads like a disease, taking over entire areas of the United States. Unfortunately, because societal and living standards are inherently much lower for people in impoverished areas, trying to distribute that population into higher-income neighborhoods and areas usually ends up polluting those neighborhoods, because the broke people who are put there have a lower standard of living than the people around them.

Your only real defense against financial problems is education, in every sense of the word. Education to get a job, but also education on how to manage your personal finances in a way that prevents massive debt and financial troubles later in life. Both of these seem to be missing more in low-income areas.

My last twenty months as a resident of Indianapolis were lived in a luxury high-rise apartment right in the middle of downtown. Rent plus parking ran me nearly a grand a month (which is quite high in comparison to suburban apartment complexes, or even apartments a little further out from the downtown radius). Catty-corner to my building was a new apartment project that was funded by the city. It provided low-income housing with, theoretically, certain restrictions imposed - like income requirements (you have to be employed). Unfortunately, the requirements weren't strict enough, and the building wasn't exactly a paradise of hard-working people who just needed a chance in life.

Such a project could work, however, provided that there were standards imposed upon the residents of the building. I mean real standards, like you have to provide proof of working toward some kind of education, be it a GED, trade school, community college, or a four-year undergraduate degree. Things like requiring you to hold a steady job and work a minimum number of hours per week, relative to your hourly pay. You can't just take everyone who falls under a certain income level and assume they all suffer the same plight and should all be given the same concessions.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Mother Teresa's shtick was to let people suffer and die from their illnesses because through the suffering they were brought closer to God.

I'll take Bernie Madoff over Mother Teresa.

Then take your pick from famous people who did unending good in the world at the expense of their own personal comfort. Her name was the first I thought of.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do Republicans think that Democrats think that we can "save all the poor people"? Some of us just have a different opinion on where these various balances lie. It's frustrating that people assume that because we question ideology that we must be in favor of some extreme end of the spectrum.

I don't know about other Republicans, but my perception is that the Democrat political platform - at least what's pushed by the Democrats in Washington - supports the idea that we need to fund more programs to help broke people. Just put more money into it, and that will help. Bail out the car companies instead of making them learn from their mistakes - the end result being that GM is still going to declare bankruptcy, even after they took so many billions of taxpayer dollars. On a smaller scale, there seems to be the attitude that we should dump more money into social programs to aid broke people - housing, food, money, education. One of these is not like the others...

[ort888]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't know about other Republicans, but my perception is that the Democrat political platform - at least what's pushed by the Democrats in Washington - supports the idea that we need to fund more programs to help broke people. Just put more money into it, and that will help. Bail out the car companies instead of making them learn from their mistakes - the end result being that GM is still going to declare bankruptcy, even after they took so many billions of taxpayer dollars. On a smaller scale, there seems to be the attitude that we should dump more money into social programs to aid broke people - housing, food, money, education. One of these is not like the others...

Replace the word "broke" with "non-rich". Why does this always come back to people living in squalor? It's more about people in the middle class.

I was having a talk about this stuff with a woman I work with and she kept saying "poor people" this and "poor people" that... and I had to cut her off and tell her... WE are the poor people. The poor people politicians are talking about are us.

In my dream world, the Democrats are the party that close the loopholes that tilt the entire world in the favor of the mega-rich. It's not about sending massive amounts of cash to poor people so the can buy beer... it's making sure that the businesses of the world don't screw over working people. It's about providing a landscape where people with the will to succeed can. As opposed to one where it is impossible. The goal is not to send thousands of dollars to every worthless deadbeat... the goal is to make sure that any one of those deadbeats who decides to do something better... has the opportunity to do better.

What's funny is that I bet if you were asked about what the Republicans stood for, you would say something almost identical. It's all about perspective.

*I feel like I need to add a disclaimer that this is what I think the Democratic Party does on paper. The reality of the situation is that they are also in the pockets of the same businesses interests they claim to protect us from. Both parties are.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't know about other Republicans, but my perception is that the Democrat political platform - at least what's pushed by the Democrats in Washington - supports the idea that we need to fund more programs to help broke people. Just put more money into it, and that will help. Bail out the car companies instead of making them learn from their mistakes - the end result being that GM is still going to declare bankruptcy, even after they took so many billions of taxpayer dollars. On a smaller scale, there seems to be the attitude that we should dump more money into social programs to aid broke people - housing, food, money, education. One of these is not like the others...

I don't mean this as some witty retort or something intended to score points in this debate, but if this is your perception I don't think you really understand the Democratic platform.

[Big Mac]

Interesting findings coming from this thread. ort888 engages in many of the fantasies found in my hypothetical when describing his Democratic Party platform, seemingly unwittingly. In contrast, shif takes the right-wing economic view further than I would - I didn't know the political compass went that far.

shif, I hope you recognize that a BA doesn't guarantee much of anything in the way of employment, let alone decent employment. Of course, job prospects vary depending on one's degree, but simply saying you can get a decent job just through education is naive and polyanish, especially in today's economy.

Beyond that, I have a lot of compassion for unskilled, under educated people. I simply reject the notion that turning America into an imitation of the Soviet Union is the way to lift the less fortunate up.

besson, I'm glad you contributed to this thread. This was really a response to your "You've got to spend money to make money" thread, taking your view to its logical conclusion.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: how is this thread the logical conclusion of mine?

[Big Mac]

Because if you think there are no serious problems or consequences associated with the level of deficit spending going on right now and the mind boggling national debt load we will be carrying at the end of Obama's eight years (which is not to say for a moment that Bush was financially prudent), then you may as well just start handing lump sums of deficit dollars out to lower income people directly.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The poor people politicians are talking about are us.

Well, they'd certainly like for all of us to be.

In my dream world, the Democrats are the party that close the loopholes that tilt the entire world in the favor of the mega-rich.

In my dream world, the Democrats and Republicans both are parties that **** off and does only what it's charged with in the constitution, stops wasting boatloads of money, and stops going to the taxpayer to demand endless bailouts for itself.

It's about providing a landscape where people with the will to succeed can.

That's part of ****ing off and staying out of productive people's way.

As opposed to one where it is impossible.

Nothing is impossible, although bigger government makes things less possible for a lot more people.

The goal is not to send thousands of dollars to every worthless deadbeat...

One thing I dislike about Democrats, is they DO spend a lot of time convincing deadbeats that they deserve thousands of dollars out of someone else's pocket, through class-envy tactics, in exchange for votes. The whole tact of convincing people that everyone else has everything only because they cheated, and worse, that poor people wouldn't be poor if only the rich didn't take all the (finite supply of course) wealth. Again, a big part of the disconnect on this whole subject, is the fact that many on your side simply fail to own up to, and deal with this fact. So we can't even ever get to the point of what could be done to help anyone truly in need- smart people merely put most of their money OUT OF THE HANDS of greedy politicians who DO want to use confiscating it as a dangled carrot for the votes of 'deadbeats', and of course to fund the unsustainable nanny-state bullshit they've cooked up.

the goal is to make sure that any one of those deadbeats who decides to do something better... has the opportunity to do better.

And as stated, no amount of spending money we don't have, tax increases, and big government nanny state bullshit will EVER make any 'worthless deadbeat' decide to do diddly squat. That's a function only of personal initiative, not something some politician is ever going to make happen. Once again, that's why many of us oppose your 'dream team' tax and spend Democrats who think it's possible, and that think they are the ones to take everyone else's money in order to do so. Remember, the whole 'sharing the wealth' thing? Democrats love to pretend they don't understand what terms like that sound like to deadbeats who just hear "Someone's going to give me something! I'll pull a lever for that!"

What's funny is that I bet if you were asked about what the Republicans stood for, you would say something almost identical.

Not a real one.

*I feel like I need to add a disclaimer that this is what I think the Democratic Party does on paper. The reality of the situation is that they are also in the pockets of the same businesses interests they claim to protect us from. Both parties are.

Well, that's certainly true.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If you take no responsibility for your future and put no stock in your education, you'll end up in a dead-end job without enough money to pay your bills on time every month.

Similarly, even if you pay through the nose for an education, there's still a good chance you'll end up in a dead-end job without enough money to pay your bills on time every month. Financial responsibility is not a required skill in most schools' curricula.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Getting a degree can do wonders for a person. Maybe not in this immediate economic climate, but in general, if you have a degree, you are more hireable than someone without a degree who is applying for the same position.

Sure, but there are a lot of jobs that don't require a degree, and there are a lot of degrees that don't lend themselves well to any job. Education is good, but you're still going to be screwed if you're an idiot. More importantly, you don't really need a very well-paying job to stay out of debt. In one place I used to live (not California), an apartment will run you maybe $500 a month. Cashiers at my local grocery store make $12 an hour. $12 an hour * 40 a week * 4 weeks = $1920. Let's say for the sake of argument that gas is $100, utilities are $150 and groceries are $300. You will still end up with more than $7000 in the bank at the end of the year if you aren't wasting your money on anything else.

[ort888]

Why does everything always have to discussed in such ridiculous extremes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because if you think there are no serious problems or consequences associated with the level of deficit spending going on right now and the mind boggling national debt load we will be carrying at the end of Obama's eight years (which is not to say for a moment that Bush was financially prudent), then you may as well just start handing lump sums of deficit dollars out to lower income people directly.

I do think that there are serious problems with deficit spending, I just honestly don't see any alternatives right now. I'm ambivalent about bailing out the auto companies and banks, but I do believe strongly that if you really want to fix health care and social security, these changes will cost money as we've gone over, just as inaction will also continue to cost us money. I also believe that strategic economic stimulus and job creation from the bottom up can work in some circumstances if designed well, just as I think that pro big business economic stimulus plans can work in others (generally speaking I think you need a balance of both, but both are viable models). I also believe in some amount of government regulation, when applied appropriately.

I kind of resent being treated as some radical with bizarre, un-nuanced viewpoints. I've never suggested that we hand out lump sums of money directly to people, nor do I see how this is any kind of logical conclusion to anything.

[besson3c]

Crash: do you believe that the constitution should be treated as a living, breathing document, or some static biblical thing that is never to be tampered with?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh. Looks like even the California electorate are getting it.

California Reckoning Tax and spend governance may finally hit the wall.

...One recent poll found that 72% of Californians agreed that "if the measures on the special election ballot are defeated, it would send a message to the governor and the legislature that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes." [Listen up Washington, cause hopefully, you're next!]

That's a good message to send. California politicians have operated for years as if the purpose of government is not to provide reliable public services at low cost, but to feed public employee unions. Sacramento also needs to rethink its highly progressive antigrowth tax code, where the tax rates are the highest outside of New York City. The Golden State now ranks worst or second worst on most ratings of state business climate. This drives away entrepreneurs and high-income taxpayers, which in turn leads to lower revenues. [What, you mean the job of political nitwits isn't to level the playing field against these people? Lost business and jobs? Lower revenues? WHO CARES? Level the playing field and get even at all costs!]

If the voters do reject these false fixes, there will be wails of despair in Sacramento. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who never saw a spending or tax increase she didn't like, says "California, frankly, is going to be in a world of hurt." Mr. Schwarzenegger says he will be forced to release 30,000 criminals from jail, and to lay off teachers, troopers and firefighters. Look for the state to ask Washington for another bailout "stimulus."

Haha! I love the 'threats' by the tax and spend weasels- "Give us yet another bailout, or we'll turn all the criminals loose, lay off all the teachers, and cut all the stuff that sounds really hot-button scaaaaaary!"

Finally people are starting to wake up and call these morons on this bullshit. Gee, can't really scare anyone with a threat like: "Give us another bailout, or we're gonna cut the waste, knock off the fraud, cut off freeloaders, get rid of pork, and stop giving handouts to our union cronies!!!"

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: do you believe that the constitution should be treated as a living, breathing document, or some static biblical thing that is never to be tampered with?

The constitution is very much about limiting the power of the Federal government, and we need to get back to that. If the constitution doesn't specifically grant the Federal government power to create some huge boondoggle, then the Federal government shouldn't get carte blanche to create more huge boondoggles. If one wants Federally mandated boondoggles, then amend the constitution to grant those specific boondoggle powers to the Federal government. And good luck with that.

The document 'lives and breathes' only in that the concepts of liberty from an repressive centralized government remain just as relevant today as the day it was written. It doesn't 'live and breathe' for people to find justifications for government power grabs that it doesn't actually outline.

Anyway, it's truly a good sign to see if even the voters of California* have reached something of an 'enough is enough' point with tax and spend weasels then I've got TREMENDOUS hope for the rest of the country -usually lightyears more fiscally sensible than California taxpayers- waking up in time to stop the shipwreck.

* and believe me, Cali has a voting populace that has proven time and time again it routinely falls for an unfathomable shitload of tax and spend nonsense, hence the black hole we're in as a result.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Let's say President Obama would give the following address:

"My fellow Americans, we know that the American economy is fundamentally broken. For too long it has promoted selfishness and greed. The rich have gotten richer on the backs of the poor in unethical fashion. Now it's time to even the playing field. Therefore, I have sent to the Congress the National Reinvestment Act of 2009. The plan under this act is actually very simple: Every head of a household and every indigent family head who can demonstrate from tax returns or poor living conditions that he or she has made on average less than $50,000 a year over the last ten years is entitled to receive from the government a lump sum reinvestment amount of $50,000 for the next 3 years. We estimate that around 50,000,000 people will be eligible for these grants, and the estimated cost is projected to be $15 trillion in additional debt, which will be authorized by the US Treasury and then bought by the US Federal Reserve (in the style of Banana Republics [which is how we're currently financing the enormous debt load, btw]). Now we understand that this will cause some loss of value to the dollar, but the enormous stimulative effect of this money will catapult our ailing economy out of this serious recession and hundreds of millions of Americans out of poverty.

There will be those on the right side of the aisle who will claim that we're creating such an gargantuan national debt that we'll never be able to get out of it, but we say to them that it's time for bold and courageous action to get this country on the right track! They'll try to intimidate you with rhetoric about hyperinflation, and they'll probably say this will reduce the incentive of Americans to power the economy by performing in their normal, poorly paying jobs. I say, don't listen! It's time for the economy to work for all of America, and that's what we intend to do with this unprecedented act of kindness toward the working class. We must all recognize that tireless creed, "Yes We Can Spend!" God bless you and God bless the United States."

Just assume my rough numbers are accurate for this exercise. Now, does anyone think this would be a good plan? And of that portion, do you see any potential drawbacks? This is a test of the MacNN Left's knowledge of Economics 101.

Oh, how I miss the days of trickle down economics. I would work tirelessly and wait patiently for "mine", but "it" would never arrive. Well, I guess my upper class overlords know best, I will continue to work hard and eventually I will get "mine"...The middle and lower classes know all about trickle down economics, and (correctly) equate it with being peed on...that's why Americans LOVE Obama, it's called change, baby and we are going to see much, much more of it! Meanwhile, the conservatives are meandering backwards, unable to connect with the majority of Americans, and will soon be like the dinosaurs, extinct! Thank you Reagan, Bush, et al, for accelerating this marginalization!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

that's why Americans LOVE Obama, it's called change, baby and we are going to see much, much more of it!

Well I should hope so, since the bloke based his campaign on "change" and we ain't seen any yet.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Replace the word "broke" with "non-rich". Why does this always come back to people living in squalor? It's more about people in the middle class.

I was having a talk about this stuff with a woman I work with and she kept saying "poor people" this and "poor people" that... and I had to cut her off and tell her... WE are the poor people. The poor people politicians are talking about are us.

I take up pretty serious issue with that. The government should NOT be trying to assist people like us. We're not poor. I'm not in need of any kind of government assistance. People making half what I make aren't in need of government assistance.

...it's making sure that the businesses of the world don't screw over working people. It's about providing a landscape where people with the will to succeed can.

There is a key flaw with this argument - success is relative, and this is where my earlier discussion about standard of living comes into play. One man's success is another man's failure. A kid who generally flunks his exams is going to be thrilled to get a D+ on a math test. A kid who gets straight-As is going to be crushed to get a B+.

The government cannot and should not be setting an arbitrary floor and ceiling for how people are supposed to live, and for how individual success is defined. Saying that the government needs to provide avenues by which people can succeed is given the government free license to decide for you what level of success is required for you to be labeled as successful.

People with the will to succeed can succeed. There is nothing stopping you from going back to school or getting a different job or moving to a more affordable location or paying off your debts or being a responsible adult. The problem is that Americans define success by things like the size of your house, the amount of money you have in the bank, your annual salary, how many children you have, and what kind of car you drive. That kind of crap has nothing to do with your personal success. It's just stuff.

My two personal examples in a previous post - Beth from Starbucks and my friend with financial problems. I'd say that Beth is a failure. In fact, she knows she's a failure. She set an artificial limit for herself and is unwilling to work beyond it. She knows she doesn't have a bad life, but she also knows it could be better - yet won't take the steps necessary to make it better.

My friend, on the other hand, I would label as a success. I think that some days, he would also label himself as a success. He has a good job and is well-liked by his customers, his employees, and his superiors. He's got a handle on his personal finances, he's in school, and he has a plan for his future.

However, by an arbitrary standard of living, income, home square footage, amount of money in the bank, and lack of a functioning car would define both Beth and my friend as "poor" or "unsuccessful".

At the end of the day, a socialist economic viewpoint demands that extreme success be punished and that extreme failure be rewarded. It's not up to you or the government to decide when a multinational corporation has become "too" successful. Can you imagine what would happen, in the current economic climate, if Wal-Mart were suddenly severely punished by the government for being "too successful"? Their expenses would go up, they would be forced to raised prices, and suddenly the millions of Americans who wholly rely on the ability to buy necessities like food and clothing at dirt-cheap low prices would find themselves in a world of hurt.

If you want to define personal success as ending up like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet by the time you're fifty, dream on. The government will never be able to ensure that. But, if you want define success by something other than concrete numbers - you know, like the ability to care for yourself and your family and pay your bills on time - then you can already do that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

shif, I hope you recognize that a BA doesn't guarantee much of anything in the way of employment, let alone decent employment. Of course, job prospects vary depending on one's degree, but simply saying you can get a decent job just through education is naive and polyanish, especially in today's economy.

Oh believe me, I know. But I also know that having a piece of paper makes a business think you're more qualified for a position. Boyfriend can't find a job to save his life right now, because he doesn't have a degree yet. He's smart, he has a lot of real-world experience in his field of work, and he has the references to back himself up...yet he's not even considered for many positions simply because he doesn't have a degree.

On the other hand, I do think that college degrees are overrated. Many people who are in college would be much better off going to trade school - but that still falls under the umbrella of education.

And, like I said - it's not just about formal education. It's also about thinks like common sense, personal finance, and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, these days, these concepts are no longer inherent - they must be taught and reinforced.

Beyond that, I have a lot of compassion for unskilled, under educated people. I simply reject the notion that turning America into an imitation of the Soviet Union is the way to lift the less fortunate up.

I do too, which is why I think that education reform is critical to the future of the United States. We need to make education of all kinds available to people - and we need to provide the encouragement and rewards to get people to become more educated. Our standards are far too low in this regard - nobody should be living on welfare their entire lives. You shouldn't be qualifying for welfare (provided you are physically and mentally capable of functioning as a normal adult) welfare if you've been on it for the last five years and have made no attempt to take responsibility for your own life.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Similarly, even if you pay through the nose for an education, there's still a good chance you'll end up in a dead-end job without enough money to pay your bills on time every month. Financial responsibility is not a required skill in most schools' curricula.

Which is why I mentioned education reform in an earlier post. I entirely believe that both high school and university education standards should require at least a year of personal finance - start in high school with explaining things like credit cards, compound interest, and loan debt. Move into more complex topics like mortgages, retirement accounts, investment accounts, and the stock market when you reach post-high school education.

Hell, credit card companies should require a seminar on credit card debt and how APRs work before approving you for your first card. Same goes for mortgages.

Sure, but there are a lot of jobs that don't require a degree, and there are a lot of degrees that don't lend themselves well to any job. Education is good, but you're still going to be screwed if you're an idiot.

Absolutely. It just seems like there are more idiots today than there were even fifty years ago. There's a big difference between being genetically mentally inferior and simply having no common sense. My brother is an academic genius, but he's a social retard. It's not because he has some medical problem or mental disorder. It's because he never got around to developing the social skills necessary to not make an idiot of himself in just about every group situation he encounters.

More importantly, you don't really need a very well-paying job to stay out of debt. In one place I used to live (not California), an apartment will run you maybe $500 a month. Cashiers at my local grocery store make $12 an hour. $12 an hour * 40 a week * 4 weeks = $1920. Let's say for the sake of argument that gas is $100, utilities are $150 and groceries are $300. You will still end up with more than $7000 in the bank at the end of the year if you aren't wasting your money on anything else.

THIS.

Because of our arbitrary and artificially high standard of living (and standard of success) in the United States, people have become convinced that you have to be making at least a hundred grand a year to stay out of debt as an adult. It's utterly ridiculous. There is no reason to have a $200,000 house when a $125,000 house in a less swanky area of town is perfectly comfortable. There is absolutely no reason to own a brand new car when you can buy a three-year-old car for ten thousand dollars less. Your kids will survive without $80 jeans from Hollister. You don't need digital cable or the most expensive cell phone plan available.

Yet we have decided that these things define an average American family, which makes us feel inferior if we don't meet those standards. I drive a car I bought for cash, don't have anything but limited basic cable (limited basic + cable Internet is cheaper than cable Internet alone), and even as a hardcore computer geek, it took me four and half years to finally decide to upgrade to a new computer. I also have more money in savings than many people twice my age. Financial responsibility is not nearly as difficult as mainstream media would have you believe.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You also have good health and no dependents. I agree with you in principle, people should do more with less and be happy doing it. I just recognize the reality that many aren't as lucky as I am when it comes to their legitimate obligations.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Similarly, even if you pay through the nose for an education, there's still a good chance you'll end up in a dead-end job without enough money to pay your bills on time every month. Financial responsibility is not a required skill in most schools' curricula.


Sure, but there are a lot of jobs that don't require a degree, and there are a lot of degrees that don't lend themselves well to any job. Education is good, but you're still going to be screwed if you're an idiot. More importantly, you don't really need a very well-paying job to stay out of debt. In one place I used to live (not California), an apartment will run you maybe $500 a month. Cashiers at my local grocery store make $12 an hour. $12 an hour * 40 a week * 4 weeks = $1920. Let's say for the sake of argument that gas is $100, utilities are $150 and groceries are $300. You will still end up with more than $7000 in the bank at the end of the year if you aren't wasting your money on anything else.

A grocer nets $12/hr?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You also have good health and no dependents. I agree with you in principle, people should do more with less and be happy doing it. I just recognize the reality that many aren't as lucky as I am when it comes to their legitimate obligations.

This is true - but I would guess that more than half the people in the US with financial problems as a result of medical problems have those medical problems as a result of poor diet and lack of exercise.

Most obese people are obese because of a combination of a sedentary lifestyle and a very poor diet. There are a multitude of complications that come from being fat - heart problems, respiratory problems, joint pain, muscle issues, back pain, diabetes, etc. These problems can be prevented by being healthy.

And, WRT dependents, here's a hot tip - don't have kids if you can't afford to take care of them. People tend to respond to that idea with "if you wait until you can afford to have children, you'll never get there". This just isn't true. I could afford a kid right now. It would require some tightening of the budget, but I COULD raise a child. However, if I were only making $35,000 a year and carrying $10,000 of credit card and loan debt (excluding a mortgage but not excluding things like home equity loans), I wouldn't feasibly be able to afford to raise a kid.

It absolutely amazes me to see how many broke-ass people who can barely afford to pay their utilities on time continue to pop out children like it's no big deal. What ever happened to birth control, condoms, or - gasp! - not loaning out your vagina like it's a pair of cheap flip-flops? Condoms are cheap through Planned Parenthood. Birth control will generally cost you about $5 a month (without insurance, thanks to all those low-cost drug programs at places like Wal-Mart and CVS). If you can afford to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, you can afford birth control. It ain't that complex.

I lose a lot of pity for a young single mother after she pops out the first unwanted baby. At that point, you should probably recognize that having another child is a bad thing and do everything possible to avoid it. And, unfortunately, this means that you have zero excuse for having another child unless you are forcefully impregnated against your will.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The constitution is very much about limiting the power of the Federal government, and we need to get back to that. If the constitution doesn't specifically grant the Federal government power to create some huge boondoggle, then the Federal government shouldn't get carte blanche to create more huge boondoggles. If one wants Federally mandated boondoggles, then amend the constitution to grant those specific boondoggle powers to the Federal government. And good luck with that.

The document 'lives and breathes' only in that the concepts of liberty from an repressive centralized government remain just as relevant today as the day it was written. It doesn't 'live and breathe' for people to find justifications for government power grabs that it doesn't actually outline.

Anyway, it's truly a good sign to see if even the voters of California* have reached something of an 'enough is enough' point with tax and spend weasels then I've got TREMENDOUS hope for the rest of the country -usually lightyears more fiscally sensible than California taxpayers- waking up in time to stop the shipwreck.

* and believe me, Cali has a voting populace that has proven time and time again it routinely falls for an unfathomable shitload of tax and spend nonsense, hence the black hole we're in as a result.

It just seems funny that some have adopted this "abide by the constitution" religion knowing full well that any attempt to amend the constitution will be shot down in this political climate no matter what the cause and issue. How we can govern using only a set of blueprints written hundreds of years ago is confusing to me. Don't get me wrong, the constitution is an awesome document that I respect highly, but it was written before the time of all of these investment and money making schemes that are so creatively being abused these days.

[ort888]

If people weren't so damned lazy, fat and pregnant, they could have everything figured out JUST LIKE YOU.

You're so freaking smart it hurts... it pains you to live in this world of idiots, doesn't it?