Gingrich dared to speak truth on teens' work ethic

[Dave Schwartz]

Gingrich dared to speak truth on teens' work ethic

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/07/opinion/navarrette-newt-gingrich/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Not that only the first few seconds of this video is Newt's speech. The rest is commentary of others, including a left-winger that just doesn't get it.

I really look forward to the POV of the left-most on this board regarding his comments.


Dave

[DJofSD]

"He didn't say some, he said poor."

Sounds like LZ had his feelings hurt. Heaven forbid some one that could be a role model has to let his heart rule his head.

Dear LZ - get over it.

[TJDave]

Don't see how this hurts. The endemic poor know where their bread is buttered and will vote accordingly.

[Tom]

Yes, for the handouts.

[Tom]

pucksprite said: I'd like to see Newt's grandchildren scrubbing toilets to pay for their schooling. He should feature that in his next campaign ad. Otherwise, this is just another bloated piece of rhetoric from the serial adulterer/hypocrite/ethics violator.


I did. I had three jobs to get through college. One of them involved cleaning toilets and hauling garbage to the dump when I wasn't mopping floors or making ice cream or cleaning the bakery. I will say I left a bathroom to die for when I wrang out my mop.

I was a short order cook, a dishwasher, and delivered flowers and ice.

None of it was beneath me. None of it was my first choice, but it paid my way through school.

And I did every job to the best of my ability. With no union help.
It never occurred to me that someone else should pay my way.

I guess that is not what we want our kids taught today.

[TJDave]

Yes, for the handouts.

Of course. It's either that or they starve...or steal.

[Robert Goren]

They have been saying that about the younger generation since was a kid.

[Tom]

Of course. It's either that or they starve...or steal.
Occupy prison.

[badcompany]

Bob Marley's reaction, calling Newt a jerk, is a classic illustration of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of the Truth: First, it's ridiculed. Second, it's opposed violently. Third, it's taken as self-evident.

Go Newt! Go away, Romney!

[whiptastic]

Back in the 90's, Newt came to my town to do some volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity. My dad was the local chapter president at the time. Newt shows up at the work site and has no clue what to do. He's standing around getting his picture taken and the like. So my dad goes over to him, tells him if he's here to work he'd better get to it. Dad had to lead him to a job, show him what to do (twice) and he still couldn't drive a nail for squat. After about twenty minutes of this, he gives up and bails. So much for work ethic, but in his defense it was kind of hot that day. :lol:

It is very seductive to accept simple rhetorical devices as actual answers to serious and complex problems. In this case, Newt may be correct to some extent about how the lack of role models will affect one's ability to succeed. However, it ignores many of the other factors that those in poverty must overcome. We who have never been there take these advantages for granted. He tacitly invites the listener to conclude that a simple fix to the complex problem of poverty is to just "teach them how to work." That is logically flawed on many levels. In my view, we as a society set expectations for these kids very low, harshly punish their mistakes and in the end, they are simply living up to those expectations.

Think of it like this: two kids, one from an affluent neighborhood, one from a poor neighborhood. The kid from the poor neighborhood already has two strikes against him and the umpire has set the expectations that the third strike is inevitable. The kid from the affluent neighborhood starts off with zero strikes, a very tight zone and an umpire that's going to give him the home field breaks.

This is why a homeless guy who robs a bank for $100.00 with no weapon and then turns himself in will get 15 years in the PMITA prison, while a VP at AIG does a $500 million fraud, gets sentenced to 4 years and then has the conviction overturned on a technicality... or perhaps, more aptly, a guy can lie to congress, get fined for ethics violations and still run for President.

[DJofSD]

A new(t) litmus test: being able to drive a nail.

Work ethic goes beyond physical labor.

[badcompany]

Back in the 90's, Newt came to my town to do some volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity. My dad was the local chapter president at the time. Newt shows up at the work site and has no clue what to do. He's standing around getting his picture taken and the like. So my dad goes over to him, tells him if he's here to work he'd better get to it. Dad had to lead him to a job, show him what to do (twice) and he still couldn't drive a nail for squat. After about twenty minutes of this, he gives up and bails. So much for work ethic, but in his defense it was kind of hot that day. :lol:

It is very seductive to accept simple rhetorical devices as actual answers to serious and complex problems. In this case, Newt may be correct to some extent about how the lack of role models will affect one's ability to succeed. However, it ignores many of the other factors that those in poverty must overcome. We who have never been there take these advantages for granted. He tacitly invites the listener to conclude that a simple fix to the complex problem of poverty is to just "teach them how to work." That is logically flawed on many levels. In my view, we as a society set expectations for these kids very low, harshly punish their mistakes and in the end, they are simply living up to those expectations.

Think of it like this: two kids, one from an affluent neighborhood, one from a poor neighborhood. The kid from the poor neighborhood already has two strikes against him and the umpire has set the expectations that the third strike is inevitable. The kid from the affluent neighborhood starts off with zero strikes, a very tight zone and an umpire that's going to give him the home field breaks.


Yeah, that all sounds good, but, the reality is that American poverty is a joke compared to world poverty. People who come here from a poor country laugh at what Americans call poor.

Why is it that so many Asians and Eastern Europeans who come here with very little money and can't even speak the language quickly become successful?

[badcompany]

And, in case anyone forgot what "Poor" looks like in America:


http://mises.org/daily/4652

Who Are The Poor?
When we hear of the poor, we envision a massive group of people without food and shelter. In reality, most of the poor in capitalistic countries such as the United States are not in such a state. Data from a recent census reveals that of the official "poor":[1]
•76 percent have air conditioning.
•66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
•97 percent own at least one color television.
•62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
•Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
•73 percent own microwave ovens.
•More than 50 percent have stereos.
•33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
•99 percent have refrigerators.
•Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
•46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths, that has a carport and porch or patio, and the average value of which is 70 percent of the median American home.

[TJDave]

He tacitly invites the listener to conclude that a simple fix to the complex problem of poverty is to just "teach them how to work."

Trust me, Even if you could teach them to work NO ONE would want them as employees. IMO, the best thing to do is to convince their parents not to conceive... However possible.

[Tom]

Billions of people would love to be poor here.

[whiptastic]

A new(t) litmus test: being able to drive a nail.

Work ethic goes beyond physical labor.

He volunteered to work building a house, but didn't have the work ethic to learn the (very simple) skill and stick out a 4 hour shift. Seriously. Dad gave him one of the easiest jobs on the site. Newt wanted the appearance (photo op) of hard work, without actually, you know, doing any. Contrast that with Paul Newman who came here in '91 and worked all day. :p

[TJDave]

Billions of people would love to be poor here.

True, but are you suggesting we treat our poor as others countries do?

I wouldn't want to live anywhere near extreme poverty. Unless I had a private army to protect me and mine.

[Tom]

NO, I suggest we give our poor a legitimate change to find work and become un-poor.

Re-distribute all the union jobs so that more people have access to work.
The top 1% of job holders need to be reeled in.

[whiptastic]

And, in case anyone forgot what "Poor" looks like in America:


http://mises.org/daily/4652

Who Are The Poor?
When we hear of the poor, we envision a massive group of people without food and shelter. In reality, most of the poor in capitalistic countries such as the United States are not in such a state. Data from a recent census reveals that of the official "poor":[1]
•76 percent have air conditioning.
•66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
•97 percent own at least one color television.
•62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
•Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
•73 percent own microwave ovens.
•More than 50 percent have stereos.
•33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
•99 percent have refrigerators.
•Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
•46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths, that has a carport and porch or patio, and the average value of which is 70 percent of the median American home.

Please forgive my cynical view of a second hand citation of a "study" by the Heritage Foundation published in 2004 based on "various government reports". First, it doesn't take into account the most recent economic downturn -- the worst since the Great Depression. Second, it concludes that stronger families with at least one full time worker per household would greatly reduce poverty. The authors suggest if we simply wave a magic wand and have stronger families and more employment, we'd have less poverty. I don't disagree with that; however, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Lists like these get passed around the internet because it makes us feel less bad that our fellow citizens are suffering. Sure, some by their own choices, but by and large forces well beyond their control put them there. Last year, over one million kids fell into poverty.

[whiptastic]

Trust me, Even if you could teach them to work NO ONE would want them as employees. IMO, the best thing to do is to convince their parents not to conceive... However possible.

Sure, less kids born into poverty will help. How do you suggest we make that happen? I mean before they are actually conceived. What do we do about the ones that are already there? They didn't choose it...

The economic turmoil has pummeled children, for whom the poverty rate last year — 22 percent — was at the highest level since 1993. The rate for black children climbed to nearly 40 percent, and more than a third of Hispanic children lived in poverty, the Census Bureau reported. The rate for white children was reported as above 12 percent.

“We had almost 1 million more children fall into poverty between 2009 and 2010,” said Catherine V. Beane, policy director at the Children’s Defense Fund (http://www.childrensdefense.org/home.html). “We also have seen a continued increase in the number of children who live in extreme poverty,” for instance, a family of four living on $30 a day.

I apologize and don't mean to come across as strident, but as a father and as someone who has seen poverty first hand, this issue demands more than the Newt sound bite.

[bigmack]

Lists like these get passed around the internet because it makes us feel less bad that our fellow citizens are suffering.
Then again it might act as a reminder of what real abject poverty is to some.

On a scale of suffering, the poor in this country aren't normally starving to death. If I said I feel more pity for those poor in underdeveloped countries would my compassion be greater than yours? I just want to keep up with the scale of how you/I determine this feeling of "less bad."

[thaskalos]

Why is it that so many Asians and Eastern Europeans who come here with very little money and can't even speak the language quickly become successful?
Because the foreigners have seen much worse...and want to do as much as they can to improve their situation.

Most Americans still have no idea how BAD "bad" can get...

[whiptastic]

Then again it might act as a reminder of what real abject poverty is to some.

On a scale of suffering, the poor in this country aren't normally starving to death. If I said I feel more pity for those poor in underdeveloped countries would my compassion be greater than yours? I just want to keep up with the scale of how you/I determine this feeling of "less bad."

The context of this thread was Newt's comments about employ-ability and role models. I was limiting my discussion to domestic poverty (which is relative, I agree). When I see a second hand poorly cited study from the Heritage Foundation passed around the internet like that, it tells me something about how we as a country view our fellow citizens. Google tells me there are about six million hits on that list. Call me cynical, but I don't think it was copied that many times so that people could put poverty in the US into perspective.

When I was a kid, my boy scout troop took a bunch of donated presents to some poor families. I remember that they had a color TV and the heat was on full blast. They had a place to live. We had a B&W TV at my house, and we kept the heat down to save on the electric bill. As you can imagine, it was a confusing dichotomy for my young mind.

A list like that isn't going to tell you that those kids dad died of cancer. A list like that isn't going to tell you that you are more likely to die a violent death simply being born into poverty. A list like that isn't going to tell you that you don't have a boy scout troop to be in because your school sucks. A list like that isn't going to tell you anything about the people at all. It does allow some to feel like they can justify their disdain for the people in poverty, and judge their circumstance or their choices because they have indoor plumbing. I don't know, maybe I should feel less bad about the folks in my community because there is starvation in Africa. I can't do much about them, but I can do something about those folks where I live.

I don't know, maybe Newt is right and the solution to poverty here is to make kids scrub toilets. It could be that easy, I guess...:rolleyes:

[badcompany]

Then again it might act as a reminder of what real abject poverty is to some.



It's interesting how so-called "Progressives," when attacking Capitalism, pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.

Another inconvenient truth that Liberals like to ignore is that the groups that have been benficiaries of Government social experiments, African-Americans and Hispanics, are the ones doing the worst.

[Dave Schwartz]

I apologize and don't mean to come across as strident, but as a father and as someone who has seen poverty first hand, this issue demands more than the Newt sound bite.

I think that anyone with a brain would agree with you: a soundbite isn't enough.

However, you have to admit that he has a point.

Consider all the people on welfare who DO, in fact, choose to draw welfare as opposed to getting a j-o-b. And do not even attempt to pretend that they are in the minority; not when there are second and third generation welfare recipients out there.

Is point was, "What else do they know except what they have seen?"

Is that not true?

[bigmack]

I don't know, maybe Newt is right and the solution to poverty here is to make kids scrub toilets. It could be that easy, I guess...:rolleyes:
Do you actually think there is a solution for poverty? Somehow I get the feeling you're being purposefully obtuse.

There's a reason 3 generations of families are on welfare. Learned behavior.

[TJDave]

NO, I suggest we give our poor a legitimate change to find work and become un-poor.


I do not share your optimism. To any significant degree it ain't gonna happen. What we need to do as a society is to make sure we make less poor people. The system isn't structured this way as more children = more money. That's gotta stop.

[TJDave]

Consider all the people on welfare who DO, in fact, choose to draw welfare as opposed to getting a j-o-b.

I probably sound like a broken record but the overwhelming majority of these welfare recipients are unemployable as you would soon realize if you ever had the pleasure of employing one. Totally worthless.

[JustRalph]

I probably sound like a broken record but the overwhelming majority of these welfare recipients are unemployable as you would soon realize if you ever had the pleasure of employing one. Totally worthless.

gotta agree with you at some level on this point. Been there done that.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-02-04/news/17140384_1_sandy-housing-authority-shirt

I have posted the above before.....but it's germane to the thread as it weaves its way around.

This is a part of the metaphorical "Plantation" the Dems have been accused of running for so long.

[badcompany]

Most Americans still have no idea how BAD "bad" can get...

Don't tell that to Whiptastic. He's knows someone who doesn't have the latest IPHONE.:lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

I probably sound like a broken record but the overwhelming majority of these welfare recipients are unemployable as you would soon realize if you ever had the pleasure of employing one. Totally worthless.

TJ,

Oh, I DO agree. So, what do we do with them?

My answer would be road crews, not welfare.

What would your answer be?

[whiptastic]

I think that anyone with a brain would agree with you: a soundbite isn't enough.

However, you have to admit that he has a point.

Consider all the people on welfare who DO, in fact, choose to draw welfare as opposed to getting a j-o-b. And do not even attempt to pretend that they are in the minority; not when there are second and third generation welfare recipients out there.

Is point was, "What else do they know except what they have seen?"

Is that not true?

Yes, he has a point -- but it seems a bit academic. There is entrenched poverty in this country, and there are multi-generational welfare recipients. Given we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, I don't think your assertion that the majority of those in poverty is comprised of multi-generational welfare dependents is true. That may or may not have been true at one time, but where we are now I think that is unlikely. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support your assertion?

My fear is that when a politician comes along and says things like that, he is just looking to get votes by vilifying a vulnerable group. Newt didn't qualify his statement (some, most), but instead implied that ALL poor lack positive role models. In my opinion, he comes across as condescending and paternalistic. It rings especially hollow given that he made $30,000 per hour consulting for Freddie Mac.

In a greater sense, I understand the objection to tax dollars going to benefit those unwilling to work when the rest of us work hard for what we make. Believe me, I don't like that any more than you; however, my outrage receptors are more likely to be set off by larger wastes than that. For example, the recent audit of the Federal Reserve shed light on waste, fraud and abuse that eclipses BY FAR the welfare problem. Trillions of our tax dollars went to a handful of banks at zero interest. They turned around and "lent" it back to us, charging risk free interest and made hundreds of billions in profit. I read that about 5,000 people got million dollar bonuses as a result. That's "welfare", but we think of it differently for some reason.

Maybe it's the time of year that has me thinking about these issues more than I otherwise would have. I hoped that this thread didn't devolve into the typical ranting I see around here, because I believe we can have reasonable dialog on issues like this.

[Grits]

Whiptastic, welcome to Pace Advantage.

My comment here has nothing to do with this particular subject--this is simply an observation--you have fine writing skill and a keen sense of how to handle the back and forth required in Off Topics. Your posts are thought provoking and one will do well to be informed when replying to them.

Like your writing! I hope you enjoy your time here at PA.

[Dave Schwartz]

I don't think your assertion that the majority of those in poverty is comprised of multi-generational welfare dependents is true.

Please show me where I said anything even remotely close to that.

[Spiderman]

Whiptastic wrote,". . .I don't think your assertion that the majority of those in poverty is comprised of multi-generational welfare dependents is true."


Please show me where I said anything even remotely close to that.


In post #25, you wrote"... when there are second and third generation welfare recipients out there."

[Tom]

What is obvious is that throwing money at "poverty" or at least our version of it, is useless.

How many years, how many billions, and we have not yet won the war on poverty??? More costly and longer that the two wars in the Middle East that the libs always whine about. What this one?

Since money is not the answer, road gangs might be well be worth a try.

[whiptastic]

Consider all the people on welfare who DO, in fact, choose to draw welfare as opposed to getting a j-o-b. And do not even attempt to pretend that they are in the minority; not when there are second and third generation welfare recipients out there.

Dave, that was the part that I was responding to. It wouldn't be the first time (nor the last, I'm sure) that I misunderstood what someone was writing. I've re-read it a couple of times and I think you were making a different point, but you can see how I might have mistook what you wrote. My apologies...

[whiptastic]

Whiptastic, welcome to Pace Advantage.

My comment here has nothing to do with this particular subject--this is simply an observation--you have fine writing skill and a keen sense of how to handle the back and forth required in Off Topics. Your posts are thought provoking and one will do well to be informed when replying to them.

Like your writing! I hope you enjoy your time here at PA.

Aw, shucks. Thanks for the kind words, I surely appreciate it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Whip,

No apology necessary. You are a respectful presenter of opinions.


Dave

[thaskalos]

The poverty problem is further complicated by the fact that many welfare employees are themselves not doing the job that they are being paid to do.

Instead of encouraging welfare recipients to find work, they, instead, often advise them to have kids...so their welfare benefits could increase. (I know this for a fact.)

But I still think that it's slightly hypocritical of politicians to criticize others for a "poor work ethic"...

I am reminded od Ronald Reagan, who, towards the end of his presidency, would often talk about the "vigor" of older people...and the need to perhaps raise the age eligibility for retirement benefits.

"I am in my late 70's, and I can still hold down a steady job"...he would say, with a crooked smile.

Of course, video would later surface of our president visiting Russia...for an important conference with "Mr. Gorbachev".

Reagan could be seen merrily dozing off right at the conference table...while his advisors handled the details of the meeting.

All "older" employees should have it so good...

[Tom]

Dosing off at meetings is not restricted to older folk.
I have doing it for 40 years.

It is the one thing I leaned in college that was 100% applicable to the business world.

[boxcar]

Gingrich Flashback: ‘Progressive’ FDR Was ‘Greatest President of the 20th Century’ (Plus – SEIU’s Andy Stern Is Visionary Union Leader!)

The Newt just may be the most progressive Republican presidential candidate in this field. He might actually make Romney look like a conservative by comparison.

I strongly suspect that if Newt gets the nomination and actually wins the WH, he will model his presidency after his hero and give Americans The Better-Than-Great Deal. Heck...he might even appoint Andy Stern to a cabinet post. :rolleyes:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gingrich-flashback-progressive-fdr-was-greatest-president-of-the-20th-century-plus-seius-andy-stern-is-visionary-union-leader/

Boxcar

[Tom]

Newt is saying things everyday that tell me he is not the man.

To bad they never vetted Obama. The left, unlike us, NEVER question their people. Guess we are the party of responsibility.

[boxcar]

Newt is saying things everyday that tell me he is not the man.

To bad they never vetted Obama. The left, unlike us, NEVER question their people. Guess we are the party of responsibility.

This nation is soooo screwed. This a truth you can take to the bank: America will continue in its decline no matter who wins the WH.

Boxcar

[badcompany]

At least Newt "seems" to understand what creates economic growth.

From his page:


Make the United States the most desirable location for new business investment through a bold series of tax cuts, including: Eliminating the capital gains tax to make American entrepreneurs more competitive against those in other countries; Dramatically reducing the corporate income tax (among highest in the world) to 12.5%; Allowing for 100% expensing of new equipment to spur innovation and American manufacturing; Ending the death tax permanently.

[boxcar]

At least Newt "seems" to understand what creates economic growth.

From his page:


Make the United States the most desirable location for new business investment through a bold series of tax cuts, including: Eliminating the capital gains tax to make American entrepreneurs more competitive against those in other countries; Dramatically reducing the corporate income tax (among highest in the world) to 12.5%; Allowing for 100% expensing of new equipment to spur innovation and American manufacturing; Ending the death tax permanently.


He is enigmatic, isn't he? And just the other day, he criticized Romney the way a socialist would criticize a capitalist or conservative. Too bad he comes with so much bad ideological baggage. And what's scary about this untrustworthy guy is that unlike the Bozo-in-Chief we now have, Newt is smart. Too smart.

Boxcar

[badcompany]

He is enigmatic, isn't he? And just the other day, he criticized Romney the way a socialist would criticize a capitalist or conservative. Too bad he comes with so much bad ideological baggage. And what's scary about this untrustworthy guy is that unlike the Bozo-in-Chief we now have, Newt is smart. Too smart.

Boxcar

IMO, deep down, Newt believes in big government, but, at least he's not hostile to business like the current administration.

At this point, I've given hope in any politician succeeding in shrinking the size of government. I'll settle for containing its growth.

[boxcar]

IMO, deep down, Newt believes in big government, but, at least he's not hostile to business like the current administration.

At this point, I've given hope in any politician succeeding in shrinking the size of government. I'll settle for containing its growth.

You cannot at once believe in "big government" and not be "hostile to business".
Government is what gets in the way of the private sector. Big Government is to Capitalism (or businesses) what oil is to water. Neither mixes very well.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

And what's scary about this untrustworthy guy is that unlike the Bozo-in-Chief we now have, Newt is smart. Too smart.


I would never have thought that being "too smart" would be a disqualifier. I want my president to be the smartest guy in the room. And while we're at it, what makes him untrustworthy? If you're referencing his personal life the only person who should make it their business is his wife...who has obviously made that decision.

[boxcar]

I would never have thought that being "too smart" would be a disqualifier. I want my president to be the smartest guy in the room. And while we're at it, what makes him untrustworthy? If you're referencing his personal life the only person who should make it their business is his wife...who has obviously made that decision.

Have you never heard: "People can be too smart for their own good"?

I'll take a person of integrity and moderate intelligence over a smart person any day and every time. And for that matter over a person with whom I have fundamental disagreements.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

Have you never heard: "People can be too smart for their own good"?

Yeah, usually repeated by those who aren't.


I'll take a person of integrity and moderate intelligence over a smart person any day and every time.
Boxcar

That's exactly who we've got now... Minus the integrity part.

The problems we've got now demand someone really smart and really qualified. IMO, this fits Gingrich to a 'T'. Of course this is all academic as he couldn't get elected dog catcher.

[boxcar]

Yeah, usually repeated by those who aren't.

Actually repeated by those who understand what is meant by the statement.

That's exactly who we've got now... Minus the integrity part.

Minus the moderate intelligence part, too.

The problems we've got now demand someone really smart and really qualified. IMO, this fits Gingrich to a 'T'. Of course this is all academic as he couldn't get elected dog catcher.

This country doesn't need an Einstein-type nearly as much as it needs strong moral leadership and moral clarity. The brightest brainiac in the nation with low moral values will take us right down the same path that Obama has been leading us-- only faster!

One thing is for certain about Newt' chances: I won't help get him elected.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Back to the topic somewhat.....
I have a question. What is poor? Bad somewhat alluded to the "poor" in this country and if they are TRULY poor.
How hard is it for some to understand there will ALWAYS be "poor" people here NO MATTER WHAT!
Poor is the guy who has less then the others.
So, lets say a few have like 100 million...a majority has like 50 million...and a few at the bottom have only ten million. By comparison, aren't the bottom still "poor"???
This will never change and is in EVERY country! Why is it so hard for leftist to understand this???
Go back as far as you like and show me a country where everyone had equal shares...can ya???
If all things aren't equal, then there will always be poor.
Instead of trying to figure out how to get what the rich have, why not trying to figure out how to get where the rich are!!!

[Dave Schwartz]

New,

Good point!

Dave

[thaskalos]

Back to the topic somewhat.....
I have a question. What is poor? Bad somewhat alluded to the "poor" in this country and if they are TRULY poor.
How hard is it for some to understand there will ALWAYS be "poor" people here NO MATTER WHAT!
Poor is the guy who has less than the others.
So, lets say a few have like 100 million...a majority has like 50 million...and a few at the bottom have only ten million. By comparison, aren't the bottom still "poor"???
This will never change and is in EVERY country! Why is it so hard for leftist to understand this???
Go back as far as you like and show me a country where everyone had equal shares...can ya???
If all things aren't equal, then there will always be poor.
Instead of trying to figure out how to get what the rich have, why not trying to figure out how to get where the rich are!!!

Just because most "poor" people in this country do not fit the definition as it applies in some other countries...does this mean that we should pretend that we don't know what the word even means?

The thought that being poor simply means that one just has "less than the others" is inaccurate...and, IMO, highly disrespectful to those in this country who have to live with the burden of sending their kids to bed hungry at night.

The chains of poverty are very real for some...and I doubt that "trying to figure out how to get where the rich are" will get them out of their predicament.

We may not be able to help them...but we should at least not hurt them more by trivializing their pain.

Only my opinion, of course...

[boxcar]

Just because most "poor" people in this country do not fit the definition as it applies in some other countries...does this mean that we should pretend that we don't know what the word even means?

The thought that being poor simply means that one just has "less than the others" is inaccurate...and, IMO, highly disrespectful to those in this country who have to live with the burden of sending their kids to bed hungry at night.

The chains of poverty are very real for some...and I doubt that "trying to figure out how to get where the rich are" will get them out of their predicament.

We may not be able to help them...but we should at least not hurt them more by trivializing their pain.

Only my opinion, of course...

This is all well and good; but by the same token you cannot deny that poverty is relative, in the same way as being a child has been made highly relative today under the health care laws, for example. The primary definition of "poor" is "lacking material possessions". If we take that definition in the absolute sense, does this mean that a person must have absolutely no possessions? What if he's driving a 25-year old rusty clunker that still manages to get him from point A to B? What if he owns a 7-year old 21" TV? And he owns an old coffee maker and a pop-up toaster? And he has some food in his refrig, just no expensive meat products, etc.? Could such a guy be defined as being "poor"?

The problem with with defining "poor" is that the issue has been politicized. No politician really wants to nail down a definition -- one with well defined borders. They'd much prefer to keep "poverty" as an elusive, fast moving target for social engineering purposes, etc. Therefore, NTG's post was pretty much on the money, since probably none of us would think it very reasonable to define "poor" in the absolute sense. A person with a low income job, living from paycheck-to-paycheck could be characterized as poor next to a guy making 50K a year. But in another context, could the low income guy be characterized as "poor" next to a jobless homeless person?

Therefore, just how poor is poor?

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Politicians have not "nailed down a definition" for poverty, because their main job is to play with words.

I, on the other hand, have no problem defining what "real" poverty is...because, being a foreigner, I have been introduced to it "up close and personal".

As human beings, we have three basic needs at any time:

Food, clothing and shelter.

We also have a need for medical care, at a time of illness.

It could be argued that everything else that we might think we need is not really a "need"...but a "desire".

If we cannot adequately provide for these "needs" for ourselves and our families...then we are living in "true" poverty. (I hope there is no need for me to now provide a definition for 'adequate')

We are fortunate, in a way, to live in this country...because in some other countries, poverty is "out there" for everybody to see.

In this country, we have clearly not solved the poverty problem...but we have managed to at least keep it out of sight.

[boxcar]

Politicians have not "nailed down a definition" for poverty, because their main job is to play with words.

I, on the other hand, have no problem defining what "real" poverty is...because, being a foreigner, I have been introduced to it "up close and personal".

As human beings, we have three basic needs at any time:

Food, clothing and shelter.

We also have a need for medical care, at a time of illness.

It could be argued that everything else that we might think we need is not really a "need"...but a "desire".

If we cannot adequately provide for these "needs" for ourselves and our families...then we are living in "true" poverty. (I hope there is no need for me to now provide a definition for 'adequate')

We are fortunate, in a way, to live in this country...because in some other countries, poverty is "out there" for everybody to see.

In this country, we have clearly not solved the poverty problem...but we have managed to at least keep it out of sight.

Of course, you have to define "adequate". :bang: :bang: The guy making 50K a year may indeed complain because he doesn't feel his quality of life is adequate for his personal needs. But should he complain in light of the guy who is living from hand-to-mouth? Both are still living. Both are still surviving. Both are meeting their own fundamental needs. But this doesn't mean that both or either one of them will necessarily be happy in their respective situations.

If one is going to make any attempt in dealing with any problem -- social or otherwise -- the very first step is to define the problem so that it can be examined objectively. And I fully expect politicians to take this first basic step before they stick their greedy fingers into my pockets in the name of the "poor" or "social or economic justice". If they're going to make this a societal issue -- one of social responsibility, etc., they had better act responsibly by doing their homework and resist the temptation to sink to the level of mindless, moronic, simple-minded mantras, "we must all pay our fair share", etc.

Boxcar
P.S. Heck you can't even agree with yourself on what the human basic needs are. You started out with three but then had to toss in a fourth -- medical care.

[badcompany]

Politicians have not "nailed down a definition" for poverty, because their main job is to play with words.

I, on the other hand, have no problem defining what "real" poverty is...because, being a foreigner, I have been introduced to it "up close and personal".

As human beings, we have three basic needs at any time:

Food, clothing and shelter.

We also have a need for medical care, at a time of illness.

It could be argued that everything else that we might think we need is not really a "need"...but a "desire".



Couldn't agree more. Now, with that basic definition, and considering that almost all Americans have those three basic needs, isn't the difference between American poor and, say, Nigerian poor (life expectancy = 50) much greater than the difference between American rich and American poor?

My problem with Socialists who are always bitching about the plight of the American poor is that they have an entitlement mentality and take everything for granted: indoor plumbing, electricity, waste removal. These things aren't a given in life.

[boxcar]

http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/multimedia/heritagechart/912661-1-eng-GB/HeritageChart.jpg

I wonder how many poor people in third world countries can brag about having fridges, washer and dryers, TVs, DVD players, cell phones, A/C, etc.

What is the primary definition, again, of "poor"? Oh yeah, "lacking material possessions".

Boxcar