its interesting to me that people in the west look down on the impoverished so much that they wish for them to have nothing BUT Basics and don't understand basics are an ONGOING need that even those without poverty aren't always meeting

'luxury' items (like a 20 dollar cell phone, or 300 dollar computer) are usually one time purchases whose price would do little to meet the ONGOING Basic expenses,,,

its as if 'poverty' to people means a stagnant constant that DEFINES a persons whole existence ,,,,

Sorry but cable, internet, and cell plans are not 1 time purchases. I have also seen plenty of smart phones in the hands of people using food stamp cards as well, so let's not play that game. I am not saying poor people can't buy stuff for themselves. I am saying they shouldn't if they are getting assistance from tax payers. If you can't pay for your food yourself you have no business paying for cable. Hell my wife and I make 6 figures and we don't pay for cable.

that's not really logical at all

;assistance' doesn't mean 'dependence'

just because someone has a food card or even is currently looking for work, doesn't mean they never worked or didn't even work recently enough to have been able to buy that phone,, or enter into cable contracts

people should stop assuming they know peoples circumstances just because they have a food card or get assistance,, circumstances are fluid not set in stone,,,,

we really are a nation too consumed with what other people have or how they got it,,,,,,,

I mean if I see someone driving a Lamborghini and asking for 'assistance',, yeah, that is pretty nervy, considering the price for that 'luxury' would more than actually COVER their needs and they could drive a much cheaper car

but because someone kicks out an extra 50 on the internet instead of spending it on some other NON ESSENTIAL ( and people are a lie if they claim there is ANYONE who spends on nothing BUT essentials), ?



nitpickery to belittle and make the poor feel they should have NOTHING BUT BASICS,,,

Wow, see the old indoctrination system worked so well.

And while that is one minor theory but there are other and more popular consensus on health and immune response systems but what does that have to do with the whole topic, this isn't about the black plague.

But poverty being made worse by agriculture land turning into concrete jungles, I take you mean cities. According to one set of statistics, cities cover less than 2% of land mass in this world, carry 50% of the population and use 75% of the resources. So your argument doesn't hold water from the concrete jungle angle.

The main issue seems to be the people themselves. Many moved out of the rural environment to take jobs in cities, jobs where others are now responsible for ones being. It was a surrender to slavery, to become the slave of another. Without another's benefit to provide for them, they face starvation. A far cry from the founding of this country and the start of the entitlement crowd.

Just more excuses. Sure a computer is needed in today's world, they have them at the library, free to the public. The problem though is expecting another to pay for the entitlements crowds computer. And if they can afford to buy their own, they shouldn't need a computer. And just what good is a computer for the internet without internet service? Oh, that's right the entitlement to reach onto someone else's pocket for payment. The same for cell phones, just why are they necessary out of another's pocket?

And the same for junk food. Taking money from someone that earned it, that maybe would like to be able to afford a candy bar, so that instead of mortician, the entitlement person can enjoy luxuries.

And when the "poor" people pay for things out of their own pockets, which means no entitlement at all, then they may have anything they can pay for.

And I'm pretty sure that any clothes are acceptable for offering to do a task that would give one the money to get better clothes at the thrift store. But no, that would be demeaning by entitlement terms to have to earn something. Could jeopardize the entitlement status.

But I think the problem is the entitlement crowd are disappointed that the government isn't stealing more for them. After all why should someone earning that those items have more than them?

You want it, learn to pay for it and quit stealing from others. All entitlement are nothing more than thief by proxy.

And what good is a $20 cell phone without $50 a month service. And what good is a $300 computer without $90 a month internet (yeah with cable so can send day watching TV in case an ad comes on about a job).

And instead of all these excuses, McDonald's needs people to replace all those on strike.

what is 'earning'?

is a housewife 'earning' the roof on her head and the food in her belly?

is a ceo 'earning' his six figure salary?

is a teacher 'earning' her five figure salary?

what determines why one should 'earn' more than the other and who determines , after they all WORK to earn something, which work should 'entitle' them to have the shelter , food , and 'luxury' items they are all trying to 'work for' but not all of them apparently have 'earned'?


n/m, no need to answer, I know we don't want people to be slaves, just accept their 'earnings' like they are,,,,

Cable, the idiot wire of the masses. Made to keep them entertained instead of educated.

More BS and excuses. If you have cell phone and cable, cancel them and use money to pay your bills instead of reaching into another's pockets. It's called personal responsibility instead of entitlements.

Housewife? That is up to the husband if she is earning it as he is supporting her.

The CEO, that is up to the shareholders who he represents. If they don't think so he is usually replaced.

The teacher, that is up to the school board who pays them.

You see it is the payer who determines if the payee is worth the check.

and only a 'check' gives a human enough value for food and clothing and shelter?


so, those in power should determine who they will 'value/pay' and if you aren't on that list, whatever you actually produce or contribute in your efforts

you have done less to 'earn' food, clothing, and shelter than someone who, in reality, may be putting forth MUCH less effort in their day and doing much LESS 'work'?


this seems, again, like a nice way to disguise slaveholder mentality

some should decide what others are worth, and those who aren't chosen to be of worth should just die off or be happy with scraps that the chosen agree to share?

Wouldn't have a clue, would you? Let me help, it is not theft.



Yes she is. And if you had to ask, you would never understand the answer.



What planet did you come from, of course they earn their six figures. But then you haven't a clue on executive compensation either. It's not their salary that is questioned.



Are you saying that a teacher, a full time teacher is not worth even $10,000 a year? It is questionable at the value of a union teacher but for the others that work very hard, they are vastly underpaid.

But what I can't imagine is how one can justify doing nothing as part of the entitlement crowd and then turn around and degrade a teacher. Absolutely repulsive.



Couldn't have anything to do with value, could it? Of course this would be something foreign to you, hence having to ask. If you're digging a ditch, you get paid as a ditch digger and can only afford things for a ditch digger. That means Spam instead of steak and potatoes instead of Fettuccine in a homemade aged four cheese sauce. And nothing ever entitles them, they do that thing called earned it. They don't spend their life making excuses, they make results, another foreign ideology.

As for myself, if I liked someone and they needed assistance, I may perform a task for a $1 but if one I didn't really like asked, the amount would be in accordance with the disdain I held for the individual. In one manufacturing business I owned, I charged certain customer's an extra a-hole fee to try and encourage them to do business elsewhere, but they always paid. It's called value, except at the point of a government's gun, you are always paid exactly what you are worth.


n/m, no need to answer, I know we don't want people to be slaves, just accept their 'earnings' like they are,,,,


Of course I'm going to answer. Every good master understands discipline and holds the responsibility to maintain that discipline by not letting falsehoods persevere so as to maintain the peace.

That is all pure bull. Everyone is paid exactly what they are worth, sometimes a little more, but never less. Who cares what you produce, it is totally immaterial to the situation. And slaves are trapped by their own ignorance, their choice to ignore the traits that would allow them to earn more. Always the ones with excuse of why something can't be done while another does it and earns more, imagine that.

It's all a matter of paying a ditch digger $5 an hour to dig my ditch which will take 160 man hours or paying a backhoe operator $80 per hour and he is finished in 3 hours. Too bad that ditch digger is unemployed and the back hoe operator made $240 in less than a half day, it's called value.

Now the entitlement slave sits home and cries and demands someone steal on his behalf while an intelligent being learns to be a backhoe operator, it's called value. Personally, I prefer neither, I like being the one that can afford to pay the backhoe operator.

And if one can't figure out to take care of one's own self, just dying off is an option, a better option than stealing.

And the use of ad hominem works in this forum so well.

You asked about earning not about if a person is worthy of necessities. If I give a homeless guy a dollar did he earn it? No, does that mean he he isn't worthy of that dollar? No.

Really,



So ad hominem seems to be something quite frequently used by those ill equipped to present an argument. Especially when one item is taken out of context.



So what part of indoctrination is in question? The deflection of the topic? The misrepresentation of facts? The instilling of a limited view as the only view?

So if you want something to be true, you should look at the facts you can accept and look twice at the opposing facts, only then can you start the understanding of truth. There are always two sides to every story, but the truth always lies somewhere in between.

And sarcasm, not really, just refusal to face the issue, if you don't agree, oppose, not hide and cry.