Shared publicly  - 
 
Being Poor

It is unfair to say the poor have no personal responsibility. They actually have more responsibility, simply because they are poor. Great article on Bloomberg about cognitive exhaustion.

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier.
57
18
Shawn Thompson's profile photoSonny Avilez's profile photoArmando Saldierna's profile photoStephan Schmitz's profile photo
15 comments
 
There are some people guilty though. They get assistance and children are in school. No reason to care about anything.
 
Both nominees are frighteningly out of touch. We get to choose, yet again between dumb and dumber.
 
That's ignoring why they're getting assistance. Many people that are getting government assistance are on disability or are simply unable to find employment. The welfare recipient that doesn't work a day in their life is a myth that hasn't existed since welfare reform in the 90s. People receiving welfare currently have to be actively looking for work (with proof) and can't sit on their ass all day for money. They can't turn a job down or they lose their benefits. There's also the whole incentive to work.

If you were receiving money from anyone, not just the government, but one of the stipulations is to find a job would you find any job or would you find a job that's going to pay you more than the assistance you're getting? Most of the jobs out there right now are minimum wage corporate slave jobs that pay as little as possible with no benefits, shady scheduling so they don't have to provide those benefits, overworked, and understaffed. There is zero incentive to get a job like that until you're at the end of the assistance rope.
 
+Bruce Willke No one is arguing that there are no irresponsible poor people. But is it okay to make all poor people suffer because 5% of them are irresponsible? 10%? 50%? What's the cut-off point where harming the innocent is an acceptable side-effect of punishing the guilty?
 
Yup. Everyone who thinks being poor is so great should try it for a while. A while being at least a decade. No help from your parents, no budda shit, and no end in sight.
 
This is just another form of privilege. Rich people (and even middle class people) have (for the most part) absolutely no fucking clue what it's like to be poor.

They don't even have a frame of reference. It's like straight people telling gay people "oh it's not that bad".
 
+Joel Mueller not sure what the cutoff point might be. I don't agree with Romney, but something needs to be done to better police these people using assistance. And these percentages you and many others are throwing out, are about as useful as the unemployment percentages that are reported.
 
Believe it or not, the people that exploit the assistance programs are a vast minority of the people in the programs. They're pretty well policed and people caught exploiting the system lose their assistance quickly. You don't have to believe me but that doesn't make it untrue.
 
+Bruce Willke Aha, it was a trick question! There is no cutoff point. It's never okay to harm the innocent in order to punish the guilty. Find a way to punish the guilty that doesn't harm the innocent, and if you can't do that then just let it go, man.
 
The two party system at its finest haha I wish a third party would win as an independent. At least in Canada we have more candidates to vote for. Still we have harper so we are no better off. :P
 
Excellent article. The problems of the poor and their dependence on the state to provide the semblance of a level playing field is a global concern, not limited to the US. Great share +Koushik Dutta 
Add a comment...