On Nov 2, 1:40*pm, Ignoramus27744 ignoramus27...@NOSPAM.
27744.invalid wrote:
On 2010-11-02, rangerssuck wrote:





On Nov 1, 9:50?pm, Ignoramus31297 ignoramus31...@NOSPAM.
31297.invalid wrote:
On 2010-11-02, Gunner Asch wrote:

"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
?or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
?caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,

It is also often caused by medical or mental problems. In the United
States, absent the above two problems, it is very easy not to be in
poverty. All one needs is to keep his act together.

i

In another thread, Don Foreman stated that, when he was a kid, his
family was poor. Are you prepared to tell him that this was due to his
father not keeping his act together? Seriously?

Very possibly it was the case, how would I know?

You would have to ask him.


Iggy, for a smart guy, you sometimes come out with some pretty off-the-
wall statements.

Let's go back to what started it, which was a quote in Gunner's
signature which said that "poverty is caused by life choices".

Gunner, as you well know, signs his mail with the most inflamatory
crap he can dig up. In this one respoect alone, Gunner is a success.
He manages to **** off a great number of people.


Much brouhaha ensued, with both Gunner essentially disagreeing with
his own signature, and Mike Terrell saying essentially the same thing,
except not quite openly.

That Gunner disagrees with himself is no surprise at all. That Mike
Terrell agrees with Gunner (while Gunner is agreeing with himself) is
also no surprise. The big (HUGE) surprise to me, anyway, is that I
agree with both of them in their disagreement with Gunner's signature.
I swear the end of days must be near G


My own opinion, which did not really change from this discussion, is
that the sentence is a typical mindless Republican simplification of
reality, but it is not completely senseless. Absent mental or physical
illness, one can stay out of poverty very easily by keeping their act
together, such as earning $8-10 per hour and working 10 hours a day,
showing up at work on time every day and actually studying at
school. But people can get sick and so, poverty is not always the
fault of the person. Usually it is, however.

A studio apartment in my area rents for about $900 per month,
including heat and water, but not electricity. A cashier at the
supermarket makes $7.50 per hour, before taxes. The supermarket will
NOT let anyone work over 40 hours per week because then they are
required by law to pay overtime at a rate of 1.5x. I'm not entirely
sure that the supermarket will even let anyone work more than 30 hours
per week, because that would entitle them to full-time employee
benefits. Unemplyment around here is high. I don't know how high -
probably not on a scale with, say, Nevada or California, but high
enough that there simply are not enough jobs to go around for everyone
to have even one, let alone multiple jobs.

The nearest community college is about an hour's bus ride away. About
20 minutes by car, but a low-wage worker is NOT going to afford a car
around here. Not with $1200 per year insurance premiums. There is a
waiting list to get into the college. Our new, Republican governor has
just slashed the budget for community and state colleges, along with
the budgets for public schools, so there is little hope that this part
of the equation will change anytime soon.

Throw a couple of kids into the equation, and, well, you have a recipe
for a very, very difficult life, with little-to-no chance of success.

Iggy, I donate regularly to the local food bank because there are
people who need it a whole lot more than I do. I also figure that I
ought to give while I can, before a nasty twist of fate puts me on the
other end of the deal.

Of course a certain amount of poverty is caused by life choices. But a
certain and, unfortunately, growing amount of it is due to
circumstance. I know some of these people personally. Some of them
continue to make bad decisions, some are comfortable living on
welfare, and some are working their tails off to dig out of the hole.
But the hole is deep, and the digging is hard, and it's going to take
a long, long time and a heap of good fortune.

One woman I know worked two full-time jobs as a nurse's aid while she
went to nursing school. While she was in school, there was a rash of
hospital closings in New Jersey. There are simply no nursing jobs
available. Did this woman make a bad life choice or did she fall
victim to the ****ty business practices of the health care industry?
When she started school, there were plenty of job openings. Now there
are none. There is still a waiting list to get into nursing school.
Are all those students making bad choices?

Life is hard. Harder for some than for others. But when you make
blanket statements like the one we're talking about, you may as well
blame a hungry kid for choosing to be born. Some things are not
reasonably under our control.


Ergo, Gunner makes life choices, such as not wanting a 9-5 job, and so
he is in poverty. He is not forced into poverty, this is just the way
he wants to live, which is of course a free choice that I respect.

I don't disagree with you on that, except to the extent that Gunner
has stolen from others by cheating on his taxes, and makes no attempt
to repay his debts. It is also irksome (but again, Gunner is in the
'irk' business) that Gunner so readily bites the hand that feeds him.
But Gunner also gives rise to a new twist on the old saw that there
are no atheists in foxholes: There are no wingers on welfare. I know
what he says, but he obviously has a hard time agreeing with even
himself. I can understand how hard it must be for him to admit to
himself, let alone in public, that his choices have led him to this
predicament, and that it is the liberals who have kept him alive
through the years.

i
RS