We're not #1!

[TheProwler]

There are no mud huts in Chicago, so that is not a choice. You seemed to have missed an important point. No landlord will rent a studio apartment to a family with annual income fo $16,000. I will not and does not happen. The choices are public housing (if you can get on a list), divorce and live separately with no child support to the children (most often the result), or street life. Today, the shelters are full and really are only a transition to divorce and street life for most people.

You are saying that a large percentage of people only make $16000 a year. So, where do they live? Are you trying to say they all live on the streets? And if they do, they should be able to save a good portion of their earnings. And soon they can take those savings and rent a place.

This little discussion is doing what so many other discussions do here. It is ballooning and losing focus.

You said it was nearly impossible to get an apartment for under $2000 per month in Chicago. I showed you an ad for an apartment for rent for just over $700 per month.

Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to respond with something like "Wow, I guess I was wrong." or "Rent must have come down since I last looked."?

When you are wrong, and it is clearly demonstrated that you are wrong, it would be best to just admit that you were wrong.

You want to switch your argument and say that even though they could afford to rent an apartment, they would not be accepted. I don't buy that idea. Save your money, produce first and last month's rent and a few good references. You are in.

When I went to college I lived in a boarding house with 9 other people. I ate a lot of oatmeal for breakfast - Old Mill oatmeal that I bought in those large plastic bags. I ate chicken weiners on bread for most suppers. I bought cheap fruit and vegetables. I didn't drink at bars - I drank before because it was cheaper. I bought all my clothes on sale and wore them until they were worn out. I got laid regularly.

When I moved, it was to the main floor of a house with a friend of mine. The rent was cheap. The crack whores were always close by outside. Two guys and a girl lived upstairs - they were full-time drug dealers. Nice guys actually, although their Rottie bit me in the arm for no reason as far as I could tell. One block down was known as "crack alley" because nearly every house was a crack house. There was always a lot of excitement. Fights, muggings (I was mugged about 14 years earlier just a block away), drunks, break-ins, whatever. Very few guns though. I got laid regularly.

But my point is that I lived very cheaply. I am not saying I rose out of the slums of Detroit or anything. But I am saying that I know what I am talking about when I say I know how to live on a shoestring budget. And I could easily live on a wage that is considered "poverty" in the USA by the charts that were shown. Would I want to do it forever? Of course not. If a person carries himself well, stays positive, and does well at his job, somebody will notice. And a better opportunity will present itself. And it helps if you get laid regularly.

[TheProwler]

Laziness, pregnancy, and drug addiction may play a role, I'm not saying it doesn't. But there are FAR many overlying problems that greatly exceed the amount caused by sheer laziness.

Any able bodied person born in the USA can earn a decent living. That is a fact. I think you are just making excuses.

This comment proves your ignorance and that you simply make points based on bias and in no way on fact. If you had any idea what the hell you were talking about you would make no such statement that its 'fact'. Learn your shit, then come back and try to debate anything. The day you oppressive fuckers who're more than willing to blame every little problem on the individual crawls out of their own asses far enough to realize it's NOT always in their control is the day poverty can be remotely alleviated. Until then, continue to make excuses for the government. Continue to blame the individual. Whatever helps you and our domestic policy sleep at night.

You have not stated any facts other than you are spending a lot of money to go to school so you can get a job and make a difference.

Everything else you've said is just an opinion. I think I already said that.

Remember me the first time you come home from work and scream "Those lazy fuckers just don't seem to want to work!!! I'm trying to help them but they won't help themselves!!! They want me to do all the work!!!"

And remember to donate 25% of your wages to charity to feed the poor.

[TheProwler]

You were not doing the denigration. Others before you in this thread were asserting that homelessness is a person's personal choice, that poverty is a personal choice. That is what I was attacking with my posts.

No, it was OnlyAmbrose who stated that in some cases, homelessness is a person's personal choice.

I don't think that is denigrating though.

[mpjh]

Talking to yourself again, prowler? I see you up to your flame wars tactic of making numerous posts in a row. Take it back to your den in flame wars, please.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Talking to yourself again, prowler? I see you up to your flame wars tactic of making numerous posts in a row. Take it back to your den in flame wars, please.

mpjh why is it that whenever you're presented with factual arguments you accuse people of flaming? Then you turn around and post inflammatory one-liners. What's up dude? I think prowler made some fair points and cited evidence, and here you go posting the above stupid little blurb. You did like the exact same thing earlier in the thread when I posted reliable sources. The one-liners went from "This is propaganda" to "We are idiots" to "prowler go to flame wars."

Come on, dude, or we'll have to set Nappy on you again

[mpjh]

Nappy is fun, like cotton candy, light and sticky. Prowler writes several post, lengthy posts, and expects everyone to go back over his stuff. He is out of the flow, and I don't owe him a read when he does that. He does it all the time and doesn't really expect to be read. He just likes to hear himself talk.

[luns101]

I've yet to see a malnourished bum here. One of them has a cell phone. A cell phone! There's a few who are former PROFESSORS at the university!

I don't understand how they couldn't have been tenured if that is the case...wouldn't that be a badge of honor up there at Cal?

[joe cool 360]

As a follow up to oaktown's three stories, here are three stories I have from my personal experience:

I spent a week in Washington D.C. and as one can imagine there were a pretty significant minority of homeless people there. Before the trip, I was of the impression that most homeless people were free-loaders who lived off of welfare as part of a choice. I ran into one of them outside one of the Smithsonian buildings and we talked for a brief moment. I didn't ask him what his job was or anything, but I learned that he was relatively new to the streets and was working very hard to try to get back on his feet, which ultimately resulted in him coming out to beg on the footsteps of some buildings. I had been instructed by my tour guide and the adult chaperones not to give money to any of the beggars, so when he asked, I responded that I had none. The man simply said, "That's alright, thanks anyways," even though it was blatantly obvious I was a tourist with probably a big load of money sitting in my backpack. Since that day, I have felt bad that I didn't take that guy out for a meal or something, and I probably would have if I wasn't in the 8th grade at the time.

Ironically, 4 hours after the last story, another couple of students in our tour group managed to evoke the anger of one of the homeless people (I never learned the cause, but I heard it was because they had rolled their eyes at him when he had asked for money), the man proceeded to follow us for 5 blocks, shouting and cursing at the kids and our adult supervisors all the way. Finally, the police came by and told the guy to move on.

Downtown Seattle is rampant with homeless people. I have never spent a great deal of time around them because it's a long trip and can be a hassle getting there sometimes, but from what little time I've spent with them, the majority of the people I've encountered view homelessness as a lifestyle. They sleep in the parks, they beg for their money (the few who have some talent will try to earn money by using their talents) and when the weather gets bad, there are several homeless shelters to retreat to. I went on the Seattle Underground tour with a couple of my family members and there was one homeless guy that our tour guide ran into, the guide asked him, "How much today?" and the man replied, "A couple hundred," to which the guide replied, "Hey, you're gettin' good at this."

I've heard of countless other encounters from other people that range from sitting down and talking to someone hard on his luck; offering to give a homeless man a meal instead of money, which was resoundingly rejected; giving a homeless person a meal and having the homeless person express her utmost thanks; and one friend of mine even offered one homeless man a job interview when he came to him for money, the beggar politely turned him down.

So what am I getting at? For sure, homelessness is a problem and those who do not choose it to be brought upon themselves should be helped out as much as possible. On the other hand, as much as you vehemently and blindly reject it, there are people who consider being homeless a lifestyle. I do not believe that this is true of all homeless people or most homeless people as I once did, but it is most certainly true for some of them, whether you refuse to accept that or not.

EDIT: I'm not making any claims about oaktown's opinions on the matter, I'm simply stating what mine are. I just want to make that perfectly clear.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Nappy is fun, like cotton candy, light and sticky. Prowler writes several post, lengthy posts, and expects everyone to go back over his stuff. He is out of the flow, and I don't owe him a read when he does that. He does it all the time and doesn't really expect to be read. He just likes to hear himself talk.

Ok, let me give you the SparkNotes of his post:

You are saying that a large percentage of people only make $16000 a year. So, where do they live? Are you trying to say they all live on the streets? And if they do, they should be able to save a good portion of their earnings. And soon they can take those savings and rent a place.

Makes sense to me.

This little discussion is doing what so many other discussions do here. It is ballooning and losing focus.

Very true. Somehow we went from "poverty" to "grandma's make bigger sacrifices than soldiers."

You said it was nearly impossible to get an apartment for under $2000 per month in Chicago. I showed you an ad for an apartment for rent for just over $700 per month.

The man did indeed do just that.

Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to respond with something like "Wow, I guess I was wrong." or "Rent must have come down since I last looked."?

That would be far more sporting than "prowler get out of here as I completely ignore your post."


So there's the condensed version with included analysis. Now could you please comment on the content of his posts rather than on him himself? I'd love to do the same to your recent posts, but unfortunately they haven't had enough content to comment on.

[mpjh]

I have already answered all these points. If you don't want to read them, so be it, that is your choice, but do not criticize me if you make that choice.

[lgoasklucyl]

Laziness, pregnancy, and drug addiction may play a role, I'm not saying it doesn't. But there are FAR many overlying problems that greatly exceed the amount caused by sheer laziness.

Any able bodied person born in the USA can earn a decent living. That is a fact. I think you are just making excuses.

This comment proves your ignorance and that you simply make points based on bias and in no way on fact. If you had any idea what the hell you were talking about you would make no such statement that its 'fact'. Learn your shit, then come back and try to debate anything. The day you oppressive fuckers who're more than willing to blame every little problem on the individual crawls out of their own asses far enough to realize it's NOT always in their control is the day poverty can be remotely alleviated. Until then, continue to make excuses for the government. Continue to blame the individual. Whatever helps you and our domestic policy sleep at night.

You have not stated any facts other than you are spending a lot of money to go to school so you can get a job and make a difference.

Everything else you've said is just an opinion. I think I already said that.

Remember me the first time you come home from work and scream "Those lazy fuckers just don't seem to want to work!!! I'm trying to help them but they won't help themselves!!! They want me to do all the work!!!"

And remember to donate 25% of your wages to charity to feed the poor.

I have interacted with the impoverished enough and not emerged with a selfish, bitter attitude like yourself fortunately. I don't have anywhere near enough time nor space in this forum to post the facts to change any of your ignorant minds. My first hand experience and education overrides you sitting there and telling me 'They aren't born into these conditions, there aren't extenuating circumstances, they are lazy bastards!'.

Once again, I dismiss myself from a discussion on a CC forum due to inability of others to not be ignorant nor make relevant points. Anyone who could even think of making the arguments you two have made has not worked with real poverty. Has not been amidst real 'ghetto' poverty.

Enjoy your time mpjh.

Regarding donating 25% of my wages, quit trying to force your guilt on others. Working directly with them to sort their lives out and help them get back on their feet is far more than your lazy, self-absorbed ass will ever do. Especially at the minimal salary I accept to do such work. Enjoy your heater, food, and presents this holiday season.

[mpjh]

Thanks lucy, eloquently said. See you later.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I have already answered all these points. If you don't want to read them, so be it, that is your choice, but do not criticize me if you make that choice.

And where, pray tell, did you answer them? I think prowler pretty clearly demonstrated why your argument makes no sense.

1) You said that many Americans make about 16k a year.

2) That, according to you, is impossible to live on.

3) If one cannot afford an apartment on a 16k income, one is obviously living in the streets.

4) If one is living in the streets, one is able to put much of that money into savings because there is no rent to pay.

5) That being said, it should be relatively easy to come up with the 2k for up front costs you cited for an apartment.

6) By 1 - 5, this means that most people with a 16k income should have an apartment.

7) However, that contradicts the premises you began with, which are points 1 & 2.


I've re-read your recent posts and quite frankly I don't see you address this hole anywhere.

[mpjh]

You, obviously, have never tried to raise a family on $16,000 a year in Chicago. Sorry, but the problems inherent in this seem to be beyond you, or maybe you are just ideologically opposed to the concept of involuntary poverty. I don't know which it is, but I think Lucy was correct. It is a waste of time to talk to you about it.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You, obviously, have never tried to raise a family on $16,000 a year in Chicago. Sorry, but the problems inherent in this seem to be beyond you, or maybe you are just ideologically opposed to the concept of involuntary poverty. I don't know which it is, but I think Lucy was correct. It is a waste of time to talk to you about it.

I've never tried to raise a family period, let alone on 16k. That doesn't change the fact that prowler seems to have made a valid point which you seem to be constantly dodging, which is why I'm asking why.

Though honestly I wouldn't even begin thinking about raising a family if I couldn't afford a studio apartment. It is clear that it is quite possible for someone on a 16k income to survive in Chicago. What's more, it is clear that said person could certainly have a roof over his head. If that person is having doubts about whether he can put a roof over his head with dependents, I would doubt the prudence of his trying to have a family.

Now, I just did the math. I had a part-time job in high school. If I worked that job full-time (that is, 40 hours a week), I would be making roughly 25k a year. That's more than enough for a studio. Marry someone who gets a part-time job and figure you can get 35k a year collectively. You can get a decent-sized apartment here (two-bedrooms, kitchen, living area) for around 1.5k per month. Less, if you get it further from the university, and I might add that real estate in CA (especially college towns) is pretty steep compared to other places in the US. That's 18k per year, certainly doable on a 35k per year income.

Of course involuntary poverty exists. However, the poor in the area I live in (and there are certainly a lot of them) fall into two categories: people who work and have an apartment (generally these people are in Oakland) and people who don't and live on the streets (usually in little camps in the Berkeley area).

The people who live in the streets (in my experience) do so for one of three reasons: they want to, they abuse substances, or they're mental cases. You can certainly argue that the latter two groups should receive some sort of government help and I wouldn't be one to disagree, but an umbrella welfare system which covers all people below a certain income is NOT the solution.


There's the math and reason behind my line of thinking. If I'm missing something please do enlighten me. I come from the lower end of the middle class and am having my college paid for by the military so money hasn't ever been much more than an annoyance for me, so please, if you have experience in this area, do tell me if I'm making a mistake in my calculations.

[Napoleon Ier]

Of course, the real absurdity is that he's trying to pass this all off as abject poverty brought about by rampant capitalism. It's easy to get bogged down in the little niggly details he concocts for you, and lose sight of the greater and more preposterous fallacy, as it were.

[mpjh]

No I am not.

[Napoleon Ier]

Quite, and I'm a Dutchman.

[mpjh]

Please, don't defame the dutch.

[Napoleon Ier]

No I am not.


Read the post.

[got tonkaed]

Allow me to say before hand that i do feel prowler makes a lot of relevant points (so perhaps does ambrose - at least from one source ive read that corroborates what he says) but im focused primarily on the tangent they are on.

I think part of the issue is how you come to view the good or bad. I believe prowler mentioned a lot of people are looking at the bad, which of course they are. I do in some sense believe he is also true in the sense that any abled body in the US has the potential to earn a decent standard of living.

However i think the problem lies in the fact that the individual approach often ends up dealing poorly when these issues are manifested as social problems. When someone begins to talk about poverty, it is periodically offered that we should take more hands off approaches or curb back what we already do, because as it has been said, the US has theoretical (at the worst) oppertunity for a large percentage of its able workforce. These people would have you believe the best thing you can do for the person is to allow them to make good economic choices.

Allow me to also injerject that i favor a fairly large state mechanism. This is not because i love taxation or because i necessarily believe we should all make the same amount of money or that people dont deserve what they earn, but because i believe the above analysis is not the correct way to approach the issue of social policy in general much less social problem.

In terms of the often more hands off approach to economic choices, i am often left with the seemingly simple truism that most people are not very effective economic actors, nor do many of the conditions required for them to be so end up being fulfilled often enough. I would be far easier swayed by many of the arguments if i had the belief in the populaces ability to use the mechanism effectively. You can argue till your blue in the face about why this is the case, but i struggle to see how many people can seriously argue that we can solve social problems of poverty by assuming people must act solidly as economic actors (when implied in their analysis is the notion that these people - as the analysis tends to be less structural - are already poor actors to begin with). There simply seems to be little future in such an approach.

I dont want to devalue all hands of approachs as being greedy (as i dont believe thats the case) nor do i want to claim all people come to the stance the same way (i dont believe they do). I dont believe a common issue in terms of this type of thinking (especially from the often buercratic practical policy angle) is that you often cannot mesh the type of thinking advocated in many of these posts with viable policy solutions or even solution attempts. This is why i rarely advocate such solutions, i find them lacking in a few important regards.

[solace19k]

I think it would be a mistake for anyone to look at anything really as purely black or white.

It is fairly common knowledge that a person can rationalize pretty much anything.
Its just a matter of perspective. While their are some situations where people can become victims of circumstance, one can rationalize that those people made the choices in his life that led to his unfortunate circumstance. Somewhere in their past there was a bad decision on someone's part that led to that. It could be totally out of that person's control at that time but it is never events that drive fate really. It is just how we handle the events that lead to our present and future situations. Some people are more blessed than others, some people handle situations better than others, some people have access to more resources than others, and some are just ignorant ( could be no fault of their own ).

I would say the bottom line and moral guideline for pretty much anything is that a person should NEVER judge a person that you can't change or that you can't help in some way.

Helping someone isn't cool if the only reason you are helping someone is because of the selfish gratification of helping and claiming some moral revelation because you helped someone ( this is not aimed at anyone who has posted ).

On the other hand I'm sure the person you are helping could care either way ....

[jonesthecurl]

Does fighting with Stalin against Hitler in a War on Oppression make FDR "retarded and fucking stupid"?

OH SHIT YEAH I TOTALLY IMPLIED THAT!

Listen you moron, when I say "[the iraq war] would still be stupid,...fucking retarded" I mean exactly that. Unless you really have the reasoning skills of a brainless monkey, it is obvious that I never implied that FDR was "retarded and fucking stupid". Hell, even if you just read the words without understanding them you would've seen that.

Jesus, french boy, try to come up with an actual argument that isn't fallacious.

As I say, sometimes, you need realpolitik. What's fucking retarded is ignoring that.

Yeah, but what Bush is doing is actually not an example of realpolitik. Hell, it's almost the opposite. Hence why your argument is completely ridiculous.

I think Bush may have invented "unrealpolitik"

[TheProwler]

Once again, I dismiss myself from a discussion on a CC forum due to ...

Regarding donating 25% of my wages, quit trying to force your guilt on others. Working directly with them to sort their lives out and help them get back on their feet is far more than your lazy, self-absorbed ass will ever do. Especially at the minimal salary I accept to do such work. Enjoy your heater, food, and presents this holiday season.

Nice. You say you are dismissing yourself and then you take some pot shots at me.

Trust me, I will wallow in my guilt this holiday season. I will curse the furnace and over-salt my food and burn my presents.

It's the government's fault.

[mpjh]

Does fighting with Stalin against Hitler in a War on Oppression make FDR "retarded and fucking stupid"?

OH SHIT YEAH I TOTALLY IMPLIED THAT!

Listen you moron, when I say "[the iraq war] would still be stupid,...fucking retarded" I mean exactly that. Unless you really have the reasoning skills of a brainless monkey, it is obvious that I never implied that FDR was "retarded and fucking stupid". Hell, even if you just read the words without understanding them you would've seen that.

Jesus, french boy, try to come up with an actual argument that isn't fallacious.

As I say, sometimes, you need realpolitik. What's fucking retarded is ignoring that.

Yeah, but what Bush is doing is actually not an example of realpolitik. Hell, it's almost the opposite. Hence why your argument is completely ridiculous.

I think Bush may have invented "unrealpolitik"

fantasypolitik