Friday, November 18, 2011
The Formula For Avoiding Poverty
1) Stay in school (go to college or at least graduate high school).............2) Don't have a child out of wedlock.............3) Don't have a child until you reach the age of 20.............4) Don't smoke (a two pack a day habit in CT costs $15 dollars a day/$105 a week/$5,460 a year, increases health-care costs, and reduces productivity).............5) Don't drink heavily (for the identical reasons as to why you shouldn't smoke).............6) Learn to defer gratification, in general.............7) Get a second job if necessary................................................................................................P.S. According to a study cited by the March of Dimes, simply doing the first three will reduce your likelihood of living in poverty by a whopping 89% (64% vs. 7%)....It would really be interesting to see how the OWS movement would put its arms around this syndrome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
So why are we firing teachers and increasing the cost of college education?
What are we calling poverty, anyway?
If your child goes hungry some days, that is poverty, even if you are technically above some line drawn by a rich man.
If only life were so simple that a 7-step formula could guarantee success. It isn't and it won't.
OWS draws attention to the huge income gap existing in our country; the fact that 1% of the population owns you and the rest of us; and that corporations, politicians, lobbyists, and media keep it that way.
BTW, any trust fund baby could break all of those 7 rules and still do exceedingly well, while many poor people could follow those 7 rules and STILL not get ahead. I personally know several people this applies to.
It's nice to look at the poor and disadvantaged and think they got that way through their own damn fault, but trust-fund babies earn all the success and privilege they enjoy.
Once again Will has cause and effect mixed up. The reason for these social ills is because of the enormous wealth disparity.
According to the description of the book (from Amazon), The Spirit Level, the problem is that "it is a well-established fact that in rich societies the poor have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem. The Spirit Level, based on thirty years of research [concludes that] one common factor links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their members".
So why does Will have it wrong? Shaw Kenawe is right that Conservatives like to blame the victims... it's their own damn fault, and that is what Will is doing with this post...
... which is further proof that Will is FAR more Conservative then he is Liberal (in other words he really is not really that "moderate" at all).
Shaw: Making bad decisions is a big part of the problem, though.
Don't forget 8) get married.
Yoy may not know it or think it but yeah. We are owned.
I trust each of us to know his or her own situation. Will will be able to speak for himself.
Jerry, we're spending more on education than we ever have and the results are worse than ever. OWS, please address this.
Shaw, the statistics are indisputable. If you don't have a child out of wedlock, don't have a child before the age of 20, and graduate high school, the odds that you'll end up in poverty are only 7%. If, however, you do do the opposite of these things, the odds are 64%. Subsidizing bad behavior just gets you more frigging bad behavior.......And, no, I (a sociology minor from the 70s whose read C. Wright Mills and all that shit) don't consider myself owned by anybody.............$5,460 a year smoking cigarettes and the poor smoke at 4X the rate of the rest of us do. Stopping smoking cigarettes and saving that money DOES WORK.
Gee, what a surprise, wd, you found a book to further your delusions of the noble poor working stiff. The Soviet Union, wd - those folks were very equal. East Germany, ditto. Cuba, ditto.......And, really, you might want to try living in the real world for a while. I've been around for a while and I've seen young women get pregnant who I wouldn't trust watching my cat. And I wouldn't trust them watching my cat even if they won the frigging lottery. Redistribute that.
A wise man told me you can't fight poverty and stupidity.
I've been in hundreds of homes to turn on services that were shut off for non payment. 99% of them said they were short the money to pay the months bill. They all had cable or dish TV. Smoked like chimneys and had a high dollar cell phone. They all said their kids needed baths. They weren't kidding. I have empathy for these people. I was poor. I had hope though. Too many people have no hope and have to live for today. I have no idea how to fix this. Just calling the poor parasites isn't the answer though.
HR, having children out of wedlock kind of covers the marriage thing but, yes, absolutely, a very good point.............Truth, I fear that we are owned just as much by an incompetent, Kafkaesque government as we are by frigging Walmart. Hey, at least Walmart gives me $4 prescriptions.............Hey, dmarks, wd is part of his own 1%; the 1% who thinks that Reagan somehow pulled an October Surprise, the 1% who thinks that Bush should have handed Mr. bin Laden over to Muammar Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Haffez al Assad, Yasser Arafat, the Saudi royal family, and the Iranian mullahs, the 1% who thinks that Bush was somehow looking for a "second Pearl Harbor", etc.. The frigging guy's insane, for Christ sakes.
Hey, truth, I'm as nice a guy as there is. I give to the food bank. I work with Alzheimers patients. I'm a vegetarian and radical animal lover. And, believe it or not, I DO care about the poor AND I'm in favor of the top 1% going back to the Clinton rates. I just get a little tired over the constant hand-wringing about about a group of people who don't necessarily seem to want to change. That's all.............P.S. don't know what the answer is, either. Though, yes, I'm sure that wd will soon be postinhg with a Thom Hartmann approved powerhouse of a one.
Will: It would really be interesting to see how the OWS movement would put its arms around this syndrome.
WTF are you talking about? OWS is protesting the lack of Wall Street regulation, blaming poor people for being poor isn't their thing (at all).
Will: Gee, what a surprise, wd, you found a book to further your delusions...
A book based on 30 years of research and he dismisses it without knowing a thing about it. The problem, I believe, is that it doesn't square with his delusions regarding most of the poor being responsible for being poor.
Will: Hey, dmarks, wd is part of his own 1%; the 1% who thinks...
Why are you talking to dmarks about me? dmarks hasn't said anything about me in this thread.
In any case, I'd wager far more than 1% believe those things. Those have all been topics on Thom Hartmann's radio program. Thom Hartmann is the #1 rated Liberal Talk radio show in the nation according to Talker's magazine.
Will: Though, yes, I'm sure that wd will soon be posting with a Thom Hartmann approved...
Reduce inequality. Free college education. Pay teachers more. Redistribution (tax the wealthy). Bring our jobs back (tariffs).
These kinds of problems will always be with us, but taking these steps would reduce them dramatically.
Will: ...who thinks that Bush should have handed Mr. bin Laden over to Muammar Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Haffez al Assad, Yasser Arafat, the Saudi royal family, and the Iranian mullahs...
That's a lie. I never said that.
Will,
Do you reside in CT? I'm in Bethel. We should get together for lunch so we can mock these leftist freaks in person together. It would be classic.
We'll demand we get free food at whatever restaurant we choose, and show our solidarity for the 99% who are owned by the 1%, thus proving that they are indeed impotent victims of their own choosing, for a person is a slave only to what they allow to master them.
dmarks: No, that would cause a new Depression and massive loss of jobs (no more exports), as well as impoverishing average consumers...
YES, we need to bring back tariffs! Tariffs and other incentives would create a massive job boom, because corporations would start making things in the US again. Exports wouldn't go away... we had higher tariffs AND exports in the past! Also we had higher exports in the past and consumers were not "impoverished".
I'm not saying this should be done suddenly... I'd phase it in over a extended period of time (years or decades)... that would give manufacturers time to adjust.
Bottom line is we can't keep sending all our jobs overseas and not expect THAT to result in a new depression. People can't buy the low priced goods made with cheap foreign labor if they are impoverished because they don't have jobs!
Dang. I was agreeing with Dmarks a few times lately then he posts that silly comment about tariffs leading to a depression.
We still consume plenty Dmarks. Our market will not be shunned because we put a tariff on goods from countries wanting to exploit it. We need to use tariffs and the threat of tariffs to guarentee better trade deals and protect human rights.
Remember buddy, business locates overseas when it's cheaper to. Despite what the righties say about "destroying jobs" businesses are going to do what they need to to get their products to market most profitably. They will not go away. Any that do probably shouldn't have been in business anyway and others will step up to fill the void.
dmarks: ...the Smoot–Hawley Tariff, is widely and accurately considered to be one of the most significant causes of the Great Depression.
Actually, it is inaccurately know to have done that. It's a Rightwing myth.
dmarks: I defend this freedom.
The freedom you're defending is that of the wealthy elites to send jobs overseas and impoverish America. I say "no thanks" to that freedom. Protecting American jobs and growing our economy should 100 percent be our government's business.
Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me Dmarks. So each person is to negotiate with every nation personally?
This is perhaps the most shitheaded comment you've ever made.
And why do hate America and it's workers so much that you think Vietnam or China are better?
Best thing for all of us is for you to go live in Vietnam where you think it's so wonderful Dmarks. Bon Voyage.
WD said: "The freedom you're defending is that of the wealthy elites to send jobs overseas and impoverish America."
You are acting as if you are responding to a comment someone else made. The freedom I am specifically defending is for the right of Americans to choose the best products.
wd, you're not a critical, skeptical, or intelligent consumer of information. You start off with a premise and scour the internet looking for confirmation. NO, I haven't read THAT book. But I've read scores and scores that are similar. Yes, it's interesting, but it's hardly a book that hasn't been criticized (you probably skipped over the response to the book section of Wikipedia that criticized it harshly - one of them saying that the authors conveniently left out certain countries in their analysis). I would also add that it's extremely difficult to compare countries. Denmark, for example, is a small, docile, homogeneous country that spends exceedingly little for defense (you and I could probably agree that American spends too much on the military) and which has an entirely different ethos than we do. What works in Denmark may not work over here. And, really, if things are so great in Sweden, then why do they have a significantly higher suicide rate than we do?
As for my feelings on poor people, wd, I don't stereotype them like you do (as powerless victims of some repressive corporate power-elite who simply cannot help themselves). I see some of them who are poor out of no fault of their own and these I would absolutely help. Others I see as poor because of their foolishness and stupidity. These I would also help but it would be help of a clearly different nature and more along the lines of tough love.............You see, wd, the difference between you and me is that I've actually lived an eventful life. I have 4 college degrees and I've worked up close and personal with A LOT of these poor people (some of them clients, some of them co-workers) and, I'm telling you, dude, if you simply give these people more money (without asking for more responsibility in return, for example), they will just be buffoonish on a grander scale. Trust me.
And your assertion that Smoot-Hawley contributing to the Depression being a right-wing myth is demonstrably incorrect. It is a mainstream historical and economic position that is held by individuals from across the political spectrum (Al Gore in fact argued this position in his debate with Ross Perot)..............A stated by Wikipedia - "Most economists at the time and since agree that it had a negative effect on the economy. After the 1929 stock market crash, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months following that event, peaking at 9 percent, then drifted downwards until it reached 6.3 percent in June 1930. Then the federal government made its first major intervention in the economy with the Smoot-Hawley tariff. After that intervention the downward movement of unemployment rates reversed and shot up far beyond the level it had reached in the wake of the stock market crash hitting 11.6 percent in November 1930."............That's pretty damning, wd. The unemployment rate was actually coming down and then Mr. Hoover signed frigging Smoot-Hawley.
ecc102, yeah, I'm a nutmegger. Check me out on Facebook (I assuming that you're on) and we'll talk.............Also, Truth and dmarks, neither one of you guys is even remotely stupid. You just happen to disagree on various issues related to the economy. Perhaps the two of you could join the ecc102-Will Hart summit and we could ALL talk about wd.
Your comments show your disdain for the American Worker Dmarks. You are nothing but a parrot of right wing pundits.
You think America is nothing but a two bit whore.
I have no problem protecting the jobs of Americans and actually negotiating trade agreements that protect jobs and human rights. You are only concerned for your own selfish wants.
And people while people like you rail against government and laugh when Maytag or some other manufacturer moves jobs to places with people so desperate they will work for a pittance, if it's you getting the shaft you will scream loudest that government should do something.
Will: [repeats Rightwing myth regarding Smoot-Hawley]. That's pretty damning, wd.
According to a Firedoglake article (a source YOU have used in the past) titled, "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Fairy Tale", "The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did not cause the Great Depression, nor did it worsen it or extend it. Claims to the contrary are not only false, but easily refutable".
Using official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the FDL article proves that "the document-able 'loss' from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (the net export loss) contributed less than 1/2 of 1% of our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression".
As I recall you called me stupid for not agreeing with your math in another thread. What about this math?
Will: Actually, wd, you did say that.
Nope. You're mistaken.
Will: ...the difference between you and me is that I've actually lived an eventful life. I have 4 college degrees...
and this from another thread...
Will: ...yes, I am significantly morally and intellectually superior to you.
God, what a stuck up ass.
So, Will. If we had turned bin Laden over to the Islamic Council, two wars and thousands of deaths might have been avoided.
And what is the worse that could have happened? Maybe the Islamic Council would have found him innocent and put him in a safe house in Pakistan. Maybe we would have had to invade Afghanistan. Maybe we would have used it as an excuse to invade Iraq instead of WMDs. Maybe thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of civilians would have been killed. Maybe it would have cost us trillions of dollars we didn't have. Maybe it would have taken us 10 years to find bin Laden and kill him.
Boy, I am sure glad we didn't turn him over.
Wait... all that shit happened anyway.
dmarks: A terrible precedent, to turn someone over to a theocratic terrorist tribunal for 'justice'.
Surely dmarks will deny it, but I don't know what else except Islamophobia could explain this comment. The OIC is not a "terrorist tribunal". There is no evidence at all to back up this slur.
dmarks: ...the next time there is anti-gay violence, we should turn the perpetrator over to the Westboro Baptist church council.
The analogy doesn't hold up. The Westboro Baptist church IS anti-gay, but the OIC is NOT pro-terrorism.
dmarks: As for those foreign devils you are always bashing...
Now you are lying. I am positive Truth does not think this because he's never said anything even close to suggesting it.
None of Truth's comments show this. You won't even be able to point to one.
Every country should do what is in their self-interest. This has nothing to do with foreign workers... it has to do with the American government doing what is best for America workers. Because that is its job. Just like it is the job of foreign governments to take care of their workers.
dmarks: I don't "laugh", but I think it is terrible when the union forces a company like Maytag to leave the country.
The unions had nothing to do with it. Not one union has ever forced a company to close or move to a lower wage country. The corporations move because the standard of living is such that they can pay significantly lower wages.
But dmarks cheers on American workers, saying "yes you can... work for less than what your living expenses are"! (even though that is clearly impossible).
Jerry, it wasn't JUST bin Laden. There was an entire terrorist network (replete with operational terrorist training camps) that we needed to destroy. I will agree with you that Mr. Bush effed it up pretty badly but if he had agreed to the conditions set forth by the Taliban (handing over sensitive evidence and then agreeing to have bin Laden tried overseas), the Democrats would have probably tried to impeach him, justifiably!
dmarks: [says I lied]
I did not lie. I said, "I don't know what else except Islamophobia could explain this comment". I didn't say, "for certain", I said "I don't know"... and what followed was my opinion. You're accusing me of lying about what my opinion is?
I can't win on this blog! Will says I state my opinion as fact and criticizes me for it, and then when I do state my opinion (and identify it as such) I'm accused of lying (about what my own opinion is)!
As for the OIC being "pro-terrorist"... proof? I doubt you have any... you're (I'm fairly certain) simply stating your ill-informed opinion.
For instance, you've got it wrong about "terrorist kingpins" holding membership. None do. The organization is non-governmental.
Which is why I said Will was wrong when he said I thought "Bush should have handed Mr. bin Laden over to Muammar Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Haffez al Assad, Yasser Arafat, the Saudi royal family, and the Iranian mullahs..."
None of those people are members or appoint members. The organization is NON-governmental.
Will: the Democrats would have probably tried to impeach him, justifiably!
Sure. He would have been impeached for NOT going to war. I buy that... NOT!
And I want you to name me one prominent liberal politician or pundit who spoke out against the Afghanistan War in its early stages (say, the first two years). ONE!......I'll save the time. There weren't any. In fact, they consistently criticized Mr. Bush because he didn't do ENOUGH in that war (the fact that he took his eye off the ball by invading Iraq - which, I agree, he did!). This is pure and simple Monday morning quarterbacking on your part.
"...name me one prominent liberal politician or pundit who spoke out against the Afghanistan War in its early stages..."
Bernie Sanders
Jerry, this is from the text. It sounds as if he supported the Afghan War early on......."Following the tragic events of 9/11, the United States asked Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaida and its leader Osama bin Laden from that nation, since bin Laden had planned the 9/11 attacks from his base in Afghanistan. When the Taliban government was unresponsive, the American government moved into Afghanistan to find bin Laden and other high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to al-Qaida. Sanders supported this effort, believing that when a nation allowed, enabled and encouraged an attack on the United States and its citizens, America had the right to defend itself."............Yeah, he was against the Iraq War but so was I, and, so, too, were people like Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan. That war was the easy one to be against.
I believe I answered your original question accurately.
That Bernie Sanders opposed the Afghanistan War in its early stages? Where does Mr. Sanders even imply that?
Read the second sentence of my reference.
"Strong oppositon to the Iraq War", Jerry. My challenge was to find one prominent Democrat who voiced opposition to the Afganistan War in its early stages.
I apologize Will. You are right. You asked about Afghanistan and I answered about Iraq. In fact, Sanders supported the Afghanistan war as did virtually all other politicians at the beginning of the war.
Have a happy Thanksgiving.
I even think that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich supported it.......You and I DO agree, though. President Bush mucked it up pretty badly. You have a great holiday, too, Jerry.
Will: I even think that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich supported it...
I don't think that. I don't know if they supported it or not. But Will doesn't care about the facts, only his spin... which is that anyone who is reasonable agrees with him. Everyone else is crazy and paranoid.
Regarding that Sanders press release... it says, "When the Taliban government was unresponsive..."
Seeing this incorrect information on Senator Sanders website is disappointing. The Taliban government DID respond... with an offer to turn OBL over to the OIC.
Will: You and I DO agree, though. President Bush mucked it up pretty badly.
So I'm the only crazy one? Even though Jerry has said he agrees with me that we should have considered the Taliban's offer? I don't recall Jerry saying he changed his mind.
And what's with this "mucked it up" BS? I'd use a little harsher language than that! Another example of Will's moderate extremism, IMHO.
Agreeing to turn over bin Laden to a bevy of terrorist supporting dictatorships CONTINGENT upon our handing over to them sensitive evidence isn't "responding". I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Sanders's assessment here. I also agree with him on Iraq. It was a colossal, foolhardy, and costly miscalculation. It is on THAT that Jerry and I agree.............Not calling George W. Bush a war criminal or Ronald Reagan a traitor (boy, did the Village Voice ever eviscerate that conspiracy theory) = something that some obscure person on the blogosphere refers to as "moderate extremism". Only in America, people, only in America.
Post a Comment