Page 3 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

17 Sep 2014, 8:39 am

sonofghandi wrote:

^How is that not seeing poor people as inferior?


If you go to a tv store and see one person buy a huge screen tv, and another person can only afford a smaller one. Do you think the person buying the smaller tv is inferior? I don't.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

17 Sep 2014, 8:54 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:

^How is that not seeing poor people as inferior?


If you go to a tv store and see one person buy a huge screen tv, and another person can only afford a smaller one. Do you think the person buying the smaller tv is inferior? I don't.


So why insist on geographical separation based solely on income?


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Sep 2014, 10:50 am

sonofghandi wrote:
So why insist on geographical separation based solely on income?


I didn't insist on anything, and it is not based on income, but based on one's ability to afford it.

I once lived next to a drug dealer where cars would be outside at different hours waiting for him. One time I came home and there was about five cop cars and when I pulled in all the police stared at me like I was a criminal.

Now in live in a near crime free neighbourhood next to a retired medical doctor and lawyer across the street. I say let other people be the victims of crimes by people in poverty, I can move to a nicer city and avoid those people.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

18 Sep 2014, 12:20 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
So why insist on geographical separation based solely on income?


I didn't insist on anything, and it is not based on income, but based on one's ability to afford it.

I once lived next to a drug dealer where cars would be outside at different hours waiting for him. One time I came home and there was about five cop cars and when I pulled in all the police stared at me like I was a criminal.

Now in live in a near crime free neighbourhood next to a retired medical doctor and lawyer across the street. I say let other people be the victims of crimes by people in poverty, I can move to a nicer city and avoid those people.

Oh, so poor people aren't inferior. They're just dangerous criminals...

The despicable depravity of your thought processes never ceases to amaze me.

Here's an interesting article about poverty in America.
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/16/347954335 ... of-poverty

Quote:
Go around the country and you'll hear lots of frustration about just how difficult it is to get out of poverty ? and more importantly, how to stay out. The official U.S. poverty rate may have gone down to 14.5 percent in 2013 according to new numbers out Tuesday, but still more than 45 million were poor.

...

Shreve came across a program called Circles, now in 23 states. It works like this: A poor family is matched up with three or four middle-class volunteers called "allies." They promise to help the family become self-sufficient, with everything from budgeting advice, to help navigating bureaucracy, to just being friends. It's a lot of hand-holding.

Russo was one of the first in the Gettysburg program.

"It wasn't like they were giving me anything to be there except for the strength to be able move to the next week," Russo says.

And she did that week after week after week. Her allies helped her even at times picking her kids up from day care. They also created a community food program to help those like Russo who earn too much for food stamps but not enough to eat.

Seven years later, Russo is a restaurant manager earning $55,000 a year. Now she's a middle-class ally for another family trying to climb out of poverty.


This is a new variation on the old settlement house concept and demonstrates how vital it is for classes to mix in order to help people out of poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement
Quote:
The settlement movement was a reformist social movement, beginning in the 1880s and peaking around the 1920s in England and the US, with a goal of getting the rich and poor in society to live more closely together in an interdependent community. Its main object was the establishment of "settlement houses" in poor urban areas, in which volunteer middle-class "settlement workers" would live, hoping to share knowledge and culture with, and alleviate the poverty of, their low-income neighbors. The "settlement houses" provided services such as daycare, education, and healthcare to improve the lives of the poor in these areas.[1] In the US, by 1913 there were 413 settlements in 32 states.[2]


I think everyone would be better off if we could find you a new country to live in... :P

Edit: damn contractions. :roll:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Last edited by GoonSquad on 18 Sep 2014, 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Sep 2014, 12:53 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
Oh, so poor people aren't inferior. They're just dangerous criminals...


It is pretty obvious that crime and poverty are linked. So, why increase your probability of being a crime victim ?

GoonSquad wrote:
The despicable depravity of you're thought processes never ceases to amaze me.


Ex-president George Bush thought the same as you. He said, we should be an ownership society where poor people should own their homes, and look at the mess he created for everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

RealtyTrac notes (via North Carolina State University) that:
From January 2007 to December 2011 there were more than four million completed foreclosures and more than 8.2 million foreclosure starts
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-many-p ... on/5335430

Thanks to his social engineering we have millions of people losing their homes. But look it was great for a while, do-gooders got to pat themselves on the back for what a great thing they were doing for the poor - when actually they screwed poor people. After these people lost their homes, then property values rose, and the banks/government got the appreciation.

"Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

18 Sep 2014, 1:05 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Oh, so poor people aren't inferior. They're just dangerous criminals...


It is pretty obvious that crime and poverty are linked. So, why increase your probability of being a crime victim ?

Most poverty driven crime is against property. Poor folks go to rich neighborhoods to steal.
Quote:
GoonSquad wrote:
The despicable depravity of your thought processes never ceases to amaze me.


Ex-president George Bush thought you. He said, we should be an ownership society where poor people should own their homes, and look at the mess he created for everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

RealtyTrac notes (via North Carolina State University) that:
From January 2007 to December 2011 there were more than four million completed foreclosures and more than 8.2 million foreclosure starts
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-many-p ... on/5335430

Thanks to his social engineering we have millions of people losing their homes. But look it was great for a while, do-gooders got to pat themselves on the back for what a great thing they were doing for the poor - when actually they screwed poor people. After these people lost their homes, then property values rose, and the banks/government got the appreciation.


That was ALL about screwing naive people out of their money. It was also a failure of government regulation, but it WAS NEVER a credible attempt at anti-poverty.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,604
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Sep 2014, 1:40 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Oh, so poor people aren't inferior. They're just dangerous criminals...


It is pretty obvious that crime and poverty are linked. So, why increase your probability of being a crime victim ?

GoonSquad wrote:
The despicable depravity of you're thought processes never ceases to amaze me.


Ex-president George Bush thought the same as you. He said, we should be an ownership society where poor people should own their homes, and look at the mess he created for everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

RealtyTrac notes (via North Carolina State University) that:
From January 2007 to December 2011 there were more than four million completed foreclosures and more than 8.2 million foreclosure starts
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-many-p ... on/5335430

Thanks to his social engineering we have millions of people losing their homes. But look it was great for a while, do-gooders got to pat themselves on the back for what a great thing they were doing for the poor - when actually they screwed poor people. After these people lost their homes, then property values rose, and the banks/government got the appreciation.

"Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/busin ... d=all&_r=0


But not every poor person is a criminal, G*DDAMN IT! In fact, most are not.
As for Bush's ownership society - that failed because, despite his good intentions, he had allowed his friends and supporters in banking and Wall Street - that is, the RICH - to operate business as usual with all their predatory practices of stealing from the unwary. In this case, they stole those new homes right out from under the poor homeowners.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 Sep 2014, 5:05 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
Keeping out the inferior people? Those not worthy of gracing your doorstep but should only knock at the servants entrance in the back? Why not just call for a division based on the feudal system. Put those serfs back in their place.


I never said the people are "inferior".

In America, if you don't come up with the property tax money every year, then the city government will take your home, so property taxes are a way of keeping poor people out of neighborhoods.

For example, woman missed on property tax payment, and city proceeds to take her home.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/1 ... -for-home#


Yes which is disgusting, any policies designed to systematically make things more difficult for poor people disgusts me and that is just the way it is...and that is exactly what that sounds like. And a woman losing her home she's fully paid for over missing one property tax payment....what is the purpose of 'keeping poor people out of neighborhoods' where should the poor be kept? In a garbage bin?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 Sep 2014, 5:08 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
So why insist on geographical separation based solely on income?


I didn't insist on anything, and it is not based on income, but based on one's ability to afford it.

I once lived next to a drug dealer where cars would be outside at different hours waiting for him. One time I came home and there was about five cop cars and when I pulled in all the police stared at me like I was a criminal.

Now in live in a near crime free neighbourhood next to a retired medical doctor and lawyer across the street. I say let other people be the victims of crimes by people in poverty, I can move to a nicer city and avoid those people.


And the hilarious part about all this is your username is LoveNotHate, I absolutely love the irony and honestly have to give you kudos for that one :roll: ....because wealthy people never commit crimes or do things to harm others lol, difference is a lot of them do it because they 'can' a lot of poor people who resort to crime end up doing so out of desperation to survive and have the means to live on because unfortunately our system does a horrid job of addressing poverty in this country.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Sep 2014, 5:41 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
That was ALL about screwing naive people out of their money. It was also a failure of government regulation, but it WAS NEVER a credible attempt at anti-poverty.


The government mandated that Freddie and Fannie provide a % of mortgages to low income people.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housin ... pinto.html


Kraichgauer wrote:
But not every poor person is a criminal, G*DDAMN IT! In fact, most are not..


Sure, Detroit is filled with good homeowners. I see them on tv talking about improving their city. As I said earlier, it takes only a small % to destroy a city.

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for Bush's ownership society - that failed because, despite his good intentions, he had allowed his friends and supporters in banking and Wall Street - that is, the RICH - to operate business as usual with all their predatory practices of stealing from the unwary. In this case, they stole those new homes right out from under the poor homeowners


The government mandated that Freddie and Fannie provide a % of mortgages to low income people.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And the hilarious part about all this is your username is LoveNotHate, I absolutely love the irony and honestly have to give you kudos for that one :roll: ....because wealthy people never commit crimes or do things to harm others lol, difference is a lot of them do it because they 'can' a lot of poor people who resort to crime end up doing so out of desperation to survive and have the means to live on because unfortunately our system does a horrid job of addressing poverty in this country.


You appear not to understand why people are leaving Detroit. According to you apparently, they should realize that wherever they go it will be just as bad cause the rich commit crimes too. Your thinking is not based in common sense. It is common sense to want to live among the safest, cleanest, most well-kept city you can live in and it takes money to pay for those services.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,292
Location: Minnesota, United States

18 Sep 2014, 6:00 pm

I'd say a good porportion of crime is a direct result of the competitive social system we live under. Shooting and locking up more people will never solve the problem. The problem is the police, the millitary, enforcing a neo-feudal property regime called capitalism. Capitalists owe their wealth to poverty and state violence.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 Sep 2014, 6:16 pm

double post



Last edited by Sweetleaf on 18 Sep 2014, 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 Sep 2014, 6:20 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:
And the hilarious part about all this is your username is LoveNotHate, I absolutely love the irony and honestly have to give you kudos for that one :roll: ....because wealthy people never commit crimes or do things to harm others lol, difference is a lot of them do it because they 'can' a lot of poor people who resort to crime end up doing so out of desperation to survive and have the means to live on because unfortunately our system does a horrid job of addressing poverty in this country.


You appear not to understand why people are leaving Detroit. According to you apparently, they should realize that wherever they go it will be just as bad cause the rich commit crimes too. Your thinking is not based in common sense. It is common sense to want to live among the safest, cleanest, most well-kept city you can live in and it takes money to pay for those services.


I was not really referring specifically to Detroit, more your line of thinking here and why it disgusts me. Keeping the poor out of neighborhoods does not reduce crime....also I think what would be more common sense is for governments to put effort into making cities safe,clean, well kept ect which includes proving some kind of help for the poor not trying to quote on quote 'keep them out of neighborhoods' and keep them separate and still struggling just as much. But yes services cost money which is exactly why taxes are nessisary, however they have to be reasonable and yeah it makes more sense for very wealthy people to be taxed at a higher rate than poorer people so services are funded and there is social safety network for the poor.

If the government and people want reduced crime........simply trying to keep the poor out of 'better' areas doesn't address crime nor does it do anything to reduce poverty just tries to make it less visable so those yuppies in their nice little neighborhoods can continue acting like poverty is a non issue, its not about protecting valuable citizens from the poor who according to you apparently mostly consist of violent criminals...its about class division and making poverty appear as a non issue by making it harder to see.

It seems your thinking is not based on common sense if you really think keeping the poor out of neighborhoods reduces crime or even adresses it.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,294
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

18 Sep 2014, 6:21 pm

RushKing wrote:
I'd say a good porportion of crime is a direct result of the competitive social system we live under. Shooting and locking up more people will never solve the problem. The problem is the police, the millitary, enforcing a neo-feudal property regime called capitalism. Capitalists owe their wealth to poverty and state violence.


^this



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,604
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Sep 2014, 7:26 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
That was ALL about screwing naive people out of their money. It was also a failure of government regulation, but it WAS NEVER a credible attempt at anti-poverty.


The government mandated that Freddie and Fannie provide a % of mortgages to low income people.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housin ... pinto.html


Kraichgauer wrote:
But not every poor person is a criminal, G*DDAMN IT! In fact, most are not..


Sure, Detroit is filled with good homeowners. I see them on tv talking about improving their city. As I said earlier, it takes only a small % to destroy a city.

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for Bush's ownership society - that failed because, despite his good intentions, he had allowed his friends and supporters in banking and Wall Street - that is, the RICH - to operate business as usual with all their predatory practices of stealing from the unwary. In this case, they stole those new homes right out from under the poor homeowners


The government mandated that Freddie and Fannie provide a % of mortgages to low income people.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And the hilarious part about all this is your username is LoveNotHate, I absolutely love the irony and honestly have to give you kudos for that one :roll: ....because wealthy people never commit crimes or do things to harm others lol, difference is a lot of them do it because they 'can' a lot of poor people who resort to crime end up doing so out of desperation to survive and have the means to live on because unfortunately our system does a horrid job of addressing poverty in this country.


You appear not to understand why people are leaving Detroit. According to you apparently, they should realize that wherever they go it will be just as bad cause the rich commit crimes too. Your thinking is not based in common sense. It is common sense to want to live among the safest, cleanest, most well-kept city you can live in and it takes money to pay for those services.


And again, Wall Street bankers and their political puppets took advantage of poor people. You can talk about the government mandating Freddie and Fannie to extend mortgages to poor people all you want, but the undeniable fact is, it was the predatory practices of capitalism that stole homes from people.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

19 Sep 2014, 7:38 am

Just for the record, Fannie and Freddie do not provide mortgages to anyone.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche