Want to get out of poverty, take personal responsibility

Published on September 16, 2005 By Island Dog In Politics

Reading another useless rant by the col about how much they "care" about poverty brought a few things to mind. Poverty in this country is not the governments fault, quite different than what the left wants you to think. Poverty is mostly a personal choice in this country. Aside from people who are physically or mentally unable to work choose to live in poverty and not better themselves. This is one of the big difference between the left and right. The left wants you to rely on the government and not help yourself, the right believes people should take personal responsibility for themselves, and not rely on the government.

Now I hear people like the col and our other resident radicals that state things like people could not evacuate because they are poor and had no transportation. I bet if a "50 Cent" concert was in town, people could find a ride for that. However this is basically what we are talking about. Instead of taking responsibility for yourself and finding a way out, they blame the government (mostly Bush) for not driving right up to their doorsteps and taking them away.

If you want to get out of poverty and live a good life, then just do it. Here are a few tips to get you started.

Instead of buying that new rap cd that came out, buy a book instead.

Instead of going to "the club" every night, stay home and read to your kids.

Instead of spending countless amounts of money on hair products, buy food and clothes for yourself and children.

Instead of relying on government for a paycheck, go get a job.

If you follow these basic tips you will have already gotten started on the right path.

Comments (Page 1)

Island Dog

on Sep 16, 2005

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

wow dog, I do not feel you will get much feedback about this, to much reality for some people here.

Colleen and I dug our way out of a huge debt about 5 years ago {28,000} there about anyway. now we are about 6,000 in debt something easly handled and NORMAL, we dug out by hard work and sacrafice, now we do not have to sacrafice anymore, but we still watch what we spend so as not to repeat past mistakes.

Island Dog

on Sep 16, 2005

Colleen and I dug our way out of a huge debt about 5 years ago {28,000} there about anyway. now we are about 6,000 in debt something easly handled and NORMAL, we dug out by hard work and sacrafice, now we do not have to sacrafice anymore, but we still watch what we spend so as not to repeat past mistakes.

Seems to me you took personal responsibility and didn't rely on the government or Jesse Jackson to solve your problems. Good for you. If more people followed what you did, the so-called poverty rate would drop.

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

#3 by Island Dog
Friday, September 16, 2005

we did and do take personal responsibility for ourselves, that's why we are insured up the wazoo, life, death {burial} cars home personal property, ad infinitim.

We trust NO ONE to handle our trip. specially the many governments.

dharmagrl

on Sep 16, 2005

We took responsibility for our debt too, and we're almost debt-free now. We busted our asses...I can't recall the last time Dave and I went out to dinner without any kids, and neither of us has had a boys/girls night out in...well, years.

It IS possible to be self-sufficient....the trick is to WANT to be self-sufficient.

Moderateman

on Sep 16, 2005

5 by dharmagrl
Friday, September 16, 2005

the trick is to WANT to be self-sufficient.

not just WANT, but Do also.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 17, 2005

Liberal here (that's your cue to slam me with insults and labels)...

I do think it's important for all of us to strive to be successful and provide for ourselves. However, not all people are in the proper circumstances for them to become self-sufficient without aid from somewhere (family, church, charity, govt, whatever).

I won't disagree that a lot of people on govt assistance could and should be providing for their own needs. But for the few that don't have the ability to pull themselves out of poverty on their own (and those who sincerely wish to overcome poverty and not simply be cared for by the govt)...well...I'm glad that public assistance is there for them.

While not every person who is on welfare actually NEEDS that welfare, not every person on welfare is there for a free ride. There are individuals who are working hard to provide for their families and who need just a bit of help getting back to being productive members of society out there. And I don't begrudge those sincere, hardworking people a bit of my family's taxes.

ericseba

on Sep 17, 2005

and who need just a bit of help getting back to being productive members of society out there

Ah Tex, if only everyone on welfare was just getting a "bit of help", we wouldn't be discussing this issue. I needed that "bit of help" before around 14 years ago. What I saw every time I went into that welfare office was people who made the receipt of welfare an occupation, nay, a way of life.

The fact is this, most, not all, but most people on welfare when given the choice of living well but working hard for it or living at the poverty level on welfare and not having to work at all would certainly take the latter. It's very simply a vicious cycle of poverty perpetuated by irresponsible parents who teach their children the joy of living on welfare and being professional bitchers about how little the government does for them.

Frankly the idea of welfare being a safety net is a joke. If not, why do we build public housing? We build it because we know the idea of the aid being temporary is a sick joke. Otherwise, why not just provide financial aid designated for payment of rent? Come on Tex, have you ever honestly driven through a housing project? Well I have. I have worked with people who lived there, I have driven through them and I have made the acquaintance of other people living there. After making their acquaintance, I learned a couple of things; IT IS A LIFESTYLE and IT IS A CHOICE. These people live a life that perpetuates poverty. They make sure to never earn enough money to break the poverty line and lose benefits. They knock out as many kids as possible in order to raise the bar for how much aid money they receive and to allow them to earn more money without being denied benefits. They never get married; rather they just either live with or get the occasional visit from their baby's daddy or daddies. Of course being married would put them at risk of losing benefits as well because then they would have to claim the income of the spouse.

I will concede this one point; it is our faulty system that breeds these individuals. If we did not reward people with the "welfare lottery" for being irresponsible, then we might not have this problem. But do you think anyone would dare suggest we fix the system? Heck no, they would be branded a "take from the poor to give to the rich", racist, ogre conservative. Likewise, no liberal would ever propose reform, because they would risk losing their voter base.

Tex, I made the mistake many months ago of slamming you with insults and labeling you a host of bad labels. I then took the time to read more of your posts in order to get a feel for your mindset. The fact is this; you are simply a nice person that either has not been subjected to the ugly side of the welfare state or you choose to believe that those people I described above are the exception, not the norm. Well, I am here to tell you as someone who has lived for many years in the rural south (both North Carolina and Georgia) as well as the big city (Atlanta), that the bulk of these people choose their way of life and are quite content with it. And while these poor folks might appreciate your sympathies, they would not want your help or money (unless it’s cash under the table), as it might jeopardize the future of their welfare benefits.

ericseba

on Sep 17, 2005

Oh, just one more personal story that will help to drive my point home. I accompanied my wife recently for a regular prenatal visit with her doctor at the Emory clinic located at Crawford Long hospital in downtown Atlanta. While waiting for our turn and after having paid our $30.00 co-pay, we had two young ladies sitting on one side of us and a couple on the other side of us that already had a young daughter.

The two young ladies were obviously sisters and were discussing the predicament of the pregnant one. The pregnant one was lamenting the fact that she would soon be nearing a time when she would begin “showing”, at which time she would be forced to give up her stripping job. Now one might think that I mention this because I disagree with her position. No, in fact I have frequented strip clubs many times in my younger days so far be it from me to pass judgment on her occupation. No, what caused my ire was her dismay at now having to face the task of finding another job that would provide her with undeclarable income so that she could continue receiving financial and medical benefits from the government. Lovely.

The second pair was a couple who appeared to be in their late twenty’s and as I mentioned before, already had a young daughter around two years old. As I sat there, the receptionist asked for a copy of their Medicaid card. Now come on, if this person qualifies for Medicaid and already has the burden of one daughter, why are they having another? Again, lovely.

I repeat; most people make the decision to live in the welfare system because it is easier than the alternative. Why we’ve even created a food stamp credit card so as to help avoid the embarrassment of presenting food stamps. I propose that maybe if welfare and food stamps were more embarrassing, less people would be using them. I say there out to be a single line in every grocery store with a big flashing overhead sign that says “welfare recipients only”. Heck, if nothing else I could go over and give them a nice “Your Welcome” for my buying their groceries for them. As long as we make it easier and less embarrassing to stay on welfare, more people will stay on it.

COL Gene

on Sep 17, 2005

Take a look at this BOYS:

DAILY BRIEFING September 1, 2005

Ex-Army Corps officials say budget cuts imperiled flood mitigation efforts

By Jason Vest and Justin Rood
jvest@govexec.com
As levees burst and floods continued to spread across areas hit by Hurricane Katrina yesterday, a former chief of the Army Corps of Engineers disparaged senior White House officials for "not understanding" that key elements of the region's infrastructure needed repair and rebuilding.

Mike Parker, the former head of the Army Corps of Engineers, was forced to resign in 2002 over budget disagreements with the White House. He clashed with Mitch Daniels, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, which sets the administration's annual budget goals.

"One time I took two pieces of steel into Mitch Daniels' office," Parker recalled. "They were exactly the same pieces of steel, except one had been under water in a Mississippi lock for 30 years, and the other was new. The first piece was completely corroded and falling apart because of a lack of funding. I said, 'Mitch, it doesn't matter if a terrorist blows the lock up or if it falls down because it disintegrates -- either way it's the same effect, and if we let it fall down, we have only ourselves to blame.' It made no impact on him whatsoever."

Daniels, now governor of Indiana, did not respond to a request for comment.

Parker -- who, along with members of his family, was forced to evacuate his Mississippi farm on Sunday night -- drew media attention (and the White House's ire) in 2002 by telling the Senate Budget Committee that a White House proposal to cut just over $2 billion from the Corps' $6 billion budget request would have a "negative impact" on the national interest. Parker also noted that cuts would mean the end of scores of contracts and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

After Parker's Capitol Hill appearance, Daniels wrote an angry memo to President Bush, writing that Parker's testimony "reads badly. . . on the printed page," and that "Parker. . . [was] distancing [himself] actively from the administration." Parker, a former Republican congressman from Mississippi, was forced to resign shortly thereafter.

The Corps of Engineers handles many of the nation's largest infrastructure projects, such as draining and restoring wetlands, dredging ports and harbors, building dams, bridges and waterways, and preparing for and responding to natural disasters. In Katrina's wake, those functions have attracted the interest of policymakers and citizens alike.

The Corps' efforts have won it mixed reviews over the years. The New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote in 2002, "No one has been more responsible for keeping Louisiana habitable over the past 200 years than the Army Corps of Engineers. But the Corps has also caused the most problems."

The Bush administration consistently has pushed to trim the Corps' budget. But Congress has been reluctant to follow its lead, and regularly hands the organization several hundred million dollars more than the White House requests.

Amid the largesse, however, Congress and the administration have made targeted cuts, some of them in Louisiana. As New Orleans City Business noted earlier this year, the Corps' construction budget for the district has gone from $147 million in fiscal 2001 to $82 million in fiscal 2005. Scores of projects, from efforts to build levees, canals and pumping stations to bridge improvements -- all of which deal with flood mitigation -- are incomplete. (The administration's fiscal 2006 budget proposal cut construction funding for the district even further, to $56 million.)

The Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project has felt the pinch particularly hard. After receiving $36.5 million for fiscal 2005, the project was cut to $10.4 million in the fiscal 2006 White House budget. The House has endorsed that funding level, while the Senate voted to boost funding to $37 million.

In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, the Corps' chief of engineers, denied that funding problems contributed to the crisis in New Orleans. "It is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm, the flooding of the central business district and the French Quarter would still have occurred. I do not see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case."

Some veteran Corps officials note that there's been a downward trend in funding since the Carter administration. But it's been more pronounced in recent years, and the New Orleans District has been particularly affected.

Among those who echo Parker's sentiments on budget priorities is Joseph Corrigan, who spent 2002-2004 as the deputy engineer for the Corps' Mobile, Ala., District. "We've had a number of really tough floods in recent years, but we have not been investing in levees, or flood damage reduction projects, the way we used to, even as populations have been exploding," Corrigan said. But, he adds, the lack of adequate preparation for the hurricane isn't exclusively about funding levels and priorities.

There is, for example, the issue of levee responsibility. "Not all of the levees, particularly in Mississippi and around the country, are federal," he said. "You may have a county or a local levee run by a local levee board, and private levee, and a federal levee that all have to work together, because if you have one fail, it can be disastrous." The coordination process is "excruciatingly difficult," he said, because the expertise and ability of local levee boards varies greatly. He also noted that projects frequently get delayed for years because of conflicts between state and federal agencies and environmental-related litigation, or because states and municipalities aren't able or interested in contributing to projects that have to be cost-shared.

Corrigan said that while the Corps both plans and trains extensively for disaster response, the affected Gulf Coast geography and scale of damage presents a unique challenge in effectively deploying resources.

"We go through exercises every year, and each Corps district has teams that are ready to roll when something happens, recognizing that the affected district's headquarters may be wiped out along with our people's homes," he said. "Right now, for example, I understand there's only 45 New Orleans District personnel on hand out of a 1,000-person district, so the Corps is shipping people in from all over to deal with every aspect of this. And we have open-ended contracts with contractors to be activated. The problem is figuring out if the contractors can still respond, and getting all the necessary equipment there. We have, for example, the Deployable Tactical Operations Center, essentially a mobile emergency headquarters. When I talked to guys two days ago trying to get it where it needs to be, they were having to use chainsaws every 200 yards to clear the way."

COL Gene

on Sep 17, 2005

dharmagril

What I am saying is that the federal Government must act like you said. We must PAY for what we spend! If a family does not have enough money to feed their family the do not quit a higher paying job for a lower paying job. They get a second job to bring in more money or seek a higher paying job. Cutting the federal revenue at a time when our security and now Katrina are driving our expenses up makes no sense. Cutting taxes to return a surplus that NEVER existed makes no sense!

dharmagrl

on Sep 17, 2005

dharmagril

What I am saying is that the federal Government must act like you said

Dude, I have NO idea what you're tlaking about. This is a thread about wanting to get out of poverty.....are you dazed and confused today?

ericseba

on Sep 17, 2005

Take a look at this BOYS:

This has what to do with poverty??

dharmagrl

on Sep 17, 2005

This has what to do with poverty??

I think ColGene might want to have some coffee and wake up a bit...methinks he's a little befuddled this morning.

COL Gene

on Sep 17, 2005

I am talking about the Federal Government- It is in Poverty to the tune of more then 1/2 Trillion in 2005 and over $8 Trillion in total! How can anyone say our country is wealthy when we can not pay are own bills and owe $8 trillion dollars?

The article about New Orleans shows how the actions of Bush have added to the lack of money. He did nothing and now we have even MORE bills to pay.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!