Island Dog Island Dog

Want to get out of poverty, take personal responsibility

▼

Want to get out of poverty, take personal responsibility

from JoeUser Forums
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.
politics
40,605 views 180 replies
Reply #126 from PolMach Forums Top
With someone that is as arrogant AND ignorant as you seem


Again sir, I am presenting facts, you have all presented some nice heart warming stories, but only stories. My arrogance is your opinion, but my ignorance is a falsehood you have created, at least on this subject. I am showing you in black and white the real cost of health insurance premiums. I provided a link to Aetna earlier in the post, a couple of people responded with the "rates were inflated". I respond by offering a copy of my pay stub as well as that of my wife showing our real (group coverage) cost of insurance and now you call me ignorant. Ignorant about what I ask?

Insults do not win a debate, facts go a lot further. I have presented facts and you people are resorting to talking about how bad you would beat me up for how I am addressing the so-called ladies on this blog. "Ladies" that speak of kicking my ass, ladies that call my sister and I names then delete our posts and black list us? Ladies that call my children weak because I incurr health care costs? Ladies that call my sister an officer's wife bitch? No sir, as my sister said, my mother taught me well how to treat a lady, but she also taught me what a lady is.
Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top
No idea what you are talking about eric, I've never been in the military. I'm one of the "Irresponsible" parents living comfortably on less than $35k. I really don't need to look at any of your arguments after that statement.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #128 from PolMach Forums Top
Once again you don't seem to be following the conversation very well at all. Just to clue you in this is again drmiler NOT Tex OR LW and I'm NOT female! Get it? Got it? Gooood! Do try to keep up in the future.


Oops, sorry but you tend to come across as a female at times...no that is not meant as an insult. But I still stand by my description of a lady, I thought this was a public forum and others would see the string not just you.

And your own comments show you to be snobish. Otherwise you would know that the word "zero" is used by enlisted personel to describe officers as the officers ranks are usually O-1 up through O-10


This seems to be your quote above, I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. How do I come across as a snob? I never disputed the "zero" comment, it is often used as a cheap shot at being demeaning but I do know it's origins. Yes I do screw up and get you, TEX and lil whip mixed up because you all seem to say the same things and hurl insults, accusations and attempt to shut down other minds that don't hold the same opinions. If being a lady and refraining from trash talk and threats of violence are snobbish then I guess you got me figured out.
Reply #129 from PolMach Forums Top
Oh, and HAHA @ your wifey slaving away for a measly $10.00 per hour. I'm sure taxes eat up a good chunk of that, as well as benefits. Now lets subtract the $350 you pay that nanny each week. What's that leave her...$100 or so for all her hard work?


View the link Tex, my wife CLEARS $543.42 or there abouts per week, AFTER paying for health insurance, $40.00 towards retirement and of course, the ever present taxes. That's $193.42 take home per week AFTER paying for the nanny, health insurance, retirement program and taxes! Again, I provided the link for a reason.

Yeah, and for 13 hours a day, you allow your children, (whom you purport to LOVE so much) to be raised by a minimally paid, live-in nanny.


My minimally paid nanny has lived with us for six years and is like a part of our family. My minimally paid nanny is compensated $350.00 per week for what Tex does for free. Imagine this whip, if my minimally paid nanny were married and her spouse earned the same as she, they would earn a combined $36,400.00 per year. $1,400.00 more than you and Tex claim is quite enough to raise a family of four.
Reply #130 from PolMach Forums Top
After looking at other blogs and the responses they get I realized that this will never end. Several people here cannot stand to hear someone else's opinions. To drag a personal dispute from one blog to another that have nothing in common except for the people participating is just childish. If you haven't been blacklisted for speaking your opinion then why go to other blogs and spew off rubbish about citizens? The only answer I can come up with is that it is your way or the highway. So a nice heads up to people out there who just want the right to express their opinions without being blacklisted, threatened, or name called-read these strings and see who stands out as someone who will trash your name on other blogs as way of shutting down opinions that are not their own and good luck steering clear of their wrath.
Reply #131 from PolMach Forums Top
But hey, she's gotta have a 'career' right? She's entitled, right? So she pays someone else to care for them, and pays them poorly, I might add.


Again, we pay her more than many of you working poor seem to say is quite enough to raise a family on. I've had people tell me that they lived on $16,000.00 per year and raised their children perfectly well. My nanny earns $18,000.00, lives with free room and board and is essentially part of a loving family. You are basically making my point for me whip. My nanny is a fifty year old widow who does not drive. All of her children are grown and actually help to support her by paying her health insurance and driving her around on the weekends to take care of errands. Things that some of you would not be able to do for your parents since "car ownership" is too expensive in the inner city. In fact, with the situation that my nanny is in (no rent, no utilites, no groceries and her kids pay her doctor bills) she has nothing more to do with her money than spend it on her grandkids. Something many of you with your 35k salaries will be unable to do.

But I will grant you this, if my nanny were raising two children, I would whole heartedly agree that her salary is too meager. In your zeal to insult me whip, you have made my arguement for me, thanks.
Reply #132 from PolMach Forums Top
Yeah, and for 13 hours a day, you allow your children, (whom you purport to LOVE so much) to be raised by a minimally paid, live-in nanny.


Unfortunately I feel compelled to adress this issue. I am fairly certain that one of the benefits of the nanny's job is free room and board. Go back to the calculations of the cost of apartments, utilities and groceries-add that in to the 350 and I think you will find it a nice paycheck for services rendered. Keep in mind that eric posted earlier the age range of his children....they are obviously in school a good bit of those thirteen hours with the exception of the soon to be born infant.
Reply #133 from PolMach Forums Top
And they 'love' going in to work with you on Sats so much because you bribe them with unhealthy, expensive, sugary donuts, pizza, and video games.

That's not love, that's a pay-off. One that's going to make them FAT and RESENTFUL when they get older.


My children love to go to work with me because they love being with their dad. Now whip in her infinite wisdom (she let me know last night that it is in fact white suburbia that breeds violence, not the inner city), whip is going to say that we should close down all Dunkin Donuts and Chucky Cheeses. Apparantly, treating my children once a week to donuts in the morning and pizza in the afternoon will make them fat and resentful. I will immediately go out and file suit against both corporations for the emtional and physical anguish they are causing with their once a week treats.

drmiler and Baker, is this one of the examples of the "ladies" that exist on this blog? I mean now my kids don't love me? They just love Dunkin Donuts? And they are fat?
Reply #134 from PolMach Forums Top


LoL, just like your "sister"


Unbelievable, thanks for helping with my earlier point...obviously if two people disagree with you then one has to be an alter ego or ficticious in some other way.

Reply #135 from PolMach Forums Top
Damn Sis, you beat me to the punch. I was about to mention the schedule: My kids wake up nearly two hours AFTER I get to work at and arrive home from school one to two hours before me. In reality, they are in the hands of my poorly paid nanny for about three hours out of the day.

Again, any insult, any name calling to make a point when none exists.

I ask again, will ANYONE address the issue at hand? I mean I am pointing out the real cost of rasing children and whip latches onto my nanny's salary. She completely avoids the subject of the real cost of healthcare and of saving for retirement.

Obvioulsy, whip jumped onto the first thing she could see and ridiculed my wife's hourly wage without stopping to see that she clears $193 + after paying taxes, retirement, health insurance and our nanny. That's about $193.00 per week more than Tex or whip take home and they are not contributiong anything to retirement, the tax base (someone has to pay for welfare recipients and those EIC entitlements), their health insurance or to the economy (we pay a nanny $350.00 per week. That money makes it's way back to the economy by way of her purchases).

I ask the gentlemen here again, these are what you bring me as examples of "ladies"? I don't know where you come from but my mom did not teach me to ridicule someone for their hourly wage (unless that person's wage is insufficient to raise the kids they are giving birth to and in that case I am not ridiculing their wage, only their judgement in having children they are unable to afford). Furthermore, ladies don't call people's children fat and weak where I come from.
Reply #136 from PolMach Forums Top
Tex hasnt added to this thread in quite a while, and I'm going to vacate as well. I refuse to argue with a schizophrenic.


When presented with facts and when the insults get old and boring, we see what happens, everyone avoids the subject.

Now that I've put real numbers up, drmiler and baker have ceased to threaten my life or at least my teeth. Tex no longer seems interested in a debate and whip runs away.

Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh whip, I just love you and Tex's conspiracy theories. As to the simiarities between my sister and I, great minds think alike.


Now that MAY be the funniest thing you have said yet.

Eric, you are uninformed and disconnected with reality. Your comments have so many errors and misstatements that it's hard to know WHERE to begin. To consider yourself a "great mind" is to prove yourself to be deluded beyond reason.
Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top
The cheapest city on the list was Lakeland, FL with a median home price of $108,000. The highest was Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA at $207,300. The National median price for a home is $218,000. these are places considered "cheap".


are you AWARE what the word "median" means? It does not mean "lowest", just for the record.

Many families on working class wages buy homes in need of repair, then fix them up. Another way the working class contribute much to the economy, eh?

Just as an "apartment finder" service does not indicate the lowest prices for apartments, "median home values" do not indicate the lowest price at which a home may be purchased.

In 1993 in Chicago, Illinois, I lived with several roommates in a huge, 5 bedroom apartment in a nice neighborhood on the northwest side of the city. Easy access to public transportation made a car an unnecessary expense; you could ride in on the "el" quicker than you could drive, plus read a book on the way, all for a little over $100 a month at the time.

Oh, yeah, and the cost for our spacious flat? $545 a month, well below the "average" apartment price for even a 3 bedroom in Chicago at the time.
Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, yes my wife and I work together and we commute together as well. To the dismay of the ladies here, yes my stub is the one that is paid salary and my poor wife is slaving away as the hourly wage employee making $10.00 per hour.


Oh, so you and your wife emotionally neglect your children in pursuit of the almighty buck?

(note to working mothers: that is NOT what I believe, at all, but it is no less inflammatory a caricature than what he has been advancing with his drivel).
Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tex hasn't added to this thread in quite a while, and I'm going to vacate as well. I refuse to argue with a schizophrenic.


When presented with facts and when the insults get old and boring, we see what happens, everyone avoids the subject.

Now that I've put real numbers up, drmiler and baker have ceased to threaten my life or at least my teeth. Tex no longer seems interested in a debate and whip runs away


I only "threatened" your teeth because of the way you were talking to the ladies. I quit posting because this article was doing nothing but degenerating fast! I also did not care for your tone of voice. And I find your statement that anyone who was raising children on 35K or less is irresponsible to be arrogant,hateful, bigoted and in general quite offensive. And just an FYI...I have said nothing on this thread that I would not say to your face given the same circumstances. And no I do NOT need my sons to do anything. I am quite capable of handling things on my own. So with that I will take my leave of this debacle and no longer respond to trolls!
Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tex has been put in check by my much more experienced sister in the ways of military benefits to the point that she has to claim that she is my alter ego now just googling up a few public statistics.


Yeah, and I have more experience than your sister, and I'm telling you Tex is right. Your sister tangled with me last night, and she backed off.

Whatcha got now, dude?
Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top
And they 'love' going in to work with you on Sats so much because you bribe them with unhealthy, expensive, sugary donuts, pizza, and video games.

That's not love, that's a pay-off. One that's going to make them FAT and RESENTFUL when they get older.


My children love to go to work with me because they love being with their dad. Now whip in her infinite wisdom (she let me know last night that it is in fact white suburbia that breeds violence, not the inner city), whip is going to say that we should close down all Dunkin Donuts and Chucky Cheeses. Apparantly, treating my children once a week to donuts in the morning and pizza in the afternoon will make them fat and resentful. I will immediately go out and file suit against both corporations for the emtional and physical anguish they are causing with their once a week treats.

drmiler and Baker, is this one of the examples of the "ladies" that exist on this blog? I mean now my kids don't love me? They just love Dunkin Donuts? And they are fat?


You also seem to have a reading comprehension problem. You were not told that your children are fat you were told that it would "make" them fat. They also NEVER made a claim that you children don't love you. The comment was about them just loving to go to the office with you. You really need to work on your comprehension. Try this link: Link
Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top
yes my wife and I work together and we commute together as well. To the dismay of the ladies here, yes my stub is the one that is paid salary and my poor wife is slaving away as the hourly wage employee making $10.00 per hour.


Why do you both have to work? Is your debt that great that you have to have 2 incomes to manage it? How irresponsible of you...having children and not staying home to look after them.

I don't work. I don't HAVE to work. I didn't have kids to shove them off on someone else, I stayed home and mothered my babies.

No amount of income is going to make up for time not spent with your kids.
Reply #144 from PolMach Forums Top
Yeah, and I have more experience than your sister, and I'm telling you Tex is right. Your sister tangled with me last night, and she backed off.

Whatcha got now, dude?


My sister was blacklisted and her post deleted, that's different from backing off.

Whatcha got now, dude?


Is this another fine example of the "ladies" on this post drmiler?

The comment was about them just loving to go to the office with you.


Try to comprehend this drmiler:

That's not love, that's a pay-off.


Now I don't have the inate gift of comprehension that you obviously do, but it seems to imply that my kids go to work with me for the pay-off, not the love. But that's just my reading of it.

Why do you both have to work? Is your debt that great that you have to have 2 incomes to manage it? How irresponsible of you...having children and not staying home to look after them.


My debt is non-existent other than my mortgage and one car payment. As I have illustrated we both work so as to provide for our children and to prepare for our retirement, rather than riding the backs of our children whom we love to much to saddle with our care when we are older. That's the problem with you people, it's all about "today" with you, how about years from now when you want to retire, is your home paid for? Oh, that's right, your in an apartment, you'll have to work till you die or until your kids are paying for your nursing home. I see it all the time, well intentioned people who put "love" before money. Well, I'm thinking about my children's lives today tomorrow, when they are ready for college and when I am ready to retire.

I don't work. I don't HAVE to work. I didn't have kids to shove them off on someone else, I stayed home and mothered my babies.

No amount of income is going to make up for time not spent with your kids.


Yeah, I'm sure they will appreciate all that extra time with you when they are out shopping for your nursing home that you won't be able to afford because you stayed home. My wife works to contribute not just to our income, sure we could live without her income, we could save the $350.00 per week we pay the nanny, but lose her contribution to the health insurance, which I could take on (for some reason it is cheaper to have one of us pay for an adult with children and one of us pay the single rate versus one of us simply insuring the entire family in one dedcution), we'd also lose her $40.00 contribution to our IRA as well as the $193.00 that she clears after paying towards insurance, retirement and the nanny. On my salary alone (over $50,000.00 for your 35k guys out there) we could "get by" but because I would be taking on the full financial responsibility, we would also lose my $75.00 contribution to our IRA.

So for the sake of one of us "staying home" we would struggle more to make ends meet, lose our retirement (if you want to roll the social security dice, feel free, but I'm wondering if my social security is about to pay for the Gulf Coast rebuilding), no more college saving either. So let's see, stay home to be with our kids, (well the three hours a day that they aren't in school that is), and the reward is no help with their college education and saddling them with your nursing home bills. Sounds like a nice trade off.

No amount of income is going to make up for time not spent with your kids.


Again, ask them that when they are shelling out 2,000.00 to 3,000.00 per month for your nursing home. By the way, you better hope they aspire to make more than you do if they are going to be able to bear the burden of you one day. Kids may not cost more than 35k, but a 75 year old in a nursing home does.
Reply #145 from PolMach Forums Top
This si simple, no one, not drmiler, not baker, not whip, not Tex, not dharmagrl, none of you have addressed the issue of quality of life on 35k.

The issue of preparing for your childs continuing education.

Link

The issue of retirement (well not you Tex): How much do you think you'll need? Here's an article for you 35kr's about how expensive it is to care for aging parents (a whole lot less than caring for children). Like I said, roll the dice if you like, but I'll be the master of my own destiny, not my children.

Link

It's as simple as this, you all have a bunch of heart warming stories that I'm sure make you feel good. And while you might "get by" with under 35k while raising children , you will be doing nothing for their education or for your retirement. I've got a sister in law in a situation a lot like your kids will be one day; she is 31 years old, still has over $40,000.00 in college loans that she keeps deferring and a father about 3 years shy of retirement age with not one dollar saved for retirement. Her future is one of probably having her father live with her while she continues to struggle with her college loans. But hey, her mom was there for her when she grew up. The saving grace is she was able to put herself through school and get a job earning pretty good money, certainly more than her parents ever aspired to (and for their sakes, thank God for that, she'll be supporting them soon).
Reply #146 from PolMach Forums Top
Wait, I'm sorry dharmagrl, you are military as well right? Well you are in the same boat as Tex. Why are you we even discussing this? You have benefits that, while well deserved, make this conversation pointless. As my sister pointed out (although later deleted by Tex) your benefits package is such that most civilians could not comprehend. You don't have to worry about health care at retirement, it's provided for. For that matter, you don't have to worry about retirement, if your husband stays in for thirty years, you'll earn receive 75% of his income for the rest of your life, with cost of living raises included every few years.

I need not tell you all the other benefits, but anyways, my comments about quality of life and what not are not directed at you. You have a very bright future if your remain in the military. I on the other hand, have to save for mine.

By the way, thanks to you, your husband and your children for the sacrifices that ALL of you put up with for our freedom. I really mean that, no matter what we disagree on here as regards these issues, I can never thank you or your husband enough. And don't give my sister to hard a time please, both your husbands fight for the same side. (Anyways, I already give her husband more hell than he deserves for being a "not working for a living" major)
Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top
My sister was blacklisted and her post deleted, that's different from backing off.

Nope dude, I read her response before it got deleted. Try again.

. As I have illustrated we both work so as to provide for our children and to prepare for our retirement,


And you automatically assume that we're not? hahahaha...you're funny! FYI, we've got out retirement under control, thanks.

Just as you say I'm irresponsible for having kids, I say you're irresponsible for having them then palming them off on someone else.


Oh and yeah, I'm a lady. I'm more lady that you can handle.
Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top
I on the other hand, have to save for mine.


And you think that the benefits we get come easy? That it's a freakin' cake walk?

YOU go get shot at and bombed every day, you spend years separated from your home and your family....then you tell me that what we've got comes easy.
Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top
As my sister pointed out (although later deleted by Tex) your benefits package is such that most civilians could not comprehend.


The deleted comment, as dharma can attest since she DID see it, had nothing to do with benefits, which as I have pointed out can be looked up on the net. I've detailed them repeatedly, and everything I have posted can be confirmed via a google search.
Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top
I also find it telling that he can somehow contrast a full time parent to a monetary sum and come out thinking the monetary sum is more important.

If I was the kind of person eric is, I'd have lots to say about someone who would put college tuition and their own retirement over a nurturing environment for their kids. We've seen what that kind of "responsibility" means when whole generations live with a key around their neck, or are raised by ambivalent day care.

But hey, emotionally detached kids aren't quite so bad if they aren't burdened by their parents and get their college education handed to them for free. They make better drones, too.