Thread: "Poor" people and HDTVs

Originally Posted by spook

holy smokes!! if i hadn't read it a couple hundred times already i would have no idea you made almost 6 figures!! you are so noble not to take public assistance like your greedy friends!!!

too funny.

I don't say it to brag, I say it when making a point. If I made 50K it wouldn't be as big of a deal moron.

Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd

I don't say it to brag, I say it when making a point. If I made 50K it wouldn't be as big of a deal moron.

uh huh. every time you tell us it's not to brag. it's just to make a point. you just have to make the same point a lot apparently.

Originally Posted by spook

uh huh. every time you tell us it's not to brag. it's just to make a point. you just have to make the same point a lot apparently.

Ok, I won't make the point my white middle-class ass is able to bilk the system, it's just those brown poor people. I forgot for a second about your racism.

I know a Fishing Master of a large Bering Sea factory trawler that makes approximately $45,000 a month when at sea (WAY more during roe season...more like $80,000/month)....works about 7 months of the year and signs up for unemployment for the 5 months that he doesn't work. And while he's taking his 40 day vacation in Hawaii...he's STILL getting unemployment!!

Do I think he's making a concerted effort "to find work" during those 5 months off? Yah...right.

Granted, that's certainly not a typical example overall, but it is fairly typical in the fishing industry.

--

Originally Posted by ArmadaBC

Since nobody can take 45 seconds to Google what these program costs because its far easier to feel morally superior to others and lets be frank that's what this shit is really about, I'll also assume that they can't think about anything beyond money.

A thread with a bunch of professionals complaining about poor people owning TVs falls under the category of "Douchebags of the Week." The disconnect is between people with little personal impact from living through the greatest economic catastrophe since the 1930s—apart from things like drops in their 401k and house prices—and for millions and millions of Americans, the economic crisis is the worst event of their lives. They have lost jobs, homes, health insurance, opportunities for their children, seen their skills deteriorate, and lost their sense of self-worth. But from the perspective of those in a position to alleviate their suffering, the crisis is merely a sad and distant tragedy.

Originally Posted by Triage

A thread with a bunch of professionals complaining about poor people owning TVs falls under the category of "Douchebags of the Week." .

Not when said professionals are paying for said poor people's said HDTVs. Shit - my TV is an old boxy POS - where do I sign up for teh government cheese?

the poor aren't the ones doing the pillaging. they're just a convenient diversion while the wealthy do it. and of course, in the u.s., immigrants and poor are the ones whitey loves to scapegoat.

said professionals are not paying for poor people's hdtvs. they're paying for the government programs the rich are avoiding paying for.

u.s. public has no clue who the enemy is. inside the u.s., it's the u.s. public. outside the u.s., it's the u.s. public. nobody has a greater entitlement syndrome than the u.s. public, and it's not the poor, it's the middle class. they're perfectly content with poverty as long as it doesn't include them. they have their scapegoat and they can wave their patriotic xenophobic racist flag while the u.s. government pillages at home and abroad.

Originally Posted by Jer

Not when said professionals are paying for said poor people's said HDTVs. Shit - my TV is an old boxy POS - where do I sign up for teh government cheese?

Self-reported data and anecdotes can be unreliable. Many HD theorists have no idea what they're talking about. Just because the broadcast says HDTV right there on the screen does not make it an HDTV. A lot of "those poors" who think they have HDTVs probably have POS screens too, albeit some of them are more like flat POS rectangles instead of boxes.

Originally Posted by Triage

Self-reported data and anecdotes can be unreliable. Many HD theorists have no idea what they're talking about. Just because the broadcast says HDTV right there on the screen does not make it an HDTV. A lot of "those poors" who think they have HDTVs probably have POS screens too, albeit some of them are more like flat POS rectangles instead of boxes.

I think you miss the point. I actually paid for my shitty TV ten years ago.

Originally Posted by Jer

I think you miss the point. I actually paid for my shitty TV ten years ago.

Congratulations? My point was that many poor people paid for their TVs too before being hit by the crisis. In that sense the recent trend in job polarization raises the possibility that gains in well-being that come from productivity improvements will accrue to an economic elite. Perhaps the middle-class affluence that emerged during the latter part of the industrial age is not going to be a feature of the information age. Instead, we could be headed into an era of highly unequal economic classes. People at the bottom will have access to food, healthcare, and electronic entertainment, but the rich will live in an exclusive world of exotic homes and extravagant personal services. The most popular bands in the world will play house concerts for the rich, while everyone else can afford music downloads but no live music.

True. I guess I shouldn't be so quick to trust my own eyes.

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Again, this is exactly what the wealthy would like: divert attention away from their corruption and keep the lower incomes squabbling among themselves. Straight out of Machiavelli as a way to manage class warfare.

War historically does a good job of that as well.

Well, I'm finally back from playing in the mountains this weekend. Seems that many of you may have misunderstood my intent here. That's my fault for not being more clear and concise, but I guess the main point I was trying to make was to point out the absurdity of what we call "poor" here in this great country. What many of you guys are saying is true...there IS rampant FWA (Fraud, Waste and Abuse) in the system from the bottom to the very top end of our economic spectrum. I also agree that the dollars wasted on unwarranted govt assistance recipients absolutely pales in comparison to the dollars wasted in other avenues of government spending. All of that still doesn't take away from what I'm trying to get at here, which is our nation's usage of the word "poor."

The funny thing is how it's completely socially acceptable to blast the "rich" in our country, making all sorts of assumptions about them, and demonizing them in the process; whereas it's practically taboo to say anything disparaging about our so-called "poor." Typical class-warfare, so no surprises there. Why is fraud, waste and abuse so wrong (which it is) when rich people do it, but when others do it, it's ok? Robin Hood mentality perhaps?

For those who are so quick to blindly jump to the defense of welfare peeps, let me ask you, how much time have YOU spent in the projects? How much time have YOU spent hanging out with the people there? And no, I'm not talking about spending a weekend or two volunteering with Habitat for Humanity or other charities. I'm talking about actually living there. Having genuine friends there. You know, chillin' with the homeys. It's ok if you haven't, but its crazy to see how relatively well many people get to live, and how much they get to goof off, for how little they contribute. Sounds a bit like trust-fund babies, eh? Except that trust-funders are basically living off of grandpa Joe's dime, and not solely on the backs of the tax-payers.

We as a nation have come to expect certain things, and most are unwilling to give up their lifestyles when tough times come around. Some people I've known were born into "poverty," popping out kids at a young age to perpetuate their easy-going life. Either way, being poor ain't what it used to be! I don't know anyone who's doing hard labor, like digging ditches or building railroad like my grandfather did back during the REAL depression. He grew up in a tiny little border town in West Texas called Presidio. Grew up speaking Spanish, because like he told me, "it was the language of the playground." He decided he wanted to go to college to be an engineer. So, he worked the railroads year after to year to pay for school. Ended up not only being an engineer, but an Army captain in WWII. Got shot up storming the beaches of Normandy. HE knew true poverty. Many, many people back then did, but they also didn't mind some hard work either. Back then, people weren't afraid of working the fields, picking fruits or vegetables. How many of OUR poor are willing to do that. Almost none, as we seem to have to import people to do that work that our poor consider too hard or demeaning. How many poor people in the US still live in one room houses with dirt floors like my grandfather had (and many of your grandparents too)? How many poor people in the US are out there working the mines (now a good paying job), the railroads (also a good paying job), or picking grapes?

People in other countries must laugh at what we consider "poor," with our very rich standards of living. We are a very, very blessed nation, where even our poor have HDTVs and cable television. That's what I'm driving at here.

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

The funny thing is how it's completely socially acceptable to blast the "rich" in our country, making all sorts of assumptions about them, and demonizing them in the process; whereas it's practically taboo to say anything disparaging about our so-called "poor." Typical class-warfare, so no surprises there. Why is fraud, waste and abuse so wrong (which it is) when rich people do it, but when others do it, it's ok? Robin Hood mentality perhaps?

Try being "poor" sometime, kid. You might be older than me, but you sure don't post like it.

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

The funny thing is how it's completely socially acceptable to blast the "rich" in our country, making all sorts of assumptions about them, and demonizing them in the process; whereas it's practically taboo to say anything disparaging about our so-called "poor."

Since 1980 it's definAtely been the other way around: it's unaaceptable to blast the rich for their excesses and completely in vogue to do exactly what you're done.

Typical class-warfare, so no surprises there. Why is fraud, waste and abuse so wrong (which it is) when rich people do it, but when others do it, it's ok? Robin Hood mentality perhaps?

Have you ever actually read any Marx?

For those who are so quick to blindly jump to the defense of welfare peeps, let me ask you, how much time have YOU spent in the projects? How much time have YOU spent hanging out with the people there? And no, I'm not talking about spending a weekend or two volunteering with Habitat for Humanity or other charities. I'm talking about actually living there. Having genuine friends there. You know, chillin' with the homeys. It's ok if you haven't, but its crazy to see how relatively well many people get to live, and how much they get to goof off, for how little they contribute. Sounds a bit like trust-fund babies, eh? Except that trust-funders are basically living off of grandpa Joe's dime, and not solely on the backs of the tax-payers.

Yeah, so?

We as a nation have come to expect certain things, and most are unwilling to give up their lifestyles when tough times come around. Some people I've known were born into "poverty," popping out kids at a young age to perpetuate their easy-going life. Either way, being poor ain't what it used to be! I don't know anyone who's doing hard labor, like digging ditches or building railroad like my grandfather did back during the REAL depression. He grew up in a tiny little border town in West Texas called Presidio. Grew up speaking Spanish, because like he told me, "it was the language of the playground." He decided he wanted to go to college to be an engineer. So, he worked the railroads year after to year to pay for school. Ended up not only being an engineer, but an Army captain in WWII. Got shot up storming the beaches of Normandy. HE knew true poverty. Many, many people back then did, but they also didn't mind some hard work either. Back then, people weren't afraid of working the fields, picking fruits or vegetables. How many of OUR poor are willing to do that. Almost none, as we seem to have to import people to do that work that our poor consider too hard or demeaning. How many poor people in the US still live in one room houses with dirt floors like my grandfather had (and many of your grandparents too)? How many poor people in the US are out there working the mines (now a good paying job), the railroads (also a good paying job), or picking grapes?

You can't make enough money picking fruits or vegetables to pay for college let alone a decent living. Do you really think that working the mines or railroads will pay for a college education?
Even mediocre state colleges are costing over $20k a year.

This is pointless.

Not signing up for unemployment is your own dumb fault, you and your employer paid the premiums might as well collect the benefit should circumstance occasion it. Unemployment is insurance not a government handout.

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

We as a nation have come to expect certain things, and most are unwilling to give up their lifestyles when tough times come around. Some people I've known were born into "poverty," popping out kids at a young age to perpetuate their easy-going life. Either way, being poor ain't what it used to be! I don't know anyone who's doing hard labor, like digging ditches or building railroad like my grandfather did back during the REAL depression. He grew up in a tiny little border town in West Texas called Presidio. Grew up speaking Spanish, because like he told me, "it was the language of the playground." He decided he wanted to go to college to be an engineer. So, he worked the railroads year after to year to pay for school. Ended up not only being an engineer, but an Army captain in WWII. Got shot up storming the beaches of Normandy. HE knew true poverty. Many, many people back then did, but they also didn't mind some hard work either. Back then, people weren't afraid of working the fields, picking fruits or vegetables. How many of OUR poor are willing to do that. Almost none, as we seem to have to import people to do that work that our poor consider too hard or demeaning. How many poor people in the US still live in one room houses with dirt floors like my grandfather had (and many of your grandparents too)? How many poor people in the US are out there working the mines (now a good paying job), the railroads (also a good paying job), or picking grapes?

My family wasn't well off growing up. I worked in the fields picking berries making minimum wage over the summers as a youngster along side Hispanic folks that were sometimes twice my age making the same money. College definitely wasn't in their future. Tough to afford higher education picking berries.

Mining is a high paying job? Why is West Virginia one of the most impoverished states in the Union then? I'll give you that some mining jobs pay well, but for everyone of those there are several others that pay shit. The railroads pay ok from what I can tell, again, depending on what job one has...but those doods aren't living like the 0.1%.

There's also another issue...if you're poor and not close to one of these amazingly high paying jobs you've referenced what is one to do? No money to eat let alone move across the country to work in a mine, in the agricultural fields picking fruit, or near a railroad hub to grease wheels. I guess those folks are just lazy assholes right?

As for the rest of your rant, I feel simpathy for the working and wanting to work poor who are barely making ends meet. I don't feel bad for a guy like Mitt Romney who was born into massive wealth and leverages every advantage out there to avoid paying taxes to further expand his wealth at the expense of the middle class and poor. People like him are the problem in this country...wealth inequality, etc.

Buster has it right, this is pointless.

Austin doubles down on the diversion and Jer joins the jerfkest.


social programs are a pittance of your tax bill dumbasses

Originally Posted by Tippster

Try being "poor" sometime, kid.

I have been. (by American standards tho). It sucked. One of my most infuriating moments was when I was going to college at night, working my ass off by day, had tons of bills and not much coming in. I was at the grocery store, literally stocking up on beans, rice, and ramen with the few bucks I had. There was a fat lady in front of me with a grocery cart overflowing and full of the most awesome food. She had some beautiful steaks on the top. Was probably several hundred dollars worth of food. She paid for it with her LoneStar card (food stamps for Texas) and went off on the poor cashier, telling her "The steaks are actually for my dog. I'd buy him dog food, but they don't let us buy dog food with these cards." So in essence, this puta's DOG was eating better than I was!!! This was around the same time when my bros in the barrio would brag about their fly new gigantic tvs, whilst on welfare; while chicks I knew had their 4th child by age 21 so they could get a few more bucks. See the incentives here?

My rant wasn't so much about people who are simply unemployed or on the system for a brief stint. I don't think we would honestly refer to them as poor, though. What many of you seem to be apparently unexposed to are the many people who are perpetually on our dime, living pretty well, yet we call them poor why? What is poor, then?

According to the dictionary, the term Poor means "having little or no money, goods, or other means of support." The term Poverty means "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor." Seems to me that what we call poor these days fits neither of these descriptions too well, as fancy things like chrome rims and fancy tvs would constitute "goods" and government assistance providing housing, food, healthcare, and even income would more than constitute a "means of support."

Aside from the issues of welfare, what do you call poor? Is it a broad definition that consists of the truly needy all the way to a hair below the 1%'ers? I think our government's and our own definitions of poor may be a bit too broad these days. Why is it so wrong to examine that a bit more closely?

You've used that rant before. It still sounds stupid.

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

I have been. (by American standards tho). It sucked. One of my most infuriating moments was when I was going to college at night, working my ass off by day, had tons of bills and not much coming in. I was at the grocery store, literally stocking up on beans, rice, and ramen with the few bucks I had. There was a fat lady in front of me with a grocery cart overflowing and full of the most awesome food. She had some beautiful steaks on the top. Was probably several hundred dollars worth of food. She paid for it with her LoneStar card (food stamps for Texas) and went off on the poor cashier, telling her "The steaks are actually for my dog. I'd buy him dog food, but they don't let us buy dog food with these cards." So in essence, this puta's DOG was eating better than I was!!! This was around the same time when my bros in the barrio would brag about their fly new gigantic tvs, whilst on welfare; while chicks I knew had their 4th child by age 21 so they could get a few more bucks. See the incentives here?

My rant wasn't so much about people who are simply unemployed or on the system for a brief stint. I don't think we would honestly refer to them as poor, though. What many of you seem to be apparently unexposed to are the many people who are perpetually on our dime, living pretty well, yet we call them poor why? What is poor, then?

According to the dictionary, the term Poor means "having little or no money, goods, or other means of support." The term Poverty means "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor." Seems to me that what we call poor these days fits neither of these descriptions too well, as fancy things like chrome rims and fancy tvs would constitute "goods" and government assistance providing housing, food, healthcare, and even income would more than constitute a "means of support."

Aside from the issues of welfare, what do you call poor? Is it a broad definition that consists of the truly needy all the way to a hair below the 1%'ers? I think our government's and our own definitions of poor may be a bit too broad these days. Why is it so wrong to examine that a bit more closely?

i wonder if you'll ever be embarrased that you thought this way.

No - the poverty line is what it is. Welfare also changed fundamentally under Clinton, so you may need to update your bias.

You could get rid of Food Stamps entirely and not come close to the tax benefits the 1% get to supposedly create more jobs (HAH!) for anyone, not just the poor.

This is not being poor. impoverished, or living in Poverty:

One of my most infuriating moments was when I was going to college at night, working my ass off by day, had tons of bills and not much coming in.

That's called being a student. for every one of your anecdotal stories of food stamp abuse I bet I know a family of 4 that is barely surviving on 2 menial labor jobs with 2 kids in school.

Originally Posted by Tippster

No - the poverty line is what it is. Welfare also changed fundamentally under Clinton, so you may need to update your bias.

Quite true. Welfare reform is something I've always given President Clinton props for. Abuse used to be WAY more rampant before that happened. But why is the poverty line what it is? Should it be raised/lowered? I've heard the argument that the poverty line is higher than it used to be due to inflation and the dollar not having as much buying power as it used to have. Some say we should push it up even higher due to our nation's economic circumstances. Ok, let's stick with that argument and apply the same to the standard for being considered "rich." Politicians consider the rich to be people making $250k or more, some say $200k, and some even say $100k. Now given, there's no reason to be feeling sorry for anyone doing that well, BUT at the same time that's not remotely what I'd consider "rich" these days. Making $200k, while I consider to be doing quite well, isn't exactly putting you in Gulfstream G650 territory, let alone country club elite territory. There always seems to be a push to inch the poverty line higher and higher (again probably due to inflation), but it doesn't seem like we're applying the same logic to the rich, which due to their heavy investment natures, have often lost much if not all in this economy.

So if the "poverty line is what it is," then where do you consider the "rich line?" What constitutes rich to you?

(And btw, I NEVER suggested getting rid of food stamps or welfare. I even said earlier that I'm glad it's there for those who truly need it, and that we shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water." In case some of you don't understand simple idiomatic expressions, I meant that just because there is abuse from some people, does not mean that we should abandon these programs entirely. Reading/comprehension failure?)

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

Quite true. Welfare reform is something I've always given President Clinton props for. Abuse used to be WAY more rampant before that happened.

You have anything but your feelings to back that up?

It's like the retards pissed that their neighbor might have a bit of his mortgage "forgiven" while not giving a shit at the billions handed out to Wall Street to pocket.

Well, since the lowest quintile is considered "the poor" on average - those making less than $18500 - then the highest quintile ($88k+) would be the "rich," no? Being wealthier than 80% of your fellow countrymen should qualify for most, but if you're not comfortable with that let's go with the top 2% - those making $200k or more. Making more than 98% of your fellow wage earners is pretty rich, no?