Your first post where you said people died of starvation in the past? Well that is a lie, so there is no need to respond to it.
If you would like to reword it, feel free.
Feel free to go back to my first post, which you have never responded to. You reacted the same way you always do, by trying to rage and insult your way out of having to reexamine your positions.
I imagine you'll do it again here. Maybe we can even achieve another full circle where you come back to how victimized you are by this place all while doing the things you complain about.
Its funny seeing someone as dishonest as you accuse others of lying.
Your first post where you said people died of starvation in the past? Well that is a lie, so there is no need to respond to it.
If you would like to reword it, feel free.
Your first post where you said people died of starvation in the past? Well that is a lie, so there is no need to respond to it.
If you would like to reword it, feel free.
No, he said there were no safety nets and if people didn't work their asses off they would starve to death. That's quite a bit different.
It's funny how you complain about people putting words in your mouth and lying about what you wrote when that's exactly what you are doing.
And his point, which you clearly didn't get, is that despite all of their hard work they still remained poor. That of course, supports the claim that being poor is not a choice.
I guess the solder fumes have been especially strong lately
People starving to death is called dying of starvation.
themoreyouknow.jpg
and you continue to add nothing to this thread.
No facts, no stats, no numbers, no opinions. Just lies and memes.
Rudeguy must be so poor he needs to be bribed from the tea party koolaid to scream the anti-poverty argument.
Well hello there old buddy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfo0o7ay7A
Even an old dog can learn who's kicking them and who's feeding them.
Would you like to debate anything I have said or are 4th grade playground insults the highest level of communication you possess?
Are you debating because it sure a shit doesn't look like it!
You made one opinion in this thread about the topic (your personal best!) and someone questioned your opinion by bringing up history, your response? You ignored what they said and decided to hone in on a word they used to make their point then resorted to insults and deflection.
I'd provide you with the definition for "projecting" but your potential response was already highlighted by a meme:
And they were proven to be lying about history.
And you were proven to think that dying of starvation and starving to death are not the same thing.
Run along now Jimmy. The adults are talking.
Looking for data, and the biggest issue I find is that Hunger and malnutrition seemed to be used the same.
If you look at the wiki on calorie consumption, it gives a very different picture on hunger vs malnutrition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake
It seems more that globally we have a problem with malnutrition vs hunger.
Uh... or it'll give you a warped one. Eat it up though.Everyone in this thread should read http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/d
It will give you a new perspective on debt, wealth, and money.
You are following into rudeguys trap. Eskimospy wasn't saying people were starving to death, he said the poor were working hard so that they didn't starve to death and yet we still had a large portions of Americans who were poor. That completely contradicts rudeguys claim that poverty is a choice because people choose not to work hard.
Do you understand the argument now or am I talking to one of michael1980's minions?
that it could possibly be a choice must hinge on some kind of interpretation of the reasonable man intends the ordinary consequences of his actions idea, except most people aren't reasonable, especially anyone who would think that poverty is a choice. poverty isn't a choice, except for like, amish, or the eccentric. Poverty sucks. Don't be stupid. No offense. I think that pretty much settles it. You're welcome.
This is a topic Spy and I have talked about before. I know that Spy and many others think that many people die from starvation and have in the past as well. The problem is that data is very misleading, so anyone who takes a stance would not likely be doing so with data. The global stats I have see use malnutrition and hunger as the same thing. The reason I did not pick a side here, is because I cant say who is right.
To give some some context to history, we should define poor though. For the vast majority of history, many people were subsistence farmers. It was not until farming was able to make far more food that people moved from being farmers to other things. Back then, everyone was doing the same thing, so calling them poor might be misleading. Being a subsistence farmer was hard, but you had to do it to live, like most everyone else. They would be poor by modern standards, but poor is relative, so I think it would be incorrect to say they were poor in their time.
Correct. Poverty is a relative term. What we consider living in poverty now would be considered middle class not that long ago.
I think if we look back to the Dust Bowl days, we can learn a lot. The people hardest hit were what we would consider poor before the sand storms and crop failures. They worked hard and did what they had to do to survuve. Then the disasters happened. They didn't just lay down and die. A lot of them moved, a lot of them banded together. A lot of them asked for help.
The government helped them figure out what went wrong, how to fix it and helped them get back on their feet. They didn't sit on their couches waiting for checks to come in. They did the work they had to do.
Now look at what happens today. People catch a bad break in life, collect welfare, get things for free, then realize how much easier that is than working. Their children grow up understanding the world of welfare and not the working world. They feel like victims of poverty and not people. The politicians preach to them about how evil rich people are and the victim mindset is locked in.
Poverty should be a temporary circumstance. Welfare should be a system to get people out of poverty. Instead society has made welfare a lifetime source of easy income and people have discovered that a lot of times it's easier to be poor than to work.
This is a topic Spy and I have talked about before. I know that Spy and many others think that many people die from starvation and have in the past as well. The problem is that data is very misleading, so anyone who takes a stance would not likely be doing so with data. The global stats I have see use malnutrition and hunger as the same thing. The reason I did not pick a side here, is because I cant say who is right.
To give some some context to history, we should define poor though. For the vast majority of history, many people were subsistence farmers. It was not until farming was able to make far more food that people moved from being farmers to other things. Back then, everyone was doing the same thing, so calling them poor might be misleading. Being a subsistence farmer was hard, but you had to do it to live, like most everyone else. They would be poor by modern standards, but poor is relative, so I think it would be incorrect to say they were poor in their time.
Once again you are talking out of your ass. Not only are a majority of people on assistance on it for less than four months but 71% are on it for less than five years and only 1% are on it for 10 years.
You simply do not know what the fuck you are talking about!
The number one reason people exit assistance programs is due to an increase in personal income.
Length of time receiving assistance charts start on page 51.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/14/indicators/rpt_indicators.pdf
Feel free to read the other data that shows a large percentage of families also have someone who is currently working.