Shaming the Poor

welfare2I recently listened to Cognitive Dissonance #128 where Tom and Cecil talked about how horrible it is that the poor are being shamed and other liberal mantras.  Sorry but I just don’t buy it, mostly because I’m a conservative and I actually care about personal responsibility.  Okay, maybe I’m being too hard on the CogDis crew, most of the time they’re really pretty good, but on certain liberal issues, they do the same thing most liberals do and lose all control of their intellectual reasoning and just go full emotion.

They argue that we shouldn’t shame the poor, but to be perfectly honest, I think the poor should be shamed, it’s often their own fault that they’re poor!  These are people who had a chance to get an education and they blew it.  They had a chance to make good decisions in their lives and they blew it.  I know that I’m making some generalizations here, that some people might have had something go spectacularly wrong and therefore, through little or no fault of their own, are currently poor.  I’m not talking about them.  I’m talking about the people who are poor for a lifetime, or  even generationally poor.  These are people who grew up learning that their lot in life is a government handout from people whose lot in life was a government handout.  Now sure, I can be a little sympathetic toward people who honestly don’t know any better, but there’s a limit to that sympathy.  There has to be a point where enough is enough and I think that we, as a nation, have reached that point.  I don’t care how you were raised, I don’t care what you were taught, everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to have personal responsibility over their lives.

The second point is that minimum wage has never been intended to be a living wage.  It was always intended as a job that teenagers held while they were getting an education and living at home so that when they were ready to get out on their own, they would have the job skills and the work ethic and the education to hold a decent-paying job.  Minimum wage jobs are the bottom of the totem pole, only ahead of things like paper routes and babysitting.  They are not intended to pay your bills, they are not intended to raise a family on and anyone who is trying to do so is an irresponsible idiot.  Now again, there are some people who found themselves unable to find work in the recent recession and were stuck in a low-paying job.  I get that.  That’s not what I’m talking about though, I’m talking about people who work these jobs and are never qualified to get promoted out of them. We’re not talking about the mentally challenged either, we’re talking about people who are totally unprepared to live in the real world.  This is a problem.

Finally, the money that the poor on welfare spend is not their money, it’s the American taxpayer’s money.  The poor, in receiving welfare, have done nothing to earn it.  The taxpayer has every right to attach strings to their money.  If the poor don’t like it, they can get jobs, earn their own way and get off welfare.  For the working poor, those strings are only attached to the money they get from the government, not for the money they make at their jobs.  I’ve always been an advocate for welfare reform so that people who are working at all are not penalized for holding jobs.  This is the general idea of the Welfare-to-Work program that’s been in place since 1990.  However, I still see people complaining that they don’t want to get a job because it will reduce the amount of welfare they get and they won’t actually be ahead.  I think that, up to a certain threshold, they ought to be able to hold low-paying jobs so they can get the kind of experience they should have learned as teenagers and when they move on to a better job, they will no longer need government assistance.  I’m cool with that.  I’m entirely fine with helping people to get ahead, but that’s not the liberal agenda, they’re just trying to buy votes by keeping people addicted to Democratic largess.  If they actually got people off of welfare, they’d quickly run out of people with their hands out to provide them votes.  That’s why the Democrats constantly come up with things like Obamacare and welfare programs.  They’re not interested in what’s best for the country or best for the people, only what’s best for the Democrats.

The fact is, what’s best for the country is to get all citizens off of welfare.  That means that EVERYONE gets an education when they have the opportunity to do so.  EVERYONE gets work experience at minimum wage jobs when they are young enough to take advantage of it.  EVERYONE learns proper work ethics.  EVERYONE gains enough knowledge and experience to get promoted and this, along with education, allows them to get better paying jobs with more responsibility and THEN they get married, start families, buy houses and the like.

Oh, but I can hear it now… not everyone will do that!  I know they won’t, but that needs to be the expectation, that everyone will act this way.  Those who do not, we may, as a society, decide to give a second chance.  That’s what welfare is.  It’s a second chance to meet expectations.  That’s why welfare has strings.  Because it’s a system to bring everyone up to minimum standards.  That’s why welfare ought to require the person to get an education, either a GED or community college degree, if they do not already have one.  It ought to require that the people receiving it not have any more kids, religious beliefs be damned.  It ought to require that the kids a welfare recipient already has do well in school.  It needs to require absolutely no significant criminal activity, I would argue that any felonies committed while on welfare will mean you get no more welfare.  You should probably end up in prison anyhow.  Welfare, while it’s keeping people going, ought to also modify their behavior such that when they get off welfare, they will most likely not need it again and their children will most likely not need it either because now they’re being raised on the right path.

And what about those people who refuse to change?  What about those people who are too stupid or lazy or whatever to get with the program?  Fuck ’em.  Let them die.  That might sound harsh but that ought to be the reality.  Survival of the fittest.  They either play by society’s rules or they die off and let their place be taken by someone else who will.  It’s not cruel, it’s social evolution at it’s finest.

Of course, the liberals will never accept this because they’re not interested in actually fixing society’s problems, they just want to buy more votes for their political causes.  I’m not about causes, I’m about corrections.  We’ve wasted enough time in this country playing around with agendas.  Now we need to actually solve problems.

23 thoughts on “Shaming the Poor

    1. There is nothing where you are required to get job training or do any kind of work in order to get that government check. There should be. There isn't currently. I find it as stupid as you do, I'm sure.

        1. They don't want to help anyone, in fact, there are groups out there that are completely opposed to actually helping anyone. Lots of "poor advocates" who think the poor should be left alone, not expected to get an education, not expected to ever hold a job, we should just coddle them because they're poor. The real reason though is political, the Democrats don't want to help the poor get self-sufficient, they want a built in voting bloc that always casts their votes for the left because they're the ones handing out free money every month.

  1. For a post that begins by condemning liberals for their reliance on emotion as opposed to reason, this post contains an awful lot of unsupported claims that go well beyond generalizations. In fact, this post is pure malice. And, yes, the point of minimum wage laws IS to establish a living wage. that they do not do so is evidence of the failure of such policies, it is not evidence that minimum wage laws were always meant for teenagers.

    1. No, it was never about establishing a living wage, if it was, it would be called "the living wage". Lots of people WANT it to be a living wage, but that's not the purpose of it in the modern world. The minimum wage was originally created as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938. FLSA was a comprehensive federal scheme which provided for minimum wages, overtime pay, record keeping requirements, and child labor regulations. The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. Prior to the FLSA, worker wages could fluctuate from week to week, such that they could never count on having enough money to eat or keep a roof over their heads. The minimum wage was established as a ground-floor for low-wage earners, it was never designed to be a "living wage" in any meaningful way.

      Anyone who is trying to survive on a minimum wage job really has problems and it's not the minimum wage.

      1. "No, it was never about establishing a living wage, if it was, it would be called "the living wage".

        This constitutes your rebuttal argument? The fact that it isn't called the "Living Wage Act" is the reason the minimum wage can't be aimed at providing a living wage? This is just plain infantile logic. Which means it ain't even logic.

        I see that you've actually managed to find a quote about the purpose of the minimum wage as it was designed in 1938. Good for you. But then your logic takes a deep dive into nowhere land in the next sentence.

        "Prior to the FLSA, worker wages could fluctuate from week to week, such that they could never count on having enough money to eat or keep a roof over their heads. The minimum wage was established as a ground-floor for low-wage earners, it was never designed to be a "living wage" in any meaningful way."

        The fact that wage earners were not earning sufficient income to "eat or keep a roof over their heads" means they were not earning a living wage. The minimum wage was established to correct this problem. Therefore, it was established to create a living wage. What the hell do you think "ground-floor for low-wage earners" means?

        "Anyone who is trying to survive on a minimum wage job really has problems and it's not the minimum wage."

        Just plain wrong. Raising the minimum wage to where it should be if wages had continue to grow to match the growth in productivity or the rate of growth of the wealthiest one percent would put it at about $22 today. (See one of may later posts for the source on this.) And that would be a living wage!

        1. And that would simply raise the cost of living such that $22 wasn't a living wage. As people have more money to spend, the cost of things goes up. That's capitalism. As it costs more to pay the low-wage workers, companies have to raise their prices to pay for the additional payroll. This is economics 101. If you raised minimum wage to $22, a Big Mac might cost you $10 because not only does McDonalds have to pay their workers more, their raw product costs go up dramatically, from their beef suppliers to their packaging vendors, etc. You can never win, just by raising wages.

          In fact, it's worse for the economy because people who were already making more than $22 per hour, their wages don't go up, just because the low-wage earners do. All you're going to do is flatten the curve at the low end, with more people making close to minimum wage than before. Not only will it not remain a living wage for long, it will price other consumers out of the retail market as they can no longer afford to buy things that once, they could.

    2. Hear hear lol. The writer has the intellectual maturity of an 8 year old, his arguments betray his fundamental lack of BASIC knowledge about his opponents’ viewpoint. Just about what you’d expect from an 8-year old fledgling conservative who is seeking out reasons and arguments to bolster his predetermined viewpoint.

      Sometimes it’s nice taking a break from debating intelligent conservatives for a quick lark laughing at someone like this who does all the work embarrassing himself for you.

  2. “Finally, the money that the poor on welfare spend is not their money, it’s the American taxpayer’s money. The poor, in receiving welfare, have done nothing to earn it. ”

    You do realize that “The Poor” is a subset of the larger group “The American Taxpayer”… Right? I’m not sure if you are stupid or just creatively rationalizing.

    You remember those things called Venn Diagrams? From college? Well just a quick reminder then… The subset circle of “The Poor” resides entirely inside the larger circle “The American Taxpayer.” All poor people pay taxes, in fact they even pay taxes on the welfare they receive!!

    You can’t have actually managed to avoid realizing the BLATANT fact that the poor pay taxes just like the rich do? Just like the middle class do? Do you think that becoming unemployed means that they don’t file tax returns this time of year?

    Is your silver spoon so far lodged up your own ass that you actually didn’t know this?

    Fuck it, as I’ve lost my job six months ago I can very easily classify myself as “poor” right now, I can take this out of the third person. Do you really not understand that every citizen pays taxes into the system, and that you have no fucking grounds at all to say that the social safety net that WE ALL pay into doesn’t belong to us? I’m gonna go with this as the most likely:

    You are not a rational man, you are a rationalizing man.

    It’s much easier, I know, to simply reassure yourself in a blog post that your view of society is accurate. Listening to Tom and Cecils’ viewpoint that conflicted with yours was tough enough you poor thing. No one should reasonably expect you to stick around and LISTEN to an opposing viewpoint so that you don’t go and make an utter fool of yourself by framing a rebuttal that makes clear you are WHOLLY IGNORANT of the arguments raised by the other side. No no that’s what adults with critical thinking down do, we can’t expect that from little old you.

    Much easier to find passion in refusing to acknowledge what’s out there–you never know it might not be what’s convenient for your current worldview.

    But alas, when faced with the choice of accepting new evidence which puts your worldview at risk…. Best to just dismiss the evidence. Instead it’s easier to punch at your keyboard, writing a wholly unintelligible amalgamation of words that you proffer as an argument. Pathetic.

    Thank you though for such a clear demonstration of cognitive dissonance (the concept, not the podcast) in action. I could have phrased this in a kinder way, but really anyone who WANTS to shame a group of people for fun deserves to be shamed themselves.

    Then again just the body of this blog post is embarrassing for you as it is. I just couldn’t resist pointing out the obvious and making sure you did realize how embarrassed you should be.

    Oh and “There is nothing where you are required to get job training or do any kind of work in order to get that government check. There should be. There isn’t currently. I find it as stupid as you do, I’m sure.”

    Also TOTALLY not true. Believe it or not a good way to find out factual things isn’t to ask yourself “Does this fit with my preconceived worldview? Yes? Well it must be factual then!”

    Seriously, you clearly typed that out of your ass. It’s not even close to being true. As in, that statement does not in any way shape or form reflect reality. Go to the Department of public social services for any state. California’s where I’m from, look at the requirements to receive General Assistance. Go to the Employment Development Department and see what’s required to receive unemployment, that’s federal. But that would require you checking your beliefs against reality, just a forewarning.

    Fucking rush Limbaugh ditto heads think they can just make assertions and act confident, and that this somehow makes what they want true. Craziness…

    1. Well no, the poor often are not part of the group of American taxpayers because they do not pay taxes, at least state or federal income taxes. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if they did but they get away with government handouts and give absolutely nothing back to society in the form of taxation. We had a war in this country over taxation without representation, but now the norm is getting to be representation without taxation. That is a problem. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." That's really where we've gotten into the financial mess that we're in, people who were trying to game the system and get things for which they were neither entitled nor qualified, and it hurt everyone, even the hard-working individual who lost their job, their house, their investments, etc. because others were selfish. I'm sympathetic to those who got screwed over through no fault of their own but we still have to go back to the origins of the issue and who caused it. Certainly, there is more than enough blame to be spread around, you had bankers who cared more for their quarterly statements than their long-term existence, you had politicians who removed all of the regulations because it made their regime look better in the short-term, but you also had lots of people who, either through ignorance or stupidity, agreed to take out loans by putting false information in the paperwork, knowing full well there was no way in hell they could pay off their obligations. In fact, look at one of the biggest demands from the Occupy mess, the dissolution of college loan debt. Who signed those loans? The students. Who promised to repay those debts? The students. Why are they now demanding that, having gotten their educations, they shouldn't have to pay back the loans that the government gave them? After all, nobody ever promised them a rose garden, there are no guarantees in life and a large number of those students had entirely unrealistic expectations that they'd walk out of school and into a 6-figure salary with essentially zero work experience. Only a fool believes that but it seems like there are a painful number of liberal fools in modern schools today.

      All it takes to qualify for unemployment is to file for it and not have lost your last job for cause. That's it. If you got laid off, you qualify. That's not to say there aren't sleazy companies out there who try to fight every single unemployment claim, any more than there are sleazy workers out there who try to stick it to their former employers, or who try to get disability because they either don't qualify for unemployment or it's run out. I also know the job market is really difficult, the federal unemployment numbers don't provide accurate numbers of the people who are unemployed or underemployed and that's an issue with your liberal President, not with me. Maybe it's you that needs to look at the reality of the situation because clearly, you're just ranting randomly. I'm about as far from a Rush Limbaugh dittohead as you can get. But please, continue to rant if it makes you feel better. It's easier than getting out and making your life better.

  3. "I think the poor should be shamed, it’s often their own fault that they’re poor!"

    My Zeus! You sound like something right out of the 19th century. This was precisely the attitude taken by religious believers of that time. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish your belief system from that of the worst of religious belief. While a large part of the human species moral development has progressed and matured, yours seems to have become stunted. And it would appear that your conservatism is the root of your diminished moral sensibilities. I too believe in the importance of personal responsibility. But I don't wield it like a club or blunt instrument.

    Your assertion that the poor are often to blame for their poverty is an empirically testable claim. So provide the evidence that it is true. Cite some research. Provide some citations to sources. What arrogance on your part. Make an assertion and just expect that we should accept it as true because the all-knowing Cephus said it is.

    "I’m talking about the people who are poor for a lifetime, or  even generationally poor."

    Well just how common is this category of poor people? You want us to believe that this is a large problem (or so I take it from the general tone of your commentary), but give us nothing as to the size of their population. Furthermore, you are assuming, without offering evidence to support it, that the generational poor are poor because they are all lazy and/or did not make good decisions. You have virtually no understanding of the category called generational poor or the causes of it. (See my later comments).

  4. By the way you are completely ignoring the children. A large portion of the population that is in poverty are children, some 16 million according to the National Center for Children in Poverty (http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html). This represents 22% of all children in the United States. According to an article in L.A. Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/17/business/la-fi-census-poverty-20130918), the U.S. Census bureau reported that the overall U.S. poverty rate was 15% in 2012. This represents approximately 46.5 million people. Thus the number of children in poverty represents about 34.4% of the total. They can't possibly be responsible for their circumstances. And it certainly is not fair or decent to shame them for any decisions their parents may have made that placed them in their state of poverty.

    Now you want us to believe that of the 30.5 million adults of the total 46.5 million persons in poverty, the bulk of them are in poverty because they are lazy, or made poor choices, or failed to take advantage of their opportunity to get an education, etc.? Well I will need more to accept this conclusion than your simple assertion that it is true. What fantasy world do you live in. Talk about being out of touch with reality. Shit happens and sometimes a person has little or no control over it. There are many reasons having little or nothing to do with personal decisions why a person did not get a good education, or can't find a job, or is stuck in a job that pays below poverty level wages. And if I have to spell these reasons out to you then it is you who is disconnected from reality. Again, you are using the idea of personal responsibility as a blunt instrument.

  5. You speak of generational poverty. But your comments indicate that you have not researched this phenomenon very well, if at all. Children who grow up in poverty are much more likely to remain in poverty, not because of personal decisions they make as adults but because they enter adulthood with impoverished resources to move up the economic ladder and break the cycle of poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty). This would account for some part of the 30.5 million adults in poverty. I searched for more than 30 minutes for data on generational poverty. Though I found many resources, I could find no actual numerical data. However, I am very skeptical that more than a few percentage of the the 30.5 million adults in poverty fall into the category of generational poverty. I am also very skeptical of the claim that of those in generational poverty, a large number of them are there out of laziness, dependence, or poor choices. Again, if you take the time to educate yourself on the topic (something that a rational person would and should do), you should come to understand that for most of those caught in generational poverty, it is largely because of impoverished resources and the resultant inability to move up the economic ladder. And when I say research, I mean consult the experts, not the ideologues. They know as little or even less about the topic than do you.

    "These are people who grew up learning that their lot in life is a government handout from people whose lot in life was a government handout."

    Their numbers, if they do indeed exist, is almost certainly relatively small compared to the total number of people in poverty or in generational poverty. You need to establish that such people actually make up some portion of the poverty population. You are assuming this to be true and expect us to assume true simply because you assert it is true.

  6. "The second point is that minimum wage has never been intended to be a living wage. It was always intended as a job that teenagers held while they were getting an education and living at home so that when they were ready to get out on their own, they would have the job skills and the work ethic and the education to hold a decent-paying job."

    Astonishing! Is there no end to the depth of your ignorance on subjects? Where ever did you get the idea that the minimum wage was instituted as assistance for teenagers?

    First of all, the minimum wage was part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The original minimum wage was 25 cents per hour. (Yea, I know that you pointed this out in one of your responses. But what followed was false. The minimum wage today is in fact meant to provide a living wage. This is true despite your idiotic protestations that it isn't.)

    "All but the hopeless reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of manpower, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor, and the exploitation of unorganized labor." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937, in defense of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

    Now, I can't speak for your level of comprehension. But that quote certainly does not say to me that the minimum wage law was enacted to assist teenagers.

    The purpose of the original minimum wage was to "stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." (Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage.) It was not established, as you claim, to as some aid for teenagers living at home while they prepare themselves for post-parental life.

    "The minimum wage is not just about helping the impoverished. It is about fairness, the value of work, and the opportunities that work provides. Furthermore, no employer should be allowed to unreasonably profit by exploiting the lack of negotiating power of low-wage workers. The free market fails to set a fair price when one side holds all the bargaining chips." (Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/issuebrief201/).

    This is the purpose of the modern minimum wage. Again, its purpose is not to set a wage for teenagers working part-time or full-time while.

    "“Tonight, let’s declare that, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.” – President Barack Obama, State of the Union speech, February 15, 2013.

    Again, this is not the remark one would make about the minimum wage if its primary purpose is to assist teenagers. The purpose of the minimum wage, from its origin, has been to try to help move people out of of poverty and to help workers a living wage. The reason it has not done this very effectively is because conservative reactionaries like yourself have thwarted efforts to keep the minimum wage on pace. If the minimum wage had been allowed to keep pace with the rise in productivity in this country since 1938, it would now be about $22. (source: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wa… conservative elements have fought its growth and as a consequence kept numerous members of the workforce in poverty as a part of the working-poor.

    "An estimated 27.8 million people would earn more money under the Democratic proposal to lift the hourly minimum from $7.25 today to $10.10 by 2016. And most of them do not fit the low-wage stereotype of a teenager with a summer job. Their average age is 35; most work full time; more than one-fourth are parents; and, on average, they earn half of their families’ total income." (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/

    Although you are wrong in your assertion that the minimum wage was meant as an assist for teenagers, even if it were true, your inaccurate rant would not match with what is reality. The fact is that a large percentage of those earning the minimum wage are doing so to support a family. Now, I'm sure that in that malfunctioning brain of yours you think that they should just get a better paying job. But fact is there aren't enough better paying jobs to go around. And this has been the case for some time, ever since this nation's economy began shifting away from manufacturing to a service-based economy.

  7. "The second point is that minimum wage has never been intended to be a living wage. It was always intended as a job that teenagers held while they were getting an education and living at home so that when they were ready to get out on their own, they would have the job skills and the work ethic and the education to hold a decent-paying job."

    Astonishing! Is there no end to the depth of your ignorance on subjects? Where ever did you get the idea that the minimum wage was instituted as assistance for teenagers?

    First of all, the minimum wage was part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The original minimum wage was 25 cents per hour. (Yea, I know that you pointed this out in one of your responses. But what followed was false. The minimum wage today is in fact meant to provide a living wage. This is true despite your idiotic protestations that it isn't.)

    "All but the hopeless reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of manpower, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor, and the exploitation of unorganized labor." President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937, in defense of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

    Now, I can't speak for your level of comprehension. But that quote certainly does not say to me that the minimum wage law was enacted to assist teenagers.

    The purpose of the original minimum wage was to "stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." (Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage.) It was not established, as you claim, to as some aid for teenagers living at home while they prepare themselves for post-parental life.

    "The minimum wage is not just about helping the impoverished. It is about fairness, the value of work, and the opportunities that work provides. Furthermore, no employer should be allowed to unreasonably profit by exploiting the lack of negotiating power of low-wage workers. The free market fails to set a fair price when one side holds all the bargaining chips." (Source: http://www.epi.org/publication/issuebrief201/).

    This is the purpose of the modern minimum wage. Again, its purpose is not to set a wage for teenagers working part-time or full-time while.

    "“Tonight, let’s declare that, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.” – President Barack Obama, State of the Union speech, February 15, 2013.

    Again, this is not the remark one would make about the minimum wage if its primary purpose is to assist teenagers. The purpose of the minimum wage, from its origin, has been to try to help move people out of of poverty and to help workers a living wage. The reason it has not done this very effectively is because conservative reactionaries like yourself have thwarted efforts to keep the minimum wage on pace. If the minimum wage had been allowed to keep pace with the rise in productivity in this country since 1938, it would now be about $22. (source: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wa… conservative elements have fought its growth and as a consequence kept numerous members of the workforce in poverty as a part of the working-poor.

    "An estimated 27.8 million people would earn more money under the Democratic proposal to lift the hourly minimum from $7.25 today to $10.10 by 2016. And most of them do not fit the low-wage stereotype of a teenager with a summer job. Their average age is 35; most work full time; more than one-fourth are parents; and, on average, they earn half of their families’ total income." (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/

    Although you are wrong in your assertion that the minimum wage was meant as an assist for teenagers, even if it were true, your inaccurate rant would not match with what is reality. The fact is that a large percentage of those earning the minimum wage are doing so to support a family. Now, I'm sure that in that malfunctioning brain of yours you think that they should just get a better paying job. But fact is there aren't enough better paying jobs to go around. And this has been the case for some time, ever since this nation's economy began shifting away from manufacturing to a service-based economy.

  8. "Minimum wage jobs are the bottom of the totem pole, only ahead of things like paper routes and babysitting. They are not intended to pay your bills, they are not intended to raise a family on and anyone who is trying to do so is an irresponsible idiot."

    As I have pointed out throughout this response, this simply ain't so. And the fact you don't know this makes you the idiot. As for the remainder of your uninformed diatribe, you offer no argument, just a lot of conservative nonsense.

    In conclusion you show a seriously flawed understanding of the issue of poverty. You appear to think that there is an easy fix to the problem of poverty: everybody exercises better personal decision-making and everyone will find their way out of poverty. You need to consult some experts on the topic. Because at the moment you have a moron's understanding of the issue.

  9. I love the title of this website. Bitchspot, exposing stupidity whereever it hides. Wherever only has three e's not four. Obviously stupidity doesn't hide very well on this site. The principles of conservatism would be of value if this person was consistent. Personal responsibility is all well and good, but until you get rid of corporate welfare which far outstrips welfare provided to individuals then you are a legless man is an ass kicking contest. You complain about the taxpayers footing the bill, tell me, how much did the banks who wrote and sold fraudulent loans and "mortgage-backed securities" get bailed out for? Trillions of dollars. What happened to the "fuck 'em. Let them die" attitude you so brilliantly support? Yeah, I thought so. Conservative when it suits your purpose and consummate bullshitter the other 364 days out of the year. Just in case you didn't catch that a year is 364 and 1/4 days, which is why we have a leap year every four years.

    1. Thanks for pointing out the typo, back when I created the graphic, I was using a keyboard that randomly repeated some letters, it's been replaced and I've corrected the error.

      Oh, and you might notice that I've already argued to get rid of corporate welfare too? You know, little thing called consistency? But I'll let you get back to your rant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)