Okay, you are really hitting a new low here Justin. Some of the comments you are making are plain disgusting. It's the sort of viewpoint you hear people joking with their friends about, not necessarily fully believing themselves. I am shocked that you are actually trying to defend this.
justin syder said:
poor ppl arent dumb but are poor because of something they did.
That comment just oozes with self-righteous North American idealism.
Basically what you are doing is blaming the poor for being poor. I'd imagine with that line of thought you would think that everyone is equal, has equal oppurtunities and should be able to become successful. Anyone who fails obvioulsly doesn't deserve a comfortable living.
That is absolutely not the case. Many of the poor families in North America find themselves in situations where children need to be employed to allow the family to continue living. I hope I don't need to give you statistics on how many kids in that situation go on to post-secondary education, because it is obviously extremely low. Maintaining grades to get into schools takes time and if you have to work to help support your family, you obviously aren't going to have the time to study.
Furthermore, if you look at the statistics of kids that succeed in school, you'll see that nearly all of them are involved in extra-curricular and after school activities. Taking music lessons, art lessons, playing sports etc. all contribute directly to a child's ability to do well at school. For a family that is struggling just to put food on the table, none of this is an option at all.
Even though you see all your Hollywood success stories on TV, the reality is that the vast majority of children growing up in low-income families stay in low-income families. They clearly don't have the same opportunity - arguing anything else is going against just about everything sociologists have found in the last 30-40 years.
I'm not going to pretend like I know a lot about poverty statistics in America, but I know quite a bit about what is going on here in Canada. The highest percentages of people living below the poverty line in Canada are the elderly and single mothers (50% of elderly singles and 60% percent of single female mothers). In the same year those statistics were taken, a sinlge parent on welfare would recieve $13,000 a year, just barely scraping the established poverty line. Again, and elderly person obviously does not have the same opportunity as a young person. They can not simply go out and get a job. I don't know what your view of single mothers, but I'd assume it would go something like "dumb knocked up bitches", but if you have any idea about what daycare costs, or how much time and money it takes to raise a child, you'd know that these people have very little in terms of opportunity.
And if you respond by saying that elderly people deserve to live in poverty because they didn't plan well enough, or that single mothers deserve to live in poverty because they have a child, you are absolutley heartless. Everyone deserves to live a life where they can eat three meals a day. Being poor should mean you can not afford luxury items, not that you struggle just to survive.
Furhtemore, the logic you are using against Daniel is absolutely idiotic. I'm a young student like him and also feel compassion for the poor, but I have an income that barely supports me and my education. It's not economically feasible for me to make donations to charities, but once I am done school and have a job, I will have no problem paying high taxes to support welfare, and would gladly support charities.
I'm going to use the same idiotic logic on you: if you believe in George Bush and the Iraq war, go enlist in the army.