Three Steps to Avoiding Poverty

May 2016
2,624
3,315
Florida
#31
Really? Clarence Thomas was born into poverty. He worked his way out.
Oprah Winfrey was born into poverty. (Net worth $3 billion)
John Paul DeJoria, (hair care empire and Patron Tequila creator) lived in his car. (net worth $2.9 billion)
Larry Ellison, Co-Founder of Oracle, was born to a single mother, worked odd jobs for eight years. (Net worth $49 billion)

There are lots of other examples:
17 Billionaires Who Started Out Dirt Poor

I found this out when I met an international trader a few years back. He was dealing in the Far East. He told me the vast majority of China's population is dirt poor, actually starving, and they are mostly illiterate. The high achieving Chinese we see today are those who have had to climb an extremely high mountain in competition to get to the big cities in China and then to emigrate to America. I didn't know that. He also said India is an extremely crowded country where, again, the vast majority of its population are poor, illiterate and starving to death. The Indian immigrants we see here, the doctors, store owners, business owners, have climbed a HUGE mountain of competition to get here.

Meanwhile, our government CREATES more poor by paying really stupid high school sluts to download babies, lose the father and take up permanent residence in Democrat inner city plantations.
It's interesting you mention Clarence Thomas, seeing how he was a benefactor of affirmative action (read up on Holy Cross John Brook's attempts to recruit black men) and once he sat on the Supreme Court, he has been a staunch advocate against affirmative action.

'murica.
 
Apr 2018
11,839
3,058
oregon
#32
Poverty itself is the incentive to improve one's lot in life. Unfortunately, the modern left subsidizes poverty, and thinking adults know what happens when you subsidize something. This isn't altruistic by any means, it's just a vehicle to advance their collectivist agenda and tear down the successful via marxist wealth redistribution schemes.
 
Nov 2016
7,956
7,488
USA
#33
And they don't care about yours.

I don't post from feelings. I only post from facts. It is your responsibility to handle the facts.

You avoided answering my question of why you keep comparing us to third world countries instead of our peer OECD nations?

I haven't avoided ANY intelligent question.

Why? Because you don't want to admit we have become second rate in every metric except our military? Supply side voodoo economics has failed in every instance and the middle class and working class are measurably worse off today than they were before supply side was put in place, the only beneficiaries of supply side are the very top earners. Friedman and Laffer were wrong, period

You've lost that idiotic argument a long time ago. We are in the greatest economy of all time today because of supply side. African American unemployment numbers are at a historic LOW, (and it had NOTHING to do with the idiotic policies of the KENYAN VILLAGE IDIOT.) General unemployment is the lowest in 50 years. That's TAX CUTS.

And the middle class TODAY are better off than they were BEFORE the Reagan tax cuts and BEFORE the Trump tax cuts.

Those are facts and they do not care about your feelings.
Anyone who refers to the “KENYAN VILLAGE IDIOT” (all caps no less) is not posting from facts, but is letting his feelings and biases cloud his judgment.
 

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
51,397
38,026
Pennsylvania, USA
#34
... Thank you for admitting that I'm right. We STILL have the world's RICHEST poor.

By the way, if you are offended that I have suggested that we have the world's RICHEST poor, feel free to cite ANY country on this planet where its poor have as high a standard of living as those in the United States. I'll read your source with an open mind.
I'm not "offended," just disappointed that you think that having the "wealthiest poor people" is something to be proud of. There was a time when having a household toilet, or hot running water was considered a "luxury." How could anyone be poor if they can take a hot shower whenever they wish? Of course today, that doesn't make sense; hot water is no longer considered a household luxury.

By the same token, neither are microwaves (which are far cheaper than ovens), or internet access. Consider that Comcast offers an internet package specifically for those in poverty. It's not as high-speed as most broadband, and you have to provide proof of eligibility, but it costs only $10/mo. But once you have it then they appear on your nonsensical list of enjoying the "luxury" of internet access.

This is why you have to be careful when you look at someone's "luxuries" ... there's usually more to it than you know.

Oh, and the game systems? I recently bought a Chinese knockoff Nintendo Entertainment System. I call it a "Fauxtendo." It has a few hundred games built-in, and I paid about $25 for it, with controllers. Not all game systems are budget-busters, off-limits to those in poverty.
 
May 2016
2,624
3,315
Florida
#35
Poverty itself is the incentive to improve one's lot in life. Unfortunately, the modern left subsidizes poverty, and thinking adults know what happens when you subsidize something. This isn't altruistic by any means, it's just a vehicle to advance their collectivist agenda and tear down the successful via marxist wealth redistribution schemes.
So, are you against subsidies in total, or just against subsidies that help poor people? BP and Exxon asked me to ask you.
 
Apr 2018
11,839
3,058
oregon
#38
So, are you against subsidies in total, or just against subsidies that help poor people? BP and Exxon asked me to ask you.
Since I'm always three steps ahead of you, I'll clarify my position: I am against any subsidy that involuntarily transfers wealth from one entity to another, be it an individual or a corporation. That being said, I support tax reductions for all as they are obviously not redistributions of wealth, allowing it to remain where it was initially earned. Feel free to tell that to BP and Exxon, even though you were FOS when you said they asked you to question me.
 
May 2016
2,624
3,315
Florida
#39
Since I'm always three steps ahead of you, I'll clarify my position: I am against any subsidy that involuntarily transfers wealth from one entity to another, be it an individual or a corporation. That being said, I support tax reductions for all as they are obviously not redistributions of wealth, allowing it to remain where it was initially earned. Feel free to tell that to BP and Exxon, even though you were FOS when you said they asked you to question me.
Uh huh, cool story, bro. Exxon and BP told me to thank you for your support in being a partisan hack.
 

Similar Discussions