1.
Here, Instapundit deals with Romney's supposedly unfortunate remark that he's "not concerned about the very poor":
Frankly, I think he’s got a point. People whose livelihood comes from the government — whether the very poor, or the government employees — are doing fine. It’s people who depend on the actual economy who are hurting.
2.
This one links to
something I said to Andrew Sullivan who'd taken shot at Romney/Mormons. Instapundit then prints email from Will Collier that says:
Disclaimer: I’ve got no particular use for Romney or anybody else still running this year. That said, whenever a yahoo like Sullivan pulls the “fake friendly” Mormon card over the next year, the response ought to be this speech from the end of the (in)famous South Park “All About Mormons” episode…
Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.
Posts
97 comments:
Amen to that.
To the extent that I care what a candidate's preacher tells him, I'll take "The angel Moroni guided Joseph Smith to the buried Book of Mormon" over "God damn America" any day.
That last phrase in the South Park quote brings us full circle.
You probably don't want to use a quote like suck my balls around Sullivan, it just encourages him.
Insty's observation at point 1 shows why he's the king of incisive conservative observation.
Sullivan's adoration of all things South Park including the "All About Mormons" episode and the stage play "The Book of Mormon" coupled with his failure to grasp the most basic message of tolerance contained therein shows why he is now a conservative pariah.
I think it’s the assumption (rampant here) that Romney has made that the very poor are dependent on the government...that indicates a dismissiveness and condescension towards the poor. Romney will need these voters and he’s announced that they don’t need his help.
re: Sullivan 's comments.
I certainly agree that one should be wary of a candidate who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.
Please dont tell me this thread will be a continuation of the earlier thread about Mormons! That one was bad enough
Romney's comment - in its entirety - is probably resonates more with me than most everything else he has said. For some context, the Mormon Church has a program to help those in need and Romney as Bishop and as Stake President would have been well aware of the system. http://newsroom.lds.org/article/new-bishops-central-storehouse-serve
Yes, it is available to members only (except in natural disasters when the church uses the supplies for those in need regardless of membership), but it does demonstrate that there is another option in helping the very poor than just another check.
What few politicians "get" is that the middle class who would happily pay their bills without a check from the government is struggling. Sure more fuel efficient cars is a great idea - BUT, you can't save for the downpayment when you have been paying far more per gallon for gas than you did two years ago and you can't make the payments on the new car with taxes going up on everything. The people in my little neck of the woods aren't looking for check sent to them - they would just appreciate no more additional burdens and maybe a few of the current ones lightened.
That's what I heard Romney say.
Please dont tell me this thread will be a continuation of the earlier thread about Mormons! That one was bad enough
Get used to it Roger, it will be 24/7 "magic underwear" till next November.
And you WILL listen to the Osmonds and you WILL like it!
he’s announced that they don’t need his help
Not exactly. He said there's a safety net in place for them already and, if it's broken (as a lot of people would say it is) then he'll fix it.
People whose livelihood comes from the government — whether the very poor, or the government employees — are doing fine. It’s people who depend on the actual economy who are hurting.
Yes, and after reading a lot of comments from Government employees on the Internet regarding their pay being higher than the private sector it is also quite apparent they don't even understand there was a recession.
Nor do they really care what has happened in the private sector.
After all, their retirement plan is "fully funded" until 2080!
"Not exactly. He said there's a safety net in place for them already and, if it's broken (as a lot of people would say it is) then he'll fix it.”
He’s assuming that all they want/need are a government safety net. He’s wrong and doesn’t seem to realize it.
He’s assuming that all they want/need are a government safety net.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Yep, those investment bankers, CEO's, and hedge fund managers have been having such a hard time of it.
I'm just waiting for them to all flee finance and get State Government jobs.
What an idiotic statement, as a brief look at people's incomes over the last decade show quite a few other people doing just fine.
Mark said...
Yep, those investment bankers, CEO's, and hedge fund managers have been having such a hard time of it.
Romney actually addressed this.
Though when you're left defending the indefinsible, you must attack straw men.
Will also wrote that in the comments section to your post. First I've seen it, very apt.
Frankly, I think he’s got a point. People whose livelihood comes from the government — whether the very poor, or the government employees — are doing fine. It’s people who depend on the actual economy who are hurting.
Haha! The Professor says that the "very poor" are "doing fine."
Maybe all those middle class people "who are hurting" should choose the extreme poverty option so they can be "doing fine" too, as the Professor says.
Althouse rocks!
This country has had about as much compassion as it can stand - we're already the brokest country ever. Do you think Zero and Michelle are fretting about "very poor" people on the golf course, in the Waldorf, in Hawaii, on their many multi week/multi million dollar vacations? Yiiiii.
Very poor people mostly don't vote, and the ones that do won't vote for Romney in any event.
You want the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
The Professor says that the "very poor" are "doing fine."
And as a government employee, the Professor (and Althouse btw) is doing fine too.
He has just compounded the utter cluelessness of Romney with these remarks. The very poor in this country are not "doing fine", and the policies of the Republican Party and Romney would make their lot even worse.
Suck my balls.
Whoa! Can Mormons say that?
I wonder why the left never makes fun of Harry Reid for being a Morman....I wonder why that is...what is different about Harry...hmmmm?
The very poor in this country are not "doing fine"
Relative to what? Obviously, by making the above statement, you're comparing their lot to someone else's. Who might that be?
Relative to what?
Relative to the very poor in other industrialized nations or to the middle and upper classes in this country. Comparing our poor to the very poor in a poor country (e.g., Haiti) is not a valid comparison.
People whose livelihood comes from the government — whether the very poor, or the government employees — are doing fine.
I think what Reynolds meant is "not as affected" by the recession as those still working in the private sector.
Of course, that statement would only apply to those "poor" who were on government support before the recession, the underclass, not those put there by the downturn.
The conservative critique of the Romney and Reynolds formulations is the more interesting one. Expect Newt to make it rather than decry "inequality".
Regarding the first point: Remember that Romney distinguished between the very poor and the very rich as opposed to 90 - 95% of the remainder of the population.
When you consider that the very poor that Romney is talking about is the bottom 3 to 5%, you're talking about a very different category of people than the generic poor. You're talking about the permanent underclass. These are the poor that because of advanced age, or extreme infirmity, or mental illness, have almost no chance of improving their lot.
For this class, there must be a safety net and that safety net is about pure survival. This class of the very poor do not have the capacity to respond to work or educational opportunities.
This is why Romney is right, despite the bad presentation. Some people need life support. Others will respond if given opportunity.
♥ Willard said...
Haha! The Professor says that the "very poor" are "doing fine."
Actually, she said no such thing.
Carry on in your silliness now.
Comparing our poor to the very poor in a poor country (e.g., Haiti) is not a valid comparison.
For humans, there is a set of empirical parameters, such daily caloric intake, temperature tolerance (or other exposure to the elements), exposure to the contagions, etc, that have zero to do with how you stack up against developed or non-developed worlds. Either you have them, or you don't.
Freder Frederson said...
The very poor in this country are not "doing fine", and the policies of the Republican Party and Romney would make their lot even worse.
Really?
How have the policies of Obama helped them?
Relative to the very poor in other industrialized nations or to the middle and upper classes in this country.
The "very poor" in the United States live better than any "very poor" in any other industrialized nation.
Can I add my Amen to Moose's?
One could say pretty much the same thing about Christianity, Judaism, Islam (mostly) and most other religions. There will be exceptions in all religions, of course.
If it is all hogwash, so what?
If I try to live my life according to Christian precepts and it turns out to be hogwash, I will have still lived a good life. The Bible will still have comforted me. My church will still have supported me spiritually. I will have engaged in more charity than perhaps otherwise.
And so on.
Not saying that people with no religion do not do the same thing. Many do.
Not saying that people with religion are all good. Many are not.
But if I choose to believe, chances are good that I will lead a better life and be a better person than otherwise.
And how can I miss the chance to reference Pascal's Wager which sums it up pretty nicely.
John Henry
ybe all those middle class people "who are hurting" should choose the extreme poverty option so they can be "doing fine" too, as the Professor says.
I think it is funny that you can't understand that "the Professor" was quoting Instapundit and did not write those remarks.
The "very poor" in the United States live better than any "very poor" in any other industrialized nation.
This statement is so patently, objectively and subjectively, untrue that it staggers the imagination that anyone would even say this.
By what measure are the very poor better off in this country than in any other industrialized nation you care to name?
You obviously don't know anything about the poor in this country or any other.
I think it is funny that you can't understand that "the Professor" was quoting Instapundit and did not write those remarks.
"The Professor" (or more properly "The Perfessor") is an ironic term of derision those of us in the lefty blogoshpere use to refer to the genocide-justifying Instaidiot.
You may ridicule the accuracy, the honesty, etc., of what the left is going to do to Romney, Ann, but ridiculing isn't going to diminish the cost of these attacks on Romney's Mormonism.
In fact, it's kind of odd to even bring it up. The left is going to do it, no one can stop it, and the party pushed Romney anyway.
It's like putting your finger in a lobster claw and complaining it isn't fair the lobster pinched you.
Freder Frederson said...
This statement is so patently, objectively and subjectively, untrue that it staggers the imagination that anyone would even say this
Prove me wrong.
Go ahead, I dare you.
This statement:
You obviously don't know anything about the poor in this country or any other.
Is just like this statement:
The very poor in this country are not "doing fine", and the policies of the Republican Party and Romney would make their lot even worse.
Silly, emotional blather.
The very poor in this country are not "doing fine", and the policies of the Republican Party and Romney would make their lot even worse.
*GIGGLE*
Fact:
•In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007
Come on goofball, prove me wrong.
Please.
Freder Frederson said...
This statement is so patently, objectively and subjectively, untrue that it staggers the imagination that anyone would even say this
Fact:
the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.
Though of course you can't handle facts, which is why you're stomping your feet.
Icepick
Mormons didn't say that. But, yes they can say that, they just have the good sense NOT to say it most of the time.
There are times when South Park truly nails it, and this is one.
The Terry Schaivo episode is another.
the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.
Can you provide a link for this? Even if it is true, so what? What does the amount of living space have to do with doing "very well". Amount of living space does not say anything about the quality of the housing.
Try reading this before making fact-free statements.
Freder Frederson said...
Can you provide a link for this?
Then:
Even if it is true, so what?
Of course so what, you're not interested in facts you silly little stamper.
Try reading this before making fact-free statements.
Except I didn't make any "fact free" statements, idiot.
Oh, and notice how your link bleats on about poverty rates. Not how people in poverty actually live.
Gee, I wonder why that is?
By "doing fine" the point is they are relatively unaffected by the recession. They have not suffered a suddenly loss of income. In many cases, yes, it can be worse to be middle class and get a huge pay cut than to be poor where your expenses match your income. The very poor in many cases are now richer than the middle class folks who have huge negative equity. They are worse than broke.
"Can you provide a link for this? Even if it is true, so what? What does the amount of living space have to do with doing "very well". Amount of living space does not say anything about the quality of the housing."
The linked report is rife with it's own biases; regardless, the effort to "save the poor" is impoverishing everyone, most especially future generations.
"Saving the poor" may be a noble cause; cannibalizing the future, as liberal Democrat social programs are, is just plain stupid.
Freder, did you read your link? The entire paper is based one relative poverty:
A majority of cross-national studies
define the poverty threshold as one-half of the average family’s
income. The official United States poverty line was 28 percent
of this level in 2000, though it was 50 percent of this level in
1963 when it was first employed. I define poverty rates in the
analyses that follow using this standard relative concept.
I'm sure that some indices for the U.S. are poor in absolute terms against other Western countries.
But any international comparison that uses relative internal poverty is bogus. Income inequality isn't poverty and to present it as such does violence to the very idea.
What does the amount of living space have to do with doing "very well".
Who said anything about "doing very well" you silly little goal post mover?
Amount of living space does not say anything about the quality of the housing.
Hysterical. Yes, becasue living in cramped conditions is like so great and stuff!
PS: Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
PPS: 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes
Not how people in poverty actually live.
So are you saying that poor people in this country have better (not just bigger) housing, secure and guaranteed medical care, are less victimized by crime, have better transportation options, than the poor in other countries.
If so, please provide evidence, or at least relate some personal experience that you have to support your contention (e.g., all the time you spent in very poor neighborhoods in the U.S. as compared to the worst neighborhoods you could find in Sweden, Germany or Switzerland).
e.g., all the time you spent in very poor neighborhoods in the U.S. as compared to the worst neighborhoods you could find in Sweden, Germany or Switzerland
You really have no idea what a bad neighborhood looks like in Germany, do you, Freder? My brother married an east German about four years after the wall came down. He knows a thing or two about really bad German neighborhoods.
You're not suffering under the assumption that Europe = Better are you? Why didn't you include Britain or France on that list? Italy is an industrialized western nation. Why didn't you include that country? My wife's sister married into a second-generation Italian family. They also know a thing or two about the neighborhoods to avoid when home.
John,
If it is all hogwash, so what?
Ever heard the phrase, "garbage in/garbage out"?
Do you understand what it means?
Do you understand what it means for the country?
You're fools,...
Who said anything about "doing very well" you silly little goal post mover?
Mitt Romney. That is the subject of the entire post. How can I be moving the goalpost when one of the two themes of this thread is whether the very poor are doing fine as Romney contends?
When you consider that the very poor that Romney is talking about is the bottom 3 to 5%, you're talking about a very different category of people than the generic poor. You're talking about the permanent underclass. These are the poor that because of advanced age, or extreme infirmity, or mental illness, have almost no chance of improving their lot.
For this class, there must be a safety net and that safety net is about pure survival. This class of the very poor do not have the capacity to respond to work or educational opportunities.
Oh, you and Willard are talking about the people who live in cardboard boxes. Apparently that's the operative definition of "very poor."
Yes, they are doing fine. Fine and dandy, in fact.
Freder Frederson said...
So are you saying that poor people in this country have better (not just bigger) housing,
Yes, that is a fact. It can't be disputed.
Yet you are disputing it.
What does that say about you?
PS: 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Sources:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009
The Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy
Freder F: Yes. Pull out a globe and observe that there are more countries than Sweden, Germany and Switzerland (are you a racist or what?) that we can compare living standards with. Try, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay, Congo, Liberia, Ireland, Vietnam. Then come back to us with how great it is to be poor and enjoying good transportation in those countries.
The whole Mormon thing is one where the Lefties will trot out the Sons of Ham and get shot down by all the outreach the Mormons have done to blacks.
Then Milton's people will trot out the persecution, the Mormon Battalion, and how they marched across half a continent, dragging their valuables with them in handcarts, and created a thriving society out of one of the most God-forsaken places on the continent.
Freder Frederson said...
The "very poor" in the United States live better than any "very poor" in any other industrialized nation.
This statement is so patently, objectively and subjectively, untrue that it staggers the imagination that anyone would even say this.
Do I have to trot out the Census data again?
Paul Zrimsek said...
To the extent that I care what a candidate's preacher tells him, I'll take "The angel Moroni guided Joseph Smith to the buried Book of Mormon" over "God damn America" any day.
Right on.
Freder Frederson said...
So are you saying that poor people in this country have better (not just bigger) housing, secure and guaranteed medical care, are less victimized by crime, have better transportation options, than the poor in other countries
Hysterical.
You've obviously never have been to Mexico, any South American country or parts of Eastern Europe.
But you like know all about this topic!
Mark,
There are times when South Park truly nails it, and this is one.
I like South park as much as the next guy, but, folks, life ain't no fucking cartoon.
That Glenn Reynolds would rely on such a vapid quote proves my criticisms of him are worth it.
It's funny how you all take religious beliefs so fucking seriously - until you don't. Every one of you will argue some point into the night, because the shit you "believe" matters, but let anyone outside the fold take it as seriously as you do, and then you're Dianne Keaton saying "La-dee-da!"
You're fools - and big ones for thinking I can't see through you.
Obama to Romney. Damn. You people HATE this country,...
By the way, silly leftists like Freeder get all outraged that factory workders in China live in dorms and make $2 a day.
Without understanding that Two-thirds of poor people in America have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
I think it is funny that you can't understand that "the Professor" was quoting Instapundit and did not write those remarks.
And I think it's funny that you don't realize that Glenn Reynolds is a professor.
Actually, she said no such thing.
Excuse me sir, but Glenn Reynolds is not a "she." You owe Professor Reynolds a public apology.
I ♥ Willard said...
And I think it's funny that you don't realize that Glenn Reynolds is a professor.
Yes sock puppet, please pretend you weren't referring to Ann.
It will help your credibility.
You've obviously never have been to Mexico, any South American country or parts of Eastern Europe.
Now who is moving the goalposts. You will note I specifically stated that comparing our poor to those in developing countries is not valid.
I ♥ Willard said...
Excuse me sir, but Glenn Reynolds is not a "she." You owe Professor Reynolds a public apology.
Not really
I ♥ Willard said...
Haha! The Professor says that the "very poor" are "doing fine."
Maybe all those middle class people "who are hurting" should choose the extreme poverty option so they can be "doing fine" too, as the Professor says.
Althouse rocks!
Carry on now, sockpuppet.
eder Frederson said...
Now who is moving the goalposts. You will note I specifically stated that comparing our poor to those in developing countries is not valid.
Who cares?
You're pretending that you know anything about the topic.
The poor in America live better than the middle class in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.
You're now reduced to pretending that isn't true.
I specifically stated that comparing our poor to those in developing countries is not valid.
It is valid and the one link you provided compared the US to Mexico.
OOPS.
Mitt Romney did not say the very poor are doing very well.
He said they were doing fine--if I misquoted him earlier I apologize. But regardless, the very poor in this country are not doing fine either.
The poor in America live better than the middle class in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.
Now you are just being ridiculous (and have obviously never been to the three countries you mentioned). How on earth (besides maybe having more living space) are the poor in this country doing better than the middle class in Sweden, France or the U.K.?
reder Frederson said...
He said they were doing fine--if I misquoted him earlier I apologize.
Here is what Romney said:
“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine.”
Why would anyone take anything you say seriously?
Freder Frederson said...
The very poor in this country are not "doing fine", and the policies of the Republican Party and Romney would make their lot even worse.
I wanted to go back to this.
Over the eight years of the Reagan administration:
■20 million new jobs were created
■Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
■Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
■Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
■Real gross national product rose 26%
The BLS lists the jobs created during the 8 years of the Reagan administration(1981-1989) at 17, 873, 000 jobs
However,Total jobs created in the 3 years(36 months) of the Obama economy are a negative 2,483,000.
So you're just emoting again Freeder.
He said they were doing fine--if I misquoted him earlier I apologize. But regardless, the very poor in this country are not doing fine either.
How much should the poor have? How many TVs should we supply them? How many computers? How many cars? How many square feet of living space?
Most of us who are Ann's age grew up w/o air conditioning, with at most one car in the family, etc. And, that was in an upper middle class family on my part (father was an attorney). Yet, most of those below the poverty line today have AC, refrigerators, cars, more square footage of living space than we did then, etc. And, almost no one is going to be hungry in this country any more. All, at the expense of those who work hard for what they earn.
It isn't that there isn't any sympathy for those of lesser means, but rather, that the middle class, which has been increasingly supporting those at the bottom, is hurting a lot now, and being told that they need to up the ante.
The reason that this is probably not going to be a loser for Romney is that it is appearing to be more a class warfare. Not those who earn megabucks (the 1%) and the rest (the 99%), but the (usually) productive class (maybe 75%) versus the dependency class (25%).
Yes sock puppet, please pretend you weren't referring to Ann.
Oh, I see. Your defense is that you are clairvoyant. Very convincing!
What a bunch of bores you all are. It's not surprising it's so difficult to get anything done in this country when you look at the silly word parsing going on here. Multiply it by the voting population and you get the result we're dealing with now. Two candidates with only one thing going for them---they're the lesser of two evils.
Multiply it by the voting population and you get the result we're dealing with now. Two candidates with only one thing going for them---they're the lesser of two evils.
Obviously you're doing something about the whole situation to the betterment of all. What would that be? Surely you're not condescending just to feel superior, right?
I'm all for listening to people with well-thought out plans for addressing the issues we face, the poor in particular on this thread. What's yours?
"What a bunch of bores you all are."
Especially Jay, edutcher, and their fearless leader Althouse.
And please, carry on w/the daily boredom which is occasionally amusing by default. :-P
Mine is to judge and feel superior, similar to yours, no?
If any of you come up with a well thought out comment I'll be glad to see it.
Mine is to judge and feel superior, similar to yours, no?
Ah, you're descending Olympos to wallow with we bores. Thanks for that. Hopefully some of your greatness will rub off and we can achieve greater things simply through osmosis.
Again, delusionally or rationally winning a blog thread "debate" and $2/$3 will get you a cup of coffee.
But as long as you purchase some "Althouse stuff" lol all is well. :)
Hey! Gotcha! Wallow away.
Hmmm,
All the FUD merchants out today. Must be really bad news coming out of Axelrod's HQ.
From yesterday, just for Freder.
Data is from the Census Bureau. Read it and weep.
edutcher
The Heritage Foundation have always been in the tank for conservatives.
take care, blessings
Data is from the Census Bureau.
Most of the data presented in the linked Heritage Foundation article is not from the Census Bureau, but you'd actually have to read the report to know that. It appears edutcher is not a reader. :(
The "very poor" in the United States live better than any "very poor" in any other industrialized nation.
Prove me wrong.
I think the "prove me wrong" standard should be applied in all debates.
I'll start:
Jay keeps a pet squirrel in his pants. Prove me wrong!
What a bunch of bores you all are. It's not surprising it's so difficult to get anything done...
Boring!
Apologies to pet squirrels. :D
shiloh said...
The Heritage Foundation have always been in the tank for conservatives.
Thanks for pointing out that a)You aren't interested in facts and b) Facts have a conservative bias.
Take care!
"Thanks for pointing out"
You're welcome! :)
The concluding superiority and scatological flourishes vitiate the preceding tolerance appeal.
Howard Hughes surrounded himself with Mormons.
Harry Reid is the answer to protestations of Mormon morality.
Jay seems very content in his fantasy world. I'm happy for him.
♥ Willard said...
Jay seems very content in his fantasy world. I'm happy for him.
You're obviously content beclowning yourself on the Internet, sockpuppet.
shiloh - all you do is come here and shit all over every thread. I guess you enjoy that.
The Heritage Foundation have always been in the tank for conservatives.
Well there you just lost all credibility stooping to ad hominem attack.
I ♥ Willard said...
Data is from the Census Bureau.
Most of the data presented in the linked Heritage Foundation article is not from the Census Bureau, but you'd actually have to read the report to know that. It appears edutcher is not a reader. :(
No, ♥ doesn't read. I never said it all was, just said there was data from the Census Bureau, and it is - on who the Feds regard as "poor".
The rest is from HUD, DOE, etc.
Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
"all you do is come here and shit all over every thread. I guess you enjoy that."
Many threads I skip over altogether notwithstanding, I do find it somewhat amusing when Althouse longtime lackeys like yourself, Fen, edutcher, Jay, Scott M et al seem to be fixated on my every word ready to pounce w/an inane, childish personal attack. Like you just did. :)
Take care little buddy, as again, the easiest thing in the world is avoiding someone's posts at a political blog. Heck, I avoid several here and it's a real time saver ...
Ah, the poor, poor pitiful poor.
The very, very poor, poor pitiful poor.
Here some things that compound and contribute to (and perhaps cause) their economic poverty:
poor work ethic
poor study habits
poor social skills
poor academic records
poor reasoning skills
poor parenting skills
poor time management skills
poor choice in mates
poor voting habits
poor eating habits
poor hygiene
poor impulse control
poor substance abuse habits
How do I know this?
I've known many , many poor, poor pitiful poor people. I grew up one of eight kids of an alcoholic, wannabe gangster father, and a lazy self-centered mother. In the early days Dad worked various low skill jobs (cab driver, delivery man, vacuum cleaner salesman, gas station manager) and Mom had babies. After a while Dad stopped working, Mom went on welfare for twenty years and everyone lived happily ever after.
We always lived in seedy apartments that we discarded like used condoms, a week before the rent was due. These neighborhoods were teeming with the poor, poor pitiful poor. Crude, vulgar, viscious, lazy, decietful, opportunistic, poor, poor pitiful poor.
Post a Comment