HI Ras..
Oh this is so bad..admittedly so.. its true..sad isnt it? how bad is that?

Sherri

Hi Iandefor..
I so want to..maybe someday if my finances allow and my condition medically improves somewhat I can adventure out and do something, these missionary trips cost about $4 to $5,000 on a sign up, that I cant do. I have taken my children when they were young to St.Louis doing volunteer work with assisting with food and passing out clothes..Something is better than nothing, but nothing changes you like staying a week where poverty is a reality..thats different..wayyyy different..

Sherri

An interesting observation that might perhaps highlight a possible link between low income and poor quality (fattening) foods, eating disorders, who knows what else.

If I remember correctly the amount of overweight and obese Americans was a LOT higher than 12% (likewise for Australians) - so perhaps there is actually no correlation at all. I'm sure people would have done lots of studies on this,you could check it out if you felt like it (I don't right now).

There are also levels of poverty. When you get into the classification of not being able to feed yourself, they call it 'extreme poverty' I believe.

Yeah. They're lazy. (Yes, yes, in general - I'm sure there are exceptions that prove the rule.) Too lazy to achieve and too lazy to cook healthy foods. One can eat healthy for far less money than they can junk and fast food. The difference is effort.

Turkey, here anyway, is a very cheap source of meat. So are dried beans. Broccoli, carrots, and spinach are very healthy vegetables that are low in cost per serving. Brown rice, oats (oatmeal) are two great sources of carbohydrates - both healthy to eat and cheap.

The trouble is, you have to turn on a stove and cook those things. That's more than poor people want to do. If they did, they could suddenly afford health insurance policies for themselves and their family with money left over for a movie and a trip to McDonalds on Sunday perhaps.


Our poor people also have mobile phones, television sets, cars...

If I were single, I'd do a thing like that guy who made the "Supersize Me" documentry.

I'd take a year off from my career, and work nothing but 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job. I would have a place to live, healthy food to eat, and health insurance.

That would be worth watching. Come Christmas time, you could post on forums asking for Paypal donations to give your kids expensive gifts too

Handouts wouldn't fit in.

You might have a distorted memory of the point I was making with that thread btw.

Ok I ran this by snopes..didnt find anything..soooo has anyone been in ear shot of this..as I use to listen to Rush but now I listen to talk net radio..so I dont hear Rush that often at all..I am just curious..dont know if these are the facts..so those of you who may be avid listeners and heard this I as curious..and yes its an e-mail..

RUSH LIMBAUGH COMMENTS

I am NOT accusing anyone of anything. I just found this interesting.



From Rush Limbaugh's radio show.....keep on reading below...

RUSH:
Hey, folks, Want to participate in tweaking the Drive-By Media? You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. You heard this?
And everybody chalked it up to, 'Well, he's tired.'
You know, this is a Dan Quayle moment. I mean, Dan Quayle goes out there and misspells 'potato,' and we still hear jokes about it. Barack Obama says he's gonna go out and campaign in 57 states, he was just tired, you know, it's been such a long campaign, he's been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states. Well, I have here a
printout from a website called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins. 'Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations commission on human rights called
combating.'

We're participating here in a tweak of the media. Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states. 'Every year from 1999 to 2005, the organization of the Islamic conference rep resenting the 57 Islamic
states,' this is from the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And the title of the piece here is, 'How the Islamic states dominate the UN human rights council,' and there are 57 of them. So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen?


????
I guess I could try to find this in the Rush Limbaugh archives if indeed he has them listed by choice..not sure where to start..

Sherri

You're very quick to judge people, Rasczak. Poverty is by and large NOT a choice. This is basic sociology 101 material. Being born in a poor family is the number one predictor of poverty latter in life. There are many reasons for this, but one of the main reasons is that poor people teach different values to their kids than rich or middle class parents.Researcher Links Rising Tide Of Obesity To Food Prices

Another beatup, come mountain out of a molehill I'm afraid ... I saw the footage of the statement by Obama ages ago, and he was talking past tense not future, and said 57, as an obvious slip of the tongue for 47, as he had already campaigned in 47 of the 48 'continental' US States.

snopes.com: Barack Obama and 57 States

I didn't really know who Rush Limbaugh was until now. Now I know - he's an idiot (or a tabloid radio host - which amounts to the same thing).

That article is junk. Go look at the price of brown rice, dry beans, brocolli, turkey (whole turkey per pound) and other whole foods. You can prepare a healthy meal for pennies.

Poverty itself may not be a choice, but it is the culmination of an aggregate of choices. You're looking at the wrong Sociology material.

You also don't understand what a predictor means. Having one leg is a good predictor a person won't be a marathon runner.



There's a guy missing both legs running in a race.

And here's a record setting marathon runner who is an amputee:



These are people who made the choice to run in races. They din't let circumstances get in the way.

I think its a big call to see any parallel between overcoming a physical disability and overcoming poverty. Poverty comes before all other issues - you can't effectively fight to overcome other adversities while still fighting to survive day to day. That's not to say that some individuals can't do it - some can and do. But because a few do it, doesn't mean everybody can.

What is stopping the ones that you say can't?

There are always exceptions. I have a friend in college who was raised dirt poor in the middle of nowhere in Appalachia. We're talking rural poverty; nothing like the kind of poverty you might find in New York (distinction: rural poverty is much worse). He had like 8 brothers/sisters and he is the only one who went to college. When you're born into a family like this you aren't taught about the values of education. You go out and hunt or trap. You breed dogs, train them, etc. You're not expected to go to college; you're parents don't expect you to, your friends don't expect you to, and chances are you probably don't expect yourself to, either. You might not even understand the magnitude of the decision; the only thing you've known your whole life is poverty, and lets face it, you're good at hunting and hunting is extremely rewarding for you. Instead of your parents telling you "study your homework" they might tell you "get your ass out to the farm, boy." Instead of encouraging creativity, or learning about new technology, they might tell you "stop playing on that silly computational machine; go out and hunt like a real man. Uncle John is here to teach you how to make deer jerky. If you learn to make jerky you might make something out of yourself, that little machine is never going to do that for you."

Being born in a rural area is an example of, not just a predictor, but pretty much a cause for be poor. You could say it's your choice that you don't move, but try to stay reasonable here; this is where a person is born, where their family is, their culture etc, and they might not be fully aware of the benefits of moving. In a way a lot of it can be considered a choice but if you actually look at the issue there's more to it than making a simple "choice."

For instance being well-off gives you more opportunity for personal leisure and satisfaction in life. Poor people don't go on vacations or amusement parks or eat out etc and everything they buy in life has to be of lower quality. So then you wonder why cigarette smoking is so popular among poor people. Well if you take someone who has very little external opportunities for reward, working 14 hours a day 6 days a week at a steel meal, suddenly cigarette smoking doesn't seem that unreasonable. It's a way to relax at the end of a long, hard day of work. So it's not just an issue of "is it a choice or not"; you have to understand the person and why they're in that situation. It's easy to brush aside a poor person and call him "scum" because he never "chose" to do anything in life but if you really consider their upbringing it's easy to see that it's not entirely their fault. Calling it a choice just gives you an easy excuse to look down upon and ignore poor people.

It's much easier for someone born in a middle or upper class family to be successful. If you're born poor it's 100 times more difficult. The real story is the person born in poverty who beat the odds, worked hard, and dedicated himself to being successful. And you act like it's a simple choice, almost like they should be expected to rise out of poverty but they're just too lazy to do so. It's more than a choice; it's fighting upstream against a strong current pulling you back.

The Rev. Jessie Jackson had apolligized after making a controversial statement about Obama, thinking that no one picked it up, even though he was whipering through the mike to the person sitting next to him.

Even his son didn't like the comment made!

For a start, I think societally as long as there are rich people, there necessarily have to be poor people.

On an individual level, 1veedo covered that in his subsequent post.

That's a perfectly assinine idea.

How so? It is quite clear that wealth is gained through the exploitation of others. Do you really think that if everybody just tried really, really, REALLY hard in life - then everybody would be rich and happy and live in harmony and abundance?

I'm no economist, but I think this one is pretty easy to comprehend.

That's because you're no economist. You're an idealist. With dumb ideas.

I remember from econ class if all the wealth were spread evenly among everyone living on Earth everyone would have the equivalent of $6,000 USD. This isn't a measure of cash, either, this is your total assets (eg the value of your house + car + bank account etc). So at least in today's world to have rich people you have to have poor people. This is also beneficial to some extent because I doubt the economy would do very well if everyone had the same $6,000 USD. Rich people move money around a lot more than poorer people so it actually helps the economy some to have an uneven distribution of wealth (though too much is bad and/or crosses the line past where it's beneficial to "everyone").