Rogue Wolf
Is Kind Of A Big Deal In Yemen
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to FAQFixer
Re: What Credibility?
said by FAQFixer  :Why did you have kids if you were knowningly not able to responsibly care for them? Please don't tell me that was Verizon's fault...or anyone other than yours. Because nobody has ever lost a job, had a life-changing accident, etc. etc. after having children, right?
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | reply to Tzale
Bump out the 100/100 (ipv6 compatible) quick as they can, so that others will have to re-think thier deployments seriously.
Get USF priority re-allocated to deployment in rural areas, so its not such a burden on this poor company. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to pnh102
This isn't a third world Country.
Well... it isn't..... Yet. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to en102
Rich do more spending, in general (yeah they buy a lot of stuff), however, much of it is purchased through I'm not sure where you get your numbers, or what you mean by much of "it"; but the fact is that the richest 20% account for more than 60% of consumer spending.
The poor and middle class already tapped their full discretionary income, and then some, long ago, and essentially make up the inflation portion of spending growth.
I'm not sure why you mention bankruptcies in So-Cal; which were just as much a function of fraud, excessive price appreciation, and re-fi consumption as anything else. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to factchecker
I'm throwing a red flag. If McDonald's is in play, even Bill Clinton, messiah of all liberals, thought it was good food. Plus, all of the fast food restaurants have healthier alternatives. You can get a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried. You can get yogurt, cereal and fruit instead of eggs and bacon. You can get salads instead of hamburgers.
These folks are making a life choice and unless you are a total socialist who wants the government running our lives from every angle, we should leave this alone.
Of course the socialist's problem comes with health care. If we're to take care of these people with public funds and improper eating makes costs go up, it's only natural that we should dictate to them what they can eat.
Again, I'll throw a red flag. Guaranteed health care and government-run vegan food bars aren't the answer. The entire health care "crisis" is a case of incomplete statistics. I don't doubt there are some folks that aren't getting the care they need but I'm so tired of statistics. My college statistics professor used to say, in order, there are liars. There are damn liars and then there are statisticians.
Just this morning I heard 40 million Americans don't get the health care they need. My sister is one of them. She's 50 years old, smokes like a chimney and she has not had health care in 10 years. Why? When she and her husband ran their own business, they didn't want to pay for it. Guess what? That's not the only thing they didn't do. They didn't pay taxes either. I guess they thought running their own construction company meant they could do whatever they want. The IRS caught up with them. They divorced, sold the house and most of the proceeds will pay their back taxes, penalties and lawyer fees.
She and her ex husband are NOT poor yet they are part of the statistics used to justify why the socialists in this country think they can take MY MONEY and use it to insure someone else who WON'T provide for themselves because they CHOOSE not to.
YTD I've paid $46,464.41 in state and federal taxes. And this doesn't include real estate taxes, personal property taxes, sales tax and the myriad of other fees tied to various pet political projects. Don't I pay enough? I'm not rich. I'm the sole income provider for five people. I have two cars, a two story house, three kids and a wife. My wife doesn't have expensive clothes or jewelry. We don't have new cars. Our kids don't have their own cell phones. I choose to put as much money in 401K as they will let me. I choose to have as much life insurance as I can get. I choose to put money in college funds. I choose to pay for my credit card bills every month and we don't buy what we cannot afford.
Now tell me why I should pay EVEN more for folks that make different choices? (Don't even get me started on real estate bailouts! Can you believe that? Folks have their hand out toward me because they bought a house they couldn't afford and now they are going to lose it.)
And to get back on topic, Verizon, AT&T and all the others deserve PC World's ranking because they are corporate welfare prostitutes. They'll do anything to turn a trick and get more government funds so the Ed Whitaker types can fly above me, the little man, with big fat multi-million dollar private jets. |
|
FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
| reply to Rogue Wolf
said by Rogue Wolf :said by FAQFixer :Why did you have kids if you were knowningly not able to responsibly care for them? Please don't tell me that was Verizon's fault...or anyone other than yours. Because nobody has ever lost a job, had a life-changing accident, etc. etc. after having children, right? No, he specifically said, "With no advanced education, our employment opportunities were limited." He did not lose his job or have an accident...he and his wife did not seek an education or skills to get a decent job yet they choose to have kids. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to rradina
said by rradina :Just this morning I heard 40 million Americans don't get the health care they need. My sister is one of them. She's 50 years old, smokes like a chimney and she has not had health care in 10 years. Why? When she and her husband ran their own business, they didn't want to pay for it. She and her ex husband are NOT poor yet they are part of the statistics used to justify why the socialists in this country think they can take MY MONEY and use it to insure someone else who WON'T provide for themselves because they CHOOSE not to. She wouldn't be part of that statistic. She believed she was getting adequate health care.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
 ·Korea Telecom
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
When you have a clue about the how and why of obesity among the poor, you can talk about it.
Since you apparently have a clue, why not enlighten us all? All you're saying is "Nu-uh you're wrong!!", albeit more eloquently. |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
4 edits | reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :
The problem is that they aren't choosing food the same way person with more money would. Think cheap... Think fast - need to work more.
What is cheap and fast ? Food that typically is not good for you - McDonald's, Burger King, etc. This is why poorer people are obese.
Cheap and fast...hm...since I put myself completely through college + all personal expenses, let me answer that one for you
Pasta
oatmeal
milk
tuna
chicken
bananas
raisins
some other in-season fruits
frozen vegetables
celery
carrots
peanuts/peanut butter
eggs
yogurt
bread
rice
fruit juice (fresh kinda sorta, frozen most definitely)
Actually, the $6 meals at fast food aren't very economical. Though one could argue the dollar menus are fairly so. And of course, no-name packaged foods @ Wal*Mart are too.
The fact is, there are many fast/economical foods that are also healthy. Eating cheaply doesn't have to mean being a lard ass. That's just being a lazy ass.
As to "fast, need to work more" - From what I can tell, college educated people, who work on salary, work more. Hourly people are generally capped at 40 hours/week, those on salary aren't paid overtime, so they aren't so capped. I know there are examples of people working multiple hourly jobs, but that is not common at all.
I have not recently researched statistics to back this up though - do you have any for your viewpoint? Or any reasoning at all outside of pathos?
Seriously, stop being a whiny sympathizer. Sympathy is near useless if one doesn't understand the situation. I've traveled a bit of the world, and seen the statistics we have it easy here compared to the developing world.
edit: Haha, we appear to have gotten slightly off topic :P |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
| reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :said by pnh102 :Hello? If you are obese, then there is a 99.999999999999999% chance you are not starving. You have missed the point and further illustrated a lack of knowledge on the topic of why under-priviledged people have a higher incidence of obesity. When you have a clue about the how and why of obesity among the poor, you can talk about it. Poorer education and/or less ability to delay gratification. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to cdigioia
You're thinking of the working poor, not those of poverty level who would have issue affording most of the things on that list (in particular, milk, tuna, eggs and chicken) without government subsidy. Hence why malnutrition is the big issue. Those people never go to McDonald's (they don't take WIC vouchers). |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to cdigioia
said by cdigioia :Poorer education and/or less ability to delay gratification. Not even close and a common stereotype and misconception...
It comes more from necessity than anything. Poorer people have to problems - they need to work more to make the same amount of money as others and their ability to purchase food is dictated by the amount of money they have.
In order to work more, expedience is required when getting food, eating, etc., meaning far less time to shop, cook, etc. So, food that is fact and cheap becomes the preferred choice.
What is fast and cheap - bingo, fast food.
Poorer people are far more likely to consume fast food than people with better incomes, etc. They are not eating significantly more than their peers who have better incomes, rather, the large amounts of fats and empty calories are what is getting to them.
That better for you ? |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
| Not even close to better for me. If you like, you can read my later post where I address things in more detail, but as a synopsis.
Poor people work more?
I disagree, hourly workers tend to stay under 40 hours a week. Salaried jobs (which tend to be held by the better educated) have no overtime pay. I've seen this myself in my immediate family (hourly), and friends (both hourly and salaried). Not to mention it's intuitive.
Fast food is cheap
No it's not, read my later post about putting myself through college. Pasta is cheap, bananas are cheap, milk is cheap. a $6 meal at Burger King is not. From personal experience working at McDonalds in high school, the poorest people didn't go for the dollar menu as much as the meals. |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub
·Korea Telecom
| reply to marigolds
Homeless essentially?
I did not mean those who would starve without assistance. I am arguing those who can afford enough calories can also afford enough nutrition. This was to refute the claim that just because the poor in the US tend to be more overweight, doesn't mean anything due to good nutrition (as opposed to just sufficient calories) being too expensive. |
|
FactChecker
@cox.net
| reply to cdigioia
said by cdigioia :I have not recently researched statistics to back this up though - do you have any for your viewpoint? Or any reasoning at all outside of pathos? Seriously, stop being a whiny sympathizer. Sympathy is near useless if one doesn't understand the situation. I've traveled a bit of the world, and seen the statistics we have it easy here compared to the developing world. edit: Haha, we appear to have gotten slightly off topic :P Yeah, a wee bit off topic.
I'm curious as to how you can make such an assertion as yours when you simultaneously claim you have no facts to back it up...
There are numerous articles, some even in the normal press, that back the conclusion of cheap, fast food (junk food, McD's, Burger King, etc.) and working as the cause...
See below for just a few:
»www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fit···dex.html
»www.childrenshospital.org/newsro···l42.html
»www.charlestonbusiness.com/pub/1···5-1.html
or directly to the Google results:
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=po···G=Search
You also need to check out:
Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser
The MacDonaldization of Society, Ritzer |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to rradina
said by rradina :These folks are making a life choice and unless you are a total socialist who wants the government running our lives from every angle, we should leave this alone. First, not even close to a socialist and that line of dicussion would drive us even further off course.
Secondly, regarding the choices made... While there are healthier foods available, they are typically less filling than their artery clogging menu neighbors. The poor don't make food choices the same way that people like myself, and probably you, who make a really good living would. Their choices are based on what will fill them up the most effectively and unfortunately, that tends to be those massive value meals.
I'm throwing a red flag. If McDonald's is in play, even Bill Clinton, messiah of all liberals, thought it was good food. And what are Bill Clinton's credentials as a health adviser? None. The facts are that HEALTH CARE providers and physicians would disagree with that statement almost entirely across the board.
Plus, all of the fast food restaurants have healthier alternatives. You can get a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried. You can get yogurt, cereal and fruit instead of eggs and bacon. You can get salads instead of hamburgers. Good idea, but it doesn't work. Check out the calories on some of that "healthier" foods. Some of it would be healthy if say, you or I made it, but the fact is that it isn't nearly as healthy as you would think when it comes from the fast food joints.
Anyway, probably a good place to stop the discussion... Way off topic now. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to cdigioia
said by cdigioia :Homeless essentially? I did not mean those who would starve without assistance. I am arguing those who can afford enough calories can also afford enough nutrition. This was to refute the claim that just because the poor in the US tend to be more overweight, doesn't mean anything due to good nutrition (as opposed to just sufficient calories) being too expensive. Right, but the initial discussion was about the impacts of removing welfare supports.
Those who can afford enough calories on their own don't need welfare supports and are not part of "the poor" for the purpose of this discussion.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
cdigioia
Premium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | OK, I was in a sub-discussion though. I really long sub-discussion.
Though perhaps I was only feeding the off-topic beast  |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to marigolds
I'm sure the judge would call you on that one. Are you meaning to tell me you know how my sister thinks when neither of us even know the question that was asked?
Regardless, this didn't stop the CBS morning news from using the statistic as a sensational sound bite to claim "health care crisis".
It's no different with broadband deployment. We have no idea if the countries with which we compare ourselves are using figures that make sense to compare. Nevertheless, we're ranked, what, 15th? This smells like NCAA BCS rankings. (And yes, I'm from Missouri and I might be a bit bitter about the Cotton Bowl thing but plenty still agree the BCS rankings are, at best, like reading tea leaves...) |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to cdigioia
Read my later post. It addresses your issues.
As for your assertion that poor people only work under 40 hours per week... Poorer people are more likely to hold multiple jobs, demonstrated fact.
As for you not being "convinced", that does not change the data. You sound like you certainly have seen enough poverty around you, like most Americans, but seeing it and looking into it and researching its causes, problems and issues is a different thing. |
|
