# Poverty Apologists / Apologetics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287 "2016-04-05T19:52:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/441 "2016-04-20T01:05:44Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So if I spend all of my paycheck on luxuries, who should pay my rent, groceries, clothes and utilities? Well, when you run out of valuables to sell or pawn, you lose your lease/mortgage, the utilities are shut off, and you are left with nothing you go to the homeless shelter and the soup kitchen. Those are paid for by a combination of charitable donations and government grants. Seriously, you think that’s a trick question or something? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/442 "2016-04-20T01:13:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That’s not what I said. I said it was stupid on her part, not that she shouldn’t be getting the food stamps. > > If you’re in dire enough straits to need food stamps, and you’re literally driving around in $10,000 or more of readily available cash, is that a good decision to make? I’m sorry - where you do live that you can get a job without transportation? Let’s see… I know you can live in New York City without a car, and in Chicago without a car (because I did so for 15 years), but outside of those places there are damn few places you can get a decent job without a motor vehicle. So a working, reliable vehicle is an asset that in some ways is more valuable than cash, because it enables you to get MORE cash. Someone out in the suburbs sells their car and is without transportation they are _really_ not going to get off food stamps any time soon. Which is why I’m glad you’re not the one making the rules. > [@](#): > > THAT is the exact kind of dumb-ass decision that I can’t fathom. Putting an Xbox ahead of a necessity like fixing the tub is dumb, and I don’t see a reason in the world why society should countenance that, or bail someone out for something like that. When I was laid off in 2007 I walked out the door with zero debt and an entire year’s salary in the bank. That is WAY better than the vast majority of people. I still wound up poor. I still wound up selling our wedding rings at one point to keep a roof over our heads (actually, it was worth two month’s rent, yay skippy). I did not, however, sell the car or the pickup because _that’s how I was able to get to work_ which is what eventually got us off public benefits. You can do everything correctly and still wind up poor, and still wind up with judgemental types questioning everything you do, everything you own, everything you eat, and everything about you. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/443 "2016-04-20T01:22:58Z")
> [@andros](#): > > No one said that. Actually, yes, someone said that. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/444 "2016-04-20T01:25:29Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I’m sorry - where you do live that you can get a job without transportation? Let’s see… I know you can live in New York City without a car, and in Chicago without a car (because I did so for 15 years), but outside of those places there are damn few places you can get a decent job without a motor vehicle. I live in the suburbs of DC, and there is a very adequate bus system in this entire area. You ever hear of WALKING to a bus station? Once on a Metro Bus here, you can literally go to a job anywhere in the DC area. Actually, it’s not really a suburb of DC, but Southern Maryland, and I can take public transportation all the way to my job in DC. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/445 "2016-04-20T01:27:26Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I did not, however, sell the car or the pickup because _that’s how I was able to get to work_ which is what eventually got us off public benefits. Why did you need a car AND a pickup? Couldn’t you have sold one of them? ---
**Author:** ![Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pearl_Clutching_Provocateur)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/446 "2016-04-20T01:41:41Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I admit that on the Left, you can get a denial of personal agency. But I also think on the Right you can get a denial of systemic factors that can prevent people from succeeding. The best way is to forge some sort of middle path. Recognize that we’re not a pure meritocracy, but still encourage people to try their utmost to succeed. > > My home state will be raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If either Hillary or Bernie get elected, there’s a good chance that college will be more affordable as well. When you make the path to upward mobility less steep of a climb, more people are going to climb it. I have hope for my future. More hope than I’ve ever had before. Don’t wait on anybody to start moving forward. Look all the dopes who voted for Obama thinking he was their savior. Blacks are worse off now by most measurements than they were before he took office. Take a college class now. Form a plan now. Set a goal today. Use this board as resource. They say one of the keys to success is to write down your goals. Do it here in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/447 "2016-04-20T01:57:18Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Why did you need a car AND a pickup? Couldn’t you have sold one of them? My disabled spouse has a hard time walking so we kept the car for him and I used the truck for working on construction sites and lawn mowing gigs when I could get them, the hauling capacity was a definite asset. Over the years I’ve made more money with that truck than what it cost me to buy it. As I said, the spouse got the car - or do you suggest a man with spinal damage and more metal than bone in one of his legs should jog to work? But hey, keep making assumptions. Or don’t you want both the adults living here to work instead of just one? And around where we currently live mass transit sucks where it exists at all. Both vehicles are paid off and working reliably, but neither are worth much due to age (14 and 17 years old). Couldn’t get much for either at this point, but having two vehicles paid off and working reliably is worth a great deal. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/448 "2016-04-20T02:34:02Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Is this a joke? My bad… I was thinking weeks, not months. Still, that’s 2 years and a month to get a $200 emergency fund at the equivalent of about 2 hours worth of work each month. Or a year to get $100. Or, if you can afford $20 a month, which presumably is about half what self-professed poor person \*\*Blalron \*\*spends on beer per month, you’d have that $200 inside of a year. > [@treis](#): > > You don’t really know the situation. They might not have any equity in the Mercedes because they bought it with a loan, for example. All the more reason you should unload it; the car payments would be killing you in that situation, and unless you’re upside down on it, you’ll still come out ahead overall by getting rid of it for a cheaper car. And mind you, other than my irritated outburst last post, I’m not seriously advocating punishing the poor. But I’m against rewarding bad decisions and counterproductive behaviors as well. If you’re willing to learn how to make good decisions and to engage in the behaviors and outlooks that will spell lifelong success, then I’m all for that and would happily (if it was within my power) fund such programs and people. But I’m totally against funding anything but the barest minimum programs for people who are habitual criminals, or have multiple illegitimate children while already poor, or who act like “G” who I mentioned upthread, who spends any money he earns like it’s on fire, and on stupid stuff, all the while being paid under the table so he can avoid paying child support. I mean, I don’t quite think I’d let him starve, but I’d have to think about it. (not that he has to worry; the child support people caught him and threw his ass in prison) It does seem to me that in a lot of ways, poverty, working class and middle class are as much states of mind as they are literal income levels. I mean, it seems like the “temporarily poor” as described in this thread are really middle-class people who have all the right behaviors and who eventually find their way out of that temporary poverty. It worked for my parents after Dad got laid off in about 1982, and didn’t find a job until about 1987. Mom went back to work, and Dad kept plugging at whatever he could find until he did get a job with the city government, where he stayed for the next 25 years. It worked for me after graduate school (granted, it was only about 6 months) when I couldn’t find a job and ended up working part-time at a sporting goods store for a chunk of it. The big question I suppose, is how do you teach that strata of permanently poor people that education DOES pay dividends, and so does saving money, etc… I’m not sure you can really, without somehow breaking up the poor communities and not letting them congregate together. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/449 "2016-04-20T02:49:25Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Who the hell has a “tax burden” that is truly _that_ burdensome? **_Especially_ in the US where taxes are significantly lower than many other nations.** That is simply untrue. In fact, the US has some of the highest personal income tax rates in the world, maxing out at 55.9% combined Federal/State/Local. The only countries that are higher are Aruba, Finland, Sweden, and Belgium. > **[List of countries by tax rates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates)** > > A comparison of tax rates by countries is difficult and somewhat subjective, as tax laws in most countries are extremely complex and the tax burden falls differently on different groups in each country and sub-national unit. The list focuses on the main types of taxes: corporate tax, individual income tax, and sales tax, including VAT and GST and capital gains tax, but does not list wealth tax or inheritance tax. > Personal income tax includes all applicable taxes, including all unvested social... ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/450 "2016-04-20T05:19:06Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That is simply untrue. In fact, the US has some of the highest personal income tax rates in the world, maxing out at 55.9% combined Federal/State/Local. The only countries that are higher are Aruba, Finland, Sweden, and Belgium. > > [List of countries by tax rates - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates) But nobody actually pays 55.9% on all of their income; that’s the rate on the last dollar earned, not on all earnings. Moreover, with the various deductions and tax strategies available in the U.S., effective tax rates are well below headline rates. For average workers in the U.S, the total tax burden (income and payroll taxes) is the [24th highest](http://taxfoundation.org/article/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-0) in the OECD. As a percentage of GDP, the total tax burden in the U.S. is [about 24%, versus an average of 34% among developed nations](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally). For somebody earning $100K/year, the U.S. effective tax rate is the 55th highest in the world; at $300K/year, we move all the way up to 53rd. ([cite](http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-highest-effective-personal-tax-rates-2013-1)) ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/451 "2016-04-20T07:01:55Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > For average workers in the U.S, the total tax burden (income and payroll taxes) is the [24th highest](http://taxfoundation.org/article/comparison-tax-burden-labor-oecd-0) in the OECD. That cite only includes labor income, not total income, which is the bigger picture. Even if, for sake of argument, we accept that measure, look at the countries that have lower rates than we do. With the exceptions of neutral Switzerland and Chile, all of the countries with lower taxes on labor income are our closest neighbors, trading partners, allies, and friends. We shouldn’t have the highest rate amongst our peer group. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/452 "2016-04-20T10:26:50Z")
> [@bump](#): > > My bad… I was thinking weeks, not months. Still, that’s 2 years and a month to get a $200 emergency fund at the equivalent of about 2 hours worth of work each month. Or a year to get $100. Or, if you can afford $20 a month, which presumably is about half what self-professed poor person \*\*Blalron \*\*spends on beer per month, you’d have that $200 inside of a year. That’s assuming no emergencies arise during those 2 years. > [@](#): > > And mind you, other than my irritated outburst last post, I’m not seriously advocating punishing the poor. But I’m against rewarding bad decisions and counterproductive behaviors as well. If you’re willing to learn how to make good decisions and to engage in the behaviors and outlooks that will spell lifelong success, then I’m all for that and would happily (if it was within my power) fund such programs and people. I get it. Having worked in social services many years ago now (before my current brush with poverty) I got to experience frustration of the sort where you want to grab the person in front of you by the shoulders, shake, and yell “WTF were you THINKING?”. However, I also learned that dysfunctional people don’t get better overnight. It’s three steps forward and two back for years until they get better. > [@](#): > > But I’m totally against funding anything but the barest minimum programs for people who are habitual criminals, or have multiple illegitimate children while already poor, or who act like “G” who I mentioned upthread, who spends any money he earns like it’s on fire, and on stupid stuff, all the while being paid under the table so he can avoid paying child support. I mean, I don’t quite think I’d let him starve, but I’d have to think about it. (not that he has to worry; the child support people caught him and threw his ass in prison) “G”'s problem wasn’t being _poor_, it was being _criminal_. Clearly he had, or was capable, of a higher income than he reported, he was _deliberately_ holding out as poor to avoid obeying a court order. Jail is indeed where he belongs. > [@](#): > > The big question I suppose, is how do you teach that strata of permanently poor people that education DOES pay dividends, and so does saving money, etc… I’m not sure you can really, without somehow breaking up the poor communities and not letting them congregate together. Yes, but the not-poor don’t want the poor living next to them. As far as the bare minimums - shouldn’t the most destitute poor have _at least_ what we give to prisoners, which is basic food clothing and shelter? (Minus the guards and bars, of course) Perhaps an 8x8 room with a bed and some storage, three nutritious if not exciting meals a day, and a few sets of clothes a year, nothing fancy, maybe even out of a donation box for the outer wear. There is, of course, the problem of providing security in such a place but that’s an issue no matter what we do with them. Make counseling/training available for anyone who gets a sudden inspiration to get their act together. I suspect most of the takers will be either addicts or mentally ill, as those do seem to be the most intractable problem people. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/453 "2016-04-20T10:58:34Z")
Let’s have a word about religion and its role in poverty. Religion for the poor is different than religion for the wealthy. It’s not always bad, but there are some things I’ve seen over and over that I think are detrimental. **Tithing practices:** sure, the church needs funds, especially the tiny storefront ones, but some of the practices get to be coercive. I know of several people who belong to churches that not only insist you tithe your 10%, but if you’re employed they require you to _direct deposit_ that 10% in the church coffers. Meaning they get their money before you get yours. I asked “what if you need that money that week?”. The reactions ranged from horror at denying God his money (wait - isn’t it the pastor that signs the checks?) to a belief that the church would come through for them no matter what. If the latter is true then maybe it isn’t so bad, it’s sort of a disaster/emergency insurance, but I see a lot of potential for problems here. And if the church can’t convince people to chuck money in the collection plate of their own accord rather than compelling them to set up a paycheck extraction is it really that good an institution? (Note that I am not opposed to _voluntary_ paycheck deductions, it’s the required ones I object to). **Socially isolating attendance policies:** I’m not talking about every Sunday plus holidays here. Some small churches wind up requiring attendance at Bible study and other “classes” all but one or two days per week. This can seriously interfere with things like education (if you work all day and church every evening there’s no room for night school) and other things needed outside of work hours. At least they usually provide child care for these evenings. Such churches usually demand that members not associated with non-members and particularly not non-Christians outside of the minimum required for work. This can seriously impair things like networking, as well as cause problems in the workplace with people who either can’t or aren’t able to deal with people of differing beliefs or who aren’t believers. **Disempowerment:** Making people dependent on Jesus is not going to to make them independent in anything. Attributing everything to “God’s will” can sap personal ambition, without which you’re not going to climb out of poverty. **Sin competition:** Honestly, this one floored me the first time I encountered it: a bunch of people sitting around _bragging_ about what horrible people they were before finding Jesus. I think it gives young people the impression they have to sin big so they can be redeemed. **Limited Roles for Women:** Between promoting submission for women to the men in their lives and being gung-ho on women as reproductive machines this is toxic. Lauding motherhood as the highest and most proper role for women is going to result in more babies, whether or not they can be squeezed into the budget. Poor women should be encouraged to limit births, not increase them. Promoting submission is going to keep women in poverty as well as in abusive relationships. I don’t mind religion when it’s _uplifting_, when it promotes human dignity, education, and proper conduct but all too over poor storefront churches seem to have the opposite effect, becoming cult-like in how they restrict member actions and associations. It’s the toxic manifestations of religion that make me leery of the conservative/right wing notion that if we cut government funds for the poor the churches will take over - I’m not convinced that’s actually a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/454 "2016-04-20T11:44:03Z")
bolding mine > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That cite only includes labor income, not total income, **which is the bigger picture**. > > Even if, for sake of argument, we accept that measure, look at the countries that have lower rates than we do. With the exceptions of neutral Switzerland and Chile, all of the countries with lower taxes on labor income are our closest neighbors, trading partners, allies, and friends. We shouldn’t have the highest rate amongst our peer group. It’s certainly a bigger picture than what you were trying to cite, which is just the maximum possible marginal personal rate. At least **slash2k** ’s cite includes payroll taxes, which your wiki table does as well, but not in the column you were referencing. Not that you can just add the two columns; obviously no one paying the top marginal personal income rate here is paying the top payroll rate. Maybe we shouldn’t have the highest rate amongst our peer group–move the goalposts all you want, but your attempt to show that **broomstick** is incorrect failed. And your objection that **slash2k** ’s cite only includes labor income applies to your cite as well, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/455 "2016-04-20T13:32:17Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > We removed kids from Aboriginal and First Nations families because we were sure and certain that we could provide a “better” environment, with more instruction in the “proper values” and “necessary skills”; turns out we were wrong, and we pretty much destroyed a couple of generations because we were so certain that the kids would be better off with someone else. So the answer is “NO, we did not remove aboriginal and first nation kids from their families because their parents were choosing creature comforts for themselves over feeding their children, we did it because we were bigots” > [@](#): > > Don’t know much about the orphanage system, do you? There were (and still are) some good facilities, but orphanages have long tended to be nasty and brutish places. Canada’s largest sex abuse scandal, e.g., was probably the [Mount Cashel Orphanage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Cashel_Orphanage); Australia has their own scandals at places like [Rockhampton](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040028/The-horrific-orphanage-kids-kids-raped-forced-confess-sin-Horrifying-accounts-child-abuse-Catholic-community-Rockhampton-given-royal-commission.html). Ireland, Portugal, the U.S., Russia, Romania, Iran–the list of countries with orphanage scandals is lengthy. Do you really need me to cite to cases of sexual abuse by foster parents? I think there are enough cases of sexual abuse by clergy outside of orphanages for us to conclude that maybe it was a problem with the catholic church and not a problem with orphanages. Frankly we see cases of sexual abuse at boarding schools, regular schools and pretty much anywhere there are children. > [@](#): > > “Professional child care providers” take care of the kids as a job; just like those random foster parents, they may be in it only for the income. One of the most notable deficits is that orphanage kids are frequently deprived of love, attention, affection, and a sense of belonging. The social and emotional aspects have an incredible amount to do with positive outcomes, and those are precisely the aspects most difficult to replicate with a changing (and quite frequently underpaid) staff. But the cite I link to previously seems to indicate otherwise. That the long term success of kids coming out of the orphanage system is better than kids coming out of the foster care system. Higher high school graduation rate and lower unemployment rate than the general population. > [@](#): > > That point bears repeating: the U.S. foster care system is in deep trouble precisely because there’s no political will to pour huge amounts of money into caring for somebody else’s kids. That will isn’t suddenly going to emerge if we gather the kids out of foster care and put them back in big institutions; they’ll all be in one place, out of sight and out of mind, cared for by the lowest bidder. What do you think the outcomes are likely to be? I think the outcomes might mimic what we had in the 1960s with higher high school graduation rates and lower unemployment rates. Do you think we spend LESS money on children than we did in the 1960’s? Its about the only area where you can get Republicans to agree to more spending. The only people that Republicans trust less with money than the government is the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/456 "2016-04-20T13:52:37Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Why? If she’s in a position to need reliable transportation, there is a certain comfort in having a paid-off car that you know the history on, that you know what work has been done and what needs doing, etc. Buying a junker that you have to keep pouring money into, or that causes you to miss interviews and doctors appointments, is false economy. Mercedes are horribly unreliable cars by today’s standards. The repair and maintenance costs on a Mercedes is MUCH higher than average. > [@](#): > > The time, money, and stress spent on trying to find a good reliable used car will eat up precious resources, and if a $150 medical bill kills the budget, a $150 repair bill you didn’t see coming isn’t any better. (That repair bill, of course, can happen on any vehicle, but it’s perhaps a bit more likely on something on which you have no idea of the previous maintenance or repair history, and on which the seller is likely trying to puff up.) You can buy a Hyundai or Kia with a 10 year warranty for the price of that used Mercedes or pretty damn close. The bumper to bumper warranty of 5 year/60,000 miles is transferable so if you get one that is only a couple of years old (for a LOT less) you still have a significant warranty period left. That repair on a Mercedes is likely to cost LOT more than a similar repair on a Hyundai or Kia. And that Mercedes is much more likely to need a repair than the Hyundai or Kia (and don’t forget the warranty). > [@](#): > > A distress sale on the Mercedes isn’t going to bring in enough cash to bring them out of poverty for any great amount of time, and depending on what they get to replace it, they may end up worse off. Who said they needed to have a fire sale? You know there are places that will make reasonable cash offers on your car, right? I can get onboard with smartphones, internet and Netflix as reasonable expenses (or even necessities in the case of internet)that should not draw criticism. But there is really no excuse for driving your Mercedes to the food pantry unless you are trying to sell your Mercedes. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/457 "2016-04-20T13:57:39Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I admit that on the Left, you can get a denial of personal agency. But I also think on the Right you can get a denial of systemic factors that can prevent people from succeeding. The best way is to forge some sort of middle path. Recognize that we’re not a pure meritocracy, but still encourage people to try their utmost to succeed. > > My home state will be raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If either Hillary or Bernie get elected, there’s a good chance that college will be more affordable as well. When you make the path to upward mobility less steep of a climb, more people are going to climb it. I have hope for my future. More hope than I’ve ever had before. Sure, Bernie has done an incredible job of pushing Hillary to the left. The more he pushes the more some of his better idea are gaining traction even if his candidacy doesn’t. BUT to add a little rain to your parade: > **[Donald Trump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump)** > > Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. > Trump received a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. His father made him president of the family real estate business in 1971. Trump renamed it the Trump Organization and reoriented the company toward building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. ... He might do exactly the same stuff that Bernie or Hillary would do, he might to exactly what Romney would have done or he might dry hump the nuclear launch button. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/458 "2016-04-20T14:08:41Z")
**Broomstick** , did you intend your suggestions about the role of religious practices and poverty to be taken seriously, or are they just a throwaway assertion? If the first, I will need some actual data, like cites. Yours isn’t even at the level of anecdotes. And it contradicts much of the evidence that practicing your religion correlates to reduced incidence of poverty (and divorce, unwed motherhood, drug abuse, and other social pathologies). [Cite](http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/08/church-kids-are-less-likely-to-divorce-or-live-in-poverty.html), [cite](http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/religion-forgotten-factor-cutting-youth-crime-and-saving-risk-urban-youth-5880.html), etc. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/459 "2016-04-20T15:01:04Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > My disabled spouse has a hard time walking so we kept the car for him and I used the truck for working on construction sites and lawn mowing gigs when I could get them, the hauling capacity was a definite asset. Over the years I’ve made more money with that truck than what it cost me to buy it. As I said, the spouse got the car - or do you suggest a man with spinal damage and more metal than bone in one of his legs should jog to work? But hey, keep making assumptions. Or don’t you want both the adults living here to work instead of just one? > > And around where we currently live mass transit sucks where it exists at all. > > Both vehicles are paid off and working reliably, but neither are worth much due to age (14 and 17 years old). Couldn’t get much for either at this point, but having two vehicles paid off and working reliably is worth a great deal. First, I want to apologize since my question came out as more of asking you personal questions than I would have liked, instead of a more general question. Second, I didn’t make any assumptions, I only asked a question about the need for 2 cars. Third, and you don’t have to answer, why doesn’t your husband qualify for SS disability? Wouldn’t that be a stable source of income? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/460 "2016-04-20T17:11:58Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > But, as another poster said, even if birth control were free for everybody, apparently poor girls have no choice but to have unprotected sex with jobless loser assholes. > [@Slash1972](#): > > Actually, yes, someone said that. Not in this thread, as far as I can tell, and it _looks_ like you’re misrepresenting what people have actually said. But I’m sure you can cite the post, and I’m happy to be shown incorrect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=24)