# 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:** 24
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/461 "2016-04-20T17:24:14Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > That’s assuming no emergencies arise during those 2 years. Sure, but even if the emergency strikes a year in, you have $100 to deal with it that you wouldn’t have otherwise had. Unless you literally can’t afford it at all, saving for emergencies is pretty much always a good thing to do. But the notion that “you’ll never save enough to amount to anything, so why try?” is extremely counterproductive and short-sighted. It’s like saying that if you won’t have the full $150 for a unexpected urgent care clinic visit, that it’s not worth saving up $75. Which is dumb for a variety of reasons. At worst, you keep giving yourself a minimal cushion against unexpected emergencies that keep cropping up. At best, you end up with an actual rainy-day fund, at which point you can continue to fund it and actually have some reasonable surplus cash, or actually get luxuries without necessarily putting yourself at risk in case of a catastrophe. But spending that money like it’s on fire doesn’t help in either way, and merely leaves you vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/462 "2016-04-20T17:24:33Z")
> [@andros](#): > > > [@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. > > 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. > [@Broomstick](#): > > > [@Slash1972](#): > > > > I’m sorry, but this sounds a lot like “Poor girls have no choice but to have unprotected sex with their redneck, loser boyfriends. If they don’t, they get raped or punched in the face. It feels good, so these dumb girls are going to do it, because they are poor and this is the only pleasure they get” > > Yes. > > That is the reality for some women. > > They can either be celibate forever or have sex with loser guys because that’s the only kind of guys they come into contact with. Said guys might well think it unmanly to wear a condom, feel birth control is solely the woman’s problem, and may or may not be prone to violence. > > Just where do you think there is a venue for poor girls to meet middle class and higher quality guys interested in more than a one night stand? > > And yeah, it might be the only pleasure a poor woman gets. That, or food, which has something to do with poor people being overweight. If you feel like crap because of a shit job and little hope and food helps make you feel better you’re going to eat. Same for sex. > > This is also why poor women who can get a sugar daddy try to keep him - sure, it’s a type of whoring but damn at least she can get a place to live, nice clothes, nice food, and get her bits rubbed on a regular basis. That may be her best option in life. Again, I can’t say I approve but there is a certain logic to that path in life. Seems like a fair paraphrase. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/463 "2016-04-20T17:28:35Z")
> [@andros](#): > > 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. I’m thinking it was either **Monstro** or **Broomstick** that said the following things upthread, which can be taken to say what **manson1972** is saying: > [@](#): > > "You really think one of those loser types who pride themselves on viable sperm are going to take “no” for an answer? One of two things is likely to happen: either he dumps the girl and finds one who won’t ask him to wear a rubber, or she gets a fist to the teeth. > > Also, women want to fuck just as much as men do. After awhile, a lot of women are going to say screw it and do it bareback just because they’re so damn tired of being horny. > > When you’re poor sex is free - and not much else that is fun is free. Not much else that makes you feel good, even for a few minutes, is free. It makes it even harder to say “no”." ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/464 "2016-04-20T17:40:37Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. Good observations about religion when it is being bad! Nice post. And while I’m here. I’m pretty much in the “tired of the poor apologist” camp and the “well just HOW much help should they get and where do we draw the darn line?” But I’ll say letting poor people keep their cars doesn’t bother me. And I have to wonder when some folks say “take the bus” or even worse “take the subway”. In a good fraction of the US, “the bus” ranges from sucks to not even practical (or not even available). And the subway? What a laugh. Cause we all know how many subway lines dot the American landscape. ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/465 "2016-04-20T18:01:57Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > But I’ll say letting poor people keep their cars doesn’t bother me. And I have to wonder when some folks say “take the bus” or even worse “take the subway”. In a good fraction of the US, “the bus” ranges from sucks to not even practical (or not even available). And the subway? What a laugh. Cause we all know how many subway lines dot the American landscape. I’ll echo that. I was lucky to have decent bus service or walkable work locations when I was making shit wages. But I think I was in the minority. I a big fan of people working, and of people working hard. Even 70 hours per week if need be and if you can get the work. But I couldn’t have done that if I’d had to work two jobs with irregular schedules separated from each other and my home by 1-hour bus rides. ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/466 "2016-04-20T18:35:19Z")
Thanks for the help on the quotes. ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/467 "2016-04-20T18:38:47Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > **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. This sounds eerily similar to "Making people dependent on **the government** is not going to make them independent in anything. Attributing everything to **“Bad Luck”** can sap personal ambition, without which you’re not going to climb out of poverty. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/468 "2016-04-20T19:22:45Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This sounds eerily similar to "Making people dependent on **the government** is not going to make them independent in anything. Attributing everything to **“Bad Luck”** can sap personal ambition, without which you’re not going to climb out of poverty. Except the government is real and can act in the real world in a way that makes a difference in people’s lives. And if you think people in this thread are attributing all poverty to “bad luck” you’re not paying attention. ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/469 "2016-04-20T19:31:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Seems like a fair paraphrase. I disagree, but I can see how it could be construed that way. Thanks! > [@bump](#): > > …the following things upthread, which can be taken to say what **manson1972** is saying: And again, I think it’s a bit of a stretch and an oversimplification, but I I get how one might choose to interpret it that way. Also thanks! ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/470 "2016-04-20T19:32:22Z")
> [@PigArcher](#): > > Except the government is real and can act in the real world in a way that makes a difference in people’s lives. And if you think people in this thread are attributing all poverty to “bad luck” you’re not paying attention. And people believe that Jesus is real and can act in the real world in a way that makes a difference in people’s lives. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/471 "2016-04-20T19:42:10Z")
(double post) ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/472 "2016-04-20T19:51:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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” We removed those kids from their families because those families were making choices we disagreed with and we were certain we could inculcate better moral and civic values in the kids. The choices are different now, but basic idea is the same: those people don’t do things the way WE’D do things, so obviously the kids would be better with us. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. No, I don’t need such cites, because I’m well aware of them. That’s part of my point: orphanages and foster homes are not all that different in the sense that they both involve shuffling the kids off somewhere else: out of sight, out of mind, somebody else’s problem. (And non-Catholic institutions don’t really have a record much better–I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church isn’t running Russia’s orphanages, nor did they run the Dozier School for Boys in Florida or Haut de la Garenne in Jersey.) > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. The cite to which you link has some pretty obvious limitations. For starters, it’s based primarily on survey responses, rather than any systemic attempt to locate all of the alumni of those orphanages, and thereby has all of the limitations associated with who self-selects to respond to the survey and who doesn’t. Also, McKenzie excluded anybody who wasn’t available to respond to the surveys, which means alumni who died young or who ended up in prison or psych ward are underrepresented (and we don’t know how the percentage of alumni who died young compares to the general population). I don’t think you can draw any definitive results from his work. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. Maybe in your state; certainly [not in mine](http://kac.org/media/media/release-despite-contradictory-claims-latest-children-initiatives-fund-sweep-will-affect-current-and-future-grants-to-childrens-programs/). Per child, and after adjusting for inflation, yes, I think we spend less today on children in poverty than we did in the 1960s. For example, spending on children as a percentage of the federal budget fell by nearly a quarter between 1960 and 2011 ([cite](http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412600-Kids-Share--.PDF), see p. 6 of pdf), and the largest single items of federal expenditure are Medicaid (in line with the dramatic increase in health care costs in recent decades) and various tax credit programs, while programs such as nutrition, early childhood intervention, and youth training have not fared well over the past twenty years or so. (Also, while high school graduation rates are hotly debated, there’s not much evidence that such rates were substantially higher in the 1960s, and the current unemployment rate is pretty close to what it was in 1960 [5.5%], although there were [some years in the later 1960s](http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data) when it was a bit lower.) ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/473 "2016-04-20T20:22:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Mercedes are horribly unreliable cars by today’s standards. The repair and maintenance costs on a Mercedes is MUCH higher than average. But if you know how the car has been maintained, you are frequently better off than buying a pig in a poke. Hondas as a group are more reliable than Mercedes; any individual car, however, can be really good or really bad regardless of brand. (If you’ll recall, in the article she was driving her husband’s Mercedes because her Honda wouldn’t start.) > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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). The Mercedes in the article was seven or eight years old; I believe it was a C230 Kompressor. Similar 7-8 year old Mercedes routinely sell in my area in the $10-15K range, depending on precise model. Remember, that’s full retail price, so trading it in you’d probably get not much more than half that. No, you cannot buy a new Hyundai or Kia for that price. In fact, by the time you pay taxes and tags, you’re out that much for a six or eight-year-old vehicle on which the warranty is already gone. You traded a known good car for an unknown quantity, got little or no cash out of the deal, spent a good deal of time and effort, and for what? Also: even equal or “pretty damn close” is no bargain. Trading one $8K car for another $8K car is a wash. The only way selling the Mercedes and buying another vehicle makes sense is if you can sell the Mercedes for substantially **more** than its replacement costs, because that’s the only way to free up money. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Who said they needed to have a fire sale? > > You know there are places that will make reasonable cash offers on your car, right? Yes, and if those places know you need to sell, they are going to low-ball you, and most such places make their money by paying low prices in the first place. You get the most money by selling privately at your leisure, but to do that successfully you can’t be in a hurry. If you’ve gotta sell Right Now, that’s pretty much the definition of a fire sale. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/474 "2016-04-20T22:27:38Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > 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. My goal is to study Statistics. Yes, I am making improvements in my life. I may very well share them with this board. But I’m somewhat wary, because I’ve had some bad experiences in the past with jerks on the internet when I shared details about my life. Even though this board is mostly filled with good people, a couple bad apples can spoil the barrel. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/475 "2016-04-20T22:27:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **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? Mostly, I wanted to get back onto something resembling the topic instead of more talking about repairs on Mercedes. It was intended to start the conversation, not meant as a super declarative statement. As I noted at the end of the post, religion _can_ be a positive. That doesn’t mean it always it. If you want to argue the positive side I’m sure someone (me or someone else) will be happy to argue the opposite. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/476 "2016-04-20T22:34:11Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > 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? Paraphrasing what the judge said during the final appeal, if he did not have beyond a high school education she would have granted him disability because he clearly is unable to engage in physical labor but because he has a master’s level education he can work at a desk job and use a computer. Nevermind that he doesn’t have any relevant current skills and he has nerve damage in his hands, and various other problems. Then she suggested he get a job as a cashier (!) despite being unable to stand for prolonged periods and said problems with his hands. Basically, because he got higher education he’s not disabled enough to be on disability, even though she admitted he was, in fact, disabled. I am absolutely not going to say anything else about this because I get far, far too angry about the whole thing. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/477 "2016-04-20T22:44:38Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Sure, but even if the emergency strikes a year in, you have $100 to deal with it that you wouldn’t have otherwise had. That works until you hit the asset limit. IF you’re in a situation where going off whatever benefit you’re on is sustainable going forward then continuing to build up a reserve makes sense. If, however, you’re in a situation where if you go off benefits you’ll likely just be back on them in a month or two then it may not be the best course to keep funding that rainy day reserve. In which case you don’t want your assets to exceed the limit that cuts you off from the benefits you require to keep your current situation going as well as it is. Of course, there are more or less intelligent ways to spend money in that situation. You could, for example, “invest” in canned or nonperishable foods, stock up on dry goods like toilet paper, buy a sturdy pair of shoes, or purchase something you could pawn later if necessary. Or you could buy a case of beer, a fancy nail treatment, and a new tattoo. Clearly, some of those alternatives are more forward thinking than the others. Intelligent spending can leave you with both a rainy day fund and stock of material goods to help you through future days of impaired income. ---
**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, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/478 "2016-04-20T22:55:21Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This sounds eerily similar to "Making people dependent on **the government** is not going to make them independent in anything. Attributing everything to **“Bad Luck”** can sap personal ambition, without which you’re not going to climb out of poverty. Providing government programs is not inherently making people dependent on the government. For example, in my state you get 3 months of food stamps without strings attached, provided you meet the qualifications. After that, though, if you _don’t_ do certain things you will be cut off. What are those things? Either 1. work 3/4 to full time 2. be looking for work 30-40 hours a week (this will be enforced) 3. be a full-time student (must maintain B average) 4. full time caretaker of a child under school age All of which are NOT sitting on your ass all day but doing things a responsible adult should be doing. All of which have to be documented. It promotes activities that are likely to lead an improved situation and eventual NON-dependence. That’s a good government strategy, as are some of the more targeted programs aiming to get people more of the “temporary poor” category back to work. You have to be quite the anarchist/libertarian to be against such things. Likewise, to the extent religion promotes education, hard work, clean living, social networks, and so forth it is a good thing. That doesn’t mean any religion at all is an inherent good, some groups are toxic in my opinion. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/479 "2016-04-20T23:00:55Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’m thinking it was either **Monstro** or **Broomstick** that said the following things upthread, which can be taken to say what **manson1972** is saying: The thing is, **manson1972** took it as an absolute statement when it was only intended to refer to a subset of the overall group. Which is hardly the first time \*\*manson \*\*has done that sort of thing. ---
**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 21, 2016, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/480 "2016-04-21T01:21:30Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > 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. It’s not up to me to show that broomstick is incorrect. She made the claim, and she needs to back it up, at least in Great Debates. Here’s her quote: > [@](#): > > Especially in the US where taxes are significantly lower than many other nations. I guess it’s technically true, if by “many other nations”, she meant Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Albania, Macedonia, et. al. Amongst our peers, we have some of the highest tax rates, personal, payroll, and corporate. Let’s not compare apples and oranges. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=25)