<p>I guess that settles it. We now have PROOF that the poor are responsible for the economy. The logic is pretty simple:</p>
<p>(A) If all the poor were 1-percenters then obviously the economy would be doing great. So if the economy isn’t doing great, it’s the poor who are at fault … not carrying their weight so to speak.
(B) If the economy is actually doing well, then obviously the poor ARE doing their part … so they are (at least partially) responsible for a good economy too.</p>
<p>There is charity and generosity of action and there is charity and generosity of thought. I am about to be very uncharitable and ungenerous. And very mean. My bad.</p>
<p>I have huge problems with a church providing charity while judging the recipients uncharitably.</p>
<p>If we had government programs ensuring all had the basics, some of these church people could maybe be on the official payroll to decide who deserves what. Since they have spent so much time thinking about this already.</p>
<p>Some are going to respond to the land rover like dstark and think there is an explanation or maybe even think it would be in poor taste to even notice it!</p>
<p>Yuck to that post
I would prefer churches not take care of “the poor” and instead we all support the government doing what should be its job. imo</p>
<p>Never thought Uggs would be the definer of poor people :)</p>
<p>Seriously, paying the cost for ANY overpriced luxury, when you can’t afford to put a tube steak on your dinner table, is ridiculous…priorities people, priorities…And i don’t care if the Range rover is leased or paid for, driving it to the local food bank is ridiculous…priorities…more important to have the perceived luxury then providing for your family,though they are providing for their families,from the food bank…</p>
<p>Alh, the problem,albeit minor, is that if the government is doing as you suggest, the costs are increased…A church or food bank is usually staffed by volunteers, when the government is involved, we have layers of employees and associated costs…</p>
<p>The government not too long ago had a mandate to get everyone in a house,and that didn’t work out to well…</p>
<p>Back to the original topic, the economy is getting better here in burbs of Philly, and we’ve been fortunate(to this point in time) to only see our home value get whacked…salaries and such have not been affected</p>
<p>
Maybe for you but can you speak for the rest of the 1%ers? I can vouch to you that I know several people became 1%ers in the last 10 years.</p>
<p><a href=“http://bible.cc/matthew/6-3.htm[/url]”>http://bible.cc/matthew/6-3.htm</a></p>
<p>I hope I am never so poor I have to depend on the charity of your church.</p>
<p>As for the economy, I don’t think it’s getting better but I don’t think it’s getting worse. I think it’s stabilizing. Both of my kids are getting jobs that pay more than minimum wages. But a lot of their friends have no spendign money and their parents are just holding on, even those family with double income and with reasonably good jobs like dentist/doctor/professor.</p>
<p>"I think I’ve heard just about enough about 1%ers being “job creators” when I have personal, firsthand experience that it just isn’t so. And lowering taxes on them - speaking from firsthand experience - won’t create a single job. Not one. The government creates jobs; the private sector ships them abroad.</p>
<p>And I am also tired of hearing about how 1%ers “earned it”. I have firsthand experience that this simple isn’t true.</p>
<p>Whatever. I don’t have problems with people keeping their ill-gotten gains, whether they “earned them” or not."</p>
<p>What incredibly arrogant generalizations those are. Do you have first hand experience with all the millions of people that are the 1%ers so you can make those generalizations? Or is your first hand experience just the fact that your mother, with her large bank account, isn’t creating jobs?</p>
<p>Do you count the large number of the 1%ers that are small business owners as those that aren’t job creators? That the large number of doctors in that category, with their huge medical school debt/decades of training and experience/high malpractice insurance payments as those with “ill gotten gains?”</p>
<p>Or are you only focusing your resentment upon your mothers unearned money, those few in the slippery financial industry, and generalizing it to millions? That seems like nothing but jealousy, or a poorly thought out post.</p>
<p>"I have huge problems with a church providing charity while judging the recipients uncharitably.</p>
<p>If we had government programs ensuring all had the basics, some of these church people could maybe be on the official payroll to decide who deserves what. Since they have spent so much time thinking about this already."</p>
<p>I’m not a big supporter of religion at all. But if someone is concerned about converting me to their religion to save my soul, I think that is very kind, not uncharitable. Won’t do any good, but I can’t imagine being offended.</p>
<p>Our government does provide a huge social safety net. Food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, medicare and medicaid, social security…it goes on and on. Churches fill in many of the gaps locally. Do you think we should ban church based aid, and instead force people to give more money to the government? Do you actually think it is more efficient and cost effective to give money to centralized national government, to pass down through their massive machine to churches as the arm of the government, in paid positions? As opposed to local churches, getting donations from local people who spend endless hours volunteering for free to help others? I wonder what percentage would actually make it to those in need, in a huge centralized government based program, as opposed to the close to 100% that makes it there through church volunteers. Or maybe we could force people to volunteer, and tax them more.</p>
<h1>161 - Like!</h1>
<p>thanks for the links</p>
<p>I am not a fan of landrovers by any means, but sometimes people have bought and paid for vehicles, and can still need food aid! Would you sell your vehicle if you know you needed it to get to work?</p>
<p>^ Wow. Truly a brilliant “response.” </p>
<p>Got to it, Mini. Go accumulate some serious money in your own right and then give it away and then get back to us. In the mean time, try to resolve your feeling toward your mom’s money.</p>
<p>sewhappy: Are you familiar with Mini’s India thread?</p>
<p>Are you going to respond to my responses to you?</p>
<p>:(</p>
<p>Yes. Oh yes.</p>
<p>Bottom line:
Today’s headlines may be filled with examples of too many (ANY is too many) who have ill-gotten gains, including many politicians of both parties, but, really mini, I promise you that there are MANY in the 1%, in the the 25% and so forth, who have earned their money honestly and with hard work, some luck, and who also have even SAVED it, donated a bunch to charity, supported relatives, what not. And, without them, the economy would have disappeared into nothingness, including the taxes needed to support the social welfare, the re-distribution, whatever one chooses to call it.
Generalizations like that do not reflect well on the generalizers. And they are poor economics.</p>
<p>This is to say that such a small number of people accumulating so much wealth when so many others are struggling does not mean the wealth ALWAYS comes at the EXPENSE of the others.</p>
<p>And it is not to say that a system with such imbalances is wise and healthy for the country. (To wit: class warfare in one direction is now considered ok.)</p>
<p>But it is stereotyping and reverse snobbism to assume such things about ALL “those” people.</p>
<p>Anyway, all these anti-rich posts are a bit far-flung form the original purpose of the thread: to report different people’s experiences of how strong or weak the economy is.</p>
<p>And, mini, another little quibble about your mother not being a job-creator.
Yes, you are correct that she is not exactly stimulating a lot of growth or employment with her level of spending, BUT you must realize that it is a great thing for the economy that she is SOLVENT, INDEPENDENT and SELF-SUFFICIENT.
Those who depend on social welfare and government assistance are much more of a drain on the system. (I am not maligning them, just explaining the economics.) </p>
<p>What I will say is this:
Spending at this time is GOOD for the economy, as long as it is responsible (not draining savings, in line with a predictable income, not based on credit). Without spending, we will never get anywhere.</p>
<p>Currently, since this is a time of great economic uncertainty and high risk/unpredictability, what I am seeing is that the corps that are doing well or ok are not hiring or giving raises to the rank and file, investing in new products or expanding as much as they are hoarding their cash or spending their cash reserves on acquisitions, stock buy-backs, and raises/bonuses for the hoi-polloi. To me this is not stimulatory for the economy.</p>
<p>[The</a> most shoplifted items of the season | Fashion - Yahoo! Shine](<a href=“The most shoplifted items of the season”>The most shoplifted items of the season)
I have no idea how accurate the above article is, but it does state that shop-lifting is at record levels, and that the number one item stolen is food.
This could be a sign of greater need in a weak economy, and/or that budgets for security are down.</p>
<p>Alh…I am glad you liked the links. :)</p>
<p>“Anyway, all these anti-rich posts are a bit far-flung form the original purpose of the thread: to report different people’s experiences of how strong or weak the economy is.”</p>
<p>Since no one took the bait in my post #167, I guess I’ll address the connection between “how is the economy?” and “who’s answering the question?” here. If you’re one of the 3 million unemployed construction workers, the economy couldn’t be worse. But if you’re in oil exploration, things could hardly look better. Same economy … bad for some, good for others. Twenty years experience at John Deere makes you a valued employee. Twenty years experience at Enron makes you unemployed.</p>
<p>What makes many unfortunates myopic about “sins of the 1% (be those sins real or imagined)” is the perception that the rich are out for themselves … and only themselves. This isn’t true of course. But there are enough Leona Helmsley types (of “only the little people pay taxes” fame) who took great joy in stiffing the workmen who renovated her Connecticut mansion.</p>
<p>None of this is new of course. Who would remember Marie Antoinette if frenchmen had enough bread to eat during her husband’s reign?</p>
<p>all the millions of people that are the 1%ers </p>
<hr>
<p>Not possible. Just saying …</p>
<p>As for judging people by what they “have,” unless you know how they “got” it, how on earth can you assume they bought it themselves? Even Uggs can be donated or gifted. A couple years ago, my coworkers & I adopted a family for Christmas. The family did not request anything other than warm clothing. Not only did we get warm clothing, but we bought some things that were not “necesseties.” If some judgmental folks were to assume that family did not deserve the food at a food pantry based on our gifts (like the iPod my coworker donated, because he won it & already had one), how unfair … and WRONG. Oh, well … guess we made up for it last year when we decided to give the gift of shoes. Yes, shoes. We worked in Detroit, and we asked a local elementary if we could provide shoes for kids who did not have shoes that fit. They provided ONE HUNDRED names — we expected maybe 25-30. We put the word out at work and collected all 100. Fortunately, our coworkers were well aware that poverty absolutely does exist in the U.S. No jobs within walking distance, no money for a car, no reliable public transportation, no ability to move elsewhere, an exceedingly substandard school system, a local government robbing its own constituents blind, etc … </p>
<p>While there may be people who are finding their local economy is fine & getting better, there really are many areas that are getting worse & worse.</p>