22 January 2007

How Do YOU Spell "Relief"?

There are those who have quietly redefined what poverty "relief" is SUPPOSED to mean (not what it actually means) while the rest of us were out working our tails off. And if that alone were the Alpha & Omega to ONLY help those that NEED assistance, all would be well and good. But sadly, it is not. After posting at AWB's blog, I had to expound on my personal take on this.

Websters defines POVERTY as:

a) The state of one who lacks a USUAL or SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE amount of money or "material possessions".
b) renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property
c) scarcity, dearth
d) debility due to malnutrition.
e) lack of fertility (of the soil)

synonyms: indigence, penury, want, destitution

Poverty may range from extreme want of necessitites to an absence of "material comforts".

Indigence implies seriously straitened circumstances. (like a neighborhood changing for the worse).

Penury suggests cramping or oppressive lack of money. (like Ft. Wayne TAXPAYERS)

Destitution implies extreme poverty that threatens life itself through starvation or exposure.(How many playaz fit that bill?)

Now surely we DO have those people who honestly CAN be placed somewhere within the definitions above. But if we carefully examine what the synonyms further tell us, you will see many people that are not in any danger of a cessation of life, but rather are seeking to garner more for themselves (material comforts). Surely, we're not talking about the staples of life here. If MY idea of a "socially-acceptable" amount of money is...say, a MILLION BUCKS...well, I don't have that much, so I MUST be in "poverty". I also don't have a huge honking plasma TV with surround sound on my wall, OR a LEXUS in the garage, so since my "material possessions" don't come up to speed, I MUST be in "poverty". See how easy it is to mistakenly convince onself (and the government) of a false perception?

As I commented at AWB's, the lines that define poverty are rapidly becoming blurred. It would appear that many circumstances that would have not been labelled under "poverty" in the past are now part of that lexicon. And they are there erroneously.

For example...when I see a mother with FOUR kids (by three fathers), with no visable means of support (as in she never goes to a job, and no job is coming to her door), being able to RENT a house (not an apartment) AS WELL AS have a NEW (or almost new) car or SUV (and the obvious fuel costs and insurance that accompany it), with that 60 inch big-screen TV, THAT is NOT poverty, by ANY stretch of ANY imagination. So what if the kids sleep on mattresses on the floor, and the windows have bedsheets instead of curtains? It's NOT poverty. And anyone that believes otherwise is either a fool or a liberal (maybe both?)...
This same woman (with those four kids) that has the random "man of the week" stopping by with his cadre of notable flotsam is (somehow) manging to keep her head ABOVE water, while flying UNDER the radar (being able to tap any and all services designed to help the NEEDY). She doesn't seem TOO NEEDY from where I stand. In fact, she's doing better (with no job) than many people are doing WITH a damn job (and that goes for healthcare workers and educators....people with COLLEGE degrees). How the hell can this be?

As I say, the definition of poverty has now (apparently) come to include those that have NO DESIRE to do anything with their lives (we call that being L-A-Z-Y). And someone must think that's OK because they keep getting food stamps, free school meals,welfare checks,HUD housing monies, and whatever else really needy people deserve. Many families have become multi-generational recipients of this "system playing", and have no qualms about fostering it to their future progeny. Talk about "reparations". How can so many people have the funds (with no job) to purchase drugs, guns, booze and new vehicles, while dodging taxes (and civic responsibility)? Why should decent working people have to keep paying for programs that are not helping those honestly "in need", but rather these minions of mayhem instead?

Something is dreadfully WRONG with that picture.

When people with more resources tap the taxpayers to fund their lifestyle by fraudulently playing the system like a cheap-ass violin...something's wrong. When truly needy people get less and less because more and more is going to those that already have (and want STILL more)...something's wrong.

The median income is somewhere between $35K-$45K (give or take a thousand), so in fact, that alone would place MANY of us WELL into this "realm of poverty" the way it is currently realized. Hell, my wife, a HS teacher could be a borderline case, but let her go and try to apply for any "assistance"...she makes too much (probably the wrong ethnicity and NOT pregnant).

The entire poverty issue needs a drastic OVERHAULIN', and if it winds up pissing off some people out of their current "E" ticket ride on the government Gravy-Train...oh, well...get off your lazy ass and get working, dirtbags! All these "support systems" that are currently in place need to be looked at long and hard. We have jobs out there, and we have schooling avaliable...for those WILLING to get off their butts and make a serious go of it. You can't learn by OSMOSIS, and you shouldn't be able to have the "good life" by sucking goverment programs (and the taxpayers) dry as the Sahara. Anything worth having is worth getting...and holding onto. The best way is to EARN it....it's more appreciated that way.

Today, poverty has come to mean "something for nothing". To sit back, do nothing but rake in all these material possessions and STILL cry "poverty" though makes the argument for the way the word itself (poverty) has been bastardized to fit the "times"...that has to change, for everyone's sake. You want poverty...go to Appalachia country....or Sudan. THAT is poverty, and NOT what a lot of people "perceive" it to be here (i.e. not having that Lexus).
But don't let me hear someone cry "POVERTY" where none is present. Put down the Crunch N Munch and orange drink, get off your lazy ass and become a PRODUCTIVE member of the community AND society....

It's high time we stop redefining words....It's costing us too much money & too much of our future!

2 comments:

Tim Zank said...

Back in the stone age, when I was a kid, if you were poor or impoverished it meant for supper you had potato soup or maybe macaroni & cheese. Today if you are impoverished or poor it just means you don't "biggie-size" at the drive-thru on your way to the mall to get $100 gym shoes.

Bob G. said...

That's right Tim....you "know the drill"....

My Mom would make some huge pot of some "ground meat stew/soup/goulash"...whatever...and the leftovers lasted most of the week....lol!
(and we were GLAD to have it)
And back in my day, we WENT HOME for LUNCH (from school) - no freebies" there!

Maybe that's why I'm so "jaded" and get the "skeeves" whenever I keep hearing the poverty card being played when it's not even going to the right people in the first damn place.

But being forcibly (snd slowly) impoverished by our city and state government, what do I know anyway?

LMAO!

B.G.