<p>middsmith, this article isn't funny, you're not funny. Why don't you walk a mile in their shoes before decrying them a fake "sob story"? As NSM already pointed out, poorer people have less access to healthy food.</p>
<p>^^ this article IS funny. I walked a mile in their shoes or rather my shoes and that's why my BMI isn't 35. Less access to healthy food doesn't mean you stuff your mouth with ice cream, either.</p>
<p>No. It isn't. Do you have any overweight female relatives or any overweight females that you hold great respect for in your life? I bet you do, and I say this as an underweight male. I'm sure you wouldn't say "they should get their tubes tied" to those women you respect or are in your family. You don't know if the women in the article eat ice cream 24/7, in fact you don't know much about them other than what was written in this small article. You don't know if they have a disease that's unpreventable that causes them to be overweight, such as ovarian cysts. Also, what does being poor have anything to do with their fitness to reproduce? I hope you were kidding about the Social Darwinism bit in regards to poor people, that belief is off-putting and quite frankly repulsive to most people.</p>
<p>^^ I do not have any overweight female relatives. Being overweight is not the problem. These people refuse to work and wait for handouts. They are totally different. I wouldn't respect anyone who lacks work ethic, and the situation wouldn't apply to me or my family. Did you read the article? They are considering having another kid to get an extra 100 bucks/month. The kid will grow up just like their elders. Our family is probably as poor as these people after tax, but we choose to work. They don't.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between refusing to work and not being able to work. No reliable transportation+few jobs available=very low chance of getting a job. Virtuoso lives in Ohio and he too has underscored the dire economic status present in Ohio in the article. You might say that Gloria is refusing to work, but until you've been disabled and depressed don't come around saying Gloria is lazy and has no work ethic. Her daughter however, has held several jobs but it is very difficult for her to find a job. Coupled with no transportation and high gas prices she may be losing money to even look for a job. They were <em>not</em> considering having another kid to get an extra $100/ month-
**"A lot of people have told me, 'Why don't your daughter have a kid?'"</p>
<p>They both reject that as a plan. **</p>
<p>Also, you have no idea if they decided to have a kid (which is well within their human rights) if the kid will grow up just like their elders and you don't even know what kind of people the elders are. Just because they may look like people you know who are lazy and waiting for handouts doesn't mean they are. I also highly doubt they make as much as your family after taxes-you have a computer and internet access. I highly doubt they do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nunez, 40, has never worked and has no high school degree. She says a car accident 17 years ago left her depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job.
[/quote]
Before the car accident, she had 5 years to get a GED, but didn't. laziness ran way before the accident.<br>
My EFC is 0. My computer costed less than 300, courtesy of black friday. I'd bet they have a cell phone, internet and cable as well.
[quote=Cervantes] You might say that Gloria is refusing to work, but until you've been disabled and depressed
Everyone is depressed. Monday blues for all those who work for a living. That didn't stop them from coming to work. You know what caused Gloria to be disabled and depressed? ice cream.<br>
They get $739/month each. Making that 18k/year, which is roughly 25k before tax. I can't believe there are people who make excuses for these people?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Before the car accident, she had 5 years to get a GED, but didn't. laziness ran way before the accident.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough, she should have gotten her GED. However, don't blame it on laziness. You don't know what prevented her from getting a GED, my guess is she became pregnant with her daughter and as it was mentioned earlier she was already living middle class so she probably didn't see the need for one.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
My EFC is 0. My computer costed less than 300, courtesy of black friday. I'd bet they have a cell phone, internet and cable as well.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I bet theirs would be 0 too. In fact, I'm almost positive it would be. Last time I checked, people who can barely afford groceries do not get a cell phone, internet and cable. It's simple, no reasonable human would starve for the internet or a cool cell phone.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Everyone is depressed. Monday blues for all those who work for a living. That didn't stop them from coming to work. You know what caused Gloria to be disabled and depressed? ice cream.
They get $739/month each. Making that 18k/year, which is roughly 25k before tax. I can't believe there are people who make excuses for these people?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I can't believe there are intelligent people who look at this unfortunate situation with derision? Depression is a medical condition, it is real. It is beyond not wanting to go to work on Monday. It is something that will very likely make you gain weight. It is something that will make you incapable of doing a good day's work. It is something that requires medical treatment. It's not in someone's head and it is not caused by ice cream. If you met a 'real' depressed person you'd understand that depression is not something to be treated with lightly. I'm not making excuses for these people. When you use the word 'excuses' it sounds like the behavior is not justified. While I'm not saying they lived their lives perfectly, they appear to be reasonable people who want a better life and are trying what is reasonably possible to do it, however there are very few options to do so.</p>
<p>Has anyone read the fantastic book, Nickel and Dimed? Barbara Ehrenreich attempted to live on the wages earned by waitresses, nursing home workers, etc and wrote all about it.</p>
<p>My question is why is 60% of the U.S. wealth in the hands of so few in our so-called democracy, while the rest of us are told to practice economy with the 40% we have to share among ourselves? And don't forget the tax breaks for the uber-wealthy, as well. Something is quite wrong with the way money is distributed in our society. And I really don't want to hear that the extremely wealthy 'earned' it. I don't believe it. I don't mind 20% of the wealth being held by that small percentage, it's going to happen, but I do resent 60%. And then the rest of us turn on each other to get as much as we can of the 40% that is our lot.<br>
People need to look at the big financial picture of what is going on in the U.S.</p>
<p>"People need to look at the big financial picture of what is going on in the U.S."</p>
<p>It's just capitalism. And this is not pure capitalism, either, so it could be worse. If you want an equal (financially) society, you have to live in socialism or - gasp - communism.</p>
<p>
Here's some good read for those who have a socialism mindset.
[quote]
Why should we give tax cuts to the wealthy?</p>
<p>Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out to dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:</p>
<p>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.</p>
<p>So that's what they decided to do.</p>
<p>The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner threw them a curve.</p>
<p>"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."</p>
<p>So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.</p>
<p>The first four men were unaffected; they would still eat for free. But what about the other six? How could they divide up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?</p>
<p>The six men realized that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's bill, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.</p>
<p>The restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.</p>
<p>And so:</p>
<p>The fifth man, like the first four, now paid $0 (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $15 instead of $18 (17% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).</p>
<p>Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.</p>
<p>"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10."</p>
<p>"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me."</p>
<p>"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"</p>
<p>"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."</p>
<p>The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.</p>
<p>The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among them to pay even half the bill.</p>
<p>And that, boys and girls, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
I've seen mothers who brought their kids to the computer lab at Berkeley, laid them down on a comforter, put them to sleep, and then proceeded to working on their CS projects all night. Having a kid is no excuse to sit at home and wait for handouts. Why are you making excuses for lazy bums?<br>
A cool cell phone can be free or even with money rebate. A family plan would make the cell phone cost very cheap. Last time I check, all the low to super low income students at my school, Nunez or Chen or Sitting Bull, all have computer and internet access at home.<br>
Depressed at 18? Mama Nunez didn't get depressed until after she started eating. Recently I read a story in this forum about a young Toyota engineer who died from overworking. Senor Nunez worked for GM for 45 years. Judging from his daughter, guess which company instill more "drive" into their people, and cars for that matter.</p>
<p>We have more than eneogh mass transit in this country. If you live in a place without public transportation, then you live in a area which is not meant for you economic level, thus the reason for no pubic transportation. Move to a inner city, they have lots of transportation. Thats where me and my family live, we don't own a car or anything obscene like it. My family has never owned a car. So the poor people who took loans to live in suburbia, maybe its time to live within your means.</p>
<p>middsmith, when i was 17 I started having check pains as if I was having a heart attack. I went to many doctors and eventually I was diagnosed with anxiety and due to the constant fear of impending doom I got pretty down. So its defiantly possible.</p>
<p>^^ I'm not Tom Cruise. I do believe there are people with real depression and they need to be on meds. I just do not believe this woman has a real depression. Cervantes accused me of hating the poor, the fat, and the depressed. None of which is true.</p>
<p>"We have more than eneogh mass transit in this country. If you live in a place without public transportation, then you live in a area which is not meant for you economic level, thus the reason for no pubic transportation. "</p>
<p>What you describe may be true of where you live, but definitely is not true of most of the country. Your post reflects your lack of knowledge about most of the country.</p>
<p>For example, I lived in the Detroit area. There was awful public transportation including in Detroit, which is a poor city. Many city residents couldn't work because they lacked transportation to get to jobs. Many of the jobs were in the suburbs, too expensive for poor people to live in, too difficult for them to reach without transportation.</p>
<p>In D.C., the last part of the city to get the subway (the best public transportation) was Anacostia, the poorest segment of the city, which got the metro years after other parts (including wealthy parts) got it.</p>
<p>I live in a small city that has horrible public transportation including in the poor areas. I grew up in a smaller city that also had awful public transportation including in poor areas.</p>
<p>Middsmith, awesome quote about the taxes. Where is that from??</p>
<p>VeryHappy, I don't remember, I was reading on a financial forum and I thought it was neat so I emailed it to myself. Can't give proper credit to whowever wrote it.</p>
<p>I never accused you of hating the poor, depressed, and fat. I just said that you are being cruelly harsh on this woman whom you have not even met and making jokes about her weight and denying her depression. Both of which you did which is unbecoming of a thoughtful human being. All you know about her is from this article, nothing more.</p>
<p>Northstarmom</p>
<p>I call BS. lets look at this map of Public transportation in Detroit. That looks like pretty darn good coverage. I see all of the inner city and major urban areas being supplied with proper transportation.</p>
<p>I have lived in dear born before, for about 2 years and I can attest the transportation in Detroit is comparable to that in NYC. I am sorry if the bus doesn't stop at your front door, but the most I can count is a 3-5 block walk to the nearest bus. I have to walk 8 blocks to the nearest bus and 10 to the nearest train in NYC, they can manage.</p>
<p>you say you live there, I highly doubt that, the map says it all. Maybe your situation was true 20-30 years go.</p>
<p>As for DC, I find the same to be true. While yes, the rail does not go to everybody front yard, I cant find a place on the map that a Bus is not accesible and uif there is a accesible bus, you can get to the subway and into Central D.C.<br>
<a href="http://www.wmata.com/metrobus/maps/dc.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.wmata.com/metrobus/maps/dc.pdf</a></p>
<p>On both maps, the areas which do not have the highest density of transportation also are not the most densely urban.</p>
<p>So as I said before, people choose to live in the outskirts of a city, instead of populating urban areas. They chose it and they need to deal with it.</p>
<p>Why do you live in a small city, you decided to live in a area not as urban for reasons such as security. You weighed the options, and decided against a highly urban area. if you think in a small city you deserve the same entitlements as millions in a bigger your crazy.</p>
<p>Move into the inner city.</p>
<p>Well, the reality with public transportation is this: Once you get out from the larger cities, maybe 30 miles, there is NO public transportation. My town is accessible ONLY by private car. There are no bus stops, train stops, subway lines, streetcars, taxis, or commercial airports. That's not really a problem for most of the people that live here, since they all have cars. But there are some people who can't afford cars. Those people must find rides to work. Since the area is sparsely populated, it's normal to have a job that is ten miles from home. By car, that's no problem, since that commute would take maybe fifteen minutes. But no one could walk that twice a day, every day.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don't see why the government (or private companies, for that matter) can't slap up a few bus stops and train stations. They're environmentally friendly, and a solution to congestion. It's not a government bailout of a whiny populace.</p>
<p>The other problem is that it is very expensive to live in the inner city. Home prices in cities are double (and in some cases, many times) the prices of similar homes in rural towns. In my county, $100,000 will buy you a rather nice house. It might be old, but it would be in good condition for that price. Apartment rent is typically $400-500 per month, though apartments aren't all that popular. But that only happens because wages are low. An average job might pay $30,000 per year. For those people to just move to cities is a financial miracle, given the inflation of city life.</p>
<p>"I call BS. lets look at this map of Public transportation in Detroit. That looks like pretty darn good coverage. I see all of the inner city and major urban areas being supplied with proper transportation."</p>
<p>You can't tell by looking at a map how inadequate Detroit's mass transit system is. The Detroit News in 2003 did a series on the area's substandard mass transit. Unfortunately, the entire series is no longer posted on-line, but you can tell the gist from what's left including: " 100,000 Metro Detroiters rely on The Detroit Department of Transportation buses daily. Buses that often arrive late, early, dirty, broken, or not at all. It's no surprise that experts consider Detroit's mass-transit system one the most inadequate in the nation.... Bus routes don't service many job-rich suburbs. "</p>
<p>As poor as Detroit is and as bad is Detroit's mayor, trust me that the mass transit situation hasn't greatly improved since the Detroit News' series.
Special</a> Report ----- Mass transit misery - 5/6/03</p>
<p>"I can attest the transportation in Detroit is comparable to that in NYC."</p>
<p>LOL! NYC has busses, subways, rapid rail. It has a very fast and efficient system. Detroit doesn't have rapid rail (unless you count that stupid monorail that goes just for a few blocks in the mostly dead downtown) and has no subway. Its bus system is not at all comparable to New York's.</p>
<p>"As for DC, I find the same to be true."</p>
<p>I agree D.C. has an excellent public transportation system -- now. However, when the subway started, it was put first in the more well off areas. Anacostia -- the poorest and most distant sections of D.C. got Metro years after much of the rest of the city got it.</p>