"Compassion" pays well : Phony viral essay on being poor, gets $62,000 for well-off liberal activist blogger

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Compassion" pays well : Phony viral essay on being poor, gets $62,000 for well-off liberal activist blogger

    The HuffPost swallowed it, and millions read it. Typical entitled parental-supported progressive, made $60,000 by lying and pretending to be poor...

    You may have seen the recent essay, “Why I Make Terrible Decisions, or, poverty thoughts” by Linda Tirado.

    Under the pseudonym “killermartinis,” the author, a mother, penned what she described as her massive struggle with not being able to make ends meet:

    I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don’t pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It’s not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn’t that I blow five bucks at Wendy’s. It’s that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be.

    She described her plight as a cycle from which she cannot escape, almost as if it’s part of her DNA:

    You have to understand that we know that we will never not feel tired. We will never feel hopeful. We will never get a vacation. Ever. We know that the very act of being poor guarantees that we will never not be poor. It doesn’t give us much reason to improve ourselves. We don’t apply for jobs because we know we can’t afford to look nice enough to hold them. I would make a super legal secretary, but I’ve been turned down more than once because I “don’t fit the image of the firm,” which is a nice way of saying “gtfo, pov.” I am good enough to cook the food, hidden away in the kitchen, but my boss won’t make me a server because I don’t “fit the corporate image.”

    The Huffington Post ran Tirados’s essay and things exploded. Scads of page views, an interview on “HuffPost Live,” and cash — lots of it. Tirado started a gofundme page and raised more than $62,000.

    So the report that her story appears to be a , um, bit exaggerated just might raise the ire of at least a few of her new financial backers.

    Angelica Leicht of the Houston Press learned, among other things, that Tirado is a Democratic activist who went to private school and speaks Dutch and German:

    The real Linda owns a home, thanks to some pretty generous parents. Her LinkedIn profile states she’s been a freelance writer and political consultant since 2010, and has worked in politics since 2004, a claim backed by 27 decent connections.

    She’s married to a Marine, has met President Obama while interning for a politician (who obviously wasn’t disgusted by those rotten teeth), and has plenty of time to visit Las Vegas on vacation. And blog about her privileged life on Wordpress.

    She speaks both German and Dutch, and has a well-rounded political blog that ended in 2011. It’s also a blog where she quite plainly references being paid to win races.

    National Review Online noticed that Tirado offered a clarification on the matter “tucked within her gofundme page” (bold added):

    And that is the answer to the question many of you have asked. How is it that someone with such clarity and evocation has any right to assert that they are poor? It is likely untrue. Well, it is and it isn’t. You have to understand that the piece you read was taken out of context, that I never meant to say that all of these things were happening to me right now, or that I was still quite so abject. I am not. I am reasonably normally lower working class. I am exhausted and poor and can’t make all my bills all the time but I reconciled with my parents when I got pregnant for the sake of the kids and I have family resources. I can always make the amount of money I need in a month, it’s just that it doesn’t always match the billing cycles.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/04/author-of-viral-poverty-essay-apparently-isnt-as-poor-as-she-led-readers-to-believe/

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

     

    20 Things the Poor Do Everyday That the Rich Never Have to Worry About Just staying alive is a struggle. December 5, 2013  |    

     

    This post first appeared on Ben Irwin's blog. 

    Financial advisor and evangelical Christian Dave Ramsey probably wasn’t expecting this much pushback when he shared a piece contrasting the habits of the rich with those of the poor. In her response on CNNRachel Held Evans noted that Ramsey and Corley mistake correlation for causality when they suggest (without actually proving) that these habits are the cause of a person’s financial situation. (Did it never occur to them that it might be the other way around?)

    Ramsey fired back, calling the pushback “immature and ignorant.” This from a guy who just made 20 sweeping assertions about 47 million poor people in the US — all based on a survey of 361 individuals.

    That’s right. To come up with his 20 habits, Corley talked to just 233 wealthy people and 128 poor people. Ramsey can talk all he wants about Corley’s research passing the “common-sense smell test,” but it doesn’t pass the “research methodology 101” test.

    To balance the picture a bit, I wanted to take a fact-based look at 20 things the poor do on a daily basis…

    1. Search for affordable housing. 
    Especially in urban areas, the waiting list for affordable housing can be a year or more. During that time, poor families either have to make do with substandard or dangerous housing, depend on the hospitality of relatives, or go homeless.
    (Source: New York Times)

    2. Try to make $133 worth of food last a whole month. 
    That’s how much the average food stamp recipient gets each month. Imagine trying to eat well on $4.38 per day. It’s not easy, which is why many impoverished families resort to #3…
    (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation)

    3. Subsist on poor quality food. 
    Not because they want to, but because they can’t afford high-quality, nutritious food. They’re trapped in a food system that subsidizes processed foods, making them artificially cheaper than natural food sources. So the poor are forced to eat bad food — if they’re lucky, that is…
    (Sources: Washington Post; Journal of Nutrition, March 2008)

    4. Skip a meal.
    One in six Americans are food insecure. Which means (among other things) that they’re sometimes forced to go without eating.
    (Sources: World Vision, US Department of Agriculture)

    5. Work longer and harder than most of us.
    While it’s popular to think people are poor because they’re lazy (which seems to be the whole point of Ramsey’s post), the poor actually work longer and harder than the rest of us. More than 80 percent of impoverished children have at least one parent who works; 60 percent have at least one parent who works full-time. Overall, the poor work longer hours than the so-called “job creators.”
    (Source: Poverty and Learning, April 2008)

    6. Go to bed 3 hours before their first job starts. 
    Number 15 on Ramsey and Corley’s list was, “44% of [the] wealthy wake up three hours before work starts vs. 3% of [the] poor.” It may be true that most poor people don’t wake up three hours before work starts. But that could be because they’re more likely to work multiple jobs, in which case job #1 means they’re probably just getting to bed three hours before job #2 starts.
    (Source: Poverty and Learning, April 2008)

    7. Try to avoid getting beat up by someone they love. 
    According to some estimates, half of all homeless women in America ran away to escape domestic violence.
    (Source: National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009)

    8. Put themselves in harm’s way, only to be kicked to the streets afterward. 
    How else do you explain 67,000 63,000 homeless veterans?
    (Source: US Department of Veterans Affairs, updated to reflect the most recent data)

    9. Pay more than their fair share of taxes. 
    Some conservative pundits and politicians like to think the poor don’t pay their fair share, that they are merely “takers.” While it’s true the poor don’t pay as much in federal income tax — usually because they don’t earn enough to qualify — they do pay sales tax, payroll tax, etc. In fact, the bottom 20% of earners pay TWICE as much in taxes (as a share of their income) as do the top 1%.
    (Source: Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, January 2013)

    10. Fall further behind. 
    Even when poverty is the result of poor decision-making, often it’s someone else’s choices that make the difference. If you experience poverty as a child, you are 3-4 times less likely to graduate high school. If you spend your entire childhood in poverty, you are 5 times less likely to graduate. Which means your future has been all but decided for you.
    (Sources: World Vision, Children’s Defense Fund, Annie E. Casey Foundation)

    11. Raise kids who will be poor. 
    A child’s future earnings are closely correlated to their parents’ earnings. In other words, economic mobility — the idea that you can claw your way out of poverty if you just try hard enough is, more often than not, a myth.
    (Sources: OECD, Economic Policy Institute)

    12. Vote less. 
    And who can blame them? I would be less inclined to vote if I didn’t have easy access to the polls and if I were subjected to draconian voter ID laws that are sold to the public as necessary to suppress nonexistent voter fraud.
    (Source: The Center for Voting and Democracy)

    13. When they do vote… vote pretty much the same as the rest of us. 
    Following their defeat in 2012, conservatives took solace by reasoning that they’d lost to a bunch of “takers,” including the poor, who voted for Democrats because they want free handouts from big government. The reality is a bit more complex. Only a third of low-income voters identify as Democrats, about the same for all Americans, including wealthy voters.
    (Sources: NPRPew Research Center)

    14. Live with chronic pain. 
    Those earning less than $12,000 a year are twice as likely to report feeling physical pain on any given day.
    (Source: Kaiser Health News)

    15. Live shorter lives. 
    There is a 10-14 year gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. In recent years, poor people’s life expectancy has actually declined — in America, the wealthiest nation on the planet.
    (Source: Health Affairs, 2012)

    16. Use drugs and alcohol pretty much the same as (or less than) everyone else. 
    Despite the common picture of inner city crack houses, drug use is pretty evenly spread across income groups. And rich people actually abuse alcohol more than the poor.
    (Source: Poverty and Learning, April 2008)

    17. Receive less in subsidized benefits than corporations. 
    The US government spends around $60 billion on public housing and rental subsidies for low-income families, compared to more than $90 billion on corporate subsidies. Oil companies alone get around $70 billion. And that’s not counting the nearly $60 billion a year in tax breaks corporations enjoy by sheltering profits offshore. Or the $700 billion bailout banks got in 2008.
    (Source: Think By Numbers)

    18. Get themselves off welfare as soon as possible. 
    Despite the odds, the vast majority of beneficiaries leave the welfare rolls within five years. Even in the absence of official welfare-to-work programming, most welfare recipients enroll in some form of vocational training. Why? Because they’re desperate to get off welfare.
    (Source: US Department of Health and Human Services)

    19. Have about the same number of children as everyone else. 
    No, poor people do not have loads of children just so they can stay on welfare.
    (Source: US Department of Health and Human Services)

    20. Accomplish one single goal: stay alive.  
    Poverty in America may not be as dire as poverty in other parts of the world, but many working poor families are nonetheless preoccupied with day-to-day survival. For them, life is not something to be enjoyed so much as endured.

    These are the real habits of the poor, those with whom Jesus identifies most closely.

       

     

    http://www.alternet.org/20-things-poor-do-everyday-rich-never-have-worry-about

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    It is not rocket science to figure out a way to help minimize poverty.

    Teach and encourage young people to finish high school, get a job (any job to start) ,  and marry before having children.

    In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    The modern welfare state encourages the opposite of these behaviors...

    Most middle class and affluent liberals follow these rules, but somehow dont think worthwhile for society to encourage these behaviors...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is not rocket science to figure out a way to help minimize poverty.

    Teach and encourage young people to finish high school, get a job (any job to start) ,  and marry before having children.

    In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    The modern welfare state encourages the opposite of these behaviors...

    Most middle class and affluent liberals follow these rules, but somehow dont think worthwhile for society to encourage these behaviors...

    [/QUOTE]

    CLC,

    Link for this article, please?

    Btw, I am going to keep asking until you finally conform like the rest of us. BDC considers this plagiarism. 

    I am also going to find the links myself as well as the WHOLE article. I have already caught you editing out parts that do not serve your purpose on another thread just today.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is not rocket science to figure out a way to help minimize poverty.

    Teach and encourage young people to finish high school, get a job (any job to start) ,  and marry before having children.

    In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    The modern welfare state encourages the opposite of these behaviors...

    Most middle class and affluent liberals follow these rules, but somehow dont think worthwhile for society to encourage these behaviors...

    [/QUOTE]

    CLC,

    Link for this article, please?

    Btw, I am going to keep asking until you finally conform like the rest of us. BDC considers this plagiarism. 

    I am also going to find the links myself as well as the WHOLE article. I have already caught you editing out parts that do not serve your purpose on another thread just today.

    [/QUOTE]


    Although I rarely agree with CLC..I am going to come to his defense here. All the articles are hyperlinked in his posts. All you have to do is click on the links ( the blue text) and it takes you right to the items he refers to.

    Many posters cut out parts of the article to suit their argument one way or another. It's easy to spot and CLC has certainly done it before. My solution is just to read the article and question.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

    Bennett: How to combat the poverty crisis By William J. Bennett CNN Contributor POSTED: 10:52 AM PST Jan 17, 2013  (CNN) -

    Often forgotten in our national political discourse are those who need our attention the most: the poor.

    On Thursday evening in Washington, D.C., prominent broadcaster and author Tavis Smiley is setting out to remedy the situation with an important bipartisan discussion of poverty in America entitled, "Vision for a New America: A Future Without Poverty." The goal of the discussion, for which Smiley deserves credit, is to bring much-deserved attention and aid to America's poor.

    Systemic poverty maligns every generation of Americans, but the 2008 recession and subsequent lackluster recovery have exaggerated the problem to a crisis level.

    Smiley cites government figures that nearly half of all Americans are living in or near poverty. In 2011, the Census Bureau found that 49.7 million Americans were in actual poverty and the national poverty rate topped 16%. Worse, almost 20% of American children live in poverty.

    Food stamp use hit a record high in June of 2012 with 46.7 million Americans. Since October 2008, food stamp use has jumped more than 50%. An estimated one in four children was on food stamps in 2011.

    For decades, America has wrestled with poverty but with little success. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson famously declared "war on poverty." A 2012 study by the Cato Institute estimates that the United States has spent roughly $15 trillion since then, and yet the poverty rate is close to where it was more than 40 years ago. Cato reports that the United States spends nearly $1 trillion a year between federal and state programs to fight poverty.

    That amounts to more than $20,000 per poor person and more than $60,000 for a family of three. And yet, the problem has not improved.

    Both liberals and conservatives recognize this reality. However, Smiley and some on the left think the problem is that the government has not gone far enough. They call for more government intervention, like living wages and expanded social services. Granted, the government has a role in aiding the poor, particularly the disabled, handicapped and those who are poor largely at no fault of their own.

    But if history is any indicator, government transactions and services don't seem to be the key drivers of upward mobility. In fact, they can have the opposite effect and insulate lower classes from upward mobility.

    Instead, conservatives would argue that education, earned success and the all-important mediating institutions -- families, churches, communities, private and philanthropic enterprises, associations of coaches, teachers, parents, doctors, civil servants and religious and non-religious volunteers, the Boy Scouts and other worthy mentoring groups, all what Edmund Burke called the "little platoons" that make up healthy civil society -- are the pillars of upward mobility.

    The evidence seems to support that. In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    Our education system is failing our children. In Washington, D.C., public schools, only 59% of high school students graduated on time in the 2010-2011 school year. We're not talking about academic excellence here, just basic graduation and completion of high school. It should come as no surprise then that the poverty rate in Washington was 18.7% in 2011.

    While many high school dropouts join the ranks of low-wage workers or the unemployed, American employers estimate 3 million skilled jobs are available right now. But our students, specifically our poor and underprivileged, lack the skills and education to fill those jobs. That must be remedied.

    At the same time, America's family unit is decaying in record fashion. In 1965 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then assistant secretary of Labor and later a U.S. senator, authored The Moynihan Report to bring light to the economic and social breakdown of the black family. He warned about the catastrophic out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks, which was at that time less than 25%. Today, it is more than 70% for blacks and more than 40% for all Americans.

    With the nucleus of the family in shambles, the fabric of American society is unraveling one thread at a time. Conservatives are often criticized for harping on family values, but what many of the critics fail to acknowledge is that strong, healthy families are essential for a strong, healthy economy. We know that the poverty rate is higher among single parent households than in families with married couples. In fact, the marriage gap accounts for much of the income inequality in the labor force today.

    The first step to alleviating poverty is to promote better schools, families and churches. A national conversation about poverty must include these critical institutions. While we may disagree on economic solutions, Tavis Smiley acknowledges this much and I'm encouraged that with voices like his we can start building consensus around issues crucial to the upward mobility of many poor and disadvantaged Americans.

     

     

    http://www.kesq.com/news/Bennett-How-to-combat-the-poverty-crisis/-/233092/18171382/-/xp5ctb/-/index.html

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is not rocket science to figure out a way to help minimize poverty.

    Teach and encourage young people to finish high school, get a job (any job to start) ,  and marry before having children.

    In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    The modern welfare state encourages the opposite of these behaviors...

    Most middle class and affluent liberals follow these rules, but somehow dont think worthwhile for society to encourage these behaviors...

    [/QUOTE]

    CLC,

    Link for this article, please?

    Btw, I am going to keep asking until you finally conform like the rest of us. BDC considers this plagiarism. 

    I am also going to find the links myself as well as the WHOLE article. I have already caught you editing out parts that do not serve your purpose on another thread just today.

    [/QUOTE]


    Although I rarely agree with CLC..I am going to come to his defense here. All the articles are hyperlinked in his posts. All you have to do is click on the links ( the blue text) and it takes you right to the items he refers to.

    Many posters cut out parts of the article to suit their argument one way or another. It's easy to spot and CLC has certainly done it before. My solution is just to read the article and question.

    [/QUOTE]

    cricket,

    All of what you posted may be true but it is an absolute on BDC that you post the link to your article.

    Recently I had a post removed. It was the 1st post to a thread I started. I contacted BDC to ask why.

    Their response was I did not post a link to the article. It is not a matter of opinion. It is an absolute.

    In my case someone had reported my post without first asking me for the link using the Report Abuse function.

    My post was simply something from the Political Daily Congressional Digest. It could not have been any drier. I got distracted and forgot to go back and get the link.

    In his case, he has replied to me that he was sorry. He knows the policy. He just "forgets" sometimes.

    Well when I forgot, my post was removed. I keep asking him for the link in a post. It is not my job to go searching for it as well as to be able to read the entire article as well as see who or what the source is. Nor is it anyone else's beside his.

    I have never reported him for this infraction, but if his posts start getting removed my guess is he would "remember" to include the link.

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re:

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    CLC,

    Link for this article, please?

    Btw, I am going to keep asking until you finally conform like the rest of us. BDC considers this plagiarism. 

    I am also going to find the links myself as well as the WHOLE article. I have already caught you editing out parts that do not serve your purpose on another thread just today.

    [/QUOTE]


    Although I rarely agree with CLC..I am going to come to his defense here. All the articles are hyperlinked in his posts. All you have to do is click on the links ( the blue text) and it takes you right to the items he refers to.

    Many posters cut out parts of the article to suit their argument one way or another. It's easy to spot and CLC has certainly done it before. My solution is just to read the article and question.

    [/QUOTE]

    cricket,

    All of what you posted may be true but it is an absolute on BDC that you post the link to your article.

    Recently I had a post removed. It was the 1st post to a thread I started. I contacted BDC to ask why.

    Their response was I did not post a link to the article. It is not a matter of opinion. It is an absolute.

    In my case someone had reported my post without first asking me for the link using the Report Abuse function.

    My post was simply something from the Political Daily Congressional Digest. It could not have been any drier. I got distracted and forgot to go back and get the link.

    In his case, he has replied to me that he was sorry. He knows the policy. He just "forgets" sometimes.

    Well when I forgot, my post was removed. I keep asking him for the link in a post. It is not my job to go searching for it as well as to be able to read the entire article as well as see who or what the source is. Nor is it anyone else's beside his.

    I have never reported him for this infraction, but if his posts start getting removed my guess is he would "remember" to include the link.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hi, Andie-Jenn,

    Sorry, maybe you had two posts removed, but I was around earlier this week, and saw that it was the story on the homeless that got removed, and the reason was because you (inadvertently) posted fee-based material that was behind the firewall, on the Boston Globe site, not on the free BDC site.  I dropped by but never had a chance to post on the article, but I am a Globe subscriber (digital) and when you stated the reason for the removal, it was because you took the liberty (again, not intentionally) to distribute fee-based material.

    The BDC site had one paragraph, and often does, as a lead in to an article.  If you are not a subscriber, and you click on the link, you cannot see the article.   If you are a subscriber, you can see it right away, or log in to see it.    You copied and pasted the entire article, not just the lead in paragraph.   If you had just posted the link, (which you did), only subscribers would have been able to read it.   In posting the entire article, it looked like you were making an end run, if you know what I mean.   When I saw the explanation that you said BDC mods gave you, it made sense to me, this is why I remember.  

    It had more to do with copyright, and the fact you distributed material that was behind the firewall, than plagiarism, in your case.   I don't want to name names, but one of your "friends" here that you normally agree with also took a complete paragraph from an article and passed it off as his own one day:  I saw it with my own eyes.   People do this all the time, I'm afraid.   :(

    When people post articles here (and I find it very tedious, TBH, which is why I don't like posting here often), from a free site, BDC won't and doesn't care.   A link for attribution should always be posted, no question, and I agree,  but BDC mods picked up on your article b/c it was from the Globe.   Take care, and good night.  Read something pleasant before turning in  ... not something from this board.  :)

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    CLC,

    Link for this article, please?

    Btw, I am going to keep asking until you finally conform like the rest of us. BDC considers this plagiarism. 

    I am also going to find the links myself as well as the WHOLE article. I have already caught you editing out parts that do not serve your purpose on another thread just today.

    [/QUOTE]


    Although I rarely agree with CLC..I am going to come to his defense here. All the articles are hyperlinked in his posts. All you have to do is click on the links ( the blue text) and it takes you right to the items he refers to.

    Many posters cut out parts of the article to suit their argument one way or another. It's easy to spot and CLC has certainly done it before. My solution is just to read the article and question.

    [/QUOTE]

    cricket,

    All of what you posted may be true but it is an absolute on BDC that you post the link to your article.

    Recently I had a post removed. It was the 1st post to a thread I started. I contacted BDC to ask why.

    Their response was I did not post a link to the article. It is not a matter of opinion. It is an absolute.

    In my case someone had reported my post without first asking me for the link using the Report Abuse function.

    My post was simply something from the Political Daily Congressional Digest. It could not have been any drier. I got distracted and forgot to go back and get the link.

    In his case, he has replied to me that he was sorry. He knows the policy. He just "forgets" sometimes.

    Well when I forgot, my post was removed. I keep asking him for the link in a post. It is not my job to go searching for it as well as to be able to read the entire article as well as see who or what the source is. Nor is it anyone else's beside his.

    I have never reported him for this infraction, but if his posts start getting removed my guess is he would "remember" to include the link.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hi, Andie-Jenn,

    Sorry, maybe you had two posts removed, but I was around earlier this week, and saw that it was the story on the homeless that got removed, and the reason was because you (inadvertently) posted fee-based material that was behind the firewall, on the Boston Globe site, not on the free BDC site.  I dropped by but never had a chance to post on the article, but I am a Globe subscriber (digital) and when you stated the reason for the removal, it was because you took the liberty (again, not intentionally) to distribute fee-based material.

    The BDC site had one paragraph, and often does, as a lead in to an article.  If you are not a subscriber, and you click on the link, you cannot see the article.   If you are a subscriber, you can see it right away, or log in to see it.    You copied and pasted the entire article, not just the lead in paragraph.   If you had just posted the link, (which you did), only subscribers would have been able to read it.   In posting the entire article, it looked like you were making an end run, if you know what I mean.   When I saw the explanation that you said BDC mods gave you, it made sense to me, this is why I remember.  

    It had more to do with copyright, and the fact you distributed material that was behind the firewall, than plagiarism, in your case.   I don't want to name names, but one of your "friends" here that you normally agree with also took a complete paragraph from an article and passed it off as his own one day:  I saw it with my own eyes.   People do this all the time, I'm afraid.   :(

    When people post articles here (and I find it very tedious, TBH, which is why I don't like posting here often), from a free site, BDC won't and doesn't care.   A link for attribution should always be posted, no question, and I agree,  but BDC mods picked up on your article b/c it was from the Globe.   Take care, and good night.  Read something pleasant before turning in  ... not something from this board.  :)

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks yogafriend for weighing in.

    It was not my intention to mislead anybody about the post I was refering to.

    I did in fact have 2 posts removed in the last month for entirely different reasons. I had never posted a BostonGlobe.com article and did not know you could only post the very 1st part of it. So yes, in that case it was the censors themselves who removed that post. 

    I am not guessing because I inquired and it was explained to me. I aploogized and I posted on that thread why my post was removed. UserName9 had already given me a heads up that that was probably the reason. So that was the homelessness thread post.

    The post that I forgot to give the link...I cannot remember the subject right now...was the link to a Political Daily Congressional Digest post. That is the post that was reported to BDC. They were very good about explaining the BDC policy regarding providing links. Zero tolerance. My very good guess is posts that are removed for this are reported to them. I have gone out of my way to ask more then once for a link.

    The other day newman ignored 2 requests. I then found the link and posted the whole article as well as the link. He was very apologetic and the whole thing ended very nicely. 

     

    Tonight my version of relaxing is watching a movie I recorded from TCM. "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and Melyvn Douglas. 4 stars. Great movie.

    Have a very nice week. And as always, thanks for weighing in yogafriend.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re:

    Andie..again..the links are in CLC's post...so not sure what the issue is. Personally..I am not a fan of reporting comments. I am not a fan of posts that get sidetracked off on bunny trails such as this one did. The forum has mods ( however inconistent they may be)..I don't get paid to moderate this forum nor do I feel the need to play moderator. It is easy enough to debunk most of CLC's posts without getting sidetracked.

    For example...the "article" he is referring to his actually a posting on a bloggers own personal site. If he knew anything about many of these personal blogging sites, he would know that the owners of these sites often take a lot of personal license in the name of creativity. I would hardly cite his source as ""news" . It is simply a paid author's take on what the world is like from the point of view of a person living in poverty.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    It is not rocket science to figure out a way to help minimize poverty.

    Teach and encourage young people to finish high school, get a job (any job to start) ,  and marry before having children.

    In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    The modern welfare state encourages the opposite of these behaviors...

    Most middle class and affluent liberals follow these rules, but somehow dont think worthwhile for society to encourage these behaviors...

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What a crock of ....

     

    So when these kids finish high school and get "any job" most likely at minimum wage, they'll still be getting gov't assistance, which means you've solved nothing.

    Not everyone's life follows the pampered and poo-pooed life that CLC had, (and he still needs to blame poor people to make himself feel better). Sen Brown-ie grew up on welfare and boy-wonder Ryan got SS benefits until he turned 18 and these are the same neo-cons who want to cut the same net for the next generation because they've already got theirs.

    Whenever programs are created to teach these kids about personal finance or subsidies for transportation to get them to "any job", the neo-cons are the first to cry like schoolgirls and get their panties in a bunch.

    The truth is that without some form of gov't support or real-life education, at critical times in their lives, the children of poverty will stay in poverty.

    As usual the neo-cons are full of empty rhetoric and sanctimonious platitudes. When any programs are proposed to address the educational and moral deficits some kids have at home, the neo-cons are the first to start caterwauling.

    CLC just likes to keep attacking the poor for being poor because it makes his pathetic life seem better by comparison.

    [/QUOTE]

    It is not a crock. 

    It is the truth. What CLC presented in that post is A way to stay out of poverty, not THE way.

    For the most part poverty is an unconcious CHOICE in this country. Then it gets passed on and bad choices are SUPPORTED by progressive policies. People make bad decisions and make the rest of us pay for them. 

    You say not everyone's life follows the poo-poo pampered path that CLC described. That is certainly correct and for most that don't follow it, that is a CHOICE. They don't pay atention inschool and goof off because it is cool. They get or get someone pregnant while in school. They pick bad partners and stick with them. They are all CHOICES.

    It is interesting that you call something that is basic common sense "poo-poo pampered". It is no wonder that people do not do what is best for them with nuts like you convincing them to go off the straight and narrow.

    Progressives take this advice as being judgemental, etc. It isn't judgemental. It is just something that works. If you CHOOSE another route to avoid poverty, fine, go ahead but if it doesn't work, we told  you so.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re:

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks yogafriend for weighing in.

    It was not my intention to mislead anybody about the post I was refering to.

    I did in fact have 2 posts removed in the last month for entirely different reasons. I had never posted a BostonGlobe.com article and did not know you could only post the very 1st part of it. So yes, in that case it was the censors themselves who removed that post. 

    I am not guessing because I inquired and it was explained to me. I aploogized and I posted on that thread why my post was removed. UserName9 had already given me a heads up that that was probably the reason. So that was the homelessness thread post.

    The post that I forgot to give the link...I cannot remember the subject right now...was the link to a Political Daily Congressional Digest post. That is the post that was reported to BDC. They were very good about explaining the BDC policy regarding providing links. Zero tolerance. My very good guess is posts that are removed for this are reported to them. I have gone out of my way to ask more then once for a link.

    The other day newman ignored 2 requests. I then found the link and posted the whole article as well as the link. He was very apologetic and the whole thing ended very nicely. 

     

    Tonight my version of relaxing is watching a movie I recorded from TCM. "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" Cary Grant, Myrna Loy and Melyvn Douglas. 4 stars. Great movie.

    Have a very nice week. And as always, thanks for weighing in yogafriend.

    [/QUOTE]

    Andie-J: I love "Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House" and mentioning it only makes me want to see it again.   I am a huge fan of film noir and old movies in general.   Great choice for relaxation and putting a smile on your face.   :)

    Sorry to hear there was another post that was removed, along with accompanying incidents that have caused more issues regarding posting here.  It is frustrating, I am sure, especially with someone who obviously is more than willing to play by the rules, such as you are.   But do heed what MsC said in terms of worrying about this too much and taking it upon yourself to correct the habits of other people re: links.  You can lead a horse to water ...   try not to bring any more negativity into your life than is necessary.   You need your energy for more important things.    This is just a place to "hang out" for many people, and they are in a "repeat / recycle" head set;  they are accountable to themselves in the long run, no one else.  Take care.   Thanks for the inspiration re: the movie, too.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    "Not everyone's life follows the pampered and poo-pooed life that CLC had.."

    LOL!

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re:

    It is incredibly simplistic thinking. 

    My guess is now that his life is going well as a goverment contractor, being paid on our dime ironically, he cannot imagine all the twists and turns of fate that got him there. He thinks it was all him. Bull hockey.

    I worked in the inner city for 2 years. He is not better then those people. It is incredicly hard to climb out of the inner city and stay on track to a middle class life.

    Heck...some of us are having trouble hanging on to our middle class lives because life has thrown us so many curves...including elderly parents to take care of for years as well as our own medical difficulties.

    Life is so simple for those who are not self aware. Those who are understand their own lives far better as well as other peoples lives.

    People with this simplistic view should try renting an apartment in the inner city, living in the inner city, getting a car that sometimes works or using public transportation. Give up their middle class job for a job that pays oh about $10/hour. And so on. Try that for a year or two. 

    Find out if you call 911 how much slower the response time is. Find out when your clothes reflect that income how peole treat you in a different way. Try eating on that income.

    Let us see how you are doing after having a boss bark orders at you day and night for $10/hour. And know how it feels to be scared to be walking in your own neighborhood at night.

    The above is off the top of my head. It is really worse then that.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    There seems to be no end to the Republican hatred of the American working poor. The stats on inequality in this country are mind-numbing, but dare bring it up and that makes you a communist, or a Marxist, a redistributor, or any number of their "anti-capitalist" labels.

    Unemployment is high, and workforce participation is low due to the absence of jobs, but Republicans would have you believe that the unemployed are perfectly content just living on the dole.  Are there real takers out there?  sure, but they are a small percent of the total that are struggling.

    The economy is suffering permanent stagnation due to deficient demand and everything the GOP supports worsens the inequality and stagnaton.  

    "Job creators" don't create jobs, demand creates jobs, and demand comes from the middle class, (the people with incomes from 50 to 150 per cent of the median income). And the middle class has been savaged by endless policies that shower the already wealthy by awarding them all the income gains from massive productivity increases of the past three decades.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It is not rocket science to figure out a way to help minimize poverty.

    Teach and encourage young people to finish high school, get a job (any job to start) ,  and marry before having children.

    In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    The modern welfare state encourages the opposite of these behaviors...

    Most middle class and affluent liberals follow these rules, but somehow dont think worthwhile for society to encourage these behaviors...

    [/QUOTE]

    Great advice, and folks who do adhere to them stand a great chance of not being burdened by poverty.  

    However, I do have one disagreement.  The "welfare state" does not encourage behaviors that lead to poverty, poverty itself -or rather - the cycle of poverty does.  Before those very common sense ideas can take hold the cycle of poverty has to be broken.  

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    It is not rocket science to figure out a way to help minimize poverty.

    Teach and encourage young people to finish high school, get a job (any job to start) ,  and marry before having children.

    In a landmark study, the Brookings Institution found that young adults who finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children have just a 2% chance of falling into poverty and a 74% chance of ending up in the middle class. Furthermore, young adults who violate all three conditions have a 76% chance of ending up in poverty and only a 7% chance of making it to the middle class.

    The threshold for middle-class success -- sound education and moral training -- is not high, but even on these measures our nation is falling short.

    The modern welfare state encourages the opposite of these behaviors...

    Most middle class and affluent liberals follow these rules, but somehow dont think worthwhile for society to encourage these behaviors...

    **************************
    What a crock of ....

    So when these kids finish high school and get "any job" most likely at minimum wage, they'll still be getting gov't assistance, which means you've solved nothing.

    Not everyone's life follows the pampered and poo-pooed life that CLC had, (and he still needs to blame poor people to make himself feel better). Sen Brown-ie grew up on welfare and boy-wonder Ryan got SS benefits until he turned 18 and these are the same neo-cons who want to cut the same net for the next generation because they've already got theirs.

    Whenever programs are created to teach these kids about personal finance or subsidies for transportation to get them to "any job", the neo-cons are the first to cry like schoolgirls and get their panties in a bunch.

    The truth is that without some form of gov't support or real-life education, at critical times in their lives, the children of poverty will stay in poverty.

    As usual the neo-cons are full of empty rhetoric and sanctimonious platitudes. When any programs are proposed to address the educational and moral deficits some kids have at home, the neo-cons are the first to start caterwauling.

    CLC just likes to keep attacking the poor for being poor because it makes his pathetic life seem better by comparison.

    *****************************

    It is not a crock. 

    It is the truth. What CLC presented in that post is A way to stay out of poverty, not THE way.

    For the most part poverty is an unconcious CHOICE in this country. Then it gets passed on and bad choices are SUPPORTED by progressive policies. People make bad decisions and make the rest of us pay for them. 

    You say not everyone's life follows the poo-poo pampered path that CLC described. That is certainly correct and for most that don't follow it, that is a CHOICE. They don't pay atention inschool and goof off because it is cool. They get or get someone pregnant while in school. They pick bad partners and stick with them. They are all CHOICES.

    It is interesting that you call something that is basic common sense "poo-poo pampered". It is no wonder that people do not do what is best for them with nuts like you convincing them to go off the straight and narrow.

    Progressives take this advice as being judgemental, etc. It isn't judgemental. It is just something that works. If you CHOOSE another route to avoid poverty, fine, go ahead but if it doesn't work, we told  you so.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    The part that's the crock is that any programs designed to help "tell" (as CLC puts it) these children to grow up the right way are and would be poopoo'd by CLC, the person suggesting them.

    They're "Big Government", etc.

    The other part that's the crock is the complete failure to look at this from the perspective of the people who supposedly only need to be told to behave. For a lot of people, growing up in an inner city isn't that much better than a war zone. It sure is easy to sit in the comfort of one's middle class suburban living room and wag one's finger at children for, for example, joining gangs and selling drugs.

     

     

    I'm willing to bet that if you're 13, your mother can't put food on the table, and you've already seen a couple friends die....

    ...you are not in a position or state of mind to follow CLC's wholesome advice. Maybe selling drugs looks like the only way to support the family. Maybe joining a gang seems like the only way to avoid getting killed - at least it's some protection. And so on.

    These aren't things readily apparent to a middle-aged white person living in a middle class suburb.

     

     

    The only way progress is going to be made is to first improve inner city life. Somehow. I suggest that regardless of what one thinks about drugs or whether anyone 'chooses' to sell them, the fact of the matter is that the War on Drugs puts a lot of the would-be fathers in jail.

    Should they be dealing? No. But I'm talking pragmatics, not reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't say it is easy for anyone. If you are 13 and your mother can't put food on the table you may not be in the frame of mind. Who controls your frame of mind? YOU DO. Again, I am not saying it is easy for everyone, but it is a choice to f up.

    And I don't recommend this be a part of some government program other than if you get governement benefits you should be willing to correct your behavior and not do things that require more benefits. If you don't want to restrict your behavior so thhat you are not a burden to others then go without. THere are "freeloaders" that don't get health insurance either. What do we do? Set up a program so that they don't have to get it until they actually have to file a claim. Brilliant.

    The War on Drugs should be declared over, Drugs won. Putting people in jail for using drugs is not working. The War on Poverty isn't working either. The handouts and expectations from progressive programs have created a permanent underclass. Dad has been replced by sperm donation and money from the nanny state.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There seems to be no end to the Republican hatred of the American working poor. The stats on inequality in this country are mind-numbing, but dare bring it up and that makes you a communist, or a Marxist, a redistributor, or any number of their "anti-capitalist" labels.

    Unemployment is high, and workforce participation is low due to the absence of jobs, but Republicans would have you believe that the unemployed are perfectly content just living on the dole.  Are there real takers out there?  sure, but they are a small percent of the total that are struggling.

    The economy is suffering permanent stagnation due to deficient demand and everything the GOP supports worsens the inequality and stagnaton.  

    "Job creators" don't create jobs, demand creates jobs, and demand comes from the middle class, (the people with incomes from 50 to 150 per cent of the median income). And the middle class has been savaged by endless policies that shower the already wealthy by awarding them all the income gains from massive productivity increases of the past three decades.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Where was the demand for the iPhone before Apple created the iPhone? It is a chicken and egg thing. THere was no iPhone until Apple created it, but there was UNMET demand for it.

    If Apple hadn't invented it, some other company probably would have, but in any case if no one created the iPhone or something similar, how many jobs would get created? You need both.

    The Democrat solution to income inequality is to steal from the rich anf take a piece of the action  rather than to help the poor elevate themselves.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Democrat solution to income inequality is to steal from the rich anf take a piece of the action  rather than to help the poor elevate themselves.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name 1 thing the republicans have done to help the poor elevate themsleves.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Democrat solution to income inequality is to steal from the rich anf take a piece of the action  rather than to help the poor elevate themselves.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name 1 thing the republicans have done to help the poor elevate themsleves.

    [/QUOTE]


    Civil rights act

    Tax cuts

    Vouchers for private schools

    Deregulated air travel..............................

     

Share