From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: misc.rural
Subject: Re: in a man's mind
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:24:35 -0500
Message-ID: <846jm3t4b5jsbl0tk9tsa267t30ucerp24@4ax.com>

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:11:37 -0800 (PST), The Reverend Natural Light
<reverend@fourthgen.org> wrote:

>On Dec 19, 1:57 pm, Elmo <ElmoHateS...@noSpam4U.org> wrote:
>>
>> Very few people will give money to a panhandler who says that he
>> intends to buy drugs or alcohol.  So they say they need food.  I knew
>> people who would carry McDonald's gift certificates to hand to the
>> homeless in downtown Houston.

Why in the world would they inflict McD on the already downtrodden?  Might as well
give 'em rat poison.

>
>Once while I was carrying a case of beer down a city street, a
>homeless guy asked me for a beer.  I had to admire his honesty, so I
>gave him one.
>
>There was a homeless guy in Baltimore who held a sign that read, "I
>won't lie to you - I want a drink".  Apparently he did quite well with
>that.

Yeah, it's the lying that gets to me.  I used to operate a BBQ restaurant in downtown
Cleveland, TN, right across the street from the soup kitchen.  I got my share of
bums.  Almost never would they ask for food.  They always wanted "money for food".
Sorry, bud, you lie you lose.

Something else that always struck me.  Very few people came in and approached me with
"I need money and I'm hungry.  Do you have anything I can do to earn a meal?"  It was
always gimmie gimmie.

Those who DID approach me that way always got fed.  I could always find a half hour
of work for 'em to do for a meal.

I did take a dim view toward beggars who came in my place stinking like an ashtray.
If they can buy cigs they can buy food.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Waste heat as heat source [was Re: Energy 101 [was Re: OT Hydrogen 
	economy, not?]}
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:32:56 -0400
Message-ID: <raem845aotujs7l9d5v01qmp20a8gmqj1h@4ax.com>

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:26:56 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net>
wrote:

>"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
>news:6i3l84lojh0op9mbor07icong9ct8n8hd6@4ax.com...
>> Invariably, by the time we hit I-285, their eyeballs were like saucers as
>> they experienced the real wealth that even the working man has here.
>
>And yet, we still have poor- some of the poorest of developed countries!
>With so much opportunity, how can this be?

"We" don't have anything.  As for "poor", first we'd have to agree on a
definition.  The government's definition of "poor" is anything but.  They've
pushed "poor" into lower middle class so that they can hand out more sugar and
buy more votes.  It still chaps my ass to see some fat bitch driving a late
model car and sporting a pack of cigs in her pocket plop down a food stamp
card in the grocery line in front of me.

The second part is attitude.  By government definition, I'm "poor".  Early
medical-related retirement (NOT "drawing" any government money!), living on
savings and what little work I can still do.  Yet I consider myself anything
but poor!  I live a comfortable if simple life, a life many "middle class"
folks only dream of.  Trout stream 100 yards away, game everywhere, some of
the most beautiful mountains in America, etc.  It's all in how one sees
himself.

The third part is behavior.  I see very few "poor" who don't smoke, drink,
breed like rabbits, hock themselves up to their ears in debt and all the other
familiar bad behavior.  I also see very few "poor" who have high school
diplomas, something that's freely given to anyone who wants one.

I employed far too many "poor" in my restaurants not to know this behavior by
heart.  I learned from hard experience that you can't help these "poor" (a
better term is "trash") because they squander any help and then quickly regard
it as an entitlement.

I wonder how many "middle class" from most any place in Africa would change
financial places with most any of the "poor" in the US?  There'd be riots in
the street as those folks fought for position in line.

Then there is the very small percentage with insufficient mental capacity,
ranging from borderline retarded to the non-psychopathic mentally ill who
really are poor.  Ironically, those are the ones that the great welfare state
almost completely ignores.  Many end up as street bums. Some are happy in that
condition and can't be helped.

I can think of half a dozen from my old home town that fit that category.
Do-gooders spent thousands trying to put 'em up in decent housing and feed
'em.  They'd end up right back on the street where they were happiest.

Finally there are the stark raving mad, people who should be in institutions
but thanks to the ACLU suit and the Supreme's wet dream of a ruling, those
people have "rights".  Instead of being comfortably confined in metal
institutions, they're on the street, yelling at their demons, arguing with the
voices, shitting in doorways and all the other familiar bad behavior.

I recall an academic paper I read a few years ago where the researcher added
up all the dollars spent on "social programs for the poor" and divided that
number by the number of "poor" taken from census data.  The result was that if
that money were simply handed out to each "poor" person, bypassing the welfare
industry, each "poor" person would receive something like $50,000 per year.

That illustrates what is obvious to anyone capable of rubbing two thoughts
together.  It's isn't about the "poor".  It's about the welfare/industrial
complex.  All those fine middle and upper class people inside of government
and out who claim to be "helping the poor" while sucking down nice comfortable
salaries paid from "poor peoples' money".

I won't even go into the whole scum industry that has risen up in later years
to prey on the ignorance of low income people.  Title pawns, payday loan
sharks, usurious small loan sharks, "tote the note" used car dealers and all
the others.  In previous times, most these practices were simply outlawed
because the wiser politicians of the past realized precisely THAT low income
people can't manage their money - a major cause for being low income in the
first place.

I had an employee who wanted to buy a car from me.  I offered to "tote the
note" at no interest until he had it paid for using payroll deduction.  Great
deal, eh?  What he didn't like is that I insisted that the car continue to sit
in my garage until paid for.  I would even let him back out if he wanted to
and I'd refund the money he'd paid.  A sort of "layaway" as it were.  We
weren't taking about a lot of money, a couple of thousand.  What a deal, eh?
Not!

That wasn't good enough.  He wanted it "now" instead of in a couple of months.
So he went to one of the local finance companies and borrowed $2000 on a 2
year note.  When he handed me the money I asked to look at his loan agreement.
About 10 pages of lawyer type front and back on legal size paper.  This for a
loan to a guy who was barely literate.

I set up a spreadsheet to total up everything he way paying (too complicated
to track by hand).  It worked out to 39% APR!  And of course, it was a "rule
of 78" loan which meant that he obligated himself to all the interest up
front.  Even if he paid off the loan the next day, he'd have to pay ALL
principle and interest for the entire two years.

Any clue in there for you as to why this guy might be "poor"?

Many states have outlawed "Rule of 78" loans but not TN, the state that
happens to be home of two of the largest loan sharking operations in the
nation.  Check-into-Cash is one.

Tim, I know that it's easier to spout a slogan that gives you the warm fuzzies
and reaffirms your leftist credentials than to actually think and educate
yourself but why not give it a try every so often?  Yeah, I know, it's a lot
of work but doing so helps make you not look quite so stupid in public.

John

From: John De Armond
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,alt.energy.homepower
Subject: Re: Waste heat as heat source [was Re: Energy 101 [was Re: OT Hydrogen 
	economy, not?]}
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:07:15 -0400
Message-ID: <uf4p84t1bbe6607fm1r18predk24i967cp@4ax.com>

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:16:09 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net>
wrote:

>"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
>news:raem845aotujs7l9d5v01qmp20a8gmqj1h@4ax.com...
>>>And yet, we still have poor- some of the poorest of developed countries!
>>>With so much opportunity, how can this be?
>>
>> "We" don't have anything.  As for "poor", first we'd have to agree on a
>> definition.  The government's definition of "poor" is anything but.
>
>So you suggest the federal standard should change?  To what?

To nothing.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to be
meddling in that area.

>
>> The second part is attitude.  By government definition, I'm "poor".
>> Early medical-related retirement (NOT "drawing" any government money!),
>> living on savings and what little work I can still do.  Yet I consider
>> myself anything but poor!  I live a comfortable if simple life, a life
>> many "middle class" folks only dream of.  Trout stream 100 yards away,
>> game everywhere, some of the most beautiful mountains in America, etc.
>> It's all in how one sees himself.
>
>Okay, sure, but you're an exceptional case.  Statistics is all about
>averages.

No I'm not.  I'm about average for a rural resident in a low income part of
the country.  The difference is, rural people know how to live good lives with
less and without sticking their hands out.

>What's the average condition of an average person who qualifies
>as federally poor?

If my employees were any example, two people living together unmarried (so
they can draw more), several bastard kids with different and sometimes unknown
fathers, heavy smokers and drinkers, many also pot smokers (no problem with
the pot, just the buying it on my nickel), deeply in debt, one or two cars
from the "pay-by-the-week tote-the-note" used car lot.  Hundred dollar
sneakers on the kids' feet, of course, purchased with the credit card debt
that they intended bankrupting out from under.

One or both are drawing "disability" in addition to the various welfare draws.
Disability has become such an industry, especially for chiroquacks, that it is
practically impossible to hire restaurant help and pay them on the books. They
have to be paid "under the table" so that they can "draw".

They will, of course, have a large screen TV (rent-to-own) and in many cases a
bass boat (finance company).  Many run up as much debt as they can and then
bankrupt every time they become eligible.  I've sat and listened to them swap
notes about how to survive "the man" until their next bankruptcy eligibility
date arrives.

>
>> I learned from hard experience that you can't help these "poor" (a
>> better term is "trash") because they squander any help and then quickly
>> regard it as an entitlement.
>
>Okay, so there's some amount of people who are too stupid (or too
>egotistical, or...) to make any progress as such.  Are there truely 16% of
>this country that are so poorly educated and disciplined (between home,
>school and the street) that they are no better than this?

They're neither stupid nor egotistical.  They're ignorant (defined as lack of
education) and lacking in moral grounding.  They're using the system as it was
set up.  A few pennies go to them while thousands go to the welfare/industrial
complex.

16%?  No idea where you got that number from.  If pressed to make an educated
guess, I'd put it much higher.  In the local schools, "AP" (advanced
placement) is about at or a little below the level of mainstream education 30
years ago.  How do I know?

Some of my employees had REALLY smart kids (two minuses sometimes do make a
plus!)  Whenever the opportunity presented itself (primarily when the parent
could be bothered to bring them to me after work), I tutored them in math and
the sciences.  Even now, thinking back on some of the AWFUL coursework makes
me sick.  These were kids who were in AP already.

There was one boy in particular who was so smart it was scary. Both parents
were plain old common white trash.  She was a waitress in one of my
restaurants.  I paved the way for the kid to get a full boat scholarship at a
prestigious private school in Chattanooga.  All she had to do was take the kid
down to take the entrance exam which he would probably have aced.  She
couldn't be bothered.  If ever there were a definition of child abuse....

>Gee, how did I attack you?

You didn't, and I didn't you.  But I'm old enough and experienced enough to
tell when someone has bitten at the whole welfare state argument, hook, line
and sinker.

It frustrates me to the point of anger to see people such as yourself with no
real experience, either in the welfare world or in the world of government
lying via statistics, present things that you've merely read as fact.

Anger because so many people believe in and vote to support this fiction of
"poor in America" that only the federal welfare state can address.

Here's a hint that will help you be more credible in your arguments.  If you
want to quote or cite something that you've read, preface the statement with
"I read that" or something similar.

My dad's family was about as poor as it gets.  His father died when he was
about 6.  His mother raised 4 kids by taking in sewing.  Think about that.
Sewing dresses for the wealthy factory owners in town.  That was all she could
do and be home to raise her kids.  Note that I said "raise" and not "hand them
off to child care or relatives or a baby sitter".  No government handouts at
all.  Even if there had been any, they'd not have accepted any.  They WERE
supported by their community and by their church which is how it's supposed to
work.

Dad was a CPA in private practice, one brother was a pharmacist that founded a
surgical supply company, another a very successful real estate broker and his
sister, a successful painter.  With the exception of Dad's GI bill (he got his
ass blown off in France so I figure he earned that money), not a penny of
federal or state money was ever taken by the family.

Just before he died, Dad found out the they were going to tear down his
childhood home to make way for some sort of development.  He asked me to go
with him and photograph the place.  He'd often described what a wonderful
childhood he'd had in that house but I'd never seen it.

When we arrived, I was stunned.  Here was this little bungalow not even as
large as a single car detached garage.  Two tiny bedrooms and a third,
combination kitchen and living room.  I have the tiny little bed that Dad grew
up sleeping on.  It is just about right for my black Lab to sleep on when I
had her.  I didn't realize that the bed almost filled the room.

Bottom line:  They were worse than dirt-poor by today's (or even back then)
standards.  Today the welfare/industrial complex would be all over them,
convincing them that they were so poor that only the government could help.
When you're told that you're poor often enough, you begin to believe it.

Nobody told them and so they weren't.  Photos of Grandmother show her always
dressed in a clean and neat, if plain, dress.  The yard was always neat and
clean.  I'd figured that the corner of the building that appeared in some of
the photos was the garage.  It was their house.

It's ALL about attitude.

John