How did everyone fall for another CDL troll post

I'll admit, I hadn't finished reading it when I posted it. Nevertheless, I think it's a terrific read if you want to understand the concerns and frustrations of poor white people in America, especially Southern white people.
Why not?

Is it really a troll post if he believes that stuff?

Personally, it's all entertainment to me. I mean, debating CDL is like playing tennis with a brick wall. Technically it will never concede a point, but it's also a construct lacking the human qualities required for competition, so it shouldn't really count.

Because we've got tough and expensive problems to fix that are a higher priority with more societal benefit. I would rather focus resources and effort into education and expanding opportunity which is quite expensive and more widely popular.

I'm in favor of making it easier to escape being poor. I think almost everyone agrees on this being a great thing?

If you had an adult child (who has either finished college or decided they didn't want to go) would you give them everything they want and desire or would you provide them the minimum support necessary as an encouragement to go out and make something for themselves so they can buy what they want, live where they want, and do what they want? You'd be a terrible parent if you just gave your adult kids everything they wanted so why is it good for society to give money to the adult poor to make it easier to accept being poor?

If you make it easier to accept being poor you are going to get more poor people. I want to live in a society with enough education and opportunity where if you are poor then even you would say, "go out and get a job you lazy git."

We don't have to guess about what happens when you give poor people money, and what happens isn't that the poor people just sit around being poor and accepting the money.

Third world poor is nothing like being poor in USA#1. The people who made something productive for themselves with that $1000 wouldn't need a penny to do the same or vastly more for themselves if you gave them a green card and dropped them off in any American city even if they spoke no English.

Damn that is an impressively bad post by Palo.

9 of 19 seems pretty low, was it supposed to sound high?

also did they inherit a spot in the top 19?

19 is an odd list number for forbes to do

Palo,

If you say so? We tried an experiment where we just gave cash to old people, and shock and surprise, it cut poverty among old people.

looking at the top 20, I think everyone (minus 1 or 2?) was either an entrepreneur or inherited from an entrepreneur (Waltons and Mars)

Still waiting for a definition of poverty beyond "it's bad."

Oh, is this where you are awaiting your opportunity to lol at liberals who support giving money to people who have refrigerators in their apartments?

mbn to have never worried about food security or paying rent to the point where you literally don't understand what poverty is

Also, sucks for you that you can figure out how to post here but can't figure out how to use the entire rest of the Internet to answer that question

I think you completely missed the point of my post, but then, I'm not sure you wanted to understand it.

I think the number should be zero, and the fact that it's so high is more evidence (which we didn't need, but tons of wishful thinking ITT) that your socioeconomic level in your life most largely correlates to that of your parents.
Koches too. And only the Koches and one Walton take any kind of active role in the companies they inherited.

to be fair it's hard to tell when your posts have a point

It's easy to tell that yours never do.

hey you did what i did to you to me

hilarious!

in before it wasn't a joke

Not to mention that most of the top names will give away much, if not all of their wealth.

free enterprise has done wonders in breaking us free of that correlation!

Products of two-parent households show very good mobility.

Trump campaign going about as expected:

I wrote a long post, but decided I didn't feel like sharing that many life details right now so I will leave it as this:

some of us have experienced life where rent and food were not forgone conclusions and had to either be paid late or scrounged up by cutting corners and counting change out of a change jar to get a couple gallons of gas and enough food for a few calorically dense dinners.

Some of the same people who have come from those circumstances, including myself, believe it is our responsibility to take care of ourselves, our families, and our friends. When I was a kid I used to think that the rich should give to the poor and that life wasn't fair. I still believe life isn't fair, but am focused on making sure that I do what I can to flip the script and make sure I do everything I can to guarantee that no one I love ever experiences poverty or the stress from being unable to stretch a dollar to cover all the necessities ever again. I don't want help from society or the government for me or my family and I want others going through the same thing to take the burden of financial solvency on their own shoulders. If they fail, they fail and if I fail, I fail, but I will pick myself back up and get back on the grind to find a way to make another buck.

Blah blah me me me dude you are top 1% gifted, "I'll just go find ways to make lots of money somehow" is simply not an option for huge swaths of society for a variety of reasons.

the waltons do have a hell of a lot of money

you give me a lot more credit than I deserve. I don't see myself as gifted at all. There are infinite things I wish I was better at and need to improve. I have tons and tons of personal faults and flaws that range for annoying to pitiful to extremely damaging.

I'm not very intelligent in any sense of the word other than being decent at the types of mental and basic math that are easily solvable using calculators or computers. I have one skill that is far above average and while it is broadly applicable it isn't one of the most important skills to have and many people (surely some itt included) would argue that it results in me having a very narrow and sad worldview. The only thing I am exceptional at is understanding and estimating probabilities and being able to comprehend personal payoff diagrams for simple or complex monetary or non-monetary wagers.

I simply fail to believe that I am anything special from an intelligence perspective. In fact, I believe that I would fail miserably at the jobs that most of my friends do or the ones most FACKers have. I have a very narrow frame of intelligence and a very narrow skillset that I was lucky enough to discover early on and then find a career that fit with the skills I have.

I am pretty sure that most everyone I come across in life is better and smarter at something than I am, but most of these people are either unmotivated and uninspired by their jobs and simply collecting a paycheck or are in fields they aren't cut out for. This makes them much worse at their jobs than they would be if they were in a role that fit them from an interest and skill perspective.

If you asked me to be a waiter, doctor, physicist, football player, fiction writer, party planner, fashion designer, or barista I promise you I would fall flat on my face. I simply have don't have the right form of intelligence or skills for those jobs and would struggle mightily to learn to do them well and maintain the interest required to be good at the job day in day out.

"Anyone can become rich with enough hard work" is basically the economic equivalent of "I saw a guy hit a home run on an 0-2 count once, therefore it's just as easy as a 3-1 count."

Sure anyone can become rich. But it's a hell of a lot easier when you're born on 3rd base.

And that's fine. No one on the left is proposing Bolshevism - just levelling the playing field in places where it makes sense - nibble around the edges to redistribute some of the wealth that tends to distribute upward over time - through stuff like min. wage, estate tax, capital gains tax, progressive taxation, massive tax breaks for the working poor, universal healthcare, subsidized higher education.

And to answer the inevitable "Who's gonna pay for it?" - we could fund all that several times over for the $4.4T we spent on the Iraq war. Nobody ever asks who's gonna pay for it when we start on another foreign adventure. Syria is in the on deck circle.

You didn't think I could sneak in another baseball metaphor, but I found a way.