Pope: Not To Share Wealth With Poor Is To Steal

Education. And instilling the value of it makes needy people into people who can provide for themselves. It's not enough to just mindlessly hand out stuff.

Teach a man to fish etc etc.

Also ending racist practices and destabilizing other countries might help too.

Yet that's not always an option, there will always be people who can't provide for themselves, should they be tossed to the side?

Not really a "ftfy", but it's also a problem that needs to be addressed.

What type of help are we even talking about? Food aid? Urban development? Building wells?

Boxes of Cracker Jack™ and free Wilson™ baseball gloves!

Get them off their feet The American Way™! With baseball and LOTS OF TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS!

This message has been presented by MLB™ and cannot be rebroadcast without the approved written consent of Major League Baseball™.

Both are true.

Also is true that there are those with the ability and desire but not the opportunity (which has been more of a problem of late, at least in the US).

One could argue it goes against survival instincts, but with so many people, we're bound to have variations. With the level of technology we have out our fingertips, we shouldn't be in the position we're in, at the same time the technology has created part of the situation we're in, however.

If one could solve it, they'd probably either be killed, or go down in history, or both.

If IRS ever relaxes from their passive activity rules, you would see a lot more urban development and undercharged rental activity for people. AKA Section 9 housing without government intervention.

The American way!

Seeing how this is an ongoing debate across many, many threads, with the same cliché arguments every time, I will say this:

The modern world is not prepared to be "poor."

Historically, poor people have lived on land that today would be considered "rural," sometimes even owning said land. They were typically farmers, and provided their own food and means of living. This is still seen a lot today in so-called "poor" countries-- people growing crops and raising animals for milk/eggs/cheese/meat.

Being poor in a "developed" nation means you live in a cramped urban environment in close proximity to lots of other poor people. You cannot grow crops or raise animals because there is either no place to do this and/or there are strict ordinances in place to make sure you can't.

People decry dependency on government for basic needs, but think for a minute about who these people, who YOU are really dependent on. You cannot get food without buying it from a super market or some other store. You cannot have water/sewage or electricity without paying some company to provide it for you. You need money to do literally anything. Your actual freedom is based entirely on how much money you have.

A lot of you probably have decent jobs you "work" at and pay for everything you need. Meanwhile, our population continues to grow and more and more people are finding themselves adrift some giant mass-produced piece of copy-paste urban land. There are no offices, no factories, no real jobs to be seen for hundreds of miles. If you are born to a poor family, your options are to do nothing and have everyone say you're a lazy person who doesn't want to work, or be a flat-wage *** for Walmart or 7-11, work your *** off, and still be poor.

Right now the most dangerous mentality people can have is the one where we must expect everyone to "just get a job" and make a living-- when there are fewer jobs and more people trying to find one every day. This is the real reason so many people are rioting and stealing. More and more people are feeling that their backs are against a wall, and have nothing to lose.

What is needed is some sort of initiative to help people provide for themselves and reduce the need for being hopelessly dependent on the private sector for a job or basic resources in exchange for money. We need schools to teach children how to grow useful and edible plants in small spaces or hydroponically indoors, and how to raise and prepare fish and poultry, and how to build and maintain sustainable sources of energy and water-- both of which are easier than one would think-- and we need city ordinances and home owner associations to stop interfering with these things.

If all that sounds bad to you, you can look forward to having some small, insignificant portion of the pittance you pay in taxes to go towards things like welfare and food stamps. We all know what a tragedy that is for you somehow.

Sadly, we live in a society that doesn't actually want to help poor people-- one that is constantly coming up with ways to make things harder for them instead-- because coming right out and suggesting we round them up and kill them is just too unpleasant. Instead we dream up *** stories of optimism about how we are a classless society and anyone can make it if they weren't just so gosh darn lazy. The truth is, if poor people aren't selling themselves to Walmart and McDonald's as flat-wage *** then they aren't useful to the highborns, so "just get a job" is what we are stuck with.

It's a matter of %, not raw number. It's obvious that poor people won't be able to give millions, yet, they're the people that make up for the huge majority of people working in charity (and they're also the only people working in charity, and by working I mean making things happen). But that's logical as they're more than rich people.

It's bound to be subjective due to how each of us weigh money against time.
I'm personally of the opinion that Martha brings more to charity through her 50 years of spending all her free time helping out there than X celebrity does by giving a couple millions every X years.

On one side there is a person that is a pillar of the thing existing at all, if you remove Martha, the charity institutions disappear, money or not, as nobody is here to do stuff. Whereas if you remove the rich person and the millions, it'll still exist and try its best to help.

One is vital the other one is cherry on the cake.

We have a thing called "heart's restaurants" in France. Famous actors/singers have a TV show every year where they collect money and they have a few concerts, where they once again collect money. Said organization gives food and shelter to homeless people (and poor people in general). Well, you could just stop here and see it as "these actors/singers are the backbone of this organization", but it would be shallow.
Behind the scenes, you have I don't know how many thousands people working on the field, in many cities/villages, helping homeless people. Staying up all night to welcome them, some of them even go out of their way to help homeless people who were left out due to shelters being full.
On top of that, said people (people like you and me, average citizen) will donate food and money while doing groceries, all of that going straight to the homeless, money being used on the spot to buy food, nothing else.

However wrong it may be, I don't have as much respect for those singers/actors that do their job, are paid, drink champagne in backstages and pop their best smiles a couple nights in the year to bring in money as I do have for those people that I don't even know at all but bust their *** doing something that they're not paid for, barely get any recognition doing but still do after decades because it's their belief and they have the right kind of empathy.

Fake empathy has to be the worst thing I've faced ever since I entered the adult world.

Who's benefiting? Good questgion. On one side poor people are eating (in the given example, can be applied to anything) thanks to both rich and average people (yeah because rich people just pump part of the money, they don't go out of their way to get involved deeper than that) but on the other side, some celebrities will make sure that their help turns into a whole PR campaign.

The rich people who are truly genuine in their move, as it give them nothing in PR, for them it's just money spent, but they're at peace with themselves. Everyone's a winner I'd say. Some rich people do it through genuine empathy, but they're so rare.

There is this girl who's not that rich but has been pretty famous in the fighting game community. She's been touring the whole country to give people a whole day of practice/teaching, sometimes she visits hospitals and buy kids stuff, or does her best to get sponsors and give everything she gets to the kids. She does that during her free time, goes out of her way to make things happen, is here on the field, always available. That's real empathy. She could just sponsor events and not even move from her home, but she doesn't.

That's an example of genuine empathy.

But Obama said the economy is doing great and has created more jobs than anyone since the dawn of mankind.

Your opinion doesn't match reality. Nor does it match findings about reality.

Sure, there could be some explanation to it, but in actuality, it's pretty much what people choose to do.

They aren't rioting because of "lack of jobs", there's no "occupation" because of a bad economy or high unemployment, there's thugs looking to capitalize on a lax policing system afraid of being termed as the next "Ferguson," so to speak.

You may have some decent points, but your opinions fall flat on actual information.

How'd you think I got this gig here at FFXIAH.com as a tier 2 shitposter?

Thanks to Barack Hussain Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden I'm making 12 dollars an hour posting the first drivel that falls outta my head on the internet. For America.

Question is, do you unionize?

Local 637 Shitposters Union represent!

Fone's my shop steward, he's been shitposting for over 40 years. Since the days of telegram shitposting and sending letters with newspaper clippings strung together as gibberish.

I am completely divorced from reality because my thoughts are based on real world observations and not by a bunch of charts I found on the internet.

This remind me of London's riots.

Got to not work and still be paid. It's a good memory for me, though I feel pretty sad when I remember that poor Asian kid who got robbed in the streets.

Real world "limited" observations. You don't know much about this country, only in the very small corner you live at.

There are a lot of openings here in Texas. But if we go by what you are saying, those jobs don't exist.

Jobs do exist. It just depends on what is meant by a "job" and how many are actually available vs. the number of people who would need a real job, and then people who already have "jobs" but are really no better off than people who don't.

I have lived in Texas. Granted, it is much better than where I live now (Florida). What I have seen here represents a very large and growing phenomena, however-- one that is hugely ignored by everyone who has not experienced it first hand.

Gimme dat money you holy hoe

Not everyone who flips burgers at Mc Donald's is an idiot that has debts or simply cannot handle his life.

You should be able to live with any entry job. Of course it won't impress your friends and the ladies, but you'll earn money.

If people knew how to handle their money/life to begin with, they wouldn't have lifelong problems with low pay jobs. I've seen people with 25k$/y live decently in London, of all places. But these people had no debts, they knew what they were doing.

Who is that? :o Kayane?

Kingnobody you can't argue rationally with someone who doesn't value rationale nor can you utilize facts with people who do not value factual information. They argue from a place of emotion, they feel they are right and therefor they believe they are right. They feel you are wrong and therefor they believe you are wrong. Facts and figures are then created in order to support the aforementioned feelings.

The only way to interact with extreme progressives is to belittle and taunt them. Humiliate and anger them until they feel bad and either shut up or go away. They will try to gang up on you, gather many of them in order to oppress you with how bad they feel, you counter that by laughing at them further. Protein World did it perfectly and it's lead to a very large increase in revenue from all the free advertising and extra sales.

Yeah, Kayane. She was in my city last week end, she had a lot of goodies to share.

Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime.

People can't seem to make the leap from "skills gap" to "education" without tripping into "bootstrap" and "entitlement" logical pitfalls.

Why learn how to fish when the government gives me all the fish I could ever want? So much easier to vote Democrat and have everything handed to me. So what if the government took those fish from someone who had the skill and worked for them. Why should I be expected to support myself and my family. Feed me damn it!

Idaho Fish and Game only lets me keep a total of 6 trout a day from lakes or reservoirs and 2 from rivers and streams. The pope is saying that I get other peoples fish now too.

People seem to like to throw logical pitfalls like "bootstrap" and "entitlement" into any argument regarding the working class. I just quoted one doing so now!

Is this the class warfare thread or the charity thread ?