2

The Poor are Retarded

posted by ohphukimintrouble on politics

It's a matter of fact that those who are poor tend to typically lower IQ. You can dispute this all you want, but facts are facts. I think we ought to treat the poor who collect welfare with more rigor and give them more attention. I think there needs to be an end to the neoliberal ways of throwing money at them and expecting them to have a clue with what to do with it.

https://i.imgur.com/SyETooH.png

When you're on welfare, you should accept a cut in financial freedom in return for assistance. National economies have to meet a certain criteria for getting aid and/or loans. Why shouldn't the poor? Welfare should be a tool for learning and paving the way for preventative measures. I could liken the individual to an economy of an African banana republic. Unless you take the leap to meet certain conditions, you should be ineligible for welfare.

We ought to control the spending of those on welfare. They're poor because they have no money management ability. Why do we continue to just give them money when it doesn't help? I think it's shocking that beneficiary parents are given the liberty to buy drugs with public money while children have to go without food. Why aren't we controlling their spending habits?

The best way to control their spending is by direct targeting of welfare. Food stamps are a great example of a streamlined welfare programme with very little abuse. There are certain eftpos-like cards that work for certain goods and services. We should deploy that to those who demonstrate they have the mental capacity to handling of their own finances.

Why aren't we more stringent towards the poor's treatment of public housing? They're allowed to move into a house, trash it, then get rewarded with another one where the cycle repeats. There's no respect for the property of others. If you destroy more expensive welfare like public housing, you should be homeless on the streets. There are plenty of good properties, publicly owned, that have been plagued by individuals who destroy entire blocks. That is a roof that could and should be going to a mother fleeing an abusive situation with her children.

I can't stand the lack of push to not get a job. Inter-generational illiteracy, unemployment and reliance on the state. We should be pushing to get people off welfare as soon as possible. If there isn't the jobs at the lower-end, we should be training them up in apprenticeships or getting them involved in some form of workfare.

There are legitimate cases for welfare for those naturally unlucky. We can and should still target to help their needs directly. The crippled deserve direct help. Fortunately, the status quo does this already. There doesn't need to be any specific widespread change in this area.

I believe we need to be controlling the poor on welfare. They don't deserve the same amount of economic freedom as someone who earns their income. Their economic liberties should be sacrificed in exchange for assistance.

It's a matter of fact that those who are poor tend to typically lower IQ. You can dispute this all you want, but facts are facts. I think we ought to treat the poor who collect welfare with more rigor and give them more attention. I think there needs to be an end to the neoliberal ways of throwing money at them and expecting them to have a clue with what to do with it. https://i.imgur.com/SyETooH.png When you're on welfare, you should accept a cut in financial freedom in return for assistance. National economies have to meet a certain criteria for getting aid and/or loans. Why shouldn't the poor? Welfare should be a tool for learning and paving the way for preventative measures. I could liken the individual to an economy of an African banana republic. Unless you take the leap to meet certain conditions, you should be ineligible for welfare. We ought to control the spending of those on welfare. They're poor because they have no money management ability. Why do we continue to just give them money when it doesn't help? I think it's shocking that beneficiary parents are given the liberty to buy drugs with public money while children have to go without food. Why aren't we controlling their spending habits? The best way to control their spending is by direct targeting of welfare. Food stamps are a great example of a streamlined welfare programme with very little abuse. There are certain eftpos-like cards that work for certain goods and services. We should deploy that to those who demonstrate they have the mental capacity to handling of their own finances. Why aren't we more stringent towards the poor's treatment of public housing? They're allowed to move into a house, trash it, then get rewarded with another one where the cycle repeats. There's no respect for the property of others. If you destroy more expensive welfare like public housing, you should be homeless on the streets. There are plenty of good properties, publicly owned, that have been plagued by individuals who destroy entire blocks. That is a roof that could and should be going to a mother fleeing an abusive situation with her children. I can't stand the lack of push to not get a job. Inter-generational illiteracy, unemployment and reliance on the state. We should be pushing to get people off welfare as soon as possible. If there isn't the jobs at the lower-end, we should be training them up in apprenticeships or getting them involved in some form of workfare. There are legitimate cases for welfare for those naturally unlucky. We can and should still target to help their needs directly. The crippled deserve direct help. Fortunately, the status quo does this already. There doesn't need to be any specific widespread change in this area. I believe we need to be controlling the poor on welfare. They don't deserve the same amount of economic freedom as someone who earns their income. Their economic liberties should be sacrificed in exchange for assistance.

8 comments

[–] Mattvision 2 points (+2|-0)

Edited

A poor person scoring low on an IQ test does not necessarily mean they're poor because they're stupid, it's probably that they're stupid because they're poor.

IQ tests target intelligence, not education. It's almost entirely a matter of the individuals genetics. The idea that upbringing has any real influence on it is a myth, and contrary evidence has been appearing over and over again. 'Nurture over nature' (at least when it comes to IQ) is only really taken seriously in leftist academic circles, and is on par with socialist economic theories and gender science.

4 (this is a big one, it says that environmental influences on children are temporary)

[–] PMYA 2 points (+2|-0)

It's almost entirely a matter of the individuals genetics

I am not seeing this at all in the links you provided though.

A major review of studies on twins published last year in the journal Nature Genetics found that 49 percent of the average variation for human traits and diseases comes down to genetics, while 51 percent was due to environmental factors.

"Scientists are probably just as split as they have always been on the nature vs. nurture issue," John Protzko, a developmental psychologist at the university and the study's lead author, said in a statement. "Almost all will agree that it is a mix of both; but that is largely where progress ends."

The researchers found that environmental interventions boosted intelligence -- but only temporarily. The gains in intelligence were not permanent; rather, they diminished over time, illustrating what the researchers refer to as the "fadeout effect."

"You can't just go in, change one aspect of the children's lives, and expect permanent gains," Protzko said. "Eventually, the experiment ends and they go back into their same homes and environments."

So I'll put it forward again. A kid growing up in a shit environment is almost certainly going to be affected by their surroundings.