Tally ho!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

Once again, the "so called poor" are ridiculed by the "so called rich" with their "so called" logic.

Wow, just wow!

If only those stupid poor people hadn't mortgaged their spirit so they could have a fridge, they'd be as successful and happy as a pudgy white man on FOX

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").

I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.

It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.

While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").


He's saying that the poor suck and just aren't as good as rich people.

While I agree with you entirely, I doubt that's the point this pundit is making, especially when fitted in the larger picture, i.e. "lets tax the poor more, they aren't really poor, but don't touch the top 1%'s tax cuts".

As for "richness of spirit", it seems it's this pundit's go-to for disregarding people's claims (either that or he thinks the poor need more religion?):

http://videosift.com/video/Faux-News-versus-Dave-Silverman-Preparing-For-A-Crisis

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.

You know what...I'm poor. I'll fucking admit it.

I've been laid off from no less than four different teaching jobs in the past four years. Every year I've picked up odd jobs over the summer and have been able to find a new job (not a better job just a new job). Consequently, I've had to shave things off of my budget:

>>I've stopped eating out almost altogether (I still splurge for a $5 footlong every now and again but it's few and far between.

>>I got rid of my cable.

>>I cut my grocery budget in half (while still trying to buy semi-healthy things)

>>I haven't purchased anything for my aging computer in more than a year and a half (I'm a nerd so this IS a sacrifice believe it or not)

>>I stopped going to the bar except for special occasions (bachelor party for a friend most recently) and even then the first words out of my mouth are "What are your drink specials?" I've even stopped buying booze altogether really. Only worth mentioning because lord knows I could use a neat glass of gin now and then for the nerves caused by my finances.

>>Oh and my videosift charter membership =P
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There are countless other things I haven't the space to mention and some other things I can do to shave my budget down if needed; but making ends meet is getting harder and harder to do. At the moment my budget is stretched so thin I can't take some kind of tax hike.

And to suggest that Bill Gates can't take a tax hike but I can is ludicrous. Raise his taxes and he can't buy a new Rembrandt. Raise mine and I can't buy milk.

This guy, however much you may hate fox pundits, is making a simple point that's uncomfortable but actually true. There are two different definitions of poor, the one that applies to first world countries, and the one that applies to third world countries, and they are about as different as different can be.

I think he's wrong about the spirit thing, there are plenty of reasons some people have more money than others and it rarely has much to do with the person's 'spirit'. However, it's undeniably true that the 'poor' of America and the UK and so on are very, very much better off than the 'poor' of India or Africa.

JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...

Richness of spirit? What a scumbag.

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.


Low-income Canadians = a family earnings less than $20,000 with two children. -wiki

Oopsie doopsie, looks like you were actually middle class that whole time...

>> ^robbersdog49:

This guy, however much you may hate fox pundits, is making a simple point that's uncomfortable but actually true. There are two different definitions of poor, the one that applies to first world countries, and the one that applies to third world countries, and they are about as different as different can be.
I think he's wrong about the spirit thing, there are plenty of reasons some people have more money than others and it rarely has much to do with the person's 'spirit'. However, it's undeniably true that the 'poor' of America and the UK and so on are very, very much better off than the 'poor' of India or Africa.
JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...


Shame of shames! You people and your hyper relativistic moral compass. What a load of shit, I mean seriously!

You do realize that one can treat any matter of justice and equity with the extreme relativism that you just have? For instance, I could kill your family and respond to your concerns, "Hey, lets be reasonable, I could have bombed a nursery, It's not so bad in comparison...You've actually got it pretty good."

Do you understand why you do a disservice to the norms of justice and equity by way of your extreme moral relativism? (I qualify it with extreme because of course our physical reality and method of interpreting it demands that we compare or engage in relativism to a basic degree.)


You probably don't, anyhow, I urge to seek the truth regarding how our current economic and political structures are simply, unarguably,morally perverse.

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "
~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
~ Mahatma Ghandi

[As a last point, I must add that I do not support in any way, the hyper-consumptive society, or the society stricken with affluenza, but such a phenomena is in no way an argument against a more just and equal society, but is in and of itself another issue all together.]

Peroxide, maybe getting your facts from the source, instead of wikipedia, would be a good idea before you act like a pretentious dick.

According to Statistics Canada, the Low Income Cut-Off for an individual living in a population center of 500,000+ is $20,778. I was making closer to $18,000, so was well within the definition.

@rougy, @hpqp: Thanks for the clearer explanation. He's nuts, of course. Yes, many of America's "poor" could spend their money more wisely but that doesn't mean they should continue to bear more than their share of the tax burden. As @JiggaJonson said, giving the ultra-rich tax breaks is insane, even inhumane.>> ^Peroxide:


Low-income Canadians = a family earnings less than $20,000 with two children. -wiki
Oopsie doopsie, looks like you were actually middle class that whole time...

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.


Now imagine if one of your family desperately needed medical attention.

Canada= you're okay.
USA= you're fucked.

>> ^Peroxide:


Shame of shames! You people and your hyper relativistic moral compass. What a load of shit, I mean seriously!
You do realize that one can treat any matter of justice and equity with the extreme relativism that you just have? For instance, I could kill your family and respond to your concerns, "Hey, lets be reasonable, I could have bombed a nursery, It's not so bad in comparison...You've actually got it pretty good."
Do you understand why you do a disservice to the norms of justice and equity by way of your extreme moral relativism? (I qualify it with extreme because of course our physical reality and method of interpreting it demands that we compare or engage in relativism to a basic degree.)
You probably don't, anyhow, I urge to seek the truth regarding how our current economic and political structures are simply, unarguably, morally perverse.


Show me where I say our society is fair? I don't think that at all, you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not in any way saying that people in first world countries should live like those in third world countries. I'm not saying anything is wrong with wanting your life to be better. I'm simply pointing out a fact. It's a fact that gets strong reactions, as you've shown. It's an uncomfortable truth that has lead you to attack me and claim I'm saying things I'm not.

If I have a bad day at work it helps me deal with it to remember how lucky I am. That I'm not one of the unfortunate billions who have to live on less than $2 a day (from what I can find, that's 2.7 billion people). I realise I have a lot to be thankful for and a lot of reason to pull my socks up and carry on.

What you're basically saying is that it's wrong for us to try to put things into perspective. That it's wrong for us to recognise the suffering of others. I disagree. I think there are injustices in our societies, of course there are. The tax cuts for the rich and the burden on those who earn less makes for a completely un-equal society and that's not going to help anyone. But it's possible to understand the inequalities in our society and also to be able to see that we have it better than others. It really could be worse.

How about we sit back and look at what we ave got for once, instead of just moaning about what we should have. I'm pretty sure Mahatma Ghandi didn't mean that a nation should ignore the plight of other nations. That people should ignore others because they live in another country or in a different way.

Why is it wrong for me to look at a poor family in Africa and say 'look how much worse off they are than you, be thankful for what you have'? Do you think we shouldn't be thankful? (Please remember this isn't the same as saying we shouldn't want better for ourselves and our families, it means just what it says; that however little we think we have, shouldn't we be grateful that we have that when so many have less).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'some fox pundit, same old same old, poor' to 'poor, stuart varney, fox, jon stewart, daily show' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Skeeve:

I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine.

Did you have a wife and two kids? I believe Jon Stewart pointed out that "poor", according to the census definition, was a family of 4 living on less than $22k. That's very different from a single adult living on $20k.

[edit: I see now this has already been addressed. I should have read further down the page before commenting.]

I concur, however, that I don't know what to make of "richness of spirit". I'm guessing he's saying poor people are poor because they just don't try hard enough.

My 2 cents, (Because I can't afford any fucking thing else) Why is this even a debate? You have one group that if they miss a pay check they have a safety net. The other loses a pay check and they are living under a bridge.
typical. Only the Rich can have this debate. The poor are to busy trying to survive.

The whole argument can be turned on its head and used as an argument for raising the taxes on the rich back to, at least, what they were under Clinton.

Once they (the richest 1%) start bitching about progressive tax rates and acting like the sky is falling, remind them that they have refrigerators and microwaves and Xbox's, etc. so what are they complaining about?

On second thought, Bill Gates probably would be able to still buy a new Rembrandt even if his taxes were raised (even if they were raised a LOT). And that's the point of this whole argument. Even if you raise taxes on the rich they wouldn't do without anything save for a Scrooge McDuck style money swimming pool/vault.

It's a crime that higher taxes on the rich are not being imposed when everyone else is a bit of bad luck away from huddling around a trash can fire for warmth and they are living lives of excess thanks to laws influenced by the lobbyists they hired with their disgusting wealth.

>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^Peroxide:

Shame of shames! You people and your hyper relativistic moral compass. What a load of shit, I mean seriously!
You do realize that one can treat any matter of justice and equity with the extreme relativism that you just have? For instance, I could kill your family and respond to your concerns, "Hey, lets be reasonable, I could have bombed a nursery, It's not so bad in comparison...You've actually got it pretty good."
Do you understand why you do a disservice to the norms of justice and equity by way of your extreme moral relativism? (I qualify it with extreme because of course our physical reality and method of interpreting it demands that we compare or engage in relativism to a basic degree.)
You probably don't, anyhow, I urge to seek the truth regarding how our current economic and political structures are simply, unarguably, morally perverse.

Show me where I say our society is fair? I don't think that at all, you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not in any way saying that people in first world countries should live like those in third world countries. I'm not saying anything is wrong with wanting your life to be better. I'm simply pointing out a fact. It's a fact that gets strong reactions, as you've shown. It's an uncomfortable truth that has lead you to attack me and claim I'm saying things I'm not.
If I have a bad day at work it helps me deal with it to remember how lucky I am. That I'm not one of the unfortunate billions who have to live on less than $2 a day (from what I can find, that's 2.7 billion people). I realise I have a lot to be thankful for and a lot of reason to pull my socks up and carry on.
What you're basically saying is that it's wrong for us to try to put things into perspective. That it's wrong for us to recognise the suffering of others. I disagree. I think there are injustices in our societies, of course there are. The tax cuts for the rich and the burden on those who earn less makes for a completely un-equal society and that's not going to help anyone. But it's possible to understand the inequalities in our society and also to be able to see that we have it better than others. It really could be worse.
How about we sit back and look at what we ave got for once, instead of just moaning about what we should have. I'm pretty sure Mahatma Ghandi didn't mean that a nation should ignore the plight of other nations. That people should ignore others because they live in another country or in a different way.
Why is it wrong for me to look at a poor family in Africa and say 'look how much worse off they are than you, be thankful for what you have'? Do you think we shouldn't be thankful? (Please remember this isn't the same as saying we shouldn't want better for ourselves and our families, it means just what it says; that however little we think we have, shouldn't we be grateful that we have that when so many have less).


Did you even read my comment? For your convenience I've highlighted the sections which show that you did not read/comprehend it.

My position is one of Idealism, I will be the first to admit that.

And I recognize that some people are, and will always be, of too small an imagination (or of a heart) to strive for justice within their own borders, as well as around the world.

You present arguments in favor of ignoring genuine socio-political inequity, by comparing extremes.

Of course it is comforting to know that you have access to clean water.

But it doesn't follow that we, as a society should tolerate children lining up at the food bank because they have clean water and a fridge.

You say: "I realise I have a lot to be thankful for and a lot of reason to pull my socks up and carry on."

I say: I realize I have a lot to be thankful for, but just that fact that 2.7 billion people live off of less than $2 a day, does not mean that I should tolerate poverty in my country.

You say: "Why is it wrong for me to look at a poor family in Africa and say 'look how much worse off they are than you, be thankful for what you have'?"

I say: It isn't, of course I'm thankful for what i have you imbecile, but the act of dismissing inequalities simply because you can think of a more unequal situation is a pathetic, often wholly inappropriate practice.

Stuart Varney is the guy who tells the woman who was impregnated by her rapist, that she should be thankful her rapist didn't give her aids also.
Of course shes happy about that, it doesn't mean that rape isn't a rancorous evil.

If you find Stuart Varney's arguments convincing, you are a grade A twat.

@Peroxide, it is your right to call other people imbecile because they say something other than "you are right, I agree 100% with everything you say."

However it appears to me that you guys are talking about two different things. @robbersdog49 is making a mild observation from his or her own way of looking at the world.

Is there some way this impending flameout can be averted? I hear you peroxide. You make good points. Robber is making a different point. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Shall we meet for tea and cookies? Maybe we can see that really there is a great deal of agreement here, once you know the topics are completely different.

Things I learned from chemistry that apply to this situation. Peroxide burns.

Bareboards has nailed it. I'm being labelled as something I'm really not.

"Of course it is comforting to know that you have access to clean water.

But it doesn't follow that we, as a society should tolerate children lining up at the food bank because they have clean water and a fridge."

I agree completely.

"I say: I realize I have a lot to be thankful for, but just that fact that 2.7 billion people live off of less than $2 a day, does not mean that I should tolerate poverty in my country."

I agree completely.

"If you find Stuart Varney's arguments convincing, you are a grade A twat."

I think this may be the bit that's causing the problems. For the record I'm from the UK, and this clip on videosift is the first I've ever heard of this Varney bloke. I don't know what he's said before, I have no idea of his philosophies. I'm only talking about the very basic point he's making in the video. I'm not supporting him in general, I'm simply discussing a single isolated thing he's said. I get the feeling you're attacking me as I seem to be one of his supporters when I've never even heard of him before.

You really are trying to put words in my mouth where in fact we both seem to agree an awful lot more than we disagree. I believe we need social reform that will help reduce the gap between rich and poor in our countries. I'm on your side here. Don't try so hard to make enemies, go back and read what I've actually written knowing that I'm not a varney supporter. I hope you'll see it makes more sense than you thought.

@robbersdog1234

Yeah, sorry man, I am pretty passionate.

I would propose that I never ever put words in your mouth, nor did I "try" to.

What I argue against, is your, and Varney's method of informing people that they should be thankful for what they have based on extremes. This is a very slippery slope, and frankly an ignoble way to reason about your own, as well as the situations of others.

I present exhibit A: "It's not as bad as..."

I present exhibit B: "It's a lot worse than..."

And I propose that instead rationalizing injustice by either of these simplistic relativistic maneuvers, we start to step back and ask,

"Ought things be this way?"

"How should poverty be defined? By quantifying appliances?"

Furthermore, I ask you, who isn't thankful for their fridge when they see African children suffering from malnutrition? Why is it your job to point this out? Why does this strike you as an some sort of divinely revealed insight?

You feel personally attacked, this is because I believe your personal position is one of nullifying concerns about genuine justice based on extremes, and your thinking like Varneys endorses utilizing "relative to the worst possible case on the planet" justifications.

Yeah. That guy sleeping in the alley has the clothes on his back and a shopping cart full of cans. What he lacks is a richness of spirit.

Honestly, someone ought to strip these people of all their possessions, drop them into the mean streets of Detroit and see how well they're doing after a week or two.

They real alarm bell should sound regardless of the "juice" of the arguments.

People who once believed in the power of nuclear refrigerators are suddenly comparing their social system to that of a third world country.

*news
*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality, News) - requested by NetRunner.

The rich should be glad they live on Earth with it's oxygen and water instead of Mars, because they are rich enough that investing in a trip there might be what's needed to keep their taxes low.

It must be pretty comforting being filthy rich and knowing that you could say "Fuck the world" one day and live like a king for the rest of your life (which is probably going to be longer than most due to that healthcare you can afford, and the nutritionist, and trainer, and having summer and winter homes, and a driver, and and and and..... and then on top of it all knowing that your kids, their kids, and their kids kids can probably do nothing and live off of your estate. And they'd even be considered poor, because they aren't working to earn...yet have so much more than those who have to go out and break their backs everyday.

If the rich want the poor to give up more to taxes, perhaps they should pay their employees better.

this is the right answer

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

My 2 cents, (Because I can't afford any fucking thing else) Why is this even a debate? You have one group that if they miss a pay check they have a safety net. The other loses a pay check and they are living under a bridge.
typical. Only the Rich can have this debate. The poor are to busy trying to survive.

This is the sort of thought process that needs to be discouraged because when enforced you have people that begin seeing it as justified. "See, they can handle it, we can just fuck them over some more! They've already accepted it!" The reason the other classes are struggling is because of policies and business strategies put in place by the upper-class. They fucked our economy, they fuck our pockets, consequently fucking our overall health, liberty & "pursuit of happiness" just so they can keep immense profits for themselves.

Never compare the USA to Africa - Africa is so full of injustice, genocide and cruelty it is just unbelievable. Although, America is covert with their militaristic corruption supposedly as a nation we are peaceful with liberties & freedoms. America is better than our current trajectory but by giving up on the "niceties" of the lower & middle classes & not supporting real living wages you may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of even more injustice & cruelty in the US of A. The war in America is of the mind - when they get you thinking the way they want they will be able to exploit everything under the sun... sort of like what they've already done & luck plays no part of their agenda.

>> ^robbersdog49:

JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...

It's a debate, because of the definition and abuse of the term "poor".
Some people use the term "poor" and the equated annual earnings of $22K +/- to being at the level of poverty in some regions of Africa.
Others look at "poor" as being destitute and living with out food, water or shelter and figure anyone doing better than that is almost Middle Class.

The reality is something entirely different.

This anchor has a brain, what he lacks is rational thought.

I'm surprised so many people seem offended by the fact that people in first world countries are richer than those in third world ones. Why the hell shouldn't we compare USA citizens to Kenyan for example? Both sets of people are human beings, with the same needs, the same emotions, the same passions, the same everything. Why should be ignore the inequalities in the world? Particularly when we in the west consume far more than we should, often leading the to poverty everyone here seems to think should be ignoresd.

As has already been said, there's no reason whatsoever that understanding one's place in the world means not wanting to help those less fortunate than oneself in one's own country. Everyone who has had a go at me seems to think I'm saying that we can safely ignore people in need in our countries because other people are worse off in other countries when I've never said that and have actually said the opposite. I don't see the really poor of the third world as being the extreme in these comparissons, but rather we are the extreme. More people live on less than $1000 a year than live on £22000 a year. The normal state of human beings on the planet is to have very little money (way less than $22000 a year) and to be struggling to survive.

America has a wider income inequality gap than several of those African countries people keep bringing up. So while the "first world poor" in the US are not as destitute as those of "third world" countries, relatively speaking they're getting more fucked over by their country's rich, thus the outrage at assholes like those at Faux News who will resort to petty insults just to protect the interests of the top 1%.


http://i.imgur.com/QL8yN.jpg

There have to be lots of poor people in order for society to support a small number of rich people. That's how capitalism works. Don't know what richness of spirit means. If it means greedy, then yes, the poor are not as greedy as the rich. Studies show they tend to be more sympathetic to others in a similar situation and thus are more altruistic, whereas the rich don't give a damn and hoard their wealth.

Well, it's official: Let them eat cake, after all, they have refrigerators in case of leftovers!