This woman, activist, extreme progressive or whatever continues to amaze me for her naivety and distance from reality. Here she clearly demonstrates the inability to focus on the cause rather than the affect.
If it were that simple there would not be any homelessness, hunger or poverty. It all boils down to what people do with what they have, how they spend money, how they earn money, what they are qualified to do what choices they make, attitude, how they choose to sustain what they have.
For decades governments have thrown, money, housing, food assistance at the problem, why isn’t the problem solved? Human nature/behavior and education are the key factors.
PS This person also promotes a $25 minimum wage, total student loan and aaaassaand and rent forgiveness forgiveness
Oh yeah, this too
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
The readers of this blog are generally “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” type. They have the intelligence to recognize their early life cash strapped dilemma and the ability to push through obstacles that derail many others. Sometimes, good models helped. Other times, hungry bellies or no shelter or transportation was the impetus for action. Find a roommate if needed, to reduce housing expense and for the majority you must have a marketable skill. If janitorial services is all you can do, do it with gusto and pray to God to give wisdom and don’t do stupid things like having children out of wedlock or gambling or drugs, etc. In the U.S., we still have opportunity, unlike some other countries. Good luck.
LikeLike
So, tell her to give away her home, her money …. No problem.
LikeLike
Could not disagree more.
Your glass is neither half full nor half empty. It’s upside down.
Throwing money at the problem doesn’t necessarily eliminate it, but it has greatly decreased poverty, and has the potential to do much more.
Blaming the victim;
” It all boils down to what people do with what they have, how they spend money, how they earn money, what they are qualified to do what choices they make, attitude, how they choose to sustain what they have.”
May be relevant for me, maybe you, as individuals. I shoulda saved more for retirement. A couple shouldn’t have children until/unless they can afford to sustain them properly (myself and eight siblings wouldn’t be here, nor maybe a third of our generation.) Save ten percent of income and live within your means. But I worked hard… And got lucky. The Navy taught me a trade and I have a good pension.
I have several sisters on that blue line up there, retiring on SS alone, that government program saved them from poverty. One sister raised three daughters on waitress pay… and SSI when her husband passed young. “Throwing money” may not mean the end of all poverty, but was a life saver to her and millions of others.
“Anyone can grow up to become president.” But everyone can’t. When you look at the group, 10 to 20 percent in poverty, or extreme poverty, they should be considered as homogenous. A unique group sui generis. By “choices” and “attitude” some individuals may escape, but the group will remain mostly unchanged. If macroeconomic policies keeps them, as a group, indigent, then yes, throwing money at them is called for. What if that doesn’t cure the problem? Double the dose.
A. For the most part, they are not poor because they are lazy or stupid.
B. You need them! They are vital to the economy and society. Enlightened Self Interest. Keep them healthy happy, and reproducing.
LikeLike
So, we should just keep going in the same direction? Actually the group keeps changing with different people in and out. Nobody said they are lazy or stupid.
LikeLike
Or make bad choices? A lot of people blame the poor for being poor. Some of the poor even believe that themselves. Ask me how I know.
Very few people move out of poverty very far or for very long. Marriage, divorce, death of spouse make temporary changes; many are, as they say, one missed paycheck away…
Yea, keep going the same direction, and don’t spare the gas.
Menial jobs pay menial wages, and many people work menial jobs their whole lives, by chance or by choice. But the jobs need to be done, and whoever does that job has to earn enough to survive, if only barely. If a major corporation can’t pay clerks and janitors enough to survive, and we (government) make up the difference with Medicaid, EITC, and SNAP, etc., are we subsidizing the employee or the employer?
LikeLike
Nina Turner is a failed self-described democratic socialist candidate in Cleveland who refused to endorse Joe Biden after he won the nomination in 2020. Wikipedia gives her sad history, and her web site ninaTurner.com has a section titled ‘Issues’. To learn the progressive position on “[s]ecuring social, racial, economic, health care and environmental justice”, check it out.
She announced in Jan 2022 she’s running for Congress _again_, after she already lost the past two Democrat Primary elections and lost for Ohio Secretary of State in 2014.
LikeLike
I’ll bet she’s a Democrat!
LikeLike
We ALL (Globally), have the same 24 hours in each day. It’s what we do with those 24 hours/day that will make humanity or break it. Using the same 24 hours constructively and productively will give Life success or Life’s failures.
She is believing that being the same as Communist China will solve our problems. She is obviously a devout Socialist believing in a Utopian ideal where everyone can live in harmony and share with other people. That is not how it works in real life since each one of us is born with different traits, strengths, weaknesses and heritage.
She is very clearly living in the wrong County!
LikeLike
If her statements were true we would find other examples in nature. All the animal would be sitting around expecting some other critter to house them and feed them. Do you know why we can’t find this in nature? Because some other critter came along and ate them or they starved to death, or froze to death. God helps those who help themselves is never more true here.
LikeLike
Ask Milton Friedman*. Everybody doesn’t need to work, even all able bodied. In fact, make work jobs are counter productive; a waste of resources.
https://i0.wp.com/marketbusinessnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Image-Negative-Income-Tax.jpg?fit=645%2C672&ssl=1
*Or Jerry Brown. (We need more welfare, not less.)Ask my sister who received thousands, or hundreds of thousands over the years for —not— planting crops on some of her land.
LikeLike