Let's look at the first issue, the word "fortunate" itself. Dictionary.com defines fortunate as....
for·tu·nate (fôrch-nt) adj.
1.Bringing something good and unforeseen; auspicious. 2.Having unexpected good fortune; lucky.
Therefore, if you are describing low-income earners as "less fortunate" (a term devised by Democrats and leftists alike I may add), it implies they simply were not lucky in life, instead of partially being victim of the decisions that they made in their own lives.
Does the contrary ring true as well? Does that mean the ones who actually achieved and succeeded only done so because they were "lucky" and didn't work their ass off and make the decisions they needed to in order to accomplish what they have in life? This actually has been a thought that has been going around sometime, as a year or two ago Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) referred to high achievers as "Those who have won life's lottery". Is that how people actually percieve every financially independent person, as someone who was just "fortunate" to be in the spot they are in today, like picking a lottery number?
Of course there are people out there in this world that were born into the decrepit situations they are in, as well as there are people in this world that were born "with a silver spoon". But of course, rarely has it been stated nowadays of people that come from poor conditions and a harmful environment that have become the exception of the norm and made their way to the top and become high-achievers. Likewise, there have been people that were born in luxury that have taken a hard fall while being rich, and have either ended up in jail or have lost a fortune (some might be facing the latter on Wall Street now). In this society do we try to educate people that it is possible to transfer yourself from either situation, granted that you make decisions supportive of success or failure? Do we actually live by the term, "Life is 10% of what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it.", or do we sit around miserably or even naively thinking that we live in a virtual caste system, and our situations, especially black people, will never change no matter what we do?
The second part of this thread seeks to question the standard of "poverty".
What can actually be called poverty? What conditions and standards must be applied in order for someone to be called "poor", specifically in these United States?
M2 and I have had this conversation before over at the old Boondocks site, but never with you guys. I think when we tend to think of people that are "rich", we tend to think of multi-millionaires, mostly white, with mansions and rolls royces, limosines, etc. However, the IRS and politicians knowingly call someone that is making around $350,000/yr rich. Why? Because they are classified as the top 1% of wage-earners, aka to leftists "the greedy, filthy rich".
Same with the poor. When we think of the poor, we tend to think of people living in sub-normal shelter and conditions. We think of homeless people. We think of people that dont have any food, wear dirty clothes, parents with no jobs, and children that go hungry. I honestly think that when a majority of you think of the "poor and the less fortunate", you think of something simular to watching the infomercial "Save The Children".
But is that actually realistic more often than not to the "poor" in the US? Sure, there are isolated spots in this country in which there are people that are indeed in need of help, such as Appalacia, but are all poor seen in the same standard? Can all welfare recipients be classified as poor, even though they have the luxuries that most people in America have: televisions, phones, VCR's, etc? There is a television in 99% of the homes in the United States; 98% of those televisions are color. However, the "poverty rate" in America is supposed to be 10%, and hasn't dropped in the last 40 years. There are people in other nations that have never seen a television; in fact they would amazed at the sight of chewing gum.
Hence, is your idea of poverty in America for the most part (emphasis on most part) an illusion? Or are you actually taking the luxuries that they happen to possess in consideration?
Just thought I'd make you guys think this weekend...