Poor people should only use telegraphs and drive Fred Flintston cars

I grew up in an affluent middle class area and happen to be caucasian. No question or debate about it, I was born priviledged due to these traits alone. Yeah, I can admit it! All it took was the ability to reason and some humility to get me there. I've received school reduced-price lunches throughout childhood due to occasional and temporary family financial strains, but I've never needed full-fledged welfare, be it WIC or food stamps or welfare checks. Other than as a teacher dealing with poor families, I've never worked within those social programs, nor I have studied them analytically. Beyond any 'ignorance' I have, I've taken enough economics, geography, history, political science, and sociology courses to know that there are many roads to poverty, that placing blame on one item to account for someone's poverty is irrational, as is generalizing pretty much anything about poor people. Too complex. Too multi-faceted. Too much history. And too many statistics! What is fascinating and disturbing to me is seeing friends who grew up with me, many of them 'wealthier' in childhood and adulthood than I, become so vocal as adults against poor people, specifically those who are on government welfare. The implication is always that the speaker's personal financial security was earned through hard work and intellect, and the poors' financial gaps must therefore be attributed to sloth or stupidity or unethical behavior. Even if welfare attackers don't give themselves credit, they argue that "I'm here because my ancestors' made great choices and worked hard", never mentioning luck or unfair advantage or unethical behavior in their own kins' backgrounds of course! You hear this story a lot in politician speeches during campaigns, the 'hard luck' story of the candidate's father or grandfather or great-grandmother, who came to America with ten cents and left a million dollar legacy. The point being made is that the candidate is a 'great American' because someone way back in their family started off poor, and THEN made the right choices and worked hard enough to leave that unethical or slothlike phase and move upwards. "Hey, if Grandpa John can do it, so can every single American, no matter the complexity of their situation! Only thing stopping you is you (implied: your perceived sloth, ethical dirtiness, and lack of character!)." And thus lays the stage for people to assume anyone still 'stuck' in a state of poverty has every door unlocked and opened. That since some Kennedy or Obama or Romney way back in time 'worked hard and made the right choices', every other person living in poverty can do the same. What's wild is that I have yet to meet a person who argues this stance passionately who DIDN'T come from a priviledged childhood. Politicians who argue this point vehemently are second or third generation wealth. My family members or friends that argue it have never been hungry a day in their lives. They have no idea what they are babbling about, but they.must.stick to the stance that doesn't allow for the possibility that given a different birth country, or parents, or birthday, or stream of luck, they could have been poor as well. "Because I am ethical and hard-working and smart, I will never be poor. It won't happen to me!" Such a childish incantation, but this seems to the bottom line of everyone I've come across who judges and ridicules poor people. How many times have we heard an anecdotal story or seen a comic about a poor person wearing a high brand shoe, or driving an expensive car, or using some sort of luxury item, WHILE collecting welfare? Everyone I know who insults poor people regularly has at least one story at the ready about people on welfare doing this, and by their estimate, 'cheating the system'. Meanwhile, statistics show this as a minor issue, if an issue at all. Less poor people are cheating the national welfare system than people cheating ANY other national system. The money wasted is minimal. It's not about money. If 'fraud' is truly at the base of these people's concerns, then why no mention of fraud in the Dept. of Defense, Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, Education, or Homeland Security? Crickets. It's not about fraud. It's about something else, something within the person doing the complaining. People are still prejudiced about the races and ethnicities that form the majority of poor people, so that's part of it. But it's beyond that. I am not a psychologist, but my guess is that fear of being poor is somewhat lessened by the mythology that being poor is 'earned' as is being successful. "THOSE people ask for that due to their behavior. I'm a better human, so I deserve what I have." Sounds gross, but that's the message I hear. You also hear it in Judeo-Christian ideologies. "I get these good things because I'm good/chosen/blessed, and people who don't get these good things aren't good/chosen/blessed." And then economics is painted with the same brush. 'One day well before Daddy Warbucks found her, Little Orphan Annie was sent to market for more gruel for the orphanage. Armed with only food stamps, Annie got in line to make her purchase, completely unaware that the woman behind her was a large noticer of details and a loud sharer of scorn. Later in the day the woman complained to her garden club about the little redhead, who wore a golden locket at the same time she used food stamps. The woman rolled her eyes while recanting, "I wonder where the other half of this locket, no doubt pure gold, was! In her limousine?!" When Annie gets taken in by a man who made his money from government fraud, unethical federal favors, and bloodbaths in other countries, perhaps this lady complainer would be relieved. Finally, Annie had found some character!'