There are some studies and such that suggest/link poverty with a higher likelihood of cognitive weaknesses/deficiencies/social issues/mental issues/IQ/etc.
I don't know if this may sound obvious or not, but the point is that poverty is bad for anyone period. Living in such a way just makes it more likely that you'll have a whole host of issues not just with lack of housing, but psychological/social/stress impact/overall health/etc.
I think it's wrong to say that being poor makes you just as capable as someone rich, when someone lacking resources of adequate living is more likely to be: stressed (impacting mental means somewhat); limited in diet, living style, opportunities that re-ingrain certain behaviors, attitudes, etc. (it's a psychological catch 22 in ways); and you overall feel more inadequate most likely.
This is the reason why I only really support Andrew Yang because he proposes direct, immediate rectifying of these issues and what they boil down to -- lack of money at the source. Other candidates want to work on "booming the economy" or making education free, but neither of those things help the innate problem that many issues stem and grow from.
What good is free education if you're still poor at the time and miserable? How many people on rock bottom are dying to start educating themselves when they're bound to be depressed, ill, and mentally exhausted?
What good is a "booming economy" when a growing number of people are financially insufficient? If you have the majority of the people struggling paycheck-to-paycheck, where does this "boom" come from & who mostly benefits then?
What good is "healthcare for all" when your very health issues are caused by poverty, misery & stress? You are treating the woes caused by the very lack of money, which having had it in the first place could've likely avoided said woes.
It's like trying to get a fix for something that could've avoided being broken in the first place, but you ignore that part.
reply
share