There are precisely 2 ways to interpret the linguistic meaning of the statement, depending on the whether you insert "decisions" or "options" for "choices".
With what you're thinking of, the actual reaction someone has to the statement, after deciding what is linguistically intended... I've got to believe there are a lot more than 3 possible reactions. One that you haven't mentioned is the tendency to immediate demand a differentiation between "good poor" and "bad poor". This was one of the less brilliant innovations of eighties political culture in the US.
Poor can be "financially deficient" or "miserable" or "downtrodden" too, that gives some scope for alternatives.
"The poor are poor", can simply be a statement about the financial situation of a particular demographic or it can be a statement about the unhappiness of peoples lot, pity really, for those who're confined by their finances.
So:
People [without money|downtrodden] are [without money|downtrodden|to be pitied] because all of their [decisions|options] suck.
Who you think the term poor applies too is another way the phrase can be interpreted. "Trump is poor, he only values money", etc..
With what you're thinking of, the actual reaction someone has to the statement, after deciding what is linguistically intended... I've got to believe there are a lot more than 3 possible reactions. One that you haven't mentioned is the tendency to immediate demand a differentiation between "good poor" and "bad poor". This was one of the less brilliant innovations of eighties political culture in the US.