A Certain Kind of Poor Folk

[ClosedCaption]

Uh, where is the proof again?

One thing is clear, it isn't up your ass. So you can pull your head out and look elsewhere.

I know, thanks

 

[Truthmatters]

What you fail to understand is that it is the veracity of the statement, data, in question rather than the source.

That is why folks like you gripe about Heritage, or Cato.....but avoid dealing with the facts that they provide.
For the Left, obfuscation is farm more efficacious than debate.



You have some gripe with the folks who provide the material?

Well then....I always wonder why folks like you didn't stop using Arabic numerals after 9/11.

The Heritage Foundation, and the Fraser Institute in Canada, are both extreme right wing think tanks which start with a point of view and then fit the facts to go along with it. Yes, some of what they say is true, but their solutions are always tilted to a "business first" solution.

De-regulation of businesses is not the panacea The Heritage and the Fraser present it to be. At least the Fraser is honest about its agenda, which includes the elimination of the public school system, and the dismantling of the Canadian Health Care Act so that Canada can embrace the American style freemarket health system.

American workers enjoy few protections under American "at will" labour laws, which is why American workers have been so easily displaced by workers in Third World Countries and are forced to work whatever hours their employers deem reasonable. Yes they can go elsewhere, but low skill workers have a higher rate of unemployment that most so those people have few, if any, protections.

But you're a "extreme left wing chunk tank".....so wherein lies your believability?

why do you support a group that was started to stop Americans from voting?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Pleeeeezzze.....focus like a laser.

The post to which I responded said " YOUR money, money that YOU set aside"

Did I or did I not prove that this is not the case?


If you have some other issue to discuss re: Social Security, please state it as such.

I responded to your post and your statement: "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect

And, no you haven't proven that statement incorrect.
Some may get more than they paid "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect

Some may get more than they paid in out, some may get little or no return for their money. In any case you have not shown where anyone is getting any more than they are due based on their past payments.

Perhaps you should sit with a dictionary, and read very, very slowly.

You wrote:
"Some may get more than they paid in out, some may get little or no return for their money. In any case you have not shown where anyone is getting any more than they are due based on their past payments."

I provided information that clearly suggests the opposite.

Let's review:

1. "... will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

Do you understand the word "more"?

and...

2. "... gotten back almost three times what they put in."

Do you understand how "more" fits here, as well?


and....

3. "... gotten back more than eight times what they paid in."


and ...

4. "... paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in."


and...

5. "....14 times what they put in."


and....

6. ".... many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in."


and....

7. "... past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits."

and...

8. "‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system."

And so, according to the items above, I am correct in stating that payments by individuals are less than them will get back
You, of course, are in error, as was friend editec, to whom I responded.

It takes a certain kind of government school grad to view data and claim the opposite.
Raise your paw.


Perhaps the problem is the blue font.
If you use some other hue you may be proven correct.
Not.

No, the problem is that the speculation you've presented as "evidence" has nothing to do with the issue. Again, no matter much someone does or doesn't get, how is anyone getting back more than they are due as you have claimed?

You cannot accurately predict how much any individual will pay in because you cannot predict how long someone will live or pay into the system, or receive "benefits from that system. Also a 1960 dollar had considerably more value than a 2013 dollar does and a person would have to receive many more 2013 dollars to break even value wise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Heritage Foundation, and the Fraser Institute in Canada, are both extreme right wing think tanks which start with a point of view and then fit the facts to go along with it. Yes, some of what they say is true, but their solutions are always tilted to a "business first" solution.

De-regulation of businesses is not the panacea The Heritage and the Fraser present it to be. At least the Fraser is honest about its agenda, which includes the elimination of the public school system, and the dismantling of the Canadian Health Care Act so that Canada can embrace the American style freemarket health system.

American workers enjoy few protections under American "at will" labour laws, which is why American workers have been so easily displaced by workers in Third World Countries and are forced to work whatever hours their employers deem reasonable. Yes they can go elsewhere, but low skill workers have a higher rate of unemployment that most so those people have few, if any, protections.

But you're a "extreme left wing chunk tank".....so wherein lies your believability?

why do you support a group that was started to stop Americans from voting?

Don't you realize yet....

...I always endorse the truth.


You?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I responded to your post and your statement: "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect

And, no you haven't proven that statement incorrect.
Some may get more than they paid "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect

Some may get more than they paid in out, some may get little or no return for their money. In any case you have not shown where anyone is getting any more than they are due based on their past payments.

Perhaps you should sit with a dictionary, and read very, very slowly.

You wrote:
"Some may get more than they paid in out, some may get little or no return for their money. In any case you have not shown where anyone is getting any more than they are due based on their past payments."

I provided information that clearly suggests the opposite.

Let's review:

1. "... will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

Do you understand the word "more"?

and...

2. "... gotten back almost three times what they put in."

Do you understand how "more" fits here, as well?


and....

3. "... gotten back more than eight times what they paid in."


and ...

4. "... paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in."


and...

5. "....14 times what they put in."


and....

6. ".... many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in."


and....

7. "... past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits."

and...

8. "‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system."

And so, according to the items above, I am correct in stating that payments by individuals are less than them will get back
You, of course, are in error, as was friend editec, to whom I responded.

It takes a certain kind of government school grad to view data and claim the opposite.
Raise your paw.


Perhaps the problem is the blue font.
If you use some other hue you may be proven correct.
Not.

No, the problem is that the speculation you've presented as "evidence" has nothing to do with the issue. Again, no matter much someone does or doesn't get, how is anyone getting back more than they are due as you have claimed?

You cannot accurately predict how much any individual will pay in because you cannot predict how long someone will live or pay into the system, or receive "benefits from that system. Also a 1960 dollar had considerably more value than a 2013 dollar does and a person would have to receive many more 2013 dollars to break even value wise.

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.

1. See one of your two problems must be the blue font.
The other is your death of discernment.
It is not 'speculation,' it is data.
Based on mathematics.
You've heard that term? Good.


2. I believe you realize how wrong you are....as you are trying to change the discussion to the value of the dollars they are getting, rather than how many.
So, you agree that folks get more of 'them' than they paid in? Good.


3. Perhaps the issue is too complex for you, and I've provided far too much information for you.
You could simply have written 'is not, is not.'
That, I'm certain, would gain full credit in government school.

 

[Truthmatters]

dont bother with this one too much.

PC is lives in a world designed by lies.


she has promoted ideas that include things like "most people are bad".


and has advocated allowing the hungry to starve and then touted how christiany she is.


a total waste of time

 

[regent]

The U.S. has always had welfare programs for both industry and the poor, and governments were involved in both welfare programs. It seems for many, welfare for industry is OK, but welfare for the poor and disabled is not.
There are a number of books written on America's welfare systems including our welfare history some programs beginning before our constitution was ratified and we were British.

 

[PoliticalChic]

dont bother with this one too much.

PC is lives in a world designed by lies.


she has promoted ideas that include things like "most people are bad".


and has advocated allowing the hungry to starve and then touted how christiany she is.


a total waste of time

Lie number one would be.........???

 

[PoliticalChic]

The U.S. has always had welfare programs for both industry and the poor, and governments were involved in both welfare programs. It seems for many, welfare for industry is OK, but welfare for the poor and disabled is not.
There are a number of books written on America's welfare systems including our welfare history some programs beginning before our constitution was ratified and we were British.

"The U.S. has always had welfare programs for both industry and the poor, and governments were involved in both welfare programs."

Sorry, reggie.....

If you are implying that said welfare programs were government welfare programs, you'd be continuing down the your usual path.....

....the erroneous one.


"On January 6, 1657 twenty-eight “Scottish men” signed the Laws Rules and Order of the Poor Boxes Society” in Boston, New England and formed the Scots’ Charitable Society. The founder stated that “…our benevolence is for the releefe of our selves being Scottishmen or for any of the Scottish nation whome we may see cause to helpe…”[1] Almost 350 years later this dedication to benevolent acts continues to guide the work of the Scots’ Charitable Society.
In 1841, when the members of the Society marched in the Boston funeral procession in honor of President Harrison, the Society was recognized as the oldest charitable society in the United States. Among the Boston organizations that marched only the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, founded in 1638, was older. The next oldest Boston society was the Irish Charitable Society which was founded in 1737. [2] Today the Society remains the oldest charitable organization in the United States."
http://www.linknet1.com/scots-charitable/menu1/index1.html


Do you consider this government welfare?

"As John Winthrop led a group of English Puritans to Massachusetts Bay in 1630, he imparted the "model of Christian charity" that would define their colony. "We must bear one another's burdens," he told his fellow settlers. "We must not look only on our own things but also on the things of our brethren."
The Distinctly American Tradition of Charity - US News and World Report


Or are you speaking of federal government welfare programs?



BTW...do you know how much Americans volunteered in charity last year?

Wanna guess?

 

[9thIDdoc]

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.

1. See one of your two problems must be the blue font.
The other is your death of discernment.
It is not 'speculation,' it is data.
Based on mathematics.
You've heard that term? Good.

I think maybe you meant "dearth" instead of death.
Do you have any figures that are not based on assumptions? Assumptions such as age, years paying into the system, pay scale, years receiving benefits, etc.? Assumptions are another word for speculation, darlin, not "data" which requires real world facts. And the more assumptions the wilder the speculation. Ever hear of GIGO (garbage in=garbage out)?

2. I believe you realize how wrong you are....as you are trying to change the discussion to the value of the dollars they are getting, rather than how many.
Actually the issue has nothing to do with either. The problem is that you seem to think that the government is-or will-pay people more than it owes..

So, you agree that folks get more of 'them' than they paid in? Good.
Some do so don't neither has anything to do with them being due whatever they get (or don't).

You sound like a woman driving the wrong way on a one way street insisting she is in the right because she is only driving one way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.

1. See one of your two problems must be the blue font.
The other is your death of discernment.
It is not 'speculation,' it is data.
Based on mathematics.
You've heard that term? Good.

I think maybe you meant "dearth" instead of death.
Do you have any figures that are not based on assumptions? Assumptions such as age, years paying into the system, pay scale, years receiving benefits, etc.? Assumptions are another word for speculation, darlin, not "data" which requires real world facts. And the more assumptions the wilder the speculation. Ever hear of GIGO (garbage in=garbage out)?

2. I believe you realize how wrong you are....as you are trying to change the discussion to the value of the dollars they are getting, rather than how many.
Actually the issue has nothing to do with either. The problem is that you seem to think that the government is-or will-pay people more than it owes..

So, you agree that folks get more of 'them' than they paid in? Good.
Some do so don't neither has anything to do with them being due whatever they get (or don't).

You sound like a woman driving the wrong way on a one way street insisting she is in the right because she is only driving one way.

1. You are right....I meant dearth....
a. I mean 'data'
da·ta
/ˈdatə/
Noun
Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.


2. "...you seem to think that the government is-or will-pay people more than it owes.."
a. The data proves that it does just that.
This is due to the numerous errors in FDR's original plan...
No one considered that life expectancy would increase?
No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?
No one calculated the long-term costs?


b. Believe it or not, the Supreme Court has found that the government doesn't have to pay anyone Social Security.


3. "You sound like a woman driving the wrong way on a one way street insisting she is in the right because she is only driving one way."
You sound like a guy losing an argument to a woman....again.

4. Couples earning up to about $600,000 will get back more in Social Security than they paid in.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ting-more-or-less-than-you-paid-for.html?_r=0

 

[kwc57]

I can explain it to you, I just can’t comprehend it for you.

1. See one of your two problems must be the blue font.
The other is your death of discernment.
It is not 'speculation,' it is data.
Based on mathematics.
You've heard that term? Good.

I think maybe you meant "dearth" instead of death.
Do you have any figures that are not based on assumptions? Assumptions such as age, years paying into the system, pay scale, years receiving benefits, etc.? Assumptions are another word for speculation, darlin, not "data" which requires real world facts. And the more assumptions the wilder the speculation. Ever hear of GIGO (garbage in=garbage out)?

2. I believe you realize how wrong you are....as you are trying to change the discussion to the value of the dollars they are getting, rather than how many.
Actually the issue has nothing to do with either. The problem is that you seem to think that the government is-or will-pay people more than it owes..

So, you agree that folks get more of 'them' than they paid in? Good.
Some do so don't neither has anything to do with them being due whatever they get (or don't).

You sound like a woman driving the wrong way on a one way street insisting she is in the right because she is only driving one way.

You're out of your league. You may want to give up while you still have a little ass left on your backside.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Heritage and the Fraser are both good at "speculation" based on questionable data, because real facts and figures never support their positions on government programs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Heritage and the Fraser are both good at "speculation" based on questionable data, because real facts and figures never support their positions on government programs.

"... real facts and figures never support their positions on government programs."


Never?

Let me take a moment and check the links and data you've provided.....

Oh....you forgot to provide any.


Possibly you meant that 'never support' to reflect Liberal/Progressive myths.
Isn't that the case?


Any truth to the rumor that you wear a pony tail to cover up the valve stem?

 

[Dragonlady]

Let me take a moment and check the links and data you've provided.....

Oh....you forgot to provide any.


Possibly you meant that 'never support' to reflect Liberal/Progressive myths.
Isn't that the case?

It's pointless to post links, because you don't read them. Hell, you don't even bother to read the links that YOU post.

You don't even post for intellectual discussion, you're just looking for opportunities to make fun of liberals and demonstrate your amazing ability to post insults instead of ideas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me take a moment and check the links and data you've provided.....

Oh....you forgot to provide any.


Possibly you meant that 'never support' to reflect Liberal/Progressive myths.
Isn't that the case?

It's pointless to post links, because you don't read them. Hell, you don't even bother to read the links that YOU post.

You don't even post for intellectual discussion, you're just looking for opportunities to make fun of liberals and demonstrate your amazing ability to post insults instead of ideas.

So...it's easier to pretend that you know what I do than actually support what you write?

You're name is hereby changed to "DragonLazy."


So....you posted that Heritage and Cato "never" post accurate information about government welfare programs.....

Could it be that you're nothing by hot air?

They posted this:
"Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care."
What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox


Sure looks accurate to me.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pleeeeezzze.....focus like a laser.

The post to which I responded said " YOUR money, money that YOU set aside"

Did I or did I not prove that this is not the case?


If you have some other issue to discuss re: Social Security, please state it as such.

I responded to your post and your statement: "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect

And, no you haven't proven that statement incorrect.
Some may get more than they paid "...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect

Some may get more than they paid in out, some may get little or no return for their money. In any case you have not shown where anyone is getting any more than they are due based on their past payments.

Perhaps you should sit with a dictionary, and read very, very slowly.

You wrote:
"Some may get more than they paid in out, some may get little or no return for their money. In any case you have not shown where anyone is getting any more than they are due based on their past payments."

I provided information that clearly suggests the opposite.

Let's review:

1. "... will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes."

Do you understand the word "more"?

and...

2. "... gotten back almost three times what they put in."

Do you understand how "more" fits here, as well?


and....

3. "... gotten back more than eight times what they paid in."


and ...

4. "... paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in."


and...

5. "....14 times what they put in."


and....

6. ".... many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in."


and....

7. "... past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits."

and...

8. "‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system."

And so, according to the items above, I am correct in stating that payments by individuals are less than them will get back
You, of course, are in error, as was friend editec, to whom I responded.

It takes a certain kind of government school grad to view data and claim the opposite.
Raise your paw.


Perhaps the problem is the blue font.
If you use some other hue you may be proven correct.
Not.

Then all we need to do is adjust Social Security's balance sheet, just like Reagan and the Democrats did in 1983,

and we can easily make it solvent for another 75 years, or whatever.

Social Security was one year away from insolvency in 1983; it's nowhere near that now.

The radicals like Paul Ryan who would trash the entire system were around in the 1980's as well;

they failed then and Social Security prevailed. There is no reason that outcome shouldn't be repeated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.

1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho

It may not be possible to end poverty. I can't say for certain one way or the other. However, the goal has to be to reduce poverty as much as possible doesn't it? It certainly doesn't make sense to increase poverty.

So what's wrong with trying to come up with a better way to decrease poverty? It really just feels like you are knee-jerking because someone spoke against the way welfare is working (or not working.) Is there something inherently wrong with trying to examine a system to see if there might be a better way to accomplish it's goals?

Any way you say it, less poverty is good. If we could end poverty, great. If not, then let's try to find the most effective way to reduce it as far as possible. The point is these programs don't encourage people to start earning on their own. If we are going to have government welfare programs that needs to be a key part of them; an incentive to start working and earning on your own.

The incentive for getting off welfare, to those who are employable, is the availability of a job that meaningfully improves one's economic condition.

When you take away a poor person's welfare and force them into a low wage job that nets no more than they got on welfare,

all you've done is added one more person to the ranks of the working poor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.

State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter."
Tamerlan Tsarnaev got Mass. welfare benefits | Boston Herald

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.

1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho

It may not be possible to end poverty. I can't say for certain one way or the other. However, the goal has to be to reduce poverty as much as possible doesn't it? It certainly doesn't make sense to increase poverty.

So what's wrong with trying to come up with a better way to decrease poverty? It really just feels like you are knee-jerking because someone spoke against the way welfare is working (or not working.) Is there something inherently wrong with trying to examine a system to see if there might be a better way to accomplish it's goals?

Any way you say it, less poverty is good. If we could end poverty, great. If not, then let's try to find the most effective way to reduce it as far as possible. The point is these programs don't encourage people to start earning on their own. If we are going to have government welfare programs that needs to be a key part of them; an incentive to start working and earning on your own.

The incentive for getting off welfare, to those who are employable, is the availability of a job that meaningfully improves one's economic condition.

When you take away a poor person's welfare and force them into a low wage job that nets no more than they got on welfare,

all you've done is added one more person to the ranks of the working poor.

The two main elements of Liberal propaganda: bilge and claptrap.

1. So...keep taking your neighbor's hard-earned funds until the proffered employment meets with your standards.

What kind of bottom-feeder believes, or even writes that trash?



2. The truth is the poster isn't the only one to advance this thinking.
Obamunists foist it on the nation by making it so very easy to steal....er, accept welfare largesse.
Obama removed the work requirement.
What is he trying to accomplish?



3. "Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.

“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”
Hipsters on food stamps - Salon.com



4. But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.
“As soon as people figure out they can vote representatives in to give them benefits, that’s the end of democracy,” Mr. Young said. “More and more people will be taking, and fewer will be producing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?pagewanted=4&ref=thesafetynet



What the heck happened to shame?