Graphs for you to ignore

[NYcarbineer]

It's known as the free market!

Glad you've come to your senses.

Better late than never.

when has unfettered markets ever produced what you claim?

I'm going to ignore the word "unfettered" in this context, unless you would care to define same, but will repeat the obvious about capitalism:

" Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."

All of that happened as GOVERNMENT began to intervene more and more to restrain Capitalism. At least in the U.S.

We never had our own great Communist/Marxist Revolution, like Russia, or China, or Cuba, because Liberalism was constantly winning smaller battles for the benefit of the poor and working classes,

and via GOVERNMENT was incrementally alleviating the injustices and atrocities committed by Capitalism.

Government and Liberalism saved us from becoming a Communist nation.

 

[freedombecki]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4153495-post1.html

Domonkoz, if you get rid of American large business interests, and you will with income redistribution, you are putting every single one of the 325 million Americans at the mercy of foreign investors. They have no compunctions about stealing American innovations and taking American jobs from America to China where, instead of paying $125 an hour for automobile assembly, they can pay $1.25/hour automobile assembly.

Go right ahead, Mister. The next thing you know, every American citizen, instead of having a Bill of Rights will--as Tennessee Ernie sang once, "owe his soul to the company's store."

Are you sure you want to indenture American citizens to wealthy Arabs? Just keep on pushing the shit.

Oh, you represent wealthy Arab oil? Pardon me. Just disregard what I just now said.

 

[tinydancer]

Stalin is not an example of unfedttered markets.

Where is the example in history where unfettered markets produce the freedom you claim it will?

I never claimed such a thing. Sometimes I have to wonder if you are on like a robo post. I never ever claimed that.

I think you are an intelligent poster albeit at the other end of the spectrum politically than me, but it's weird with you. There is no conversation because you are always jumping ahead of any one's real post.

Pity.

Now to markets. I am pissed. I am so angry I am spitting freaking bullets about the economy and banks and wall street.

And yes I am a conservative.

I'm still pissed that everyone from unions to wall street got bail outs. I'm so angry that all those fat cats still have golden shower nobs and that union assholes won't give up a penny for their salaries either.

Basically I am seriously pissed. And we've got a whole batch of academics in Washington who have never had a real freaking day job in their lives trying to run the planet.

 

[Truthmatters]

Where in the principles of conservatism do you see a desire to use the government to intervene to 'artificially' alleviate the conditions associated with Poverty?

Where do you not see conservatism trying to get rid of, or at least roll back, the existing government efforts to alleviate the conditions associated with Poverty?

Economic growth is what alleviates poverty, not government transfer programs. They only exacerbate poverty by undermining economic growth.

Liberalism is what creates poverty. Rolling back liberalism is the way you eliminate poverty.

You are the one who wants new kings.

That is what unfettered markets bring.


When kings ruled the world poverty was rampant

 

[edthecynic]

The point being every government has taxed trade, so where do the free markets come in?

You have to tax something, otherwise you have to go without government entirely. I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is whats fair in the tax code. Consumption being the fairest, the same percentage being next in line.

There is nothing even remotely fair about a consumption tax!!!

The only fair tax is a flat tax that includes all form of income with no exceptions or deductions.

 

[Truthmatters]

Stalin is not an example of unfedttered markets.

Where is the example in history where unfettered markets produce the freedom you claim it will?

I never claimed such a thing. Sometimes I have to wonder if you are on like a robo post. I never ever claimed that.

I think you are an intelligent poster albeit at the other end of the spectrum politically than me, but it's weird with you. There is no conversation because you are always jumping ahead of any one's real post.

Pity.

Now to markets. I am pissed. I am so angry I am spitting freaking bullets about the economy and banks and wall street.

And yes I am a conservative.

I'm still pissed that everyone from unions to wall street got bail outs. I'm so angry that all those fat cats still have golden shower nobs and that union assholes won't give up a penny for their salaries either.

Basically I am seriously pissed. And we've got a whole batch of academics in Washington who have never had a real freaking day job in their lives trying to run the planet.

I said that because that was your retort to the fact that unfettered markets do not produce what the right claims.

You have a right to be pissed, they are screwing the vast majority of Americans to rationalize the distruction of our government.

they want it hamstrung so the wealthy can run everything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?

Its because it doesnt

Of course it does..

Here is the real low-down:

1. By 2001, the Census Bureau was reporting hat the poor enjoyed as much or more of the indicia of comfortable modern standard of living as the middle class of thirty years before! As many or more cars, trucks, clothes dryers, and refrigerators in 2001 as the middle class in 1971! Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 67.

a. And twice as many air conditioners, and color TV’s and much more of such modern advances as microwaves, DVDs, VCRs, computers, and cell phones. Ibid.

b. And, improvements in quality or capability of anything is not reflected in the price or value of a product or service. In fact, the improvements are usually accompanied by a decrease in the market price, the universal measure of consumption!

c. As an example, Moore’s Law, computer power doubles every 18 months. And take a look at the advances in cell phones.

2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Stop being taken in.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4153495-post1.html

Domonkoz, if you get rid of American large business interests, and you will with income redistribution, you are putting every single one of the 325 million Americans at the mercy of foreign investors. They have no compunctions about stealing American innovations and taking American jobs from America to China where, instead of paying $125 an hour for automobile assembly, they can pay $1.25/hour automobile assembly.

Go right ahead, Mister. The next thing you know, every American citizen, instead of having a Bill of Rights will--as Tennessee Ernie sang once, "owe his soul to the company's store."

Are you sure you want to indenture American citizens to wealthy Arabs? Just keep on pushing the shit.

Oh, you represent wealthy Arab oil? Pardon me. Just disregard what I just now said.

They are already trying to own us.

The right is doing their bidding

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?

Its because it doesnt

Of course it does..

Here is the real low-down:

1. By 2001, the Census Bureau was reporting hat the poor enjoyed as much or more of the indicia of comfortable modern standard of living as the middle class of thirty years before! As many or more cars, trucks, clothes dryers, and refrigerators in 2001 as the middle class in 1971! Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 67.

a. And twice as many air conditioners, and color TV’s and much more of such modern advances as microwaves, DVDs, VCRs, computers, and cell phones. Ibid.

b. And, improvements in quality or capability of anything is not reflected in the price or value of a product or service. In fact, the improvements are usually accompanied by a decrease in the market price, the universal measure of consumption!

c. As an example, Moore’s Law, computer power doubles every 18 months. And take a look at the advances in cell phones.

2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Stop being taken in.

You can not produce a time in history can you?

It doesnt work and that is why

 

[Full-Auto]

You have to tax something, otherwise you have to go without government entirely. I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is whats fair in the tax code. Consumption being the fairest, the same percentage being next in line.

There is nothing even remotely fair about a consumption tax!!!

The only fair tax is a flat tax that includes all form of income with no exceptions or deductions.

Thats one opinion. How can paying taxes on what you consume not be fair?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name one society that has ever been without the conditions described. Most are far worse than ours in fact.

The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor.

They happen to be the policies conservatism most adamantly objects to.

That was my point.

Your point is at the top of your noggin.

"... policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."

Liberal policies are designed to trap the poor and keep them in welfare...

The following may be over your head, so let me know where you need elucidation:

There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap


Now, unless you take the position that welfare is good, and provides a respectable life choice, you must feel really, really dumb for saying:
"...The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."


Wise up. Libs want to keep folks poor and reliant on them....so they think and vote the way you do.

Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)

End the following:

1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')

...and whatever I've left out...

All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.

You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?

Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?

Its because it doesnt

Of course it does..

Here is the real low-down:

1. By 2001, the Census Bureau was reporting hat the poor enjoyed as much or more of the indicia of comfortable modern standard of living as the middle class of thirty years before! As many or more cars, trucks, clothes dryers, and refrigerators in 2001 as the middle class in 1971! Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 67.

a. And twice as many air conditioners, and color TV’s and much more of such modern advances as microwaves, DVDs, VCRs, computers, and cell phones. Ibid.

b. And, improvements in quality or capability of anything is not reflected in the price or value of a product or service. In fact, the improvements are usually accompanied by a decrease in the market price, the universal measure of consumption!

c. As an example, Moore’s Law, computer power doubles every 18 months. And take a look at the advances in cell phones.

2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Stop being taken in.

You can not produce a time in history can you?

It doesnt work and that is why

Clean off those specs! Dates are listed in the paragraph reproduced below!!!

A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


You can run but you can't hide.

You're getting eaten up in this thread....congrats on your tenacity! Condolences on your lack of ability to absorb same.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?

Its because it doesnt

Of course it does..

Here is the real low-down:

1. By 2001, the Census Bureau was reporting hat the poor enjoyed as much or more of the indicia of comfortable modern standard of living as the middle class of thirty years before! As many or more cars, trucks, clothes dryers, and refrigerators in 2001 as the middle class in 1971! Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 67.

a. And twice as many air conditioners, and color TV’s and much more of such modern advances as microwaves, DVDs, VCRs, computers, and cell phones. Ibid.

b. And, improvements in quality or capability of anything is not reflected in the price or value of a product or service. In fact, the improvements are usually accompanied by a decrease in the market price, the universal measure of consumption!

c. As an example, Moore’s Law, computer power doubles every 18 months. And take a look at the advances in cell phones.

2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Stop being taken in.

Are you claiming that the U.S. 'welfare state' that conservatives always complain about wasn't already in place by 1982?

That's hilarious.

 

[whitehall]

Kill them all and take their money? It worked for Stalin.

 

[edthecynic]

The point is whats fair in the tax code. Consumption being the fairest, the same percentage being next in line.

There is nothing even remotely fair about a consumption tax!!!

The only fair tax is a flat tax that includes all form of income with no exceptions or deductions.

Thats one opinion. How can paying taxes on what you consume not be fair?

Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it does..

Here is the real low-down:

1. By 2001, the Census Bureau was reporting hat the poor enjoyed as much or more of the indicia of comfortable modern standard of living as the middle class of thirty years before! As many or more cars, trucks, clothes dryers, and refrigerators in 2001 as the middle class in 1971! Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 67.

a. And twice as many air conditioners, and color TV’s and much more of such modern advances as microwaves, DVDs, VCRs, computers, and cell phones. Ibid.

b. And, improvements in quality or capability of anything is not reflected in the price or value of a product or service. In fact, the improvements are usually accompanied by a decrease in the market price, the universal measure of consumption!

c. As an example, Moore’s Law, computer power doubles every 18 months. And take a look at the advances in cell phones.

2. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


Stop being taken in.

You can not produce a time in history can you?

It doesnt work and that is why

Clean off those specs! Dates are listed in the paragraph reproduced below!!!

A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


You can run but you can't hide.

You're getting eaten up in this thread....congrats on your tenacity! Condolences on your lack of ability to absorb same.

You're not even talking about what the other poster is talking about.

And dredging up the well worn conservative canard that Reagan caused the prosperity of the 90's, well,

everyone enjoys a golden oldie now and then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor.

They happen to be the policies conservatism most adamantly objects to.

That was my point.

Your point is at the top of your noggin.

"... policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."

Liberal policies are designed to trap the poor and keep them in welfare...

The following may be over your head, so let me know where you need elucidation:

There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap


Now, unless you take the position that welfare is good, and provides a respectable life choice, you must feel really, really dumb for saying:
"...The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."


Wise up. Libs want to keep folks poor and reliant on them....so they think and vote the way you do.

Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)

End the following:

1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')

...and whatever I've left out...

All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.

You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?

Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.

"Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)."

1. The use of the liberal "us" when you mean 'me' makes you look weak and afraid to stand up for your views.

2. Your unspoken about the 'poor' is a reflection of Charles Dickens' London, not the United States today.

3. There is hardly any material poverty in the United States, and the use of the idea is a hypothetical construct designed to get elected by pols pandering to the envious.

4. But, there is a social poverty...it kills the soul. to live on your knees, waiting for the next handout.

a. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money. In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.

b. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

c. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

d. By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.

5. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

a. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.


6. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point being every government has taxed trade, so where do the free markets come in?

You have to tax something, otherwise you have to go without government entirely. I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is whats fair in the tax code. Consumption being the fairest, the same percentage being next in line.

If the income tax were replaced with a consumption tax, it would effectively raise taxes on lower income Americans and lower taxes on higher income Americans.

That might be 'fair' by some measure, but I don't think you can sell that 'fairness' in the real world.

 

[Full-Auto]

There is nothing even remotely fair about a consumption tax!!!

The only fair tax is a flat tax that includes all form of income with no exceptions or deductions.

Thats one opinion. How can paying taxes on what you consume not be fair?

Because the rich consume and therefore are taxed on only a very small part of their wealth, whereas the poor not only consume everything they earn, in many cases are in debt and therefore paying taxes on more than they earn!

Where do you get the idea that just because someone works harder then the next through labor or ideas, they suddenly have an higher duty.

THEY DONT.................

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your point is at the top of your noggin.

"... policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."

Liberal policies are designed to trap the poor and keep them in welfare...

The following may be over your head, so let me know where you need elucidation:

There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap


Now, unless you take the position that welfare is good, and provides a respectable life choice, you must feel really, really dumb for saying:
"...The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."


Wise up. Libs want to keep folks poor and reliant on them....so they think and vote the way you do.

Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)

End the following:

1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')

...and whatever I've left out...

All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.

You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?

Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.

[blather removed]

Should I repeat the question?

Does anyone want to help PC on this one?