How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[Ray From Cleveland]

You do realize criminals vote Democrat over Republican by a significant margin. In 2014 it was 7 out of 10 were Democrats but you always seem to distort the truth.

Oh please, get real.

How many unarmed whites are shot by police?

Remember Cliven Bundy and the armed stand off with state troopers?
Do you really think blacks or Hispanics could get away with that?
Case against Cliven Bundy, Nevada rancher involved in 2014 armed standoff, declared a mistrial

Remember Katrina?
Blacks "loot" but whites "find"?

So anytime your kind makes these arguments, I look at where they are coming from.

“Your kind”? You sound like a bigot.

I’m not making an argument, I’m stating a fact.

Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats

In fact it is so important for Democrats to restore felons voting rights, that they push for it in most every state. Virginia for one, Democrats Just Won A Massive Victory For Voting Rights In Virginia | HuffPost

Pretty simple facts. Democrats portray themselves as victims, criminals will portray themselves as victims.

Yea, your kind.

I gave you multiple reasons why you are looking through the eyes of a bigot and TA DA! You prove I'm right.

A white guy selling drugs to pay for his habit has a disease. He needs "help".

A black guy selling drugs to pay for his habit is a criminal who needs to go to jail.

How do we know? Look at the Opiod crises.

Drug deals in the black communities are often more violent and lead to more deaths than in the white communities. That's besides the fact judges rule on just more than the crime at hand. They use testimony by the police on how the subject cooperated with them. They judge how the defendant dresses for court or his or her demeanor during trial. The judge has information on how the suspect interacted with police once inside the police station. And most of all, a judge decides if a person will be a problem in the future or not based on their past criminal record.

And there you go. Proving my point. How many unarmed and innocent whites are shot by Police.

For that matter, look at Cliven Bundy. A white terrorist armed and calling for insurrection. No blacks or Hispanics could get away with such activity. Cliven was treated with kid gloves.

I know, it's that isolated situation you on the left constantly bring up when discussing police and criminals.

Police shoot in self defense. If one person took a shot at police or were perceived to, then that story would have had a different ending. That was a situation very similar to a hostage incident. Police seldom shoot in those cases; same goes for suicidal people, and it doesn't matter what color they are.

What it boils down to is what the law is. The law is a police officer is allowed to use deadly force if there is a threat of some kind. They shoot white people, they shoot black people. They shoot unarmed white people, they shoot unarmed black people.

 

[DOTR]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

 

[BrokeLoser]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think I know what you are suggesting…

Purge the dead weight!

 

[BrokeLoser]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

 

[sealybobo]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

The republican politicians are too inept, spineless and divided to actually cut any spending. That doesn't mean that the real people comprising the right wing don't want significant reductions in government spending. They're just convinced enough that tax cuts would improve the economy that, even if the cuts don't happen, most right wingers are content to see the tax cuts happen and then hope that either the reduced revenue pressures the government into cutting spending down the road or that the expected economic upturn allows us to grow out of the deficit.

Granted, the typical right wing view has its severe logical holes, but so does the left. Most blatantly, a lot of right wingers refuse to even consider touching military spending, and a lot of left wingers refuse to consider touching social security. When it comes to economics, you can't really take any political wing or party seriously. By and large, political demographics are defined by their ideologies and moral values, and, unfortunately for the human desire for the world to conform to emotional preconceptions, economics doesn't seem to have any respect for morals or ideology.

The effect of tax cuts on the economy usually last only till investors see the large deficits that result because most tax cuts don't pay for themselves without large cuts in spending which rarely happens. Congress and the administration will make much ado about reforming this, that, and the other but it won't offset the costs of building walls around the country, infrastructure spending, the war on terror, the opioid epidemic, healthcare, and other pressing needs.

The costs of building walls and infrastructure, fighting terror and opioids, the cost of healthcare insofar as the government is paying it. . . those things are only the responsibility of the businesses and investors if and when they get taxed to pay for those things. Therefore, the very tax cuts in question directly offset the investors' and businesses' liability for those items, which means it's not fear of those items that cools economic activity after a tax break.

Get real. The cost of paying for building walls, infrastructure, fighting terrorism the opioid crisis, the rising cost of healthcare, and other items on the Trump agenda are not going to be paid for by businesses and investors. It's going to paid for by the federal government because congress is not going to levy new taxes or drastically cut federal spending. The result will be trillions of dollars in deficits and a lot more debt. The treasury just announced it's getting ready to borrow a trillion dollars and congress has not even got started on Trumps's spending plans.

That's actually approximately what I was saying. If the tax cuts don't get reversed, then big business won't have to pay for these things. So why would these items slow down their economic activity if they don't have to be concerned with their costs? Your ideas are in conflict with your ideas.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

Wanting people to chip in isn't the problem. Forcing people to chip in is the problem.

 

[sealybobo]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

Wanting people to chip in isn't the problem. Forcing people to chip in is the problem.

Then you have a problem with social security too then I assume?

If we didn’t have the rich pay a little more to help the poor, to pay for social programs that help the poor, can you imagine how bad things would be if our government did zero for the poor and just hope charity did enough?

 

[sealybobo]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

Wanting people to chip in isn't the problem. Forcing people to chip in is the problem.

I pay for nuclear bombs. I’m forced to. Why? Because collectively we decided we need them or want them.

You’re “forced” to pay for lots of things you don’t want to pay for. Trump trips to Mara largo for example

 

[sealybobo]

We gave charity a chance after the Great Depression. Charity failed

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What I was implying was that the act of selling someone drugs, in and of itself, is a victimless crime.

Try telling that to my friend who's sons funeral was two weekends ago.

The fact that your friend now has a deeply charged emotional reason to disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. The fact that his recent loss would also make this an awkward conversation also doesn't make me wrong.

If someone chooses, of their own volition, to buy drugs, that's on them. Not the dealer, the buyer. If they decide to use a greater amount than is safe, also on them. Drug users have agency.

I didn't say it was entirely the dealers fault, but it takes two to Tango.

All those killings in Chicago and Detroit? Yes, many of them due to drug sales. When a person kills themselves with drugs, they bought those drugs from somebody, and that somebody is at least partly responsible for the deaths his product produced.

At this point, is there anybody who doesn't know that drugs are bad for your health? Sorry, but I disagree that the drug dealer shares responsibility for the actions of other people when they ought to know good and God damn well what they're putting into their bodies.

As far as drug related violent crimes, I also don't attribute these to all dealers. There are oil billionaires funding wars, but I ain't pissed off at the guy pumping my gas at Chevron for the violence in the middle east. I'm not mad at lighter fluid manufacturers because arsonists misuse their products, and I'm not looking to ban automobiles because of the thousands of people who die every year operating them.

If those comparisons are too far afield, here's one closer to home. . . I don't hold the cashier at my local liquor store responsible for domestic violence.

Ultimately, when people commit violent crimes, punish them for those crimes. Don't punish people who are making an honest living selling people a product that they voluntarily put in their bodies just because -other- people who use and or sell that product are criminals.

Besides, decriminalization allows dealers to go to the police to settle potentially violent disputes without fear of incarceration which tends to tone down the violence between competitors and essentially takes the power over the industry out of the hands of violent gangsters. That's why, even though Al Capone was known for murdering his liquor peddling competitors in the street during prohibition, in today's America Miller and Coors aren't dynamiting each other's warehouses.

If decriminalization is the answer, why to decriminalize rape, robbery and murder?

People who sell or give products to others that hurt themselves are liable. That's why when you buy a product today, the first five pages are idiotic warnings like not to take your new toaster in the shower with you.

If a bartender over serves a patron and that patron gets into a car accident, the injured person or family can sue the bar out of business. Why do you think businesses got rid of office parties where they provided alcoholic beverages? If you are younger, you probably don't even remember those days.

Even tobacco companies got sued for hundreds of millions of dollars, and people who used tobacco knew quite well the harm and dangers.

You can't sue the local pusher, but he or she is just as responsible for a death as the person they sold to. If a doctor is caught over prescribing opioid products to his or her patients, they too can be sued and even lose their license to practice medicine.

When you sell somebody a product that you know is likely going to cause death--especially an illegal product, that is a violent crime.

You don't decriminalize rape, robbery, or murder, because those actions DIRECTLY victimize someone. When someone rapes you, you don't have the choice to put or not put their penis in your body. When someone offers to sell you drugs, you can simply say no. See how those things might have different implications?

Yes, people do get held responsible for what retards do with their products, and so we've litigated our society into a point where we have to warn people not to eat Tide Pods. Personally, I feel that this level of stupidity-coddling is unjust to the people sued over their products causing injury by way of severe misuse. Apparently, you believe that these "idiotic warnings" should not only be forcibly implemented as they currently are, but are justification to outlaw arrangements made between two consenting adults. I believe that this level of authoritarianism being applied for no better reason than to protect foolish people from themselves at the expense of everybody else is a complete travesty. It epitomizes nanny state.

The bartender analogy doesn't map cleanly over what we're talking about. Buying drugs from a dealer can more often be compared to buying your liquor at a liquor store. If you get drunk at home and then go kill someone in your car, the victim's family can't track the liquor purchase back to whatever store you bought it from and sue them. The bar has the distinction of being a business of directly facilitating public consumption, as opposed to being just a liquor seller, and thus is held to a different standard than is a liquor store. Funny thing is, if these drugs were legal, then sellers who were facilitating consumption at their places of business could also be sued when their customers left high and victimized someone. If anything, this is an argument in favor of, not just decriminalizing, but legalizing and regulating drugs, because doing so would allow for such carelessness to be traced back to the server and addressed.

Same thing with tobacco companies. I don't agree that you should be able to sue Camel because you voluntarily inhaled smoke for years and then bad things happened to your lungs, particularly in today's day and age when our culture and our education system are saturated with information about the harms of smoking and drug use. By this logic, people whose family members die in falling accidents should be able to sue construction companies who build sky scrapers because it's possible that their dead loved one simply never had it explained to them that falling long distances could cause severe bodily harm, and if they had, they might have acted more carefully.

And I'm sorry, but I disagree with the thinking behind your conclusion. If you want to consume a product that you know might kill you if you misuse it, and that you know will probably cause adverse health effects down the road if you decide to use it frequently, then the consequences of that usage are on YOUR head. If you've managed to reach adulthood in this society without figuring out that massively mind altering chemicals have adverse health effects, you're such a rare statistical outlier that, in my opinion, designing legislation that effects EVERYONE just to make an allowance for your extreme ignorance is an injustice to the rest of society.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

We gave charity a chance after the Great Depression. Charity failed

Charity existed long before the Great Depression. What you're saying, essentially, is that charity is a no-go because there exist conditions wherein relying on charity doesn't adequately make everyone whole. If that makes charity a failure, then welfare is a failure as well, because there are potential economic conditions wherein government wealth redistribution can't adequately make everyone whole.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

Wanting people to chip in isn't the problem. Forcing people to chip in is the problem.

I pay for nuclear bombs. I’m forced to. Why? Because collectively we decided we need them or want them.

You’re “forced” to pay for lots of things you don’t want to pay for. Trump trips to Mara largo for example

You pay for military protection not because my morals demand that you do so, but because you share in the direct benefits of being protected from threats outside the country, and you're paying for your share of that benefit.

When you take my money and give it to people you've deemed as being needy enough to obligate my charity, that doesn't benefit me directly. That's you taking money from me to assuage your guilt at the fact that there exist people less well off than you are. They benefit, because they get money, and you benefit, because your moral values are perpetuated, but I don't benefit despite having to pay.

See the difference?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

Wanting people to chip in isn't the problem. Forcing people to chip in is the problem.

Then you have a problem with social security too then I assume?

If we didn’t have the rich pay a little more to help the poor, to pay for social programs that help the poor, can you imagine how bad things would be if our government did zero for the poor and just hope charity did enough?

I do have a problem with social security. It's a Ponzi scheme and is vastly inferior to any sort of retirement savings plan that one might engage in of their own accord, including hiding their cash in the fucking mattress.

Personally, I don't buy into the idea that a welfare state is the only way to keep society from devolving into criminal chaos. I don't believe that poverty alone universally creates widespread criminality, and trying to boil it down to a single factor in order to justify perpetuating your own values at everybody else's expense is nothing more than a con job.

 

[DOTR]

 

[BrokeLoser]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

Wanting people to chip in isn't the problem. Forcing people to chip in is the problem.

Then you have a problem with social security too then I assume?

If we didn’t have the rich pay a little more to help the poor, to pay for social programs that help the poor, can you imagine how bad things would be if our government did zero for the poor and just hope charity did enough?

You nailed it...that’s the threat the poor bottom feeders discreetly leverage us with. “Give me free shit, pay for my children or I’ll come kill you”
I say we try it and see what happens.

 

[sealybobo]

We gave charity a chance after the Great Depression. Charity failed

Charity existed long before the Great Depression. What you're saying, essentially, is that charity is a no-go because there exist conditions wherein relying on charity doesn't adequately make everyone whole. If that makes charity a failure, then welfare is a failure as well, because there are potential economic conditions wherein government wealth redistribution can't adequately make everyone whole.

I know but what I'm saying is that anyone hungry in America should have a place (government) where they can turn. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most of them should be turning to a family member or church or charity before they come running to uncle sam.

I know a guy who gets foodstamps because he qualifies for them. But that doesn't mean he is starving. He has enough for cigarettes booze and poker.

And I knew a girl in high school who's parents had money but when she got knocked up they told her to go get on government assistance.

 

[danielpalos]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

You think that is Bad, the right wing would have no problem letting the poor, work or die, as long as they get their tax break.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 175162

Only the right wing is that dumb.

Simply financing tax cuts and adding them to the national debt, is socialized Income Redistribution.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[sealybobo]

I think liberals should support the poor. But notice none of their programs will work unless they lasso everyone in.

Oh no, Liberals can only be as noble as YOUR checking account will allow them to be.

They/we want us all to chip in. Your side won so we’ll do it your way you greedy bastards.

Wanting people to chip in isn't the problem. Forcing people to chip in is the problem.

I pay for nuclear bombs. I’m forced to. Why? Because collectively we decided we need them or want them.

You’re “forced” to pay for lots of things you don’t want to pay for. Trump trips to Mara largo for example

You pay for military protection not because my morals demand that you do so, but because you share in the direct benefits of being protected from threats outside the country, and you're paying for your share of that benefit.

When you take my money and give it to people you've deemed as being needy enough to obligate my charity, that doesn't benefit me directly. That's you taking money from me to assuage your guilt at the fact that there exist people less well off than you are. They benefit, because they get money, and you benefit, because your moral values are perpetuated, but I don't benefit despite having to pay.

See the difference?

You may never go to war and you may never be homeless. But if either happen, you will be ok because the government has thought ahead.

Hey, I didn't decide to have a progressive tax system. The rich people who ran our country a long time ago did. They weren't as greedy as the rich who run this country now.

I'm ok with greed. I'll be ok with an every man for himself society. So lets try it your way and see.

And if the poor don't like the tax system they can show up and vote to have it changed. Since they don't vote we get to try it your way. I'm not bashing you guys. You won the election. Lets do it your way.