Incomes up and Poverty Down in 2019

[JoeB131]

The military gets whatever we can give them with our blessing. It's not even near welfare because they earned it by serving. My father didn't fight in Korea for over a year to make the two bucks a day the military paid him at the time. Now he takes advantage of VA benefits for the things Medicare falls short on. The war changed his life forever and that's the least we could to for him and millions like him. My mother spent the first several years of their marriage calming my father down when he frequently woke in the middle of the night screaming bloody murder from nightmares of being attacked while sleeping in the woods.

Yeah, here's the thing. I get the same benefits for just sitting behind a desk filling out DA Form 362 he gets for serving in Korea.

Yes, these other programs payout more than we paid in, but at the same time, some people (who die before retirement age) paid into it and never got a nickel back. It's why we on the right oppose new ones just like it. It works like insurance. You may drive your entire life without so much as scratching another persons car. You lose because you paid into it and never used it. At the same time, bad drivers are covered when they do get into multiple accidents, and get back more than they paid in.

Or we just realize that we have an obligation to our less fortunate members and redistribute the wealth fairly and evenly. There's an idea.

However unlike the private market, insurance companies raise their premiums when they are paying out more than taking in, and that's something our government didn't do often enough. That's why what you claim is absolutely true. If we want these programs, fine, we need to fund them like insurance. If we don't want them, devise a plan to slowly dissolve them.

Actually, what the insurance companies did was hire a bunch of people to find new ways to cheat you after you paid in your money. It's why private insurance needs to go.

We spend 17% of our GDP on health care compared to the rest of the industrialized world, which spends 8-11%. We have the worst results in every health care metric despite spending more money. But dumb shits like you are happy to have no insurance because you don't want "those people" to get it, either.

 

[DBA]

Quite the contrary, I would much rather have my money taken to help someone who is starving in this country than to buy an expensive Stealth Fighter that can't fly when it's raining out.

I think it's a matter of priorities. Yours kind of suck.

Republicans do both because we donate to charities that provide food/clothing to the less fortunate. Republicans are much more charitable. Democrats talk a big game, but the reality is they want us "rich" folks to foot the bill for their "charity" and of course it must be filtered through the government bureaucracy first which is woefully inefficient.

There has been a fifty year war on the working class, and Republicans have waged it...

Confused again.

As go unions, so went the middle class, but stupid people like you keep blaming the darkies.

Funny, I live in a right to work state. The middle class is doing just fine here.

White People Welfare - Social Security, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, Unemployment INsurance. Money taken from ONE Group and given to another. Of course, you might have heard it under their other name, "Entitlements".

These are not entitlements for me. I won't likely get out nearly as much as I have paid in.

If you live to be 70, you'll have gotten everything you ever paid into SS back.

My wife and I max out our SS every year. What we can get back out of it is capped. We will not get back what we paid in at 70, not even close. If we invested the money over the years, we would be MUCH better off. We are paying for folks who never paid anything or didn't pay much.

Or we just realize that we have an obligation to our less fortunate members and redistribute the wealth fairly and evenly. There's an idea.

Redistribute the wealth evenly? You mean reward those that don't work for not working? That kind of thing? I gave my young daughter an example of why this is idiotic. If she studies(works) and gets a 100 on her test while a friend doesn't study(plays) and gets a 60, is it fair for both of them to get an 80? What will happen the next time a test rolls around? My daughter will be less inclined to study and her friend has already figured out that she can play instead of study and still make a B. It is idiotic, but that is a Democrat for you. She completely understood. Much smarter than you.

 

[JoeB131]

Republicans do both because we donate to charities that provide food/clothing to the less fortunate. Republicans are much more charitable. Democrats talk a big game, but the reality is they want us "rich" folks to foot the bill for their "charity" and of course it must be filtered through the government bureaucracy first which is woefully inefficient.

Charities are scams...

Civilized societies have a social safety net. We wouldn't need "charities" if the wealth were fairly distributed to start with.

These are not entitlements for me. I won't likely get out nearly as much as I have paid in.

I know, you have the best trailer in the trailer park, Cleetus.

Redistribute the wealth evenly? You mean reward those that don't work for not working? That kind of thing? I gave my young daughter an example of why this is idiotic. If she studies(works) and gets a 100 on her test while a friend doesn't study(plays) and gets a 60, is it fair for both of them to get an 80? What will happen the next time a test rolls around? My daughter will be less inclined to study and her friend has already figured out that she can play instead of study and still make a B. It is idiotic, but that is a Democrat for you. She completely understood. Much smarter than you.

You mean you gave her a meme that has been floating around the internet for decades like it was an original idea?

Anyone who has been around in the real world knows that the distribution of wealth is hardly fair.

To use your test example, there were poor working class kids who studied much harder than the children of Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin.... but because their parents had money and connections, they got the college admissions and the working class kids didn't.

At the end of the day, does a score on a test really matter all that much.

During the time I was in college, I worked two minimum wage jobs, joined the national guard to pay tuition, and had to deal with both parents having terminal cancer. I managed to scrape by and get my bachelors. Some days, I wonder how I did it.

But some entitled frat boy pays someone else to take his tests for him, he deserves the benefits of having higher grades.

I think you just defeated your own argument.

 

[kaz]

Joe: "most 'Welfare' goes to middle class white people"

Other than your overt racism, I have no idea what you are talking about

Did I need to use smaller words?

White People Welfare - Social Security, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, Unemployment INsurance. Money taken from ONE Group and given to another. Of course, you might have heard it under their other name, "Entitlements"

Veteran's Benefits - Joe yet again doesn't grasp the difference between a job benefit for working and welfare. Of course you don't, you're a welfare whore. Think about the name. VETERAN's benfitsts. Why can't I get them Joe? Any idea?

Social security, welfare, unemployment. You have to prove these go disproportionately to whites. Actually, lower income get better benefits than they pay in. I call bull shit to this goes disproportionately to whites. Prove it.

At least you admitted that social, security, welfare and unemployement are welfare though. They are, but you never would admit that

 

[kaz]

Republicans do both because we donate to charities that provide food/clothing to the less fortunate. Republicans are much more charitable. Democrats talk a big game, but the reality is they want us "rich" folks to foot the bill for their "charity" and of course it must be filtered through the government bureaucracy first which is woefully inefficient.

Charities are scams...

Civilized societies have a social safety net. We wouldn't need "charities" if the wealth were fairly distributed to start with.

OMG, that's just sad. You're AGAINST paying for charity, you want someone else to do it. I mean most leftists want government to do it for them, but I never saw one like you who was actually openly against your paying for charity yourself.

Interesting fact though, Joe. Charity is not an act you can perform with someone else's money

 

[JoeB131]

Veteran's Benefits - Joe yet again doesn't grasp the difference between a job benefit for working and welfare. Of course you don't, you're a welfare whore. Think about the name. VETERAN's benfitsts. Why can't I get them Joe? Any idea?

Same reason you can't get other welfare set aside for select groups. But it doesn't make it any less welfare.

Social security, welfare, unemployment. You have to prove these go disproportionately to whites. Actually, lower income get better benefits than they pay in. I call bull shit to this goes disproportionately to whites. Prove it.

Sure.. here you go.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412943-Has-Social-Security-Redistributed-to-Whites-from-People-of-Color-.PDF

At least you admitted that social, security, welfare and unemployement are welfare though. They are, but you never would admit that

Actually, I've said that all along... but they are WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE. Which means that since the main beneficiaries are middle class white people, you and other right wingers are fine with it.

Or maybe just clueless like these people.

Interesting fact though, Joe. Charity is not an act you can perform with someone else's money

I agree... Which is why I think the wealth should be fairly distributed. No one should make too little, and no one should make too much. Then you don't need charity except for maybe the disabled.

 

[kaz]

Veteran's Benefits - Joe yet again doesn't grasp the difference between a job benefit for working and welfare. Of course you don't, you're a welfare whore. Think about the name. VETERAN's benfitsts. Why can't I get them Joe? Any idea?

Same reason you can't get other welfare set aside for select groups. But it doesn't make it any less welfare.

Social security, welfare, unemployment. You have to prove these go disproportionately to whites. Actually, lower income get better benefits than they pay in. I call bull shit to this goes disproportionately to whites. Prove it.

Sure.. here you go.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412943-Has-Social-Security-Redistributed-to-Whites-from-People-of-Color-.PDF

More of your racist crap. You didn't read it, did you, Joe? Race had nothing to do with it

At least you admitted that social, security, welfare and unemployement are welfare though. They are, but you never would admit that

Actually, I've said that all along... but they are WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE. Which means that since the main beneficiaries are middle class white people, you and other right wingers are fine with it.

Or maybe just clueless like these people.

View attachment 391655

You're a lying asshole. I'm for ending social security and medicare and unemployment and always have been. And I constantly say that and tell Republicans on the board that social security and medicare are welfare.

Just cut the racist shit, Joe, it's tired. You need to learn that people are people and stop obsessing on skin color

Interesting fact though, Joe. Charity is not an act you can perform with someone else's money

I agree... Which is why I think the wealth should be fairly distributed. No one should make too little, and no one should make too much. Then you don't need charity except for maybe the disabled.

Joe's solution to ending welfare. Don't call it welfare!

Racist dumb ass

 

[JoeB131]

You're a lying asshole. I'm for ending social security and medicare and unemployment and always have been. And I constantly say that and tell Republicans on the board that social security and medicare are welfare.

But your side will never openly run on that. INstead you'll quietly try to starve it...

Come on, be a man. Make that the platform.

Joe's solution to ending welfare. Don't call it welfare!

No, call it what it should be, fairness.

Do I think that the Burger Flipper should make the same wage as the CEO? Nope.

But the burger flipper should make a fair wage, and the CEO shouldn't be making seven figures.

 

[kaz]

You're a lying asshole. I'm for ending social security and medicare and unemployment and always have been. And I constantly say that and tell Republicans on the board that social security and medicare are welfare.

But your side will never openly run on that. INstead you'll quietly try to starve it...

Come on, be a man. Make that the platform

Racist Joe doesn't know what a libertarian is. Of course you don't. I don't personally know any libertarian who doesn't want to end social security and medicare

Joe's solution to ending welfare. Don't call it welfare!

No, call it what it should be, fairness.

Do I think that the Burger Flipper should make the same wage as the CEO? Nope.

But the burger flipper should make a fair wage, and the CEO shouldn't be making seven figures.

Why is that up to you?

 

[JoeB131]

Racist Joe doesn't know what a libertarian is. Of course you don't.

Sure I do. It's a grown man with arrested development. That's what a Libertarian is.

Why is that up to you?

It isn't. It's up to all of us. At some point, people are going to get a little tired of it.

Do you know what the second scariest political development of the last decade has been. After Trump being the toxic end result of 40 years of Republican race baiting, it's how popular Bernie Sanders became for a while. Socialism is appealing to a lot of people right now because for most folks, Capitalism is kind of a shit sandwich.

 

[DBA]

Civilized societies have a social safety net. We wouldn't need "charities" if the wealth were fairly distributed to start with.

The wealth will never be "fairly" distributed. Even in communist countries, the ruling class are super wealthy and the rest are all evenly poor. Your aren't in touch with reality.

Charities are scams...

Civilized societies have a social safety net. We wouldn't need "charities" if the wealth were fairly distributed to start with.

We have plenty of safety nets, but you lefties want to provide much more than that. I pick and choose my charities carefully. I trust the charities I donate to MUCH, MUCH more than the government. I know for a fact where the money from my church goes. Nobody takes a salary and there is little to no overhead. If you give $100 toward one of our missions to buy food, $100 dollars of that goes to buy food. Church members drive their own cars to pick up and deliver the food, with no expense accounts for gas, etc. Anyone who truly wanted to help people would donate to charities like this, NOT the government.

Anyone who has been around in the real world knows that the distribution of wealth is hardly fair.

Life is not fair. Cry me a river and grow up.

To use your test example, there were poor working class kids who studied much harder than the children of Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin.... but because their parents had money and connections, they got the college admissions and the working class kids didn't.

Sure and they are in trouble for it because what they did was illegal. What about two kids that go to the same high school and whose families have the same family income levels. One makes much better grades than the other but the one with the lesser grades gets into the college of his choice based solely on race. Once in college, the same trend continues. The non-minority kid(including Asians) studies hard and makes good grades but gets passed over for a limited number of seats in law or medical school in favor of the minority who didn't have as good of grades. This lack of "fairness" is endorsed by Democrats in the name of "diversity".

Actually, I've said that all along... but they are WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE. Which means that since the main beneficiaries are middle class white people, you and other right wingers are fine with it.

The main beneficiaries are white people because they are the ones who pay the most into the system. What don't you understand?

I agree... Which is why I think the wealth should be fairly distributed. No one should make too little, and no one should make too much. Then you don't need charity except for maybe the disabled.

LOL...What is too much?

But the burger flipper should make a fair wage, and the CEO shouldn't be making seven figures.

I don't see you left-wing nuts complaining about athletes making enormous salaries. We all know why that is. I don't care what they make. They make what the market dictates and what the owners are willing to pay them. They could quit if they don't like it, but something tells me they won't. Same goes for other businesses.

 

[DBA]

Socialism is appealing to a lot of people right now because for most folks, Capitalism is kind of a shit sandwich.

For losers, it is. Losers can to move to Europe to collect their checks. We don't need them here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do I think that the Burger Flipper should make the same wage as the CEO? Nope.

But the burger flipper should make a fair wage, and the CEO shouldn't be making seven figures.

Should a famous actress get 10 million for making one movie? How about over a million dollars for each episode on a sitcom? Should a star pitcher get 4 million a year for throwing a ball? How about a country artist who gets 40K for one concert?

How much more salary do they make than the peanut vendor in the stands, the beer vendor, the stage hands on a movie or television setting, the makeup or hair dressers, the roadies who have to load and unload all that heavy musical equipment from stage to stage, the parking lot attendants at the concert?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Socialism is appealing to a lot of people right now because for most folks, Capitalism is kind of a shit sandwich.

Could that be because a lot of younger people are lazy today and don't participate in our capitalist system?

 

[JoeB131]

The wealth will never be "fairly" distributed. Even in communist countries, the ruling class are super wealthy and the rest are all evenly poor. Your aren't in touch with reality.

Actually, the Europeans do just fine. The idea that we can't have fair wealth distribution is foolish. We actually DID have that in the 1960's, when the rich paid their fair share and a sizeable portion of the workforce was unionized.

LOL...What is too much?

Good question, definitely worthy of a national discussion. My opinion, no one should make more than $500,000.

Should a famous actress get 10 million for making one movie? How about over a million dollars for each episode on a sitcom? Should a star pitcher get 4 million a year for throwing a ball? How about a country artist who gets 40K for one concert?

I'd be fine with limiting that. Thing is, a "Famous Actress" is more like a coporation. She gets 10 million and then it's distributed to her entire staff. But to the point, if you are going to see a movie, it's because that actor is in it, if you are going to a ball game, it's because that pitcher is winning. Nobody buys a product because of anything the CEO does.

How much more salary do they make than the peanut vendor in the stands, the beer vendor,

Nobody goes to the ball park because the peanuts are that good.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Charities are scams...

Civilized societies have a social safety net. We wouldn't need "charities" if the wealth were fairly distributed to start with.

Why stop at money alone?

If you have eight beautiful bushes in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along, take four of your bushes, and give them to the guy down the street who has no bushes at all? What about a person that loves entertainment and has three big screen televisions? Would it not be right for government to take one of his big screens and give it to a person who's household has no big screens? What about a person that loves collecting cars?

Of course not. Government taking items from your home to give to other people is ridiculous. Then why is it not ridiculous if government does that exact same thing with money?

 

[JoeB131]

Sure and they are in trouble for it because what they did was illegal.

Um, yeah... She went to a club fed for 11 days. Meanwhile the poor black lady who used her babysitter's address to get her kid into a better school got five years.

 

[JoeB131]

If you have eight beautiful bushes in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along, take four of your bushes, and give them to the guy down the street who has no bushes at all?

Actually, they kind of do that now if you live in a homeowner's association... but never mind.

Government taking items from your home to give to other people is ridiculous. Then why is it not ridiculous if government does that exact same thing with money?

Mostly because the money isn't distributed fairly, as even you admit when you whine about actresses.

 

[kaz]

Sure and they are in trouble for it because what they did was illegal.

Um, yeah... She went to a club fed for 11 days. Meanwhile the poor black lady who used her babysitter's address to get her kid into a better school got five years.

You realize that was because of Democrats, right? Republicans support vouchers

 

[kaz]

If you have eight beautiful bushes in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along, take four of your bushes, and give them to the guy down the street who has no bushes at all?

Actually, they kind of do that now if you live in a homeowner's association... but never mind

That not being true aside, once again racist Joe doesn't understand voluntary choice (homeowners) and government coercion