The goal of American leftwing politics is about ensuring that no one working 40 hours a week lives in poverty.

[woodwork201]

Combating Childhood Poverty in Appalachia - Fahe

Fahe Members have fought to end child poverty in the region for decades. Now, families across Appalachia are counting on policymakers to rise to the challenge of this pervasive problem. As Americans emerge from the pandemic and markets steadily climb back to pre-coronavirus levels, there can be...

fahe.org

Wrong. THere's no such thing as Appalachian poverty. There are Appalachian choices. They choose to stay where grandma and great-grandma lived. They choose to be close to family and not locked into a job or work schedule Those are all very legitimate choices and I really respect people who choose poverty and then accept the responsibility and consequences of their choices. But those who choose poverty and then expect me to pay for their choice are criminal.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Republicans think leftwing politics in the US is about communism but this is of course ridiculous. Has any democrat in office proposed this or any other solution involving ending capitalism itself? Nope. Not even close. Eliminating the wealthy class is also not on the table. All American lefties want to do is reduce poverty, strengthen the middle class, and making sure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes EFFECTIVELY. The EFFECTIVE tax rate is what a class actually pays in taxes. The OFFICIAL tax rate is what they are expected to pay but because of deductions and loopholes, they do not pay that tax rate. Why this concept escapes republicans is beyond my understanding.

Without a doubt both parties have failed to do much of anything when it comes to alleviating poverty, but here’s the difference with democrats: they actually make attempts at the issue. They at least TRY to pass policies that meet this goal such as raising the minimum wage or child tax credits. Hell at least they passed the child tax credit to begin with even if it expired.

What do republicans do for the poor? Absolutely nothing. No attempt. Nada. That goes for the middle class as well. They don’t do jack shit. Doesn’t all of this bother Republican voters? The middle class shrunk and the poor became more poor under Bush and Trump but for some reason that does not bother them.

Of course it is worth mentioning that, historically on average, economic metrics like GDP and job growth are better under democrats than republicans.

Jobs, Income, GDP Growth 'Startlingly' Higher Under Democratic Presidents

Democratic presidents are "more willing to heed historical lessons," but Republicans cling to "magical" tax cuts and deregulation theories during economic downturns, states a new economic analysis.

www.newsweek.com

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.

www.americanprogress.org

12 Ways the Trump Administration Has Deepened Inequality

From reducing Native Americans’ land to limiting access to food stamps

time.com

Lol.... shut up. Nobody believes a word you say ... liar.

 

[woodwork201]

Hey idiot the opportunity isn’t for ALL these people. Obviously it is for some. How hard is that to understand? If you actually gave this any measure of intelligent thought, you would understand my basic point. If ALL those people tried to get better paying jobs at the same time, MOST of them would fail. That is a mathematical certainty. Also, who would be left behind to do all those service jobs vital to the economy?

Your point is moot. 99% of the poor will never do anything to change their lives. They all have the opportunity and almost none will choose to take it.

 

[woodwork201]

Your point is ridiculous. You can’t just point to the extreme examples of global poverty and pretend anything better is not poverty. It’s a completely fallacious notion.

Let me explain how dumb this phone thing is to you. Why would they sell their phones if it is vital to them getting jobs?

You have to be looking for a job for your phone to become vital in getting a job.

 

[Billy000]

Your point is moot. 99% of the poor will never do anything to change their lives. They all have the opportunity and almost none will choose to take it.

I think you keep saying this same shit over and over because you are insecure. It makes you feel tough and manly to assume ALL poor people are lazy while you have a job. It makes you feel validated. Congratulations. You are not part of 3.6% of the population lol

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Republicans think leftwing politics in the US is about communism but this is of course ridiculous. Has any democrat in office proposed this or any other solution involving ending capitalism itself? Nope. Not even close. Eliminating the wealthy class is also not on the table. All American lefties want to do is reduce poverty, strengthen the middle class, and making sure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes EFFECTIVELY. The EFFECTIVE tax rate is what a class actually pays in taxes. The OFFICIAL tax rate is what they are expected to pay but because of deductions and loopholes, they do not pay that tax rate. Why this concept escapes republicans is beyond my understanding.

Without a doubt both parties have failed to do much of anything when it comes to alleviating poverty, but here’s the difference with democrats: they actually make attempts at the issue. They at least TRY to pass policies that meet this goal such as raising the minimum wage or child tax credits. Hell at least they passed the child tax credit to begin with even if it expired.

What do republicans do for the poor? Absolutely nothing. No attempt. Nada. That goes for the middle class as well. They don’t do jack shit. Doesn’t all of this bother Republican voters? The middle class shrunk and the poor became more poor under Bush and Trump but for some reason that does not bother them.

Of course it is worth mentioning that, historically on average, economic metrics like GDP and job growth are better under democrats than republicans.

Jobs, Income, GDP Growth 'Startlingly' Higher Under Democratic Presidents

Democratic presidents are "more willing to heed historical lessons," but Republicans cling to "magical" tax cuts and deregulation theories during economic downturns, states a new economic analysis.

www.newsweek.com

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.

www.americanprogress.org

12 Ways the Trump Administration Has Deepened Inequality

From reducing Native Americans’ land to limiting access to food stamps

time.com

 

[Red Front]

Your point is moot. 99% of the poor will never do anything to change their lives. They all have the opportunity and almost none will choose to take it.

That's your false assumption.

 

[Red Front]

Wrong. THere's no such thing as Appalachian poverty. There are Appalachian choices. They choose to stay where grandma and great-grandma lived. They choose to be close to family and not locked into a job or work schedule Those are all very legitimate choices and I really respect people who choose poverty and then accept the responsibility and consequences of their choices. But those who choose poverty and then expect me to pay for their choice are criminal.

Everyone's choices aren't made under the same conditions or circumstances. You're very confused.

 

[woodwork201]

The meal itself, in theory, is fine. You just know it cost more than $2. Of course you are forgetting about grains. Obviously nutritionists would be expecting that. Not cheap white bread mind you. Whole grain bread. Oh and you’re expecting them to eat the same fucking thing every day. If you were in their shoes you would not do this. I don’t care how tough and manly you THINK you are, if your income sank to this level, you would not be eating this DAILY. Sorry chickens alone isnt going to cut it. Tuna sure as hell isnt healthy to eat daily so you’re going to have to pick a different meat.

I looked at a different post that looked similar. Believe I’m lying if you want but you’re still losing this argument either way lol

I have no idea what you’re talking about with SNAP benefits. What is your point exactly? Youre suggesting people be on a government program because it provides adequate food? Aren’t you trying to say that people don’t need SNAP? You also cited the max amount which is obviously fallacious. The median is what would matter.

There are many who will argue with science and logic that grain is not intended for man and that people would be far better off without any grain. I tend to agree with them.

The problem for me is that I make bread every week; sometimes twice a week. I make white bread, sourdough bread, whole wheat bread, half-white/half-wheat bread, rye bread. I grind my own whole wheat but I buy my rye flour already ground.

I haven't bought a loaf of bread in years. I also make my own hamburger, hotdog, submarine rolls. I make a to-die-for cinnamon roll. I shouldn't do it but I also make cakes - never from a mix; always scratch cakes and icings.

I've kept a spreadsheet with all of the exact measurements, costs, process or baking changes, of every loaf for the past several years, along with the results and quality of the result so I can track what works well and what are the effects of various changes and if something fails, I can troubleshoot based on the data.

I almost always bake in two-loaf batches. In the past year, with Biden inflation, I have exceeded two dollar cost for two loaves four different times. In those times, there were two that cost $2.01 per two-loaf batch and two that cost $2.02 per two-loaf batch - and I include an allowance for the cost of energy for baking as well in that figure.

I was cutting the poor some slack, allowing that they may not work as hard as I do to get the very best quality bread but, if they are only willing to do the work, and if they feel that whole grain is something they want in their diets, the very best quality breads available to mankind in the history of mankind can be had for the same price as that cardboard loaf of Walmart brand.

So what other meats can go on that menu that cost less than the boneless, skinless, chicken?

I remember when my wife and I were much younger, very, very, much younger, those chicken breasts were $1.99 a pound. Until Biden inflation hit, from the mid-70s until 2021, they were still $1.99 a pound. They went from something we couldn't even dream of buying to becoming the very cheapest meat in the store. Then, of course, you elected Biden and while the news suggests a 30% increase in chicken prices in the past year, it's actually about 60 to 70 per cent.

So, let's look at what's cheaper than $3.24 a pound.

First is tuna, even though you badmouthed it. My wife and I have a grilled tuna sandwich a couple of times a month. A 5-ounce can (used to be a 6.5 ounce until Obama's shrinkflation) makes up to enough tuna salad for both of us to have one delicious grilled tuna on homemade sourdough. Because we've worked hard in our life and have earned it, can afford it, we get the more expensive solid-light in olive oil but for a poor family of 4 get the 12 ounce can, always in oil, not in water, for $2.63. Add a bit of mayo (less because you bought tuna in oil rather than in water and then adding the oil afterwards in the expensive mayo. For us, we put in a bit of diced onion and dill relish. Still, in total,less than the price per serving as the price of the chicken.

Then there's bologna. Fried bologna, thick sliced, with a little homemade mayo on rye. I'm getting hungry thinking of it. We like to buy the german beef balogna at the deli because we've worked hard and make enough that we can. But we sill eat the Bar S from time to time, too, so we know it's edible. it's $1.48 a pound so less than half the price of the chicken. The extra savings can get a sweet treat for dessert.

There are several boneless pork cuts for less than $2.50 up to $2.84 a pound on Walmart's site tonight. I can cook some amazing pork roast, or pulled pork barbecue, or other things to do with pork. Every protein serving with as much or more protein than the chicken and costing less than the chicken.


Eye of round roast is $3.28 a pound at Sam's Club. That's 4 cents more than the chicken. Can we accept that as the same or are you going to bitch over 4 cents? We grind our own ground beef from it, mixing it with most of a whole brisket until we get great proportions and saving the very best of the brisket for making our own corned beef. Also, the eye of round make amazingly good breaded round steak if you put it in foil and in the oven after frying, letting it tenderize. Great meal for no more than the chicken.

So, the poor have no right to variety but, even so, there are still a lot of options, all cheaper than that boneless, skinless, chicken breast meal.

Your premise of poverty is a lie. Hunger is a lie. Most of those living in the streets get enough to eat and can get housing as well. Those living on the street do so by choice, just as do all people living in poverty do so by choice.

 

[Red Front]

There are many who will argue with science and logic that grain is not intended for man and that people would be far better off without any grain. I tend to agree with them.

The problem for me is that I make bread every week; sometimes twice a week. I make white bread, sourdough bread, whole wheat bread, half-white/half-wheat bread, rye bread. I grind my own whole wheat but I buy my rye flour already ground.

I haven't bought a loaf of bread in years. I also make my own hamburger, hotdog, submarine rolls. I make a to-die-for cinnamon roll. I shouldn't do it but I also make cakes - never from a mix; always scratch cakes and icings.

I've kept a spreadsheet with all of the exact measurements, costs, process or baking changes, of every loaf for the past several years, along with the results and quality of the result so I can track what works well and what are the effects of various changes and if something fails, I can troubleshoot based on the data.

I almost always bake in two-loaf batches. In the past year, with Biden inflation, I have exceeded two dollar cost for two loaves four different times. In those times, there were two that cost $2.01 per two-loaf batch and two that cost $2.02 per two-loaf batch - and I include an allowance for the cost of energy for baking as well in that figure.

I was cutting the poor some slack, allowing that they may not work as hard as I do to get the very best quality bread but, if they are only willing to do the work, and if they feel that whole grain is something they want in their diets, the very best quality breads available to mankind in the history of mankind can be had for the same price as that cardboard loaf of Walmart brand.

So what other meats can go on that menu that cost less than the boneless, skinless, chicken?

I remember when my wife and I were much younger, very, very, much younger, those chicken breasts were $1.99 a pound. Until Biden inflation hit, from the mid-70s until 2021, they were still $1.99 a pound. They went from something we couldn't even dream of buying to becoming the very cheapest meat in the store. Then, of course, you elected Biden and while the news suggests a 30% increase in chicken prices in the past year, it's actually about 60 to 70 per cent.

So, let's look at what's cheaper than $3.24 a pound.

First is tuna, even though you badmouthed it. My wife and I have a grilled tuna sandwich a couple of times a month. A 5-ounce can (used to be a 6.5 ounce until Obama's shrinkflation) makes up to enough tuna salad for both of us to have one delicious grilled tuna on homemade sourdough. Because we've worked hard in our life and have earned it, can afford it, we get the more expensive solid-light in olive oil but for a poor family of 4 get the 12 ounce can, always in oil, not in water, for $2.63. Add a bit of mayo (less because you bought tuna in oil rather than in water and then adding the oil afterwards in the expensive mayo. For us, we put in a bit of diced onion and dill relish. Still, in total,less than the price per serving as the price of the chicken.

Then there's bologna. Fried bologna, thick sliced, with a little homemade mayo on rye. I'm getting hungry thinking of it. We like to buy the german beef balogna at the deli because we've worked hard and make enough that we can. But we sill eat the Bar S from time to time, too, so we know it's edible. it's $1.48 a pound so less than half the price of the chicken. The extra savings can get a sweet treat for dessert.

There are several boneless pork cuts for less than $2.50 up to $2.84 a pound on Walmart's site tonight. I can cook some amazing pork roast, or pulled pork barbecue, or other things to do with pork. Every protein serving with as much or more protein than the chicken and costing less than the chicken.


Eye of round roast is $3.28 a pound at Sam's Club. That's 4 cents more than the chicken. Can we accept that as the same or are you going to bitch over 4 cents? We grind our own ground beef from it, mixing it with most of a whole brisket until we get great proportions and saving the very best of the brisket for making our own corned beef. Also, the eye of round make amazingly good breaded round steak if you put it in foil and in the oven after frying, letting it tenderize. Great meal for no more than the chicken.

So, the poor have no right to variety but, even so, there are still a lot of options, all cheaper than that boneless, skinless, chicken breast meal.

Your premise of poverty is a lie. Hunger is a lie. Most of those living in the streets get enough to eat and can get housing as well. Those living on the street do so by choice, just as do all people living in poverty do so by choice.

Homeless shelters aren't housing. Some cities offer single room occupancy or SRO programs for the homeless, even "housing first" initiatives as is the case in Utah, but most cities just rely on shelters to house the homeless. Most people would rather sleep outside than in a homeless shelter.

 

[woodwork201]

Lol you’re such an idiot. We both know I did admit it. Why you’re still talking about this is kind of pathetic I gotta tell you. It just comes across as desperate.

Yes, you admitted it. But you didn't admit it like a man, did you? You admitted it like a 13-year-old girl. You whined, cried, yelled, and pointed fingers when you should have just said, "My mistake; I was wrong".

Like I said, you and others, left and right, when proven 100% to be wrong, lash out rather than own up to being wrong. Being wrong is not a reflection on a man's character; how he owns up to being wrong is a reflection on his character.

 

[woodwork201]

Right so kids don’t matter huh? Their parents didn’t plan well so the kids have to suffer huh? Also, I hate to break it to you, but church charity is not going to solve this problem.

It worked just fine until Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and then idiots like you read it and realized there was great power in being the State as long as you stopped the process before what was supposed to be an eventual end of the State.

How did we survive as a people until 1935 when the first direct payment Federal welfare system came into existence?

 

[woodwork201]

Man, you've nailed every single one of the right wing radical anti-poverty talking points that have been completely discredited in every other first world country in the world. The poor must be kept hungry to motivate them. Are you sure whips and beatings wouldn't add to their fear and desperation and increase that motivation?

The only thing it motivates people to is crime. Lack of opportunity and poverty create crime. The USA has one of the highest rates of poverty in the first world. Only Great Britain is higher. You also have the weakest social safety net in the first world, and the highest crime rate.

These things are connected. When midwestern manufacturing jobs were off-shored, crime and opioid use spiked in counties where auto plants closed, Midwestern rural communities became just as drug ridden and violent as poor inner city neighbourhoods. Poverty and lack of opportunity.



Your welfare menu sounds great until you realize that skinless boneless chicken costs $2.00 for 4 ounces, and you can't just buy 4 ounces. The packages are at least one pound. $8.

Where can you buy a lettuce and one tomato for 50 cents? Lettuce is $2.50, and a tomato costs $1.50. Total cost $4

Ranch dressing is $3.50 per bottle. You can't buy a couple of tablespoons.

Frozen mixed vegetables cost $3.49 for a bag.

Bread is $2.69 per loaf, and butter is $3.99.

Your $1.78 meal costs nearly $25 to purchase the ingredients, assuming you don't live in a food desert, and have access to fresh produce, and meat.

A dollar meal requires no additional investment. And it requires no time or energy to produce, or clean up after. When you have the double stressors of poverty and bad diet, and you're working 60 hours a week to keep food on the table, and a roof over your head, as well as run your household, fast food is quick, and requires no physical effort to make or clean up after.

Your arrogance and ignorance regarding poverty, knows no bounds.

You're either a very poor housekeeper and even worse with managing finances.

When you open a bottle of ranch dressing at your house, do you throw the unused portion away after dinner or do you save it?

You're certainly not a good shopper. I posted the screen captures of Walmart's price for Tyson boneless, skinless, chicken breasts for $3.24, not $8.00. If you're paying $8.00 and you're almost certainly getting Tyson chicken in different packaging, you're an idiot. And do you use the chicken once and toss what's left? So a family of four, you have to buy four pounds and take a quarter of each to serve four people, tossing the rest into the trash?

I also showed the screen captures of lettuce for $1.99 a pound and Roma tomatoes at .98 a pound. Combine them in any ratio you wish and they can't cost more than 50 cents for 4 ounces. In fact, the more tomatoes you put in, the cheaper is the 4 ounce portion. 4 ounces is a LOT of lettuce.

Every single price I used in calculating the meal was on Sunday's Walmart regular prices for Washington. When I posted the screenshots, that was all captured just 10 minutes before that post.

You're a fool if you think those who don't work deserve a better life than those who do.

And are you seriously going to suggest that poor people shouldn't have to cook or wash dishes? That's probably the stupidest welfare statement I've read anywhere.

But the bottom line is, you must really hold the poor in contempt to actually argue that they should be eating more fast food instead of less fast food. You are very likely the only person in the entire planet stupid enough to argue that eating more fast food is better than eating less.

 

[Stann]

Republicans think leftwing politics in the US is about communism but this is of course ridiculous. Has any democrat in office proposed this or any other solution involving ending capitalism itself? Nope. Not even close. Eliminating the wealthy class is also not on the table. All American lefties want to do is reduce poverty, strengthen the middle class, and making sure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes EFFECTIVELY. The EFFECTIVE tax rate is what a class actually pays in taxes. The OFFICIAL tax rate is what they are expected to pay but because of deductions and loopholes, they do not pay that tax rate. Why this concept escapes republicans is beyond my understanding.

Without a doubt both parties have failed to do much of anything when it comes to alleviating poverty, but here’s the difference with democrats: they actually make attempts at the issue. They at least TRY to pass policies that meet this goal such as raising the minimum wage or child tax credits. Hell at least they passed the child tax credit to begin with even if it expired.

What do republicans do for the poor? Absolutely nothing. No attempt. Nada. That goes for the middle class as well. They don’t do jack shit. Doesn’t all of this bother Republican voters? The middle class shrunk and the poor became more poor under Bush and Trump but for some reason that does not bother them.

Of course it is worth mentioning that, historically on average, economic metrics like GDP and job growth are better under democrats than republicans.

Jobs, Income, GDP Growth 'Startlingly' Higher Under Democratic Presidents

Democratic presidents are "more willing to heed historical lessons," but Republicans cling to "magical" tax cuts and deregulation theories during economic downturns, states a new economic analysis.

www.newsweek.com

The Forbes 400 Pay Lower Tax Rates Than Many Ordinary Americans

A recent study finds that the Forbes 400 paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent over recent years—lower than many middle-class Americans.

www.americanprogress.org

12 Ways the Trump Administration Has Deepened Inequality

From reducing Native Americans’ land to limiting access to food stamps

time.com

That should be a no-brainer, most of the Republicans won't be on board. Thanks again.

 

[woodwork201]

I think you keep saying this same shit over and over because you are insecure. It makes you feel tough and manly to assume ALL poor people are lazy while you have a job. It makes you feel validated. Congratulations. You are not part of 3.6% of the population lol

I've never said that all poor people are lazy. Poor people make the choice to be poor and it's a perfectly reasonable, valid, choice. But when they make the choice they should live with their decision and the consequences of that decision. They should not be allowed to choose to live off of my work. That's slavery.

 

[Red Front]

It worked just fine until Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and then idiots like you read it and realized there was great power in being the State as long as you stopped the process before what was supposed to be an eventual end of the State.

How did we survive as a people until 1935 when the first direct payment Federal welfare system came into existence?

The state prevents others from taking all of your shit. That's why states were originally created, to protect the owner class (slave masters, landlords), from those who are owned or don't own anything (the haves need a state to protect themselves from the have-nots). There's this small group of people who own all of the good shit, including people, but in socialism, the people wake up and say "Fuck you, we own everything together and if you don't like it, too bad". The state becomes the arm and power of the people, rather than the club used to beat the slaves and keep everyone in line for the sake of the rich. Socialism flips it from the rich eating the poor, to the poor eating the rich. Flipped.

A democratic government is the arm of the people, that's why the wealthy ruling class hates government and democracy. They always do everything they can to undermine it. In socialism, everyone owns the means of production collectively and no one exploits anyone else for personal gain. The government acts as a property management company, managing, and planning everything in cooperation with the local people's councils (known in Russia as "Soviets") and the worker cooperatives (production teams). No need for two, three, or four parties. One party and within that party there's a democratic system, allowing its members to elect their leaders. Only the members of the party get to vote. Why? Because there will always be people trying to resurrect the old system of exploitation and slavery. So those who are socialists, democratic in their thinking, get to vote, those who pursue profits and power, exploiting others for personal gain, don't vote. Fuck them.

Might makes right, survival of the fittest, Ayn Rand - "Atlas Shrugged" objectivism and atheism, Jordan Peterson's "Hierarchal theory" all of that is valued and applied when it serves the vested interests of the rich. When the working class (the exploited), wakes up and says "Wait a minute, we're 95% of the population and we're being exploited and used by 5% of the population that owns the means of production/all of the "good shit". That doesn't make much sense, perhaps we should unite as a community and own the means of production collectively? We'll establish a state that serves the public good, rather than the vested interests of the rich at the great expense of the vast majority of people".

The People Working Together Without Exploiting Others For Personal Gain = The Mightiest And Fittest.

Might makes right, right? The People are the fittest and the mightiest when they unite.

EAT THE RICH BEFORE THEY EAT YOU.
​

 

[Feeding Crows]

Wow!!! You peeps know how to jerk each other off!

 

[Feeding Crows]

Nobody knows what you're talking about!!! Make one point in one fucking sentence!!!! Period!!!

 

[Feeding Crows]

You're all full of shit!!!! You fucking copy/paste bullshit from fucking websites, and you think we're going to believe that shite?!?!?!?

No!!! We're not. Explain yourselves in fucking English, single sentences, and then we'll talk!!!

Until then... I'm going to post nekkid Russian women!!!

 

[Red Front]

You're all full of shit!!!! You fucking copy/paste bullshit from fucking websites, and you think we're going to believe that shite?!?!?!?

No!!! We're not. Explain yourselves in fucking English, single sentences, and then we'll talk!!!

Until then... I'm going to post nekkid Russian women!!!

You can easily verify that what I write isn't copied and pasted from websites. I actually create content here in the forum, so what you're reading is brand spanking new right off the press.