The Lazy Poor

[PoliticalChic]

how christiany of you PC

Why, thank you!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not a strawman. You said, unequivocally, that the government had no business redistributing wealth. Do you need to be reminded of where you said it?

Publlic education redistributes wealth because it makes education available to the poor at the expense of those who aren't poor.

So again, tell us how taking free education away from the Poor will make America a better place?

Good to see you haven't denied your blatant and consistent dishonesty.

It's a start.

Maybe if you explained the difference between social contract/public services and wealth to him?

Naw.

Carry on.

If you want to prove that taking money from higher income or higher wealth individuals, in the form of income tax, or property tax,

and using it to pay for a low income person's children's education is not redistribution of wealth,

by all means, do so.

Otherwise, shut up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still avoiding answering questions I see. Color me surprised.

The government is not assigning homeless people to my home. You want me to respond to an absurdity?

Why?

But you responded in post #295: "...they could certainly force me to house a homeless person..."

So...
...you're admission that you are 'absurd'?


Now you're on the path to trustworthiness!
Good boy.

You're chiding me for showing patience and indulgence towards crazy people?

Okay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Possibly you're not getting a response because most realize you have fabricated the straw-argument to hide what a terrible beating you've taken in your expressed views.

No less than you deserve.

Although you have no reputation to speak of, a return to honesty might help restore same to some meager degree.


Maybe.

Just for the record, you said this is in post 131:

"Government's proper function is to provide the correct environment for the creation of wealth....

...it is not there to redistribute wealth."

Public education is government redistribution of wealth because many low income children receive that education at little or no cost to them or their parents,

at the expense of other taxpayers who pay for it.

So tell us why getting the government out of that 'function' will make America a better place. You can start by telling us how it will make the lives of poor children better, once their parents have little or no means to get their children educated.

Or you could just admit that you're wrong and that we 'socialists' who support public education are right...

1. I haven’t seen such contortions since you gave birth to yourself.


2. "Public education is government redistribution of wealth because many low income children receive that education at little or no cost to them or their parents,

at the expense of other taxpayers who pay for it."

You've latched on to this bogus word salad as though it is a)true, and b) proves your point.


Neither is the case.


3. Glad to see that you are not repeating the lie that claimed I had recommended cancelling school for the poor.

4. For your edification:
Redistribution is a federal error.
Education is a state and local responsibility.


It's more than illustrative that you never let honesty get in the way of your pronouncements.



5. "Or you could just admit that you're wrong and that we 'socialists' blah blah blah...."

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

If using one person's taxes to pay for another person's education is not a redistribution of wealth,

then neither is using that person's taxes to pay for another person's food, shelter, heat, clothing, transportation, healthcare, or anything else that person has a use for but does not have the means to purchase himself.

You have now backed yourself into the corner of asserting that there is no such thing as the redistribution of wealth,

since you have excluded all that one would describe as such.

That leaves us with the question:

Then why are you complaining about the government redistributing wealth when by your own measure the government does no such thing?

 

[Foxfyre]

Good to see you haven't denied your blatant and consistent dishonesty.

It's a start.

Maybe if you explained the difference between social contract/public services and wealth to him?

Naw.

Carry on.

If you want to prove that taking money from higher income or higher wealth individuals, in the form of income tax, or property tax,

and using it to pay for a low income person's children's education is not redistribution of wealth,

by all means, do so.

Otherwise, shut up.

It is not redistribution of wealth because public education absorbs wealth, it does not distribute it. Yes people with a good education have a much better shot at acquiring wealth, but the average citizen does not receive monetary benefits or anything else of value in return for going to school.

But explaining the difference between redistribution of wealth and public services/social contract is probably wasted on those who obviously didn't benefit much from public education.

And I won't shut up lest people with as screwy ideas as you have been posting might provide the only information others will see.

 

[DGS49]

To understand the concept of redistribution of wealth it is necessary - at the Federal level - to consider the import of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It defines the legitimate powers of Congress (the Federal Government), that is to say, those things which Congress may spend our money on. For a quick laugh, take a look at the 10th Amendment. Yuk it up.

You will notice that all of the powers of Congress pertain to the PUBLIC GOOD. Roads, post offices, national defense, a patent and copyright office, and so forth. But since the dawn of the New Deal, the Federal government has embarked on the Unconstitutional path of taking money from taxpayers and paying it out to other taxpayers. Tax revenues used for private (not public) gain. The most eggregious example of this "redistribution of wealth" is the so-called, "Earned Income Tax Credit," by which taxpayer money is given to people who worked but paid no FIT - rather a "negative tax," if you will.

The states are not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, and may spend money on whatever they like (within reason). The various states have uniformly decided that public education is a basic, state-provided, taxpayer funded benefit that ought to be available to all school-age persons within the confines of the state. This is not "redistribution of wealth" as nobody gets cash, but only gets the right to avail oneself of a service - just like a state maintained road.

To consider a state-provided education as 'redistribution of weath' makes the expression totally meaningless.

Like "marriage."

 

[Againsheila]

Most of the homeless have foodstamps.

Do they?

YOu do realize they stopped issuing "Food Stamps" a long time ago and most people are given a Link card.

of course, 40% of those on food stamp assistance have at least one person in the household who has a job.

You guys look at the 1% controlling 50% of the wealth and 85% of the wealth being held by 10% of the population, and then wonder why in the fight amongst the rest of us over what's left, some people choose to have abortions.

I wonder why people don't choose birth control instead of resorting to abortion. Adoption is always an answer too. There are waiting lists for people who want to adopt babies. Killing a child is not the only answer.

BTW, I agree that our income gap is too big and our minimum wage too small.

 

[Againsheila]

Nothing makes progressives more happy than free-loading, born-out-of-wedlock minority.

I would like nothing more than to see all the minorities get jobs. Jobs that pay a fair wage and they have rights and dignity as workers.

But then the rich wouldn't have anywhere to ride their dressage ponies.

I would like to see nothing more than providing a fair day's work for a fair wage. By and large, wages correspond with qualifications.

When I was young I took some jobs that paid low wages, but I never envied those who made more than I, because I realized that I had my dignity by knowing that I did my job according to the best of my abilities.

Instead bitching and complaining I did whatever I could to improve myself. Lo and behold I made better money.

You get "FAIR" if you give "FAIR".

When you were young the ladder was in one piece, we didn't ship the middle out overseas.

 

[koshergrl]

You know, when he was young in the ladder, young, ambitious folk would move to where the work was. Often overseas. That's how our country was settled....people from OTHER countries or from our population centers, where there was limited opportunity, moved lock, stock and barrel to where jobs existed and development was taking place.

We've forgotten what pioneer spirit is. That's what welfare has done for us. People sit on their asses in towns and cities where there is no work for them, and where they can't get ahead, and they piss and moan that there is no work. Instead of getting online, finding where there's a job, and going to the job.

There is no reason for any reasonably capable adult in our society to be without a job. If anyone was willing to move, they could get a job tomorrow. But you have to be willing to relocate to buttfuck, alaska.

 

[boilermaker55]

or

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Just for the record, you said this is in post 131:

"Government's proper function is to provide the correct environment for the creation of wealth....

...it is not there to redistribute wealth."

Public education is government redistribution of wealth because many low income children receive that education at little or no cost to them or their parents,

at the expense of other taxpayers who pay for it.

So tell us why getting the government out of that 'function' will make America a better place. You can start by telling us how it will make the lives of poor children better, once their parents have little or no means to get their children educated.

Or you could just admit that you're wrong and that we 'socialists' who support public education are right...

1. I haven’t seen such contortions since you gave birth to yourself.


2. "Public education is government redistribution of wealth because many low income children receive that education at little or no cost to them or their parents,

at the expense of other taxpayers who pay for it."

You've latched on to this bogus word salad as though it is a)true, and b) proves your point.


Neither is the case.


3. Glad to see that you are not repeating the lie that claimed I had recommended cancelling school for the poor.

4. For your edification:
Redistribution is a federal error.
Education is a state and local responsibility.


It's more than illustrative that you never let honesty get in the way of your pronouncements.



5. "Or you could just admit that you're wrong and that we 'socialists' blah blah blah...."

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

If using one person's taxes to pay for another person's education is not a redistribution of wealth,

then neither is using that person's taxes to pay for another person's food, shelter, heat, clothing, transportation, healthcare, or anything else that person has a use for but does not have the means to purchase himself.

You have now backed yourself into the corner of asserting that there is no such thing as the redistribution of wealth,

since you have excluded all that one would describe as such.

That leaves us with the question:

Then why are you complaining about the government redistributing wealth when by your own measure the government does no such thing?

I think the title of this thread should be changed from "The Lazy Poor" to "The Lazy Poster". Obviously "Superwoman" just didn't think this thing through.

 

[Againsheila]

You know, when he was young in the ladder, young, ambitious folk would move to where the work was. Often overseas. That's how our country was settled....people from OTHER countries or from our population centers, where there was limited opportunity, moved lock, stock and barrel to where jobs existed and development was taking place.

We've forgotten what pioneer spirit is. That's what welfare has done for us. People sit on their asses in towns and cities where there is no work for them, and where they can't get ahead, and they piss and moan that there is no work. Instead of getting online, finding where there's a job, and going to the job.

There is no reason for any reasonably capable adult in our society to be without a job. If anyone was willing to move, they could get a job tomorrow. But you have to be willing to relocate to buttfuck, alaska.

They shipped my job to India. I wanted to go with it. I could live a lot better on $4.50 an hour there than $8.60 an hour here. You know what I was told? Those jobs were for their citizens. We are the only country in the world that doesn't protect the jobs for it's citizens.

 

[koshergrl]

Boo hoo. Look for a different job, somewhere else, adapt. There's a reason we're called the land of opportunity. But opportunity doesn't come to you, you go to it. That's the way it has always been. And when the work in your preferred field dries up, then you look for a different field.

I've worked most of my life. I've done a whole bunch of different things, and when I can't find what I want where I am living, then I cast my net further afield.

That's how you support your family. You don't plop down in the middle of the living room and start crying and demanding money from the government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I haven’t seen such contortions since you gave birth to yourself.


2. "Public education is government redistribution of wealth because many low income children receive that education at little or no cost to them or their parents,

at the expense of other taxpayers who pay for it."

You've latched on to this bogus word salad as though it is a)true, and b) proves your point.


Neither is the case.


3. Glad to see that you are not repeating the lie that claimed I had recommended cancelling school for the poor.

4. For your edification:
Redistribution is a federal error.
Education is a state and local responsibility.


It's more than illustrative that you never let honesty get in the way of your pronouncements.



5. "Or you could just admit that you're wrong and that we 'socialists' blah blah blah...."

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

If using one person's taxes to pay for another person's education is not a redistribution of wealth,

then neither is using that person's taxes to pay for another person's food, shelter, heat, clothing, transportation, healthcare, or anything else that person has a use for but does not have the means to purchase himself.

You have now backed yourself into the corner of asserting that there is no such thing as the redistribution of wealth,

since you have excluded all that one would describe as such.

That leaves us with the question:

Then why are you complaining about the government redistributing wealth when by your own measure the government does no such thing?

I think the title of this thread should be changed from "The Lazy Poor" to "The Lazy Poster". Obviously "Superwoman" just didn't think this thing through.

You should try to avoid getting into discussions about which you have no experience nor ability.

I refer, specifically, to the term "think."

 

[koshergrl]

If using one person's taxes to pay for another person's education is not a redistribution of wealth,

then neither is using that person's taxes to pay for another person's food, shelter, heat, clothing, transportation, healthcare, or anything else that person has a use for but does not have the means to purchase himself.

You have now backed yourself into the corner of asserting that there is no such thing as the redistribution of wealth,

since you have excluded all that one would describe as such.

That leaves us with the question:

Then why are you complaining about the government redistributing wealth when by your own measure the government does no such thing?

I think the title of this thread should be changed from "The Lazy Poor" to "The Lazy Poster". Obviously "Superwoman" just didn't think this thing through.

You should try to avoid getting into discussions about which you have no experience nor ability.

I refer, specifically, to the term "think."

I'm still laughing over the retarded assertion that public education is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as wealth redistribution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the title of this thread should be changed from "The Lazy Poor" to "The Lazy Poster". Obviously "Superwoman" just didn't think this thing through.

You should try to avoid getting into discussions about which you have no experience nor ability.

I refer, specifically, to the term "think."

I'm still laughing over the retarded assertion that public education is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as wealth redistribution.

But, know what....unlike lots of others, at least he tried to invent a strategy.

Most of his attempts have the same degree of failure....

...and he is a dishonest fellow....


...but I feel that sometime before the next visit from the Comet Kohoutek he may have some success!


Am I being overly optimistic?

 

[koshergrl]

Yes.

 

[rdean]

1. This is Star Parker: "Parker was born to mostly absent parents and raised in a nonreligious home; she says she was raised "by the secular 'I'm okay, you're okay' doctrine that says people should be allowed to make their own rules and shouldn't judge other people's lives."

She lived in Japan for three years and returned to the U.S., moving to East St. Louis, Illinois, at twelve, at which point she says she "just joined right in" with the "anger and tension among blacks" in the area.[4] "I bought into the lie that there was nothing in America for me except institutional racism and glass ceilings that would keep me from getting promoted," she said.[4]

She said that after one arrest for shoplifting, her white high school guidance counselor told her "not to worry about it, because I was a 'victim of racism, lashing out at society.'" [5] After attending church at the behest of her friends, she embraced Christianity and began turning her life around.[4]"
Star Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




2. In her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation," Star Parker makes the point that there are several kinds of poor people. In one particularly poignant passage, she relates her own journey as one of the 'lazy poor.'

"Let me make sure that I understand you correctly," I inquired of the welfare caseworker as I presented her with my pregnancy confirmation note from a doctor. "All I have to do for you to send me $465 a month, $176 worth of food stamps, and 100% free medical and dental assistance is keep this baby. As long as I don't have a bank account, find a job, or get married, I qualify for aid? Where do I sign up?"

3. It was like winning the lottery....I had been looking for a way to finance my laziness. Now, at 23, I had finally found a source of income that did not require work.






4. I would steal money from my mother's purse...steal property and money from neighbors or local merchants....I lusted after the finest designer labels...and blamed racism, my parents, and any other excuse society would allow me to use for my laziness. My attitude of victimization, coupled with my unwillingness to develop the habits necessary to attain financial independence, led me further into poverty.

a. The root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself. 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.

b. 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. From Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.





5. The lazy poor are the one poverty group for which a central government must facilitate welfare services through guilt and manipulation of the rest of the populace. This is because taxpayers generally despise this poverty group because, no matter how expensive the welfare programs are, the lazy poor always want more. They depend on the pity of liberal politicians to redistribute wealth, so that they can get what they want with little effort and no personal responsibility.

6. Compare this group to the economically challenged poor, whose tax payments offset most of the government benefits they might receive: no, the social consequences, and social costs due to the actions of the lazy poor are a financial drain on our entire tax system.

7. These are the "I couldn't care less" poor, the 'refuse to work' poor, and those poor who claim welfare benefits as their 'entitlement.' Some politicians believe they are doing these folks a favor by addicting them to a government-subsidized life. These are people who will be forever impoverished: they have bought the lie that poor people are poor because rich people are rich, and, therefore, they can demand that Uncle Sam fuels, or at least feels, their pain.





8. Dr. Thomas Sowell points out another sort of 'poor,' who aren't really poor. The terms ‘the rich’ and ‘the poor’ are seldom defined. Thus, there are mistakes in understanding the difference between the flow of income during a given year, and what has been accumulated. Similarly, the poor are usually defined in terms of current income, rather than how much they have or have not accumulated. Income and wealth are not the same thing. So, government definitions based on income can be misleading.
For many hand-wringing, bleeding-heat Liberals the following distinctions escape them.
Too nuanced, or requires actual thought.

a. Some who have low income, but are hardly poor are the spouse of a rich or affluent husband or wife.

b. Affluent or wealthy speculators, investors, or business owners having an off year.

c. Students who graduate in the middle of the year, and, therefore, earn half of what they would have.

d. Doctors or other professionals just starting out.

e. Those still living at home with folks who are wealthy or affluent. Or retirees in the reverse situation.
From "Economic Facts and Fallacies," Thomas Sowell



I hope it's not too late for something to be done to change the direction of this nation.

So who finances your lying bullshit?

Look at that, another post from Miss Cankor, 1942.

 

[JoeB131]

[
I would like to see nothing more than providing a fair day's work for a fair wage. By and large, wages correspond with qualifications.

When I was young I took some jobs that paid low wages, but I never envied those who made more than I, because I realized that I had my dignity by knowing that I did my job according to the best of my abilities.

Instead bitching and complaining I did whatever I could to improve myself. Lo and behold I made better money.

You get "FAIR" if you give "FAIR".

HORSESHIT!!!!

Employers will pay you what they think they can get away with. It's why I was making better money with no experience at my current job in 2000 (after adjusting for inflation) than I do today with 13 years more experience, Six Sigma and CPIM training.

YOu know how I tell when my boss is lying to me?

His lips are moving.

 

[tjvh]

[
I would like to see nothing more than providing a fair day's work for a fair wage. By and large, wages correspond with qualifications.

When I was young I took some jobs that paid low wages, but I never envied those who made more than I, because I realized that I had my dignity by knowing that I did my job according to the best of my abilities.

Instead bitching and complaining I did whatever I could to improve myself. Lo and behold I made better money.

You get "FAIR" if you give "FAIR".

HORSESHIT!!!!

Employers will pay you what they think they can get away with. It's why I was making better money with no experience at my current job in 2000 (after adjusting for inflation) than I do today with 13 years more experience, Six Sigma and CPIM training.

YOu know how I tell when my boss is lying to me?

His lips are moving.

You don't think it has anything to do with the stellar economy?