Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
America's 'Poor' are mere pawns in an age-old Political Game. Our 'Poor' live quite comfortably compared to most of the World. So what is being 'Poor' in America these days? It seems the definition keeps changing. The goalposts keep being moved.
That's it isn't it? For some of our friends here--I use the term loosely--if the great god of government proclaims somebody 'poor', then they are. Nevermind that to millions of the world's truly poor, America's poorest would be considered blessed indeed.
And at the same time, there are people who are truly hungry and no person of compassion simply sends them on their way without something to eat.
But to pay those artifically defined as 'poor' in such a way that there is little or no incentive to become unpoor is not only dishonest, but should be 100% illegal when the money is forcibly confiscated from others to create the condition. And when those who create the condition have motive to perpetuate it in order to keep themselves in power with ability to greatly enrich themselves.
Well, i gotta run. No one even attempted to define what being 'Poor' in America means. It seems most don't even have a clue about what the definition of the term 'Poor' is. For example, is not having that Big Screen TV considered 'Poor' in America? There are many other questions like that. I'll come back later and see if anyone attempted to expound on it. See Ya.
So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -
and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.
They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.
This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.
Hey....I got a note from someone who said I "shredded" you.....
Would it be OK if I addressed you as 'cole slaw' from now on?
You can address that imbecile however you wish, but cole slaw actually has a positive impact on the earth, and even if it becomes garbage it can be used for compost. NYBedwetter not only serves no positive purpose, but is stealing our oxygen and actually reducing the collective intelligence of mankind.
It's because of mindless parasites like that, I can not oppose abortion. If it wasn't for child-resistant lids on Drano, that idiot would have been yet another dead dumbass kid found under a kitchen sink.
Alright, I no longer see the point of this thread. Is this about poor dark-skinned people, and how they don't deserve welfare?
And does the proposed solution involve removing all welfare assistance? Because that seems unwise.
Alright, I no longer see the point of this thread. Is this about poor dark-skinned people, and how they don't deserve welfare?
And does the proposed solution involve removing all welfare assistance? Because that seems unwise.
No and no. Never was.
Tell me how it's changed since we have had them. If the programs were intended to lift the poor out of poverty, it hasn't worked as there are more people on assitance than ever before. If the programs were working, shouldn't they eventually eliminate themselves or be very small in comparison to the past? Do you think another federal job training program on top of the existing 48 or so is the going to be the straw that breaks poverty's back?
The problem is we are in a bad economy which means more people on assistance. Not saying their aren't people who abuse the system, just that not all of them, not even most of them abuse the system. Why is it no one complains about corporate welfare or the bank bailouts which cost us a heck of a lot more? No, they'd rather complain about people working minimum wage jobs that need food stamps and call them lazy.
You are missing the point of the OP. We aren't talking about people down on their luck trying to replace a good lost job. We are talking about those who refuse to work because they know the government will be their sugar daddy. The lazy poor. Those who are poor by choice and too lazy to fend for themselves because they know someone else will feed them while they do nothing but exist.
PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.
.
She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty.
She believes there are no poor, but wishes to recreate the poor by taking away what keeps them from being poor.
That, btw, happens to be the core belief of conservative economic policy...
...to make the poor poorer by ending or drastically reducing the aid that alleviates their poverty.
66% of conservative superhero's Paul Ryan's budget cuts were aimed at government spending for the benefit of low income Americans.
"She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty."
Actually, I go far further than that....I can prove that liberal/progressive 'welfare' increases poverty.
Watch this:
The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income,, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.
Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
a. Further results: dissolution of families: This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase. http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
b. When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.
Robert B. Carleson, Government Is The Problem, p. 57.
Ya' feel stoooopid, now, boyyyyeeeeeeee??
None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.
So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -
and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.
They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.
This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.
Hey....I got a note from someone who said I "shredded" you.....
Would it be OK if I addressed you as 'cole slaw' from now on?
No one is entitled to someone else's income. That's theft. And more & more Americans are getting fed up. Businesses don't want to pay em and Big Brother wants to steal more & more from em. What do they do? Who do they turn to? Desperate frustration is setting in amongst the masses.
The reality, though, has nothing to do with "entitlement," however you might choose to define it. The reality has much more to do with torches and pitchforks--because if you decide that feudal society, or a right wing monarchy is more "deserving" of wealth, you may find yourself facing "La Guillotine" at some point. "The masses" tend to become upset after inequality reaches a certain level.
There is nothing prohibiting the masses from finding the means (including the military or GI Bill) to get an advanced education, or starting your OWN business instead of bickering over how someone chooses to run theirs. Those who I find complain the most on a rather frequent basis, about their boss or owner, do so because they have chosen to "settle" right where they are.
America's 'Poor' are mere pawns in an age-old Political Game. Our 'Poor' live quite comfortably compared to most of the World. So what is being 'Poor' in America these days? It seems the definition keeps changing. The goalposts keep being moved.
So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -
and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.
They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.
This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.
Hey....I got a note from someone who said I "shredded" you.....
Would it be OK if I addressed you as 'cole slaw' from now on?
You can address that imbecile however you wish, but cole slaw actually has a positive impact on the earth, and even if it becomes garbage it can be used for compost. NYBedwetter not only serves no positive purpose, but is stealing our oxygen and actually reducing the collective intelligence of mankind.
It's because of mindless parasites like that, I can not oppose abortion. If it wasn't for child-resistant lids on Drano, that idiot would have been yet another dead dumbass kid found under a kitchen sink.
Alright, I no longer see the point of this thread. Is this about poor dark-skinned people, and how they don't deserve welfare?
And does the proposed solution involve removing all welfare assistance? Because that seems unwise.
No and no. Never was.
So, what is it about? And what is the proposed right-wing solution?
It doesn't count if they are homeless, heatless, and foodless by CHOICE.
We do not have families with children huddling on the streets. We do have homeless, mentally ill and drug addled and some run aways that opt to live on the street instead of living at home. It isn't because of poverty, however. It's because of dysfunction.
PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.
.
She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty.
She believes there are no poor, but wishes to recreate the poor by taking away what keeps them from being poor.
That, btw, happens to be the core belief of conservative economic policy...
...to make the poor poorer by ending or drastically reducing the aid that alleviates their poverty.
66% of conservative superhero's Paul Ryan's budget cuts were aimed at government spending for the benefit of low income Americans.
Wow! So do we call all the lies you just told a fairy tale instead of lies?
It doesn't count if they are homeless, heatless, and foodless by CHOICE.
We do not have families with children huddling on the streets. We do have homeless, mentally ill and drug addled and some run aways that opt to live on the street instead of living at home. It isn't because of poverty, however. It's because of dysfunction.
Actually, we do. They live out of their cars. Some of them find temporary housing. There's a church in Tacoma that provides shelter for homeless families during the winter. The congregation takes turns cooking breakfast and dinner for them and they are provided with sack lunches.
Most of these are people who had kids when they were working and supporting themselves but they lost their jobs in this terrible economy and can't find another.
Some people on this board really need to get out there and find out what they are talking about. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Here's an article I found on homeless families in Seattle:
Local News | Seattle Times Newspaper
And you have to realize, for every 1 you find out about, there are probably 10 you haven't found out about. When they counted the homeless in our city, the got on the bus at night and counted the people sleeping on the bus. How stupid. We have at least 3 tent cities in this city and they didn't visit any of them, nor did they count the people sleeping in their cars or under whatever they could find on the streets.
Please...did NYC just use a form of the word "substantive"?
GUFFAW! I was certain he had no idea what it meant!
carbiner...I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means.
