To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Markle]

I told you before, since I don't know what you're getting at, I don't know the answer.

Generally, though not always, children raised at or below the poverty level have no strong family support system. Today, however, that is true of those with big bucks.

The answer is marriage.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

Ammunition For Poverty Pimps

 

[Papageorgio]

It's very very simple, you statedI am not upset, I am not pissed, I am not disagreeing, for I don't understand what you mean by your statement. I am asking for you to clarify your statement. Can you clarify it?

You mentioned I "don't have anything to carry your position with?" What position am I carrying? Maybe I have missed big chunks of a conversation however I am not finding them. So all I am asking is to clarify your two statements. Is that okay that you clarify what you are saying? Thank you.

Dude, really? Okay, tell me your post number and I'll go back and read it. Look, I lead by example.

Did your see the guy that called me names and implied I was some kind of left wing, bleeding heart liberal - Hell, I don't recall what all of it was. I didn't my boxers in a bunch. I responded factually and let it go.

But, Dude for real if you let me get under your skin that easily, tell me what was said and I'll look at it. Nobody wants to ruin your Christmas.

I quoted exactly what you posted in my last post.

I didn't see the post calling you anything, nor is it relevant to me.

People have no ability to ruin a second of my life let alone a day or season, only I am responsible for that. I'm not sure why you think it bothers me, I just don't understand what you are saying and need a clarification. Pretty simple and easy, you seem to think it is a difficult thing to back up your statements.

I'm going to say this once again - rephrased - I know what I said. I don't know what YOU said as you did not reference YOUR post; therefore, I cannot clarify it any better than I did. Furthermore, I'm not motivated to search out 600 + posts.

If it don't apply to you, say so. Then move on. If you want something more, tell what post YOU said something in that I disagreed with.

I don’t know if applied to me since you won’t expound on the answer. You are the one that said it applied to me. I would think if you made the statement you would know what you meant. I guess not.

You kept saying I said it to you and you've been acting like you're offended. Now you're backpedaling. What, exactly did you say?

What did I tell you? WTF, you made a statement about me following some damn talking point, I asked you to clarify and now I’m back peddling? Either define what you meant or don’t, quit trying to blame me for your stupid empty comment. And no, I don’t get offended by people on this board. I have 40,000 plus posts, you don’t get that many on here if you get offended easily. You think way too much of yourself.

 

[Markle]

There’s the rub! All our investments are diversified. Can you say where your investments are? What the ceos of those companies make ?

Board members and ceos are all in cahoots to hook each other up with other people’s money.

My investments are diversified but I purchased each stock, some in precious metals, and a percentage in cash.

Forty percent of the stocks I purchased after President Trump was elected have increased over 125% More than double. Twenty percent have increased 20% and the rest in between. I don't care what the CEO is paid, they are making money for the company and for me.

Send your complaint about the high wages of CEO's to former President Bill Clinton. He is responsible. If you're angry about CEO's, put your money under your mattress or in the bank.

 

[Markle]

Most ceos have sore shoulders from golfing. They are unable to work hard.

So what? A great deal of business is transacted on the golf course. So long as their company is running well, making a profit for the stockholders, what difference does it make?

 

[Markle]

Do you know the pay of the ceos where your money is at ?

Yes.

 

[Markle]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There’s the rub! All our investments are diversified. Can you say where your investments are? What the ceos of those companies make ?

Board members and ceos are all in cahoots to hook each other up with other people’s money.

My investments are diversified but I purchased each stock, some in precious metals, and a percentage in cash.

Forty percent of the stocks I purchased after President Trump was elected have increased over 125% More than double. Twenty percent have increased 20% and the rest in between. I don't care what the CEO is paid, they are making money for the company and for me.

Send your complaint about the high wages of CEO's to former President Bill Clinton. He is responsible. If you're angry about CEO's, put your money under your mattress or in the bank.

And a local banks as well. Larger banks have CEO's too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

Have you actually read the tax bills yourself?

Nope, I have a full-time job. So I depend on sources I trust like FactCheck to summarize what it says.

 

[beagle9]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

. Then there are the Demon-crats with all their ridiculous ideas, agenda's, theft, and idiocy that empowers all the resistance on the otherside. We the AMERICAN workers are caught in the middle of Hell is what we are caught in.

 

[beagle9]

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

. All explanations of today that we see and hear now, but going back to the Glory days in comparison, just what the Hell happened ????? It used to be that when a product was built, it was built to last, and the price was right. This empowered American's, and it allowed them to save more instead of having to spend more to replace the inferior products in which monopoly corporations are shoving down their throats with barely no options anymore to escape it all.... We as an American people were stronger and more self sustaining when we could purchase a Kenmore washer and dryer that lasted over 20 years like me and the wife had done or like it was with many other products we purchased over the years. Just look at the products you can still find that was built years and years ago in yard sells that still work.

American has been duped, and it hasn't been purdy. Wake up America... 18 wheelers are a great example of the problem, where as inferior products are being built, the price steady going up, and the trucks not holding up now. Even though they cost 20 or 40 times more than what they cost not so long ago it would seem... They are plagued with problems. Ain't that right Ray ?? I have friends that drive, and they got horror stories to tell Ray, and especially about those def systems, heater and air conditioning controls, motors, lift axle systems where apply, front end alignment, stress cracks, and on and on. American's have been duped badly. It's no wonder why the wealth has been concentrated so much at the top. It has all been by design.

 

[beagle9]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

. All explanations of today that we see and hear now, but going back to the Glory days in comparison, just what the Hell happened ????? It used to be that when a product was built, it was built to last, and the price was right. This empowered American's, and it allowed them to save more instead of having to spend more to replace the inferior products in which monopoly corporations are shoving down their throats with barely no options anymore to escape it all.... We as an American people were stronger and more self sustaining when we could purchase a Kenmore washer and dryer that lasted over 20 years like me and the wife had done or like it was with many other products we purchased over the years. Just look at the products you can still find that was built years and years ago in yard sells that still work.

American has been duped, and it hasn't been purdy. Wake up America... 18 wheelers are a great example of the problem, where as inferior products are being built, the price steady going up, and the trucks not holding up now. Even though they cost 20 or 40 times more than what they cost not so long ago it would seem... They are plagued with problems. Ain't that right Ray ?? I have friends that drive, and they got horror stories to tell Ray, and especially about those def systems, heater and air conditioning controls, motors, lift axle systems where apply, front end alignment, stress cracks, and on and on. American's have been duped badly. It's no wonder why the wealth has been concentrated so much at the top. It has all been by design.

The problem with trucks today is the EPA. they had to manufacture trucks with so much pollution crap that it drove costs out of the roof. To try and compensate for the tens of thousands of dollars In pollution crap, they cut down on quality parts. So now these trucks break down all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Humorme]

Did you know that the United States Supreme Court never reversed Dred Scott v Sanford?

That, as you know, was not necessary.

Brown vs The Board of Education reversed that decision.

First, that is a presumption. Secondly, a future court could determine that the 14th Amendment never met constitutional muster as it was illegally ratified.

According to one writer:

"It was never (Dred Scott)overturned. It was argued in appeals for 11 years. The decision actually unified the Northern states even more against slavery than before, and had the opposite effect of what the court thought would happen. The galvanization of the North lead directly to the Civil War. The aftermath of which, rendered the decision a moot point, with the passing of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Mr Scott died in 1857, just 1 year after the ruling of tuberculosis and never saw the effect of the case."

Was the Dred Scott decision overturned as a matter of law or just on an unimportant procedural ground?

Wear yourself out. I am extremely familiar with the Dred Scott decision and the Brown vs Board of Education decision. Obviously, you are not. I taught real estate for new licensees, new brokers, Fair Housing and Diversity for my local association, the State Association and the National Association.

I have no clue as to what point you are trying to make.

Once again....

Why are you afraid to answer my simple question? For your convenience, allow me to repost here:

Other than money, what is the single most important difference between a child being raised in poverty and a child being raised above the poverty level?

I will keep repeating this for you. I don't know what point you're trying to make. So, I will not fathom an answer. If you're asking what a poor child's chances are, they are still not equal to the rich kid's AND they have the disadvantage of not having been reared to set priorities.

WHEN people do not have the proper foundation, society is left with either making decent citizens out of them OR contending with high crime rates.

My field of work is in law. So, let me assure you, the Brown decision did not over-turn Dred Scott:

What Supreme Court case overturned Dred Scott vs. Sandford? | eNotes

Did the Fourteenth Amendment overturn the Dred Scott case

The point I was making is that the law is seldom what you think it is and can easily be overturned by the Courts.

 

[Nosmo King]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

Well argued! I posted my thoughts, you cut and copied a meme that says nothing. Too hard to think for yourself? Welcome to today's Conservatism!

 

[Humorme]

I told you before, since I don't know what you're getting at, I don't know the answer.

Generally, though not always, children raised at or below the poverty level have no strong family support system. Today, however, that is true of those with big bucks.

The answer is marriage.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

Ammunition For Poverty Pimps

I don't know what it is you think I believe in, but none of what you say has squat to do with me. I have never, under any circumstances, advocated for a bigger government.

My default is that I will never support any program that increases the size, power, and / or scope of government.

I don't understand what your objective is, and bear in mind, somewhere along 20 or so people are responding to my posts on this thread so I'm not reading it over and over, just answering the posts as they are made.

 

[Humorme]

Dude, really? Okay, tell me your post number and I'll go back and read it. Look, I lead by example.

Did your see the guy that called me names and implied I was some kind of left wing, bleeding heart liberal - Hell, I don't recall what all of it was. I didn't my boxers in a bunch. I responded factually and let it go.

But, Dude for real if you let me get under your skin that easily, tell me what was said and I'll look at it. Nobody wants to ruin your Christmas.

I quoted exactly what you posted in my last post.

I didn't see the post calling you anything, nor is it relevant to me.

People have no ability to ruin a second of my life let alone a day or season, only I am responsible for that. I'm not sure why you think it bothers me, I just don't understand what you are saying and need a clarification. Pretty simple and easy, you seem to think it is a difficult thing to back up your statements.

I'm going to say this once again - rephrased - I know what I said. I don't know what YOU said as you did not reference YOUR post; therefore, I cannot clarify it any better than I did. Furthermore, I'm not motivated to search out 600 + posts.

If it don't apply to you, say so. Then move on. If you want something more, tell what post YOU said something in that I disagreed with.

I don’t know if applied to me since you won’t expound on the answer. You are the one that said it applied to me. I would think if you made the statement you would know what you meant. I guess not.

You kept saying I said it to you and you've been acting like you're offended. Now you're backpedaling. What, exactly did you say?

What did I tell you? WTF, you made a statement about me following some damn talking point, I asked you to clarify and now I’m back peddling? Either define what you meant or don’t, quit trying to blame me for your stupid empty comment. And no, I don’t get offended by people on this board. I have 40,000 plus posts, you don’t get that many on here if you get offended easily. You think way too much of yourself.

Think you're projecting. Now, YOU are the one who accuses me of insulting you. But, I don't know what you said. So, if you can't put your big boy pants on and tell me which post I responded to, what I said is meaningless. Tell me you're not that stupid. Without researching this entire thread for your benefit, I have no idea what my post was in reference to so it cannot be clarified. Now tell me you're not that stupid and drop this OR tell me what it was YOU said that I responded to. Give me a post number or walk away. Otherwise I will start ignoring you. You're being silly.

 

[Humorme]

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives do want people to enjoy a livable wage. What we conservatives do not want is making all jobs a livable wage. Conservatives want people to make themselves worth more money--not government making them worth more money. As long as taxpayers subsidize people who don't want to try harder, why would they try harder??

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, has a value. Forcing increased payment of labor does not make that labor more valuable, it's still worth the same, only you are paying more for it.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Of course not, but that was at a time when consumers supported unions. They don't today, and we are now in a global market. The American consumer is obsessed with "cheap." The cheaper the product, the more that product sells. You can't produce a cheap product with union labor. It just isn't possible.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

The current tax bill provides lower taxation for the lower middle-class, and more taxation for the higher middle-class. As FactCheck noted, middle-class is considered anywhere from above poverty to six figure incomes. In that class, 63% of those people will see a reduction in taxes on the lower end of that scale.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

It adds child credits, it keeps mortgage deductions for all that currently hold them, and those who buy homes in the future with under 500K loans will still receive those deductions. Those who purchase a home more than 500K (yes, those upper-class people) will no longer be able to write them off beyond 500K.

Have you actually read the tax bills yourself?

Nope, I have a full-time job. So I depend on sources I trust like FactCheck to summarize what it says.

I don't take other people's word for anything. That is what your congresscritters are doing. That is how we get bad laws. I'm like Ron Paul was. If it takes more than five minutes to read the bill, I'm against it.

 

[Humorme]

You'd lose your ass on that bet. I'm the kind of dumbass that was volunteering to fight against communists when most of the people I knew were running from them. One of my mentors was once on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society.

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

Guess you're not as smart as you thought. You should try READING the fricking thread before making idiotic assumptions. I don't support a minimum wage, but I have my own ideas on how to incentivize employers to pay higher wages as opposed to penalizing them for running their business they way they see fit.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You provide a good question. Those who would give the government full control over every aspect of the situation are just as much socialist as the left ever was.

 

[Humorme]

May I share an observation here:

We started out with a discussion about paying people a realistic wage for work performed and have morphed into a debate about capitalism.

At the end of the day, we are ignoring the real reason why taxes are so high. When we allowed misfits to attack the moral foundations upon which this nation was built, we tore down the ethical foundation upon which this Republic rests.

The divorced mother who got rid of the absent father that is little more than a transient pothead is as much a part of this problem as the mega corporation that wants to pay substandard wages to its employees. She relies on the government to give her child a guaranteed standard of living. The parents that allow kids 20, 30, and beyond to stay in the home, rent free and not have responsibilities are equally to blame.

If you want to fix low wages, rather than limit the discussion to capitalism, let's look at the lack of a moral foundation in this country.

 

[Papageorgio]

I quoted exactly what you posted in my last post.

I didn't see the post calling you anything, nor is it relevant to me.

People have no ability to ruin a second of my life let alone a day or season, only I am responsible for that. I'm not sure why you think it bothers me, I just don't understand what you are saying and need a clarification. Pretty simple and easy, you seem to think it is a difficult thing to back up your statements.

I'm going to say this once again - rephrased - I know what I said. I don't know what YOU said as you did not reference YOUR post; therefore, I cannot clarify it any better than I did. Furthermore, I'm not motivated to search out 600 + posts.

If it don't apply to you, say so. Then move on. If you want something more, tell what post YOU said something in that I disagreed with.

I don’t know if applied to me since you won’t expound on the answer. You are the one that said it applied to me. I would think if you made the statement you would know what you meant. I guess not.

You kept saying I said it to you and you've been acting like you're offended. Now you're backpedaling. What, exactly did you say?

What did I tell you? WTF, you made a statement about me following some damn talking point, I asked you to clarify and now I’m back peddling? Either define what you meant or don’t, quit trying to blame me for your stupid empty comment. And no, I don’t get offended by people on this board. I have 40,000 plus posts, you don’t get that many on here if you get offended easily. You think way too much of yourself.

Think you're projecting. Now, YOU are the one who accuses me of insulting you. But, I don't know what you said. So, if you can't put your big boy pants on and tell me which post I responded to, what I said is meaningless. Tell me you're not that stupid. Without researching this entire thread for your benefit, I have no idea what my post was in reference to so it cannot be clarified. Now tell me you're not that stupid and drop this OR tell me what it was YOU said that I responded to. Give me a post number or walk away. Otherwise I will start ignoring you. You're being silly.

I didn't say you insulted me, I am asking you one question and since you have stepped around it for so many pages now you can't find it and want me to do the research. You accused me of using left v. right talking points, I have no clue what the heck that even means, I asked you to tell me what talking points I was supposed to be using and now you dance. Sorry, I asked and the post was linked when I very first asked. I already told you, I don't need an answer from you, I already have formed my opinion about how you operate, it is all good.