CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

There is no such expectation. It is people like you who choose to subsidize their employees' lifestyles so stop complaining about it

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

I'm curious. What business did you ever run?

 

[Andylusion]

"And no, FDR is not responsible for Fannie Mae"

Sorry, Jimmy......he certainly was.

1. "During the Great Depression, as borrowers defaulted on mortgages en masse and banks found themselves strapped for cash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress created Fannie Mae in 1938..."
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

2. His drones, Liberals, went on to compound the problem, and the illegality....
"The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Freddie Mac buys mortgages..."
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. "Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

OK, I give up.

Telling people that FDR, who has been dead for 80+ years, is responsible for the 2008 Real Estate Collapse is sure to win new people over to your way of thinking.

Sure.

Go with that.

"Telling people that FDR, who has been dead for 80+ years, is responsible for the 2008 Real Estate Collapse is sure to win new people over to your way of thinking."

1. Which of his policies vis-a-vis government control of the private housing....and banking....markets died with him?

Right...none.

2. The Democrat/Liberal/Socialist/Communist Party not only continues FDR's mismanagement of constitutional government, but is right back doing what brought on the same policies that caused the meltdown.

"Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC.
Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes."
Obsessive Housing Disorder
City Journal,
Obsessive Housing Disorder


3. I have no agenda to 'win people over.'
I simply provide the truth, often a series of facts, none deniable.....as you have found....that lead to an ineluctable conclusion.

That is the case with the housing bubble, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.



As I wrote before: had there been no government attempt, under FDR, to manipulate the housing market....something the Constitution does not authorize...would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

The answer is clearly 'no.'

What my friend PoliticalChic is correctly pointing out, that everyone else doesn't have a problem grasping, is that nearly all current policy choices are built on the basis of prior policy choices.

The modern FAA, started from the 1926 Air Commerce Act, and in 1934 was the the Bureau of Air Commerce, and in 1938 was the Civil Aeronautics Authority, but in 1958 passed the Federal Aviation Act, which ended up the FAA.

Now in the FAAs case, it was not generally designed to somehow influence the market, but rather serve the market, since airline crashes harm the entire market.

In the case of Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, these institutions were designed explicitly to increase home ownership. Which results in market distortions. Which is the fundamental basis for our complaint against them.

The reason why people are blowing you off, is because everyone else here understands that most of today's policies are built on the policies that came before. The fact you deny what is clearly obvious to everyone else, only reflects on you. There isn't a professor of politics anywhere, defending your perspective.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

 

[JimBowie1958]

What my friend PoliticalChic is correctly pointing out, that everyone else doesn't have a problem grasping, is that nearly all current policy choices are built on the basis of prior policy choices.

The modern FAA, started from the 1926 Air Commerce Act, and in 1934 was the the Bureau of Air Commerce, and in 1938 was the Civil Aeronautics Authority, but in 1958 passed the Federal Aviation Act, which ended up the FAA.

Now in the FAAs case, it was not generally designed to somehow influence the market, but rather serve the market, since airline crashes harm the entire market.

In the case of Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, these institutions were designed explicitly to increase home ownership. Which results in market distortions. Which is the fundamental basis for our complaint against them.

The reason why people are blowing you off, is because everyone else here understands that most of today's policies are built on the policies that came before. The fact you deny what is clearly obvious to everyone else, only reflects on you. There isn't a professor of politics anywhere, defending your perspective.

Blaming FDR for the 2008 fiasco is like blaming the original engineer that built a bridge because it collapsed 80 years later when it had not been given the proper maintenance it was supposed to receive.

FDR would not have approved of the policies that contributed to the 2008 fiasco. In fact one of the repealed policies, Glass-Steigel, that contributed to the real estate bubble that busted in 2008 was put in place by FDR's supporters.

Your ignorance on this whole topic is simply mind boggling.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

 

[JimBowie1958]

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

 

[Andylusion]

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

With all due respect....... if the people who have been collecting the 'generosity' of the hard working tax payer... are going to riot and cause mayhem..... if their response to decades of our sacrifice on their behalf, is to riot the moment they don't get what they want.... Listen carefully buddy.....

That is the most compelling and excellent reason to end welfare, and shoot rioters. These people have been living off my hard work for decades. They should be filled with unending gratitude at the rest of us for our sacrifice.

If I didn't show gratitude towards my parents when they sacrificed on my behalf, they had a simple solution... I got NOTHING. I would to bed without diner.

If these people are going to riot like spoiled brats if we don't give them what they want, then that is the best reason you have ever provided me, to end welfare completely and shoot all rioters. These people are an ungrateful burden on society.

 

[JimBowie1958]

With all due respect....... if the people who have been collecting the 'generosity' of the hard working tax payer... are going to riot and cause mayhem..... if their response to decades of our sacrifice on their behalf, is to riot the moment they don't get what they want.... Listen carefully buddy.....

That is the most compelling and excellent reason to end welfare, and shoot rioters. These people have been living off my hard work for decades. They should be filled with unending gratitude at the rest of us for our sacrifice.

Lol, and you, being in the vast minority, would be among the ones swept from the streets and hanging from the lamp posts, not the people you are trying to starve to death so you can feed more profits to the Multinational corporations.

 

[320 Years of History]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

You know, the more you talk on this subject, the more it becomes clear you don't know what you are talking about, but you think you do.

Ladies and gentlemen ---

What we have here is an example how to respond when you don't have a coherent or cogent counter-argument. If you can't attack the argument, attack the poster.

Actually, what we have is a poster who has no interest in searching through his prior posts in other threads that show the error of the other member's thinking.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job.

Who would want to work for walmart if they make less then the government offers them?

How would walmart survive ? They either die or raise their wages more.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job..

It is not that simple, dude. There are plenty of welfare programs that help people who are employed but who dont make enough from their jobs, like WIC.

Perhaps you should read up on the subject abit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job.

Who would want to work for walmart if they make less then the government offers them?

How would walmart survive ? They either die or raise their wages more.

I have never been poor so how does it work?

Is being on total welfare and not working more poor then working a minimum wage job and collecting some welfare?

So in essence company's like walmart subsidise the us government welfare program not the other way around.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job..

It is not that simple, dude. There are plenty of welfare programs that help people who are employed but who dont make enough from their jobs, like WIC.

Perhaps you should read up on the subject abit.

I am correct then company's like walmart subsidize the US government welfare program.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

Have you seen this proposal, Bear?

1. America has always supported a safety net for those in need. This has always been so, as we are a compassionate people. But what began as a safety net has transformed into a deluge of untenable spending that is jeopardizing our entire economic system. Our goal must be to protect the vulnerable at a cost our country can afford while offering everyone the maximum economic opportunity and personal freedom.

2. Newt Gingrich's discussion about welfare reform.
Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan.

The proposal goes like this: Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190). Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

a. Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What my friend PoliticalChic is correctly pointing out, that everyone else doesn't have a problem grasping, is that nearly all current policy choices are built on the basis of prior policy choices.

The modern FAA, started from the 1926 Air Commerce Act, and in 1934 was the the Bureau of Air Commerce, and in 1938 was the Civil Aeronautics Authority, but in 1958 passed the Federal Aviation Act, which ended up the FAA.

Now in the FAAs case, it was not generally designed to somehow influence the market, but rather serve the market, since airline crashes harm the entire market.

In the case of Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, these institutions were designed explicitly to increase home ownership. Which results in market distortions. Which is the fundamental basis for our complaint against them.

The reason why people are blowing you off, is because everyone else here understands that most of today's policies are built on the policies that came before. The fact you deny what is clearly obvious to everyone else, only reflects on you. There isn't a professor of politics anywhere, defending your perspective.

Blaming FDR for the 2008 fiasco is like blaming the original engineer that built a bridge because it collapsed 80 years later when it had not been given the proper maintenance it was supposed to receive.

FDR would not have approved of the policies that contributed to the 2008 fiasco. In fact one of the repealed policies, Glass-Steigel, that contributed to the real estate bubble that busted in 2008 was put in place by FDR's supporters.

Your ignorance on this whole topic is simply mind boggling.

"Blaming FDR for the 2008 fiasco is like blaming the original engineer that built a bridge because it collapsed 80 years later when it had not been given the proper maintenance it was supposed to receive."


I don't believe you answered this query, Jimmy....

1. Which of his policies vis-a-vis government control of the private housing....and banking....markets died with FDR?


2. "....not been given the proper maintenance it was supposed to receive."
Same in this case.
There has never been the sort of national discussion around whether government has the ability to authorize providing housing mortgages to individuals...
.....and no attempt has been made to provide such an amendment to Article 1, section 8.

Such a national debate might have obviated the FDR-initiated difficulties that led to the mortgage meltdown.


How about it, Jimmy.....why no amendment?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

"...starve to death..."

Be serious.

Have you ever had to step over bodies of folks who have 'starved to death'????

Even during the Depression that wasn't the case....


"According to my quick reading of the Life and death during the Great Depression by José A. Tapia Granadosa and Ana V. Diez Roux, the only noticeable increase of mortality was suicide, with a noticeable decline of mortality in every other category.

According also to Michael Mosley, life expectancy actually rose through the Great Depression. In his Horizon programme Eat, Fast and Live Longer he claims

From 1929 to 1933, in the darkest years of the great depression when people were eating far less, life expectancy increased by 6 years.

seeing as the US diet was far higher than starvation standards before the GD, even a serious reduction would have been unlikely to induce starvation level conditions in the majority of the population. And with enough food available overall, and the US always having had a very active local charity network, it's quite likely there would have been help for at least the majority of those who could not afford to feed themselves. In fact for quite a few people a somewhat leaner diet may well have contributed to the increased life expectancy. –"
Sources: David Stuckler, Christopher Meissner, Price Fishback, Sanjay Basu, Martin McKee. 2011. "Banking crises and mortality during the Great Depression: evidence from US urban populations, 1929-1937." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (link)

Price Fishback, Michael Haines, and Shawn Kantor. 2005. "Births, Deaths, and New Deal Relief During the Great Depression."

How many people in the US starved to death during the Great Depression?



Liberal/Democrat policy is a great hoax, a fraud perpetrated on the electorate.

It's true aim is to keep Democrats in power.

Guess who 80% of welfare recipients vote for.