What If We Actually Had Poor People In This Country?

[PoliticalChic]

1. Show me where anything I have posted isn't true.



The only way there is poverty in this nation is if you make up a bogus definition of poverty.


Control of the language allows the Liberals to inject a Charles Dickens image of poverty...., complete with orphanages and poor houses.



It is false, as I have proven throughout this thread.”


Stick with an accurate definition....no home, no heat, no food.....and it doesn't exist.

You are the one who made up a bogus definition of poverty, as I pointed out several pages ago. You never responded, because you can't. You know your whole thread is based on total shit.
The actual definition of poverty, again, for the slow:
poverty
noun, often attributive
pov·er·ty | \ˈpä-vər-tē \
Definition of poverty


1a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

2: SCARCITY, DEARTH

3a: debility due to malnutrition

b: lack of fertility

Here’s the real definition, not one that is based on some folks having a slightly smaller house than you, or only a 50inch TV….

No Home, No Heat, No Food…..real poverty. If there is such a category in America, it is no more than a rounding error.





"The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.

By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.

The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has."
Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

What you typed is correct. But there are massive variations with people living in communities. Within what you spout is others within who live with social benefits for themselves but the homes are in terrible shape. Stealing electricity and non existent plumbing exists in many cities. In extreme cold the toilets are frozen with feces in them. Fires galore with illegal electrical hookups and kerosene heaters in enclosed spaces. And the reason a percentage of this exists is because of what you spout. What are priorities?

Interesting post, 22.....but you are softening the blow.

I have no such intention....I want to make it clear what saps Democrat voters are.

Real poverty must be addressed....but this is not what Liberal government does. It buys votes of people willing to take the bribe.

Other than the lmentally ill who the Democrats threw out of hospitals where they belong, and folks who want to live in tents and filth.....there is no real poverty in America.

Poverty is no home, no heat, no food.

Go by that definition, and see how many there really are.

Democrats threw the mentally ill out of hospitals and the republicans gave them weapons to shoot up concerts, churches, schools, synagogues, etc. Fair enough.

And obvious lie and smear, based on your embarrassment at being exposed for the scum you and your ilk are.

 

[danielpalos]

what does the right wing propose to do about people living on the street?

 

[OldLady]

August 2007, just before the shed hit the fan? You are a lying brainwash functional moron in effect. 40% of American children go to bed hungry a******.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2018-09-12/poverty-in-america-new-census-data-paint-an-unpleasant-picture?context=amp&ved=2ahUKEwjl3M7B_8DfAhWNxIMKHShGBsUQFjAVegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw2HnpUR8W5BM-ZdajpN-pss&ampcf=1

1. Show me where anything I have posted isn't true.



The only way there is poverty in this nation is if you make up a bogus definition of poverty.


Control of the language allows the Liberals to inject a Charles Dickens image of poverty...., complete with orphanages and poor houses.



It is false, as I have proven throughout this thread.”


Stick with an accurate definition....no home, no heat, no food.....and it doesn't exist.

You are the one who made up a bogus definition of poverty, as I pointed out several pages ago. You never responded, because you can't. You know your whole thread is based on total shit.
The actual definition of poverty, again, for the slow:
poverty
noun, often attributive
pov·er·ty | \ˈpä-vər-tē \
Definition of poverty


1a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

2: SCARCITY, DEARTH

3a: debility due to malnutrition

b: lack of fertility

Here’s the real definition, not one that is based on some folks having a slightly smaller house than you, or only a 50inch TV….

No Home, No Heat, No Food…..real poverty. If there is such a category in America, it is no more than a rounding error.





"The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.

By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.

The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has."
Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

You're repeating yourself with stats that have been shown to be out of date and manipulated by a super-conservative group. It's not even interesting anymore.

1. It must really irk you being revealed as a sucker.


Here's more of what you deserve:

2. In fact, since

President Obama took office, federal welfare

spending has increased by 41 percent, more

than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15

trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon

Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the

poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

3. Throwing money at the problem has neither

reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part

of the program’s growth is due to conscious

policy choices by this administration to ease

eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have

risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007

and are now roughly 10 percent higher than

they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in

the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,

The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected



I sure wish stupidity was painful.

That's not very nice to say.

Did you ever hear of the Great Recession we had? Your stats come from that time when we were losing up to half a million jobs per month. People were losing their homes left and right. The ripple effect was felt by all. Small businesses closed. Yes, benefits were made easier to get; those middle class folks with roofs and tv's who were suddenly unemployed needed to eat, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Show me where anything I have posted isn't true.



The only way there is poverty in this nation is if you make up a bogus definition of poverty.


Control of the language allows the Liberals to inject a Charles Dickens image of poverty...., complete with orphanages and poor houses.



It is false, as I have proven throughout this thread.”


Stick with an accurate definition....no home, no heat, no food.....and it doesn't exist.

You are the one who made up a bogus definition of poverty, as I pointed out several pages ago. You never responded, because you can't. You know your whole thread is based on total shit.
The actual definition of poverty, again, for the slow:
poverty
noun, often attributive
pov·er·ty | \ˈpä-vər-tē \
Definition of poverty


1a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

2: SCARCITY, DEARTH

3a: debility due to malnutrition

b: lack of fertility

Here’s the real definition, not one that is based on some folks having a slightly smaller house than you, or only a 50inch TV….

No Home, No Heat, No Food…..real poverty. If there is such a category in America, it is no more than a rounding error.





"The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.

By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.

The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has."
Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

You're repeating yourself with stats that have been shown to be out of date and manipulated by a super-conservative group. It's not even interesting anymore.

1. It must really irk you being revealed as a sucker.


Here's more of what you deserve:

2. In fact, since

President Obama took office, federal welfare

spending has increased by 41 percent, more

than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15

trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon

Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the

poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

3. Throwing money at the problem has neither

reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part

of the program’s growth is due to conscious

policy choices by this administration to ease

eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have

risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007

and are now roughly 10 percent higher than

they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in

the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,

The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected



I sure wish stupidity was painful.

That's not very nice to say.

Did you ever hear of the Great Recession we had? Your stats come from that time when we were losing up to half a million jobs per month. People were losing their homes left and right. The ripple effect was felt by all. Small businesses closed. Yes, benefits were made easier to get; those middle class folks with roofs and tv's who were suddenly unemployed needed to eat, too.

False.

1. Typical propaganda.

Here's Reuters refuting it:
"The unemployment rate announced three days after his election was 6.5%....not particularly terrible. But it was the only economic news, and had Obama insisting we were suffering "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." Obama: U.S. in worst crisis since Depression | Reuters


2. The Democrat vote-buying scam has nothing to do with the condition of the economy.

a.. According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.

b. According to these

projections, over the next 10 years, federal

and state governments will spend $250,000

for every American currently living in poverty, or $1 million for every poor family of

four. Ibid.



How many times must I prove that you are as dumb as asphalt, i.e., a reliable Democrat voter?

 

[DOTR]

democrats don't WANT poor people, they want voters, and for them, voters are people who they can offer something to depend upon. That can be many things other than the poor.
.

The Democrats want dependents. Its that simple. Poor dependents. How else do you explain a 50 year "war on poverty" with Democrats still crying we are in emergency mode?

But more than that...something is broken. And they broke it. Read this short post I put up over a year ago and tell me why I got not one answer to it. THAT alone tells you something is broken. And it was broken by Marxists and liberals and statists of all stripes.


How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

Its short...and I am referring to the questions I ask in the last paragraph. I got no responses at all. Not one...on a board full of socialists!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats threw the mentally ill out of hospitals and the republicans gave them weapons to shoot up concerts, churches, schools, synagogues, etc. Fair enough.

The Republicans didn't do that, the Constitution did. But I see how you could get the two confused.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

cost of Europe), NO ONE wants to live poor, hungry and in a slum.

Actually you dont know that.

No. I kinda sorta do! Just because someone is mental or an animal, poor is poor. Even the worst among us would likely opt for something better if given half the chance, especially if they could EARN IT. It is human nature. Read the title of this thread again. It says NO POOR. Nothing about people wanting or not wanting to be.

Correct, nobody wants to be poor, but people opt to be poor due to laziness or recreational narcotics use. So I disagree with your assessment that people would gladly earn a better way of life if presented with such an opportunity.

And lots of 'em simply use the system....as the Democrats mean them to use it.
All they have to do from their side, is vote Democrat.....and whether they need the money or not, Democrats will take it from earners and hand it out.


Need proof?

. "The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim."
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.c...ding-ovation-the-faculty-were-deathly-silent/

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

 

[DOTR]

[Perhaps true. But can we say there are some who do want poor people? You will always have poor people.

And really, we will ALWAYS have poor people? Look at what world wealth is compared to a century ago. Two. How many poor people are citizens of the United Arab Emerits? How many poor people in Kuwait? You see poverty is a thing we can design out, IF WE WANT TO. But not to stray, the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD is that .

You are citing apples to oranges. You may as well say "look the Rockefellers and Duponts have eliminated poverty in their families."

For example..the UAE has no personal income tax. No corporate income tax. Do you really think they are an example of anything?
But you are kinda-sorta close to an answer. Nationhood, restricted citizenship and family centered government does indeed lead to prosperity.

 

[DOTR]

cost of Europe), NO ONE wants to live poor, hungry and in a slum.

Actually you dont know that.

No. I kinda sorta do! Just because someone is mental or an animal, poor is poor. Even the worst among us would likely opt for something better if given half the chance, especially if they could EARN IT. It is human nature. Read the title of this thread again. It says NO POOR. Nothing about people wanting or not wanting to be.

Correct, nobody wants to be poor, but people opt to be poor due to laziness or recreational narcotics use. So I disagree with your assessment that people would gladly earn a better way of life if presented with such an opportunity.

And lots of 'em simply use the system....as the Democrats mean them to use it.
All they have to do from their side, is vote Democrat.....and whether they need the money or not, Democrats will take it from earners and hand it out.


Need proof?

. "The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim."
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.c...ding-ovation-the-faculty-were-deathly-silent/

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

When you subsidize not working and penalize working..strange things happen.

 

[Unkotare]

1. Show me where anything I have posted isn't true.



The only way there is poverty in this nation is if you make up a bogus definition of poverty.


Control of the language allows the Liberals to inject a Charles Dickens image of poverty...., complete with orphanages and poor houses.



It is false, as I have proven throughout this thread.”


Stick with an accurate definition....no home, no heat, no food.....and it doesn't exist.

You are the one who made up a bogus definition of poverty, as I pointed out several pages ago. You never responded, because you can't. You know your whole thread is based on total shit.
The actual definition of poverty, again, for the slow:
poverty
noun, often attributive
pov·er·ty | \ˈpä-vər-tē \
Definition of poverty


1a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

2: SCARCITY, DEARTH

3a: debility due to malnutrition

b: lack of fertility

Here’s the real definition, not one that is based on some folks having a slightly smaller house than you, or only a 50inch TV….

No Home, No Heat, No Food…..real poverty. If there is such a category in America, it is no more than a rounding error.





"The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.

By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.

The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has."
Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

You're repeating yourself with stats that have been shown to be out of date and manipulated by a super-conservative group. It's not even interesting anymore.

1. It must really irk you being revealed as a sucker.


Here's more of what you deserve:

2. In fact, since

President Obama took office, federal welfare

spending has increased by 41 percent, more

than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15

trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon

Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the

poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

3. Throwing money at the problem has neither

reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part

of the program’s growth is due to conscious

policy choices by this administration to ease

eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have

risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007

and are now roughly 10 percent higher than

they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in

the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,

The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected



I sure wish stupidity was painful.

That's not very nice to say.

Did you ever hear of the Great Recession we had? Your stats come from that time when we were losing up to half a million jobs per month. People were losing their homes left and right. ....

Because democrats in Congress forced the banking industry to play crack dealer to the real estate industry.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing offer no solutions to our social problems instead of Only and Merely complaining about social problems.

 

[Taz]

I don’t fuck donkeys, that’s your job. Get to work.

cheaper costs mean higher profits, right winger. the right wing is for Maximizing profits.

Go teach that about 1000 miles to the south of you.

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and take advantage of some capital opportunities.

Let's not. Go home.

this is not about equality; you have to lose and i have to win; it is about superiority.

We have a general welfare clause and a common defense clause not a general warfare clause nor a common offense clause, nor even a wall building or border security clause.

You should all move to Messiko, you'd be happier there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are the one who made up a bogus definition of poverty, as I pointed out several pages ago. You never responded, because you can't. You know your whole thread is based on total shit.
The actual definition of poverty, again, for the slow:
poverty
noun, often attributive
pov·er·ty | \ˈpä-vər-tē \
Definition of poverty


1a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

2: SCARCITY, DEARTH

3a: debility due to malnutrition

b: lack of fertility

Here’s the real definition, not one that is based on some folks having a slightly smaller house than you, or only a 50inch TV….

No Home, No Heat, No Food…..real poverty. If there is such a category in America, it is no more than a rounding error.





"The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.

By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.

The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has."
Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

You're repeating yourself with stats that have been shown to be out of date and manipulated by a super-conservative group. It's not even interesting anymore.

1. It must really irk you being revealed as a sucker.


Here's more of what you deserve:

2. In fact, since

President Obama took office, federal welfare

spending has increased by 41 percent, more

than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15

trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon

Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the

poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

3. Throwing money at the problem has neither

reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part

of the program’s growth is due to conscious

policy choices by this administration to ease

eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have

risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007

and are now roughly 10 percent higher than

they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in

the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,

The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected



I sure wish stupidity was painful.

That's not very nice to say.

Did you ever hear of the Great Recession we had? Your stats come from that time when we were losing up to half a million jobs per month. People were losing their homes left and right. ....

Because democrats in Congress forced the banking industry to play crack dealer to the real estate industry.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!


1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie, and his drones followed with Freddie, to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

It was Democrats and Democrat policies that caused the Mortgage Meltdown


That's the CliffNotes version.

 

[danielpalos]

cheaper costs mean higher profits, right winger. the right wing is for Maximizing profits.

Go teach that about 1000 miles to the south of you.

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and take advantage of some capital opportunities.

Let's not. Go home.

this is not about equality; you have to lose and i have to win; it is about superiority.

We have a general welfare clause and a common defense clause not a general warfare clause nor a common offense clause, nor even a wall building or border security clause.

You should all move to Messiko, you'd be happier there.

maybe, when i have a petty cash fund for that purpose. a home here a home there makes it more convenient and provides more options for any season.

 

[toobfreak]

cost of Europe), NO ONE wants to live poor, hungry and in a slum.

Actually you dont know that.

No. I kinda sorta do! Just because someone is mental or an animal, poor is poor. Even the worst among us would likely opt for something better if given half the chance, especially if they could EARN IT. It is human nature. Read the title of this thread again. It says NO POOR. Nothing about people wanting or not wanting to be.

Correct, nobody wants to be poor, but people opt to be poor due to laziness or recreational narcotics use. So I disagree with your assessment that people would gladly earn a better way of life if presented with such an opportunity.

And lots of 'em simply use the system....as the Democrats mean them to use it.
All they have to do from their side, is vote Democrat.....and whether they need the money or not, Democrats will take it from earners and hand it out.


Need proof?

. "The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim."
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.c...ding-ovation-the-faculty-were-deathly-silent/

"Folks, if you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

All true Ray, but there is another side of the coin. If you pay people because they CAN'T work, they'll at least have a chance at some quality of life or eventually making a contribution. The problem with welfare is that many who truly cannot work often can't get welfare while welfare pours benefits deluxe upon people who could and should be working but have merely acted irresponsibly.

 

[toobfreak]

Do you really think they are an example of anything?

Yes! An example of a successful model of creating and rewarding wealth by insuring that all within their subsystem have a fairly equal opportunity at it while not spreading it too thin by controlling access. Not entirely dissimilar to how Hawaii controls land ownership from getting out of control by limiting it to only native born people. Both are a testament to EXACTLY WHY illegal immigration is wrong. Not only are they largely non-producers, but America is choking in its own over-population.

 

[toobfreak]

Why does the right wing offer no solutions to our social problems instead of Only and Merely complaining about social problems.

You say that as though the Left have offered any. The right preaches self-actualization and Independence as a way to autonomy, the left preaches class envy, unity and victimization. Both have been in power, both get rich themselves while little else changes, but at least self-actualization has the POTENTIAL of reaching autonomy.

 

[DOTR]

You are the one who made up a bogus definition of poverty, as I pointed out several pages ago. You never responded, because you can't. You know your whole thread is based on total shit.
The actual definition of poverty, again, for the slow:
poverty
noun, often attributive
pov·er·ty | \ˈpä-vər-tē \
Definition of poverty


1a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

b: renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

2: SCARCITY, DEARTH

3a: debility due to malnutrition

b: lack of fertility

Here’s the real definition, not one that is based on some folks having a slightly smaller house than you, or only a 50inch TV….

No Home, No Heat, No Food…..real poverty. If there is such a category in America, it is no more than a rounding error.





"The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.

By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.

The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has."
Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?

You're repeating yourself with stats that have been shown to be out of date and manipulated by a super-conservative group. It's not even interesting anymore.

1. It must really irk you being revealed as a sucker.


Here's more of what you deserve:

2. In fact, since

President Obama took office, federal welfare

spending has increased by 41 percent, more

than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15

trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon

Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the

poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.

3. Throwing money at the problem has neither

reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part

of the program’s growth is due to conscious

policy choices by this administration to ease

eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have

risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007

and are now roughly 10 percent higher than

they were when Obama took office. Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in

the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,

The Sharp Increase in the Food Stamps Program

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected



I sure wish stupidity was painful.

That's not very nice to say.

Did you ever hear of the Great Recession we had? Your stats come from that time when we were losing up to half a million jobs per month. People were losing their homes left and right. ....

Because democrats in Congress forced the banking industry to play crack dealer to the real estate industry.

Very true. When George Bush warned that the housing industry was close to collapse Barney Frank said Bush just didnt like black people.

 

[DOTR]

If you pay people because they CAN'T work, they'll at least have a chance at some quality of life or eventually making a contribution.

OK. Non sarcastic question here. When you say "you" you mean the government? And by government you mean the Federal government? No other solutions?
How about your local library? Why doesn't it pay people who CANT work"?

 

[RodISHI]

Don't have babies. Live in an area that doesn't tax the shit out of you.

Don't be ignorant. My grands have babies and taxes in many areas have gone up over 600% of what they were when the people bought or built their own homes. We paid for our place and everything else we bought and owned over thirty years ago. If credit wasn't so readily available to people who never intend on actually owning anything of their own inflation would not be able to take hold like it has. The banksters and their lackeys all need to be neutered.