When Poverty Attacks!

[PoliticalChic]

Calling someone a liar isn't a refutation, it's an accusation.

I see though that you are tacitly declining my offer to debate you on any of the specifics of your OP.

I don't debate, I simply explain why I am correct.

...as this thread indicates.

Even Ted Cruz knows it's a debate, so your arrogance exceeds his. That's clinical delusion, toots.

1. I'll cop to arrogance....you have to cop to ignorance.


2. And, you are the delusional one....watch me prove it:

"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.Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd


3. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein


4. Think about it while you're jogging around the 'psycho path.'

 

[g5000]

If you are white, lived in a two parent family, graduated high school, and got married before you had children, you have the best chance for success in America.

You often hear politicians use anecdotes to support their pet theories. Oftentimes, those anecdotes don't match up with objective data.

So let's look at the anecdote in the OP. Jessica.

You will never hear a politician point to someone like the single mother in the OP and say, "Now let me give you an example of a complete fuckup who demonstrates what not to do. Hey, Jessica, stand up so everyone can see you!"

That just won't happen.

But, yeah, Jessica is a fuckup who has painted herself into a real corner. Yep.


We can poke a stick at Jessica all day long. But what is your motive for doing so? Are you just using her to confirm your personal biases? Are you using her as an anecdote that does not match up with objective data? Are you using her to paint all people in poverty as being Jessica clones?

Methinks that is the aim of the OP.

"Methinks" is obviously a poorly chosen term, in your case, as it suggests that thinking has been accomplished.

What, I believe, is apparent to any of average or above ability who read the thread...and there is more coming...is the indictment of the Liberal welfare system....one that encourages taking rather than earning, and grows poverty rather than reduces same.


While the first part of your post is a correct summary of the view, ....you should have quit while you were ahead.


I don’t want to say you’re stupid…..let’s just say you’ve got bad luck when it comes to thinking.

It takes hardly any thought at all to deconstruct your gibberish. Just a few watts. I reserve my powers for those who deserve them. Keep trying, though!

It is blazingly obvious you suffer from chronic confirmation bias.

We get it.

"It is the poor's fault they are poor and we should just dump them all onto the street. Here's an anecdote of one person who is an idiot to prove my thesis."

 

[g5000]

"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.Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd

Who?s poor in America? 50 years into the ?War on Poverty,? a data portrait | Pew Research Center

Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Medicare2000.pdf

Medicare has made a
dramatic difference in the number of seniors who are insured
against health care costs. In 1964, nearly half of all seniors were
uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans
to have health insurance. Today, with 97 percent of seniors
covered by Medicare, the elderly are the most likely to have
insurance.

Now if PoliticalChic could just find one undeserving 65 year old asshole to justify taking Medicare away from all seniors...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Poverty can also occur over health issues, but don't let me interrupt you hard love session...

Arguing in defense of the lowest common denominator?
Or, "we can save everyone"?
Why is it that the liberal believes "compassion is measured by one's willingness to be taxed into oblivion"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you are white, lived in a two parent family, graduated high school, and got married before you had children, you have the best chance for success in America.

You often hear politicians use anecdotes to support their pet theories. Oftentimes, those anecdotes don't match up with objective data.

So let's look at the anecdote in the OP. Jessica.

You will never hear a politician point to someone like the single mother in the OP and say, "Now let me give you an example of a complete fuckup who demonstrates what not to do. Hey, Jessica, stand up so everyone can see you!"

That just won't happen.

But, yeah, Jessica is a fuckup who has painted herself into a real corner. Yep.


We can poke a stick at Jessica all day long. But what is your motive for doing so? Are you just using her to confirm your personal biases? Are you using her as an anecdote that does not match up with objective data? Are you using her to paint all people in poverty as being Jessica clones?

Methinks that is the aim of the OP.

"Methinks" is obviously a poorly chosen term, in your case, as it suggests that thinking has been accomplished.

What, I believe, is apparent to any of average or above ability who read the thread...and there is more coming...is the indictment of the Liberal welfare system....one that encourages taking rather than earning, and grows poverty rather than reduces same.


While the first part of your post is a correct summary of the view, ....you should have quit while you were ahead.


I don’t want to say you’re stupid…..let’s just say you’ve got bad luck when it comes to thinking.

It takes hardly any thought at all to deconstruct your gibberish. Just a few watts. I reserve my powers for those who deserve them. Keep trying, though!

It is blazingly obvious you suffer from chronic confirmation bias.

We get it.

"It is the poor's fault they are poor and we should just dump them all onto the street. Here's an anecdote of one person who is an idiot to prove my thesis."

1. "It takes hardly any thought at all..."
Aha! Your area of expertise!


2. "I reserve my powers...."

Then you went right ahead and produced some insipid argument.




3. "We get it."

"WE"???

You have a tapeworm?.....'cause I'm certain no group outside the 'nervous hospital' would assign you to speak for 'em.



4. "It is blazingly (sic)obvious you suffer from chronic confirmation bias."

Rather than suffer, I revel in a surfeit of knowledge.....something you will never experience.




5. "It is the poor's fault they are poor and we should just dump them all onto the street. Here's an anecdote of one person who is an idiot to prove my thesis."

Earlier, I posted this...


"Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class."
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com


Now, a moron....that would be you....is attempting to refute same?

You gasbag....you're the explanation of why the Hindenburg ended up the way it did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poverty can also occur over health issues, but don't let me interrupt you hard love session...

Arguing in defense of the lowest common denominator?
Or, "we can save everyone"?
Why is it that the liberal believes "compassion is measured by one's willingness to be taxed into oblivion"?

Who is to decide what is fair, and what is too much? Some religions suggest tithing, and government demands taxes.

a. Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%).


b. That 20% figure appears again in the relationship of colonists to North America, and the English crown "....colonists were free to retain all the profits and fruits of their labor save for the crown's 20 percent share of any gold and silver discovered." "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall, p.33

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like cancer or a broken fibula, poverty knows no bounds! One can be ambling along, whistling a happy tune....when "BAM"!
Poverty!


Yup....I learned that from the featured article in the most recent Columbia Magazine, thanks to the tireless efforts of Columbia University School of Medicine.....no, wait,...it's the Columbia University School of Social Work, Contemporary Urban Problems Department. [http://magazine.columbia.edu/features/summer-2014/fickle-fortunes]




1. We learn of Jessica, "A thirty-year-old high-school dropout" and "and her four-year-old son," ..."In November, Nolan began having tantrums so violent he had to be hospitalized. Doctors said he had a combination of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. [Gee....good thing we have Ouija- board psychologists around!]...Lopez, with no help from Nolan’s imprisoned father, was forced to quit her job to care for her son."




2. And that's the biographical info provided....but not as a cautionary tale, warning of mistakes and poor choices leading to the unenviable situation, but as a "see what could happen to any of us," an emotional appeal that, actually, is quite effective as most folks want the best for their fellow citizens.

Do you imagine that the story discussed these questions?

Should Jessica have dropped out of high school?
Should she have had a child outside of marriage?
Should she have made a better choice in sperm-donors?
To what degree did her parenting skills result in her child's behavior?

Seems that those of the Liberal persuasion are not allowed to turn the spotlight on those queries....



a. These are the questions asked in this Columbia study:

"Have you missed a rent or mortgage payment lately?
Have your utilities been turned off?
Have you or your children gone without food?
Is anyone in your family seriously ill, and if so, has he or she received medical attention? Some questions were more personal: Have you been depressed lately?
Are you worried about money?
How satisfied are you with your family’s situation overall?"


Why?

These only deal with events occurring once one has journeyed down the poverty path....or has been suddenly 'stricken with poverty...'


(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

Right or wrong, you are advocating for eugenics,

which, according to Merriam-Webster is

a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents

"...you are advocating for eugenics,..."

Quite a combination...but which are you more of...liar, or moron?

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right or wrong, you are advocating for eugenics,

which, according to Merriam-Webster is

a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents

"...you are advocating for eugenics,..."

Quite a combination...but which are you more of...liar, or moron?

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

"Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances."

I see....I inquired as to whether you were more a moron or a liar....

...and this post is your attempt to answer the question.


Nope....it's still up in the air.

 

[koshergrl]

I haven't seen any evidence that PC has ever advocated for selective breeding to enhance the gene pool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I haven't seen any evidence that PC has ever advocated for selective breeding to enhance the gene pool.

Did I mention that NYCarbuncle is a congenital liar?

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you are white, lived in a two parent family, graduated high school, and got married before you had children, you have the best chance for success in America.

You often hear politicians use anecdotes to support their pet theories. Oftentimes, those anecdotes don't match up with objective data.

So let's look at the anecdote in the OP. Jessica.

You will never hear a politician point to someone like the single mother in the OP and say, "Now let me give you an example of a complete fuckup who demonstrates what not to do. Hey, Jessica, stand up so everyone can see you!"

That just won't happen.

But, yeah, Jessica is a fuckup who has painted herself into a real corner. Yep.


We can poke a stick at Jessica all day long. But what is your motive for doing so? Are you just using her to confirm your personal biases? Are you using her as an anecdote that does not match up with objective data? Are you using her to paint all people in poverty as being Jessica clones?

Methinks that is the aim of the OP.

Not clones.
The typical person living in poverty does so because of poor choices. Or they do so due to lack of education or training.
Lastly, those living in poverty may demonstrate an unwillingness to improve their position due to a sense of entitlement.
There are those who do live in poverty through no fault of their own. That no matter how hard they try or no matter what they do, they cannot get ahead of where they are. THOSE people need our help. That I encourage.
If you or anyone else cannot see the difference, it is you who have the problem.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I would like to see how children's free lunches and free breakfasts calculate in the food alottment that is already given to the people on welfare.

Free and reduced price lunches for school children? That's a joke.
That system is so corrupt, so wasteful, if the general public knew how easy it is to participate, they'd run to Capitol Hill carrying pitchforks and shovels.
Federal regulations which administer this program deem it illegal for any school official to make any inquiries in an attempt to verify the income status of any student applicant's family.
School administrations actually encourage participation. Why? Because the school districts receive stipends for each participant.
The stipend or reimbursement is MORE than the cost of the meal for each student..
See how this works?
NO school is going to give up a shot at that money.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I guess it's a tribute to some sort of creativity that one poster can find 50 different ways to start the same thread.

Ahh too bad...I realize you libs would rather everybody just shut up and pay up...
That isn't how it works

 

[thereisnospoon]

I would like to see how children's free lunches and free breakfasts calculate in the food alottment that is already given to the people on welfare.

The amount of your taxes that goes to feed poor kids is easily covered by the amount of money you make on your job when you're fucking off when you're supposed to be working.

So stop crying about it.

Obfuscate much?
It's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS how or in which manner anyone else handles their job.
That's you lib's biggest problem. You don't mind you own God Damned business.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I guess it's a tribute to some sort of creativity that one poster can find 50 different ways to start the same thread.

How very wise of you not to try to argue the point of the thread, but to side-step same.

Obviously even you realize that I've hit the nail on your head.



And, I always bask in the glow of a post about moi.

I've demolished all your points in the other fifty threads you started on this topic.

What specifically, would you like to debate? There, I can't be more gracious than that...

The only argument getting demolished is yours.
In fact you have no argument.
You haven't presented a single point or fact which can be used to logically defend this program.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you are white, lived in a two parent family, graduated high school, and got married before you had children, you have the best chance for success in America.

You often hear politicians use anecdotes to support their pet theories. Oftentimes, those anecdotes don't match up with objective data.

So let's look at the anecdote in the OP. Jessica.

You will never hear a politician point to someone like the single mother in the OP and say, "Now let me give you an example of a complete fuckup who demonstrates what not to do. Hey, Jessica, stand up so everyone can see you!"

That just won't happen.

But, yeah, Jessica is a fuckup who has painted herself into a real corner. Yep.


We can poke a stick at Jessica all day long. But what is your motive for doing so? Are you just using her to confirm your personal biases? Are you using her as an anecdote that does not match up with objective data? Are you using her to paint all people in poverty as being Jessica clones?

Methinks that is the aim of the OP.

"Methinks" is obviously a poorly chosen term, in your case, as it suggests that thinking has been accomplished.

What, I believe, is apparent to any of average or above ability who read the thread...and there is more coming...is the indictment of the Liberal welfare system....one that encourages taking rather than earning, and grows poverty rather than reduces same.


While the first part of your post is a correct summary of the view, ....you should have quit while you were ahead.


I don’t want to say you’re stupid…..let’s just say you’ve got bad luck when it comes to thinking.

Beginning in the 1960's, especially, we began to hear the leftist mantra that poverty was the primary cause of crime as if poverty were a pathology akin to congenital psychopathy. Of course, that's nonsense. Historically, the primary cause of poverty is immorality/crime or oppression, and dependency on government coupled with the decay of the family structure it engenders are the cause of entrenched, generational poverty.

There are exceptions to the rule of course. My grandparents, for example were a young couple in the lower-middleclass with one child, just starting out when the Great Depression hit. The company my Grandfather worked for went bust. They took what savings they had, packed up and moved to Arizona. They had two more children, struggled for years, but managed to make ends meet, making sure that their kids got the very best education available, which meant they were required to study above and beyond what the state schools required.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Like cancer or a broken fibula, poverty knows no bounds! One can be ambling along, whistling a happy tune....when "BAM"!
Poverty!


Yup....I learned that from the featured article in the most recent Columbia Magazine, thanks to the tireless efforts of Columbia University School of Medicine.....no, wait,...it's the Columbia University School of Social Work, Contemporary Urban Problems Department. [http://magazine.columbia.edu/features/summer-2014/fickle-fortunes]




1. We learn of Jessica, "A thirty-year-old high-school dropout" and "and her four-year-old son," ..."In November, Nolan began having tantrums so violent he had to be hospitalized. Doctors said he had a combination of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. [Gee....good thing we have Ouija- board psychologists around!]...Lopez, with no help from Nolan’s imprisoned father, was forced to quit her job to care for her son."




2. And that's the biographical info provided....but not as a cautionary tale, warning of mistakes and poor choices leading to the unenviable situation, but as a "see what could happen to any of us," an emotional appeal that, actually, is quite effective as most folks want the best for their fellow citizens.

Do you imagine that the story discussed these questions?

Should Jessica have dropped out of high school?
Should she have had a child outside of marriage?
Should she have made a better choice in sperm-donors?
To what degree did her parenting skills result in her child's behavior?

Seems that those of the Liberal persuasion are not allowed to turn the spotlight on those queries....



a. These are the questions asked in this Columbia study:

"Have you missed a rent or mortgage payment lately?
Have your utilities been turned off?
Have you or your children gone without food?
Is anyone in your family seriously ill, and if so, has he or she received medical attention? Some questions were more personal: Have you been depressed lately?
Are you worried about money?
How satisfied are you with your family’s situation overall?"


Why?

These only deal with events occurring once one has journeyed down the poverty path....or has been suddenly 'stricken with poverty...'


(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

Right or wrong, you are advocating for eugenics,

which, according to Merriam-Webster is

a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents

No..Personal responsibility. Making the correct choices given one's ability to offer children a good home and upbringing.
Pay attention to this.....Just because someone has a right to do something, does not mean they should do it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

FYI to all

A misleading chart on welfare spending - The Washington Post

regarding the figures used in zerohedge's chart in the link provided in the first post....3 Pinocchio's they say...

BS....
Just because you 'feel' sorry for certain people does not give you the authority to decide everyone else should pay for your feelings..
Write a check.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When I was a kid the point of the story would be "Don't let this happen to you". Now it's as you pointed out "This could happen to anyone!".

My Uncle said as much about 20 years ago: "Hey man, we're all just a paycheck away from being homeless" and I said "No, not you. You've always had that self-sufficient attitude. You never complain and you are always looking for solutions".

He's been running his own Alarm Installation company for more than 30 years and is still doing just fine.

Perhaps I've misunderstood...but I hope you aren't buying the "This could happen to anyone!".


"Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class."
Three rules for staying out of poverty | members.jacksonville.com

Number 3 became a problem for millions of people from 2008 to 2010:
September 2008 – 432,000 jobs lost
October 2008 – 489,000 jobs lost
November 2008 – 803,000 jobs lost
December 2008 – 661,000 jobs lost
January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 231,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 202,000 jobs lost
November 2009 - 64,000 jobs created
December 2009 - 109,000 jobs lost
January 2010 - 40,000 jobs lost
February 2010 - 35,000 jobs lost

That doesn't take into account millions of people whose jobs were downsized to part-time, or who took salary/pay cuts.

So number 3 alone on your stupid list kicked their ass. What do you suggest they do if they cannot recoup their losses and slip into poverty?

Now take a $1,300,000 medical bill for your average American family, full employed. That can happen. It happened to me and my late spouse. Empire Blue picked and chose what they thought worthy to reimburse over 3.5 years of chemo and surgery for him. So when the dust settled I was left with a $285,000 balance.

Can you write a check for that? Why don't you instead just STFU.

You live in a world of unreality and should live more, read less.

No..But where do you get the idea that others should pick up YOUR debt..
And don't try the "pick and choose" nonsense.
Your policy had specific language explaining the terms and conditions.
Did you ever bother to read it? Did you ever look to see if there were coverage limits?
What was Empire Blue's reasoning for not covering all treatments?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Right or wrong, you are advocating for eugenics,

which, according to Merriam-Webster is

a science that tries to improve the human race by controlling which people become parents

"...you are advocating for eugenics,..."

Quite a combination...but which are you more of...liar, or moron?

Your argument is for who should or shouldn't have children, according to their circumstances.

That is the core principle of eugenics.

The central theme of your original post is how badly things turned out because this woman had a child she should not have had.

You support discouraging certain people in certain circumstances from having children because the outcome is likely to be negative.

That is eugenics. What's wrong with saying so, if it's a good policy?

You're mad. You know that, right?