You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[Oldstyle]

If you look at the steady increase in entitlement programs since FDR...and combine that with the equally steady rise in the size and scope of the Federal Government since the Nanny State was conceived it's quite apparent that we've been losing the very essence of what made America great ever since FDR gave us the original Obama "stimulus".

 

[BDBoop]

"You have no idea what is poverty, do you? That is a comment from you that ranks with the stupidity of a bigrebnc or a rottweiler or one of those idiots. Every time we think the far, far right has said something that cannot be beaten, they lower the bar yet once again."

I notice that you shied away from trying to explain why it is that the US not only survived but prospered between 1776 and 1935 without Social Security. Instead you resorted to insults. I'm not surprised by that, Jake. I mean how "could" you explain the success of America before the invention of the Nanny State?

So, we can still go stake out land somewhere, get it for a pittance, and build, living off the land?

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

"You have no idea what is poverty, do you? That is a comment from you that ranks with the stupidity of a bigrebnc or a rottweiler or one of those idiots. Every time we think the far, far right has said something that cannot be beaten, they lower the bar yet once again."

I notice that you shied away from trying to explain why it is that the US not only survived but prospered between 1776 and 1935 without Social Security. Instead you resorted to insults. I'm not surprised by that, Jake. I mean how "could" you explain the success of America before the invention of the Nanny State?

So, we can still go stake out land somewhere, get it for a pittance, and build, living off the land?

Yes you can, certain lots still go for a "pittance" try upstate ny, UP in michigan, arkansas, etc...


XXXXXXX

 

[Jarhead]

"You have no idea what is poverty, do you? That is a comment from you that ranks with the stupidity of a bigrebnc or a rottweiler or one of those idiots. Every time we think the far, far right has said something that cannot be beaten, they lower the bar yet once again."

I notice that you shied away from trying to explain why it is that the US not only survived but prospered between 1776 and 1935 without Social Security. Instead you resorted to insults. I'm not surprised by that, Jake. I mean how "could" you explain the success of America before the invention of the Nanny State?

So, we can still go stake out land somewhere, get it for a pittance, and build, living off the land?

Yes you can, certain lots still go for a "pittance" try upstate ny, UP in michigan, arkansas, etc...


Cheap Land in America

But that land is in non urban areas and require hard work to acheive a real living...

 

[Oldstyle]

"So, we can still go stake out land somewhere, get it for a pittance, and build, living off the land?"

I'm guessing, Betty that your idea of "living off the land" is having someone send you a check each month? Yes...there still is cheap land available in the US that you could buy for a "pittance" and attempt to live off. That was something Americans "used to do"...now the thought of hard work makes too many of our fellow citizens whine quite loudly.

 

[editec]

What IS the nutritional content of the American Dream, anyway?

I see plenty of people who sup on this every day, but none of them are getting very fat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oldstyle, you shy from the fact that poverty is 50% lower today because of the Great Society. The New Deal, etc, increased the standard of living for the lower 50%.

You suggest that America was great because most Americans were poor?

Your stupid statements make reason stare, kiddo.

 

[P@triot]

"It's forced because if it wasn't you'd have tens of millions of people penniless and without support."

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at explaining how our nation survived from 1776 all the way up to 1935 without Social Security? The fact is that during the majority of US history, Americans were able to survive quite nicely without the nanny State we presently find ourselves in. How is it POSSIBLE that we were able to do that?

You have no idea what is poverty, do you? That is a comment from you that ranks with the stupidity of a bigrebnc or a rottweiler or one of those idiots. Every time we think the far, far right has said something that cannot be beaten, they lower the bar yet once again.

Actually liberal left-wing nut lying Jakey, you have no idea what poverty is. You just try to use poverty as a weapon for your Marxist/Socialist/Communist dreams. Allow me to educate you on "poverty" in the United States:

According to the government’s own survey data, in 2005, the average household defined as poor by the government lived in a house or apartment equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. The family had a car (a third of the poor have two or more cars). For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, a DVD player, and a VCR.

If there were children in the home (especially boys), the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a microwave, refrigerator, and an oven and stove. Other household conveniences included a washer and dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. (Note: That’s average European, not poor European.) The average poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed. When asked, most poor families stated they had had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

By its own report, the family was not hungry. The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from children in the upper middle class and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age in the late 1950s and are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than American soldiers who fought in World War II. The major dietary problem facing poor Americans is eating too much, not too little; the majority of poor adults, like most Americans, are overweight.

That’s a far cry from the images the news media conjure up on TV. But it’s the reality of those who are defined as poor in America.

Uh-oh little Jakey... looks like someone has been exposed again for being completely misinformed on the subject matter they are popping off about!

 

[BDBoop]

"So, we can still go stake out land somewhere, get it for a pittance, and build, living off the land?"

I'm guessing, Betty that your idea of "living off the land" is having someone send you a check each month? Yes...there still is cheap land available in the US that you could buy for a "pittance" and attempt to live off. That was something Americans "used to do"...now the thought of hard work makes too many of our fellow citizens whine quite loudly.

Living off the land, you don't honestly know what that is? Scary, dude.

Living off the land involves gardening, hunting and fishing. There. Thank me.

 

[P@triot]

Oldstyle, you shy from the fact that poverty is 50% lower today because of the Great Society. The New Deal, etc, increased the standard of living for the lower 50%.

You suggest that America was great because most Americans were poor?

Your stupid statements make reason stare, kiddo.

"The New Deal, etc, increased the standard of living for the lower 50%" - LMAO!!! OMG are you the most misinformed person in the United States. Your statement is 100% false (but what else is new?). FDR's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. was the key architect of FDR's "New Deal" and testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that the economic policies created by he and FDR failed the United States.

“I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!" - FDR Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." - FDR Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.

Unemployment never fell below 20% during his Administration, and after the second phase of the "New Deal", unemployment actually went up (phase 2 begins in 1937 with unemployment at 21%. By the 1938, unemployment is at 27%).

Is there no end to the misinformation and propaganda from the liberals? And how many times do liberal policies have to fail until liberals will accept that they are failed policies? We've had over 100 years of profound failed liberal policies - from the U.S.S.R. to Cuba to Greece to current state of the US. Nobody can possibly be this stupid - not even the Dumbocrats. I have to believe these are policies are planned specifically to collaspe the US.

 

[P@triot]

"You have no idea what is poverty, do you? That is a comment from you that ranks with the stupidity of a bigrebnc or a rottweiler or one of those idiots. Every time we think the far, far right has said something that cannot be beaten, they lower the bar yet once again."

I notice that you shied away from trying to explain why it is that the US not only survived but prospered between 1776 and 1935 without Social Security. Instead you resorted to insults. I'm not surprised by that, Jake. I mean how "could" you explain the success of America before the invention of the Nanny State?

So, we can still go stake out land somewhere, get it for a pittance, and build, living off the land?

Actually - yes. But you and your liberal pals are far too lazy to do any of that. You'd much rather use excuses to convince the government they should force the rest of us to provide for you.

So we can "still" purchase land, build, and live off of it.... LMAO! That fact that you had to ask that question speaks volumes! Yes Betty Dupe - you can actually still purchase land in America and build on it and put in a garden to grow vegetables.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler, like Shackled, results to stupid inanities when confronted with the facts and the truth.

Rott makes an opinion (with no evidence), then requires the better informed to refute his opinion with evidence. That is Rott's losing strategy every time.

 

[jillian]

So, we can still go stake out land somewhere, get it for a pittance, and build, living off the land?

Yes you can, certain lots still go for a "pittance" try upstate ny, UP in michigan, arkansas, etc...


Cheap Land in America

But that land is in non urban areas and require hard work to acheive a real living...

actually, that's land where it's almost impossible to make a living no matter how hard one works.... and the school systems suck

i know you don't live in a place like that.

 

[P@triot]

Yes you can, certain lots still go for a "pittance" try upstate ny, UP in michigan, arkansas, etc...


Cheap Land in America

But that land is in non urban areas and require hard work to acheive a real living...

actually, that's land where it's almost impossible to make a living no matter how hard one works.... and the school systems suck

i know you don't live in a place like that.

Please, oh liberal Communist one, describe for us what makes a school system "suck"? Education is free in this country, and in fact, mandatory through high school. Therefore, nobody has any excuses. There are Ivy League students that come out of some of the "worst" rated schools across the country. If you have the desire, the school system has 0 effect on your education. Not to mention the fact that there are libraries to further enhance your education and there is this thing called the internet which you can have at home, but which is also available at that same library, which provides an endless supply of information. I don't care how bad your teachers are, a student can go out to You Tube or a 1,000 other sites for free video tutoring on any subject. But all of that requires an effort, and we all know that liberals refuse to make an effort (unless of course it's the effort to get government to confiscate others wealth for their own greed).

Just curious - is there anything that you liberals don't have an excuse for? It's always someone else's fault with you liberals, isn't it? The school systems "suck", the city doesn't provide enough shelter and food, the state won't grant me special exemptions, the federal government won't give me enough money, my neighbor won't give me half of his pay check.

God almighty - there is no way to please a liberal. If we all pulled together and worked tirelessly to provide the liberals with $20 billion a piece, a mansion, the softest bed in America, and servants so that they'd never have to get out of bed, the liberal would cry that their heels are starting to develop bed sores from the endless resting they are doing.

 

[P@triot]

And that is one of the biggest things I have about SS... it is not the job of government and it is MANDATORY forced contribution or participation.... I have said it so many times, if it were so great, why the hell is it forced?? People would be flocking to voluntarily participate

The answer is twofold; human nature and the vagaries of the national economy.

Most people don't plan effectively for their retirement because human nature is such that until they reach age fifty most people do not truly believe they will get old and by then it is too late to start planning. But a more pressing need to impose FICA is such unforeseen events as the Great Depression which left millions of seniors unemployable and destitute -- i.e., homeless and eating out of garbage cans.

So the best answer to your question is, Social Security is "forced" because it needs to be and it makes sense for the vast majority of Americans. If you don't believe that, ask your own parents' or grandparents' opinion on the matter. If they do not need or are not eligible for Social Security then you and yours are on the other side of the issue and you should make that clear at the outset of any discussion of it.

Your post is absurd beyond words. Who are you or any one else to dictate that something should be "forced" because "it makes sense for the vast majority of Americans". Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? You are so wise and all knowing, that you know what's best for the "vast majority of American's"? Really? Really???

If people are too stupid to start planning and saving for retirement, that is their own fucking fault. It's called personal responsibility. It's called FREEDOM. The freedom to make your own choices includes the freedom to make bad choices and fail. I'm sorry if you and your liberal cronies are afriad of failure and want Uncle Sam to treat you like a small child - making all decisions for you, but the rest of us don't.

Additionally, your "Great Depression" excuse is equally asinine. Only the lazy, entitled liberal didn't see the Great Depression coming. Liberals believe other people owe them everything, including a job. Responsible people know that there are no guarantees in life, that they aren't entitled to anything, and that they should never assume they will be employed tomorrow, next week, or next year. As such, responsible people plan accordingly. They set money aside in case they lose their job, they constantly upgrade their skill sets, and they plan for the worst. Again, all of this take effort, something that liberals are adverse to. During the Great Depression, unemployment rose as high as 30%. That means 70% of America was still gainfully employed. If 70% are capable of gaining employment, clearly the other 30% is doing something wrong. If 70% of humans could fly, I would have ZERO excuses for why I'm incapable of flying. And since when do we force the majority of this country (70%) to produce goods, services, and laws for the minority (30%). There's a name for that - it's called Communism.

Your irrational post was just destroyed. Good day to you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler is in la la land. I sent some of his stuff to friends over at the U to use in their classes. They were tired of bigrebnc's stupidities.

 

[Vanquish]

But that land is in non urban areas and require hard work to acheive a real living...

actually, that's land where it's almost impossible to make a living no matter how hard one works.... and the school systems suck

i know you don't live in a place like that.

Please, oh liberal Communist one, describe for us what makes a school system "suck"? Education is free in this country, and in fact, mandatory through high school. Therefore, nobody has any excuses. There are Ivy League students that come out of some of the "worst" rated schools across the country. If you have the desire, the school system has 0 effect on your education. Not to mention the fact that there are libraries to further enhance your education and there is this thing called the internet which you can have at home, but which is also available at that same library, which provides an endless supply of information. I don't care how bad your teachers are, a student can go out to You Tube or a 1,000 other sites for free video tutoring on any subject. But all of that requires an effort, and we all know that liberals refuse to make an effort (unless of course it's the effort to get government to confiscate others wealth for their own greed).

Just curious - is there anything that you liberals don't have an excuse for? It's always someone else's fault with you liberals, isn't it? The school systems "suck", the city doesn't provide enough shelter and food, the state won't grant me special exemptions, the federal government won't give me enough money, my neighbor won't give me half of his pay check.

God almighty - there is no way to please a liberal. If we all pulled together and worked tirelessly to provide the liberals with $20 billion a piece, a mansion, the softest bed in America, and servants so that they'd never have to get out of bed, the liberal would cry that their heels are starting to develop bed sores from the endless resting they are doing.

You must have just gotten the first internet connection in your life. That's what your post sounds like. You go on a baseless, unproven insult tirade freeforall, because you've only just realized that no one can find you and you can say all the stupid shit you want with no one to stop you.

Schools can suck because there's not enough money for resources due to small populations...or because the teachers are bad...or for a whole host of other reasons. Being liberal has nothing to do with such an assessment. In fact, it's usually conservatives who complain about schools as being breeding grounds for tenured teachers who can't be fired no matter how bad they perform.

Let's stay grounded in reality, shall we?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler has a solid grasp on TeaPot nonsense, not reality.

 

[wardad]

Are you kidding? Do mean to say that for instance ,some millionaire ceo who has had a huge taxpayer bailout and has then been given a multimillion dollar reward for their brilliant management ,should pay little or no tax at all?

 

[wardad]

And that is one of the biggest things I have about SS... it is not the job of government and it is MANDATORY forced contribution or participation.... I have said it so many times, if it were so great, why the hell is it forced?? People would be flocking to voluntarily participate

The answer is twofold; human nature and the vagaries of the national economy.

Most people don't plan effectively for their retirement because human nature is such that until they reach age fifty most people do not truly believe they will get old and by then it is too late to start planning. But a more pressing need to impose FICA is such unforeseen events as the Great Depression which left millions of seniors unemployable and destitute -- i.e., homeless and eating out of garbage cans.

So the best answer to your question is, Social Security is "forced" because it needs to be and it makes sense for the vast majority of Americans. If you don't believe that, ask your own parents' or grandparents' opinion on the matter. If they do not need or are not eligible for Social Security then you and yours are on the other side of the issue and you should make that clear at the outset of any discussion of it.

Your post is absurd beyond words. Who are you or any one else to dictate that something should be "forced" because "it makes sense for the vast majority of Americans". Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? You are so wise and all knowing, that you know what's best for the "vast majority of American's"? Really? Really???

If people are too stupid to start planning and saving for retirement, that is their own fucking fault. It's called personal responsibility. It's called FREEDOM. The freedom to make your own choices includes the freedom to make bad choices and fail. I'm sorry if you and your liberal cronies are afriad of failure and want Uncle Sam to treat you like a small child - making all decisions for you, but the rest of us don't.

Additionally, your "Great Depression" excuse is equally asinine. Only the lazy, entitled liberal didn't see the Great Depression coming. Liberals believe other people owe them everything, including a job. Responsible people know that there are no guarantees in life, that they aren't entitled to anything, and that they should never assume they will be employed tomorrow, next week, or next year. As such, responsible people plan accordingly. They set money aside in case they lose their job, they constantly upgrade their skill sets, and they plan for the worst. Again, all of this take effort, something that liberals are adverse to. During the Great Depression, unemployment rose as high as 30%. That means 70% of America was still gainfully employed. If 70% are capable of gaining employment, clearly the other 30% is doing something wrong. If 70% of humans could fly, I would have ZERO excuses for why I'm incapable of flying. And since when do we force the majority of this country (70%) to produce goods, services, and laws for the minority (30%). There's a name for that - it's called Communism.

Your irrational post was just destroyed. Good day to you

How stupid are you ?Do you have the iq of said rotweiler?those 30%of unemployed were unemployed because there were no jobs for them do you get that? let me dumb it down for you if you have 100 people looking for jobs and there are only 70 jobs available guess how many will be unemployed, do ya get it ya lackwit.